digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at money.cnn.com —

Americans drove 9.6 billion miles less this month

money.cnn.com — Commuters are driving less, the federal government says. Workers are leaving their cars at home and finding other ways to get to work. Highway funds at risk.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • mwrl, on 07/28/2008, -51/+22I don't think I drive less. I think most people are just not wasting as much gas now. We have a good chance a Democrat will be in office (plus a Democrat strong congress) and that will raise taxes and put most American's in danger of losing everything they have. People are saving money for the horror of four years of a liberal. It isn't the high gas prices, it is the thought that so many dumb American's are serious about voting in someone to the office of President and they know nothing about the guy they are voting for.
    • specialbuddy1, on 07/29/2008, -11/+33Dumbest comment I've read all month. People are saving money because they are losing their jobs and things are getting more expensive.
      • ThePwnyExpress, on 07/29/2008, -8/+3it's been much longer than a month since i've read a comment that dumb...
      • Wiini, on 07/29/2008, -9/+7Americans saving money. That's the funniest comment I've read all month.
      • dafunkmonster, on 07/30/2008, -2/+1Yours is the dumbest comment I've read all year.
    • grungegbunny, on 07/29/2008, -13/+14Gas prices trippling under the Bush/Cheney Admin. is clearly coincidence.

      /sarcasm
      • rebrad, on 07/29/2008, -4/+4Remember your comments when the democrats raise the tax you pay on every gallon of gas you use because the high price of not drilling and not exploiting our own natural reserves. Bush/Cheney did not do that. Your democrat congress did. So remember to thank them for the raising price of gas and thank them again when they raise the taxes because the current demand is not enough to support their need to collect more of your money for public redistribution.
      • dafunkmonster, on 07/30/2008, -1/+2Yea, and the dotcom bubble bursting was CLEARLY the fault of the Bush/Cheney administration, you know, them being in power not regulating it in the 90s. //sarcasm
    • Yookji, on 07/29/2008, -12/+21It is a coincidence. Rising demand in developing countries is no fault of Bush/Cheney, nor is the lack of finding major oil fields which in the past were able to keep prices down. The Iraq War had a relatively small impact of oil prices, and oil production in Iraq surpassed its pre-war output in late 2007. Bush can hardly be blamed for the loss of refineries following Katrina, although he can certainly be blamed for the lack of relief for the victims of Katrina. If anything, the lifting of the executive ban on offshore drilling has helped prices slide slightly over the past week or so. Please please please, take an economics course.
      • dpazar2, on 07/29/2008, -7/+5I agree Yookji, wish more people would realize this. The only thing i have on Bush, our government, and major auto producers is that noone put a premium on alternative research. Instead of going into Iraq, we could have used that money to research newer ways of doing things. That is the one and only thing i have a problem with, the rest is simply the world catching up, supply shock through natural disaster, etc. Also, mwrl is correct with the tax situation in the fact that dems raise taxes to support new branches of government that nobody knows about. I dont think they are saving money because of a new president, but with the high levels of inflation we are incurring, tax hikes would be devastating to many people.
      • DeskFlyer, on 07/29/2008, -4/+20"According to the US Defense Energy Support Center Fact Book 2004, in Fiscal Year 2004, the US military fuel consumption increased to 144 million barrels. This is about 40 million barrels more than the average peacetime military usage."

        "The US military is the biggest purchaser of oil in the world."

        http://www.energybulletin.net/node/13199
      • SchmuckofNI, on 07/29/2008, -2/+12You forgot the devaluation of the dollar caused by excessive military spending for its operations overseas and from excessive borrowing from the Federal Reserve.. Are people really that thick to not to see this?
      • djholybolt, on 07/29/2008, -3/+3Schmuck, I agree, I think they are entirely thick-headed.

        The de-valueing of the dollar along with the Speculation and Futures market being over-run by men who have a cataclysm of a response to the most minor effects to economies of the world are the reasons behind our insane prices for gas.

        We need to regular the Speculators to prevent them from gouging the market with astronomical prices.
      • djholybolt, on 07/29/2008, -1/+2hrrrm... Regulate**
      • Yookji, on 07/30/2008, -1/+4@DeskFlyer
        144 million barrels/year is a relatively small amount. That works out to ~395,000 bbl/day. Compare that to the entire world's consumption of 80 million bbl/day and the U.S.'s consumption of 21 million bbl/day. It's a drop in the bucket, not even able to change the price at the pump by a penny.

        @SchmuckofNI
        The devaluation of the dollar is certainly correlated with high oil prices, but [citation needed] for the part about military spending causing the weak dollar.

        "On the demand side, a weak dollar makes oil less expensive because it is increasing the purchasing power of currencies that have been gaining in value against the dollar, offsetting some of the rise in prices and boosting consumption.

        The result is a Catch-22 dynamic. 'The lower dollar reduces supply and increases demand, thus raising oil prices,' explains Alhaji, who is an Associate Professor of Economics at the College of Business Administration, Ohio Northern University. 'As a result, the value of US oil imports increases, which in turn widens the trade deficit, which weakens the dollar further.'"

        @djholybolt
        If you're so sure that the futures market is causing astronomical oil prices, then sell short in oil futures. Not only will you make a profit when the speculation bubble inevitably bursts, but you'll help drive down the price of oil. Put you money where your mouth is.

        https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world ...
        http://www.cnbc.com/id/21541741/
      • dafunkmonster, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1Jesus ***** christ, are you all completely brainless? The devaluation of the dollar has to do with the Fed cutting interest rates to near zero. We have a debt-based economy, any expert will confirm it, and when the Fed goes around slashing interest rates, the value of the dollar drops. It has a similar effect to printing too much money. Inflation.

        And oil speculators cannot permanently inflate the price of ANY commodity unless they use it up and plan to not sell it. Those who buy up oil futures (making the price higher) in order to turn around and sell them (which drops the price) to make a profit do nothing except artificially inflate the price of oil. Because they are simply middlemen in the transaction, and the price is determined by the market, its is physically impossible for them to permanently inflate the price of oil AND still make money off of speculating. Most speculators (believe it or not) are companies that have a legal and legitimate interest in keeping their fixed costs relatively constant, such as airlines, trucking companies, etc. If we crack down on speculation altogether, American companies will suffer. What we need to do is force speculators to receive shipment on the futures that they purchase, thus forcing unethical "middleman" speculators out of the market.

        Please, for *****'s sake, leave the economics to the people who actually know their *****.
    • djholybolt, on 07/29/2008, -1/+4I'd also like to point out, I'd much rather have Obama than McCain.

      In the sake of having a smaller gov't AND an end to the war, I'd quite possibly vote Bob Barr even if he is flippin nuts.
    • snoop396, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1"so many dumb American's are serious about voting in someone to the office of President and they know nothing about the guy they are voting for"

      yeah and it was geniuses who voted for George W.

      Open your eyes man
  • grungegbunny, on 07/29/2008, -3/+112Where's my flying fuel celled solar powered affordable car at? its almost 2009 for chrissake.
  • BOFH2, on 07/29/2008, -18/+11So?
  • brainnovate, on 07/29/2008, -18/+6"...and Dugg 9338 more stories on Digg.com, a leading social news site."
  • FlyingPhotog, on 07/29/2008, -3/+48"Highway funds are at risk."

    Either way, we can't win

    (yes, I carpool)
    • superzulu, on 07/29/2008, -1/+43Highway funds are at risk because for every person who actually works on the highway, we have to pay for 4 more to stand around and watch.
      • Cuchanu, on 07/29/2008, -1/+8They're in training to learn how to look like they are supervising.

        @FlyingPhotog
        If we are driving less roads will be needing less work so it sounds ok to me.
    • Elliuotatar, on 07/30/2008, -0/+2Well, I can win. I'll just leave my car home SEVEN days a week, and pull in 40% interest on what I would have spent on gas!
      • palmy523, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1 Where in hell are you going to get 40% interest on your not spent gas money?!
      • Elliuotatar, on 07/31/2008, -0/+120% savings each day for 7 days = 140%.
  • Berkana, on 07/29/2008, -8/+132"Highway funds are at risk."

    Then fund mass transit. The funding of highways at the expense of mass transit was GM's fault; Alfred Sloan was personally responsible for corrupt lobbying efforts that resulted in the dismantling of over a hundred electric trolley systems across the US in an attempt to boost the influence of GM, and he succeeded; its time to undo the damage. Our current dependence on cars is unsustainable.
    • Ninnux, on 07/29/2008, -3/+12Here's the thing. We now have a huge and aging infrastructure that needs to be maintained. Gas taxes help pay for that. Less demand for gas, less money for infrastructure. Continuing to let the roads decay probably isn't the wisest choice, even at the expense of funneling money to improve rail. Federal funding is based on future use models that have always proved less than accurate. It's not our dependency on cars that unsustainable. The way our infrastructure and funding is set up that's unsustainable. Either way, we'd be robbing Peter to pay Paul.
      • bundwallah, on 07/29/2008, -3/+12Less cars or reduction in driving frequency on the road = less wear and tear on the road too.

        If one person walked the same path across your lawn once a week vs ten people doing so once a week in which scenario would you be resodding your lawn more often?
      • hexydes, on 07/29/2008, -1/+11Uhm, you're forgetting one factor that especially hits the northern states, and that is weather. Unlike grass, concrete and asphalt do not repair themselves at the end of a freeze/thaw cycle. Regardless of how many people drive on the road, it is going to need to be repaired simply due to the expanding and contracting of the road material causing cracks to form.
      • secrity, on 07/29/2008, -0/+4It is trucks that tear up the roads. Cars don't put much wear and tear on the roads.
      • ontain, on 07/29/2008, -3/+1just make businesses pay more in taxes or raise the gas tax.
      • halogenik, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1direct cause and effect:

        gas taxes pay for highway funds.

        higher gas prices, less highway funds.

        higher gas taxes, higher gas prices, less highway funds.

        You can't solve a problem by gas prices by raising taxes when the problem is high price of gas.
    • halogenik, on 07/29/2008, -3/+14Amen, i'd double-digg you if I could. We need better Mass transit in America. It's ridiculous that buses here come around once an hour. It kills the idea of Mass Transit and turns it into a bit of a novelty item you ride once a year.

      We need to join the ranks of other countries, who have reasonable Mass Transit systems, like most of Europe and South America. There's a bus running in Brazil every 10 minutes, on the dot, and it takes you wherever you gotta go.

      The only problem is that a lot of cities in the US weren't properly planned to accommodate Mass Transit systems such as subways, so it would take a LOT of reverse engineering to really get this done, but it would be well worth it, if not for us then for our children.
      • hexydes, on 07/29/2008, -4/+6How would this help at all? The main function of mass-transit is to get people around a city, whereas an expressway gets people between cities. Are you proposing that we build a system of millions of lines of rail to connect people all over the place? On top of that, commuters would have to then take buses or walk once they reach the city. The net result is that I lose about 1-2 hours out of my day for this. That's 5-10 hours a week, 20-40 hours a month, almost 250-500 hours a year I'd spend in extra commuting time.

        Mass transit doesn't work in the United States because we aren't clumped together into a system of 5-10 major cities in our country. In order for your system to work, we wouldn't have to redo our transportation infrastructure, we'd have to redo our entire way of life. Guess how much that would cost. I'll give you a hint, it's the next major jump that comes after "trillions".
      • halogenik, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2Depends on what part of the country you're talking about hexydes. In my area, Southern California, we have the Metro subways and trains which gets us to and from Los Angeles and it's neighboring cities. Yes, we have to take a bus after we get off the Metro to our final destinations. If we need to go somewhere farther up, like Central or Northern California, we take the Metrolink trains. We can basically get anywhere we need to go through public transporation.

        As far as time is concerned, we wouldn't have that problem if more funds were pumped into the mass transit systems. There would be more routes, and the number of buses and trains running from destination to destination would increase substantially, therefore eliminating a lot of the downtime you're referring to. As far as "walking" everywhere, well, if you can't walk a block between the train station and the bus station, then I don't know what to tell you.

        check out these guys, they cycled through a typical 405 interstate traffic day and got to their destinations faster than if they were driving:

        http://digg.com/world_news/Cyclists_Illegally_Use_ ...

        We need to change our mentalities as Americans, as well as our laziness in regards to walking and being "too good" for public transportation. Hopping in a car and driving half a mile to get a burger? It's really absurd if you think about it.

        The bottom line is that even though gas prices have fallen back down recently, I can guarantee they're going to keep rising in the future, so we either adapt now or adapt later.
      • hexydes, on 07/29/2008, -1/+1I think a lot of what you're saying is "California-centric". It's a problem that a lot of people in larger cities have. You know that there are like 40-some-odd states aside from California, Florida, and New York, right? A lot of us live in rural areas and would have to drive a car 10-20 miles to get to a train station, just to get to the city our work is in, then take a bus to somewhere close to work, and then walk the rest of the way. A 35-40 minute annoying-but-simple commute all of a sudden turns into a two-hour debacle that doesn't really save us any money, only costs time.

        So yes, sure, encourage your state to build transportation systems that make sense for you, but just know that you aren't representative of the rest of the country, and federal money should NOT be diverted into pushing the system you describe, because it does not help the majority of the people it is supposed to; it makes their lives harder.
      • halogenik, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2i understand where you're coming from, but you're missing the point: you wouldn't have to drive 10-20 miles to get to a train station, you would ride the bus to the train station if there were enough buses and they were conveniently running in reasonable times, say 10, 20 minutes apart.

        More than half of the population in the US resides in the 8 largest states: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan.

        The population of Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and New Hampshire combined is less than the population of the COUNTY of Los Angeles.

        You might say "ok, so what?" Well, I understand that some states have small cities spread out over the state, so they wouldn't benefit directly from Metro transit. But if we could rebuild the infrastructure in major cities and Metropolitans, the effects of less gas consumption in those states would not only drive down the demand for gas, making it more affordable to the smaller states that really need it, but also save the environment in the process. So it's not like a Federal program to push for Metro services would only benefit the minority: it would benefit the majority in terms of population, and it would benefit the minority states as well.

        A direct solution to a problem is not always the best solution. Sometimes you have to think about the bigger picture, instead of what benefits you alone.
    • DeFex, on 07/29/2008, -0/+10wasnt just lobbying, Oil, Tire, and car companies actually bought the transit and then ran it in tio the ground.
      sometimes known as "the trillion dollar swindle"
    • AchaIemoipas, on 07/29/2008, -0/+5Hey don't forget Canada, they screwed us too.
    • mike17032, on 07/29/2008, -13/+8I am glad I dont need to take a ***** god damn train everywhere I want to go.

      Roads are great, ***** off hippie.
    • zacharytelschow, on 07/29/2008, -5/+3"Our current dependence on cars is unsustainable."

      And we can't keep driving cars why?
    • td001, on 07/29/2008, -1/+5hell yeah.. try living in a city with virtually NO or little workable transit..
      all of Florida is this way.. i live in the largest city on the FL west coast and you cant even get a bus from one side of town to downtown..

      and they spent hundreds of thousands on a stupid trolly that leads from the tourist zone to the party zone.. thats reeeeal practical!!!!! unless you need a bar, or back to the Mariot!!!
      • Louis11, on 07/30/2008, -0/+3"and they spent hundreds of thousands on a stupid trolly that leads from the tourist zone to the party zone"

        I bet tourism is a big part of the local economy then?

        Just sayin'.
      • td001, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1ok.. you DO make a good point.. without even living here.. ( lucky you :)

        the tourism IS important to the local economy, I just think I'd like to see some of (my tax $$) go toward something.. ANYTHING.. that the people who actually live and work in, and make the city work.. could actually.. well, USE.
    • modernsavage, on 07/29/2008, -1/+3Agreed on the mass transit.

      It reminds of the original Sim City game. I remember the only way I could grow a giant city to metropolis level was to use a 'rails' only strategy. That's right, a city without any roads at all. This worked for a couple of reasons: a) roads take up more space on the map so without them you have more land to develop, b)you can't have automobile traffic congestion/complaints if there are no roads for that traffic to exist. I realize that this was just a game, but I think it helps to show the real world inefficiencies in auto traffic verses the efficiency of mass transit in.
    • skidooer, on 07/29/2008, -0/+3While mass transit sounds like a great idea, I fail to see how it can work outside of major urban centres. That leaves a lot of people who are still going to be stuck with automobiles whether they like it or not.
      • Berkana, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1Major urban centers are the places that suffer most from congestion; cars elsewhere are not a problem, but cars in New York, or the Bay Area freeways, or Boston, all contribute far too much pollution, while leaving the entire region far too dependent on cars. A major spike in oil prices could destroy the economy of such areas unnecessarily; if all we did were to employ better transit strategies in urban centers, we'd be much better off. The objective I have in mind is not to replace cars in entirety, but to reduce the exaggerated dependence we currently have on vehicles. It is plainly ridiculous to be in a car in a traffic jam on some of these freeways, where all around, people are sitting alone in their SUVs idling in the traffic, all headed in the same direction for 90% of the distance. Mass transit routes could take care of that 90%, leaving the last 10% to cars, bikes, and walking.
      • td001, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1..hence, the beginning of the death of the suburb.
    • Homerr, on 07/29/2008, -0/+3Imagine if Mr. Bush would have stood up a few years ago and asked us to conserve instead of go shopping....
    • robbob, on 07/30/2008, -3/+1F*ck mass transit. I'm not sharing my commute next to you low-life stinking degenerates
    • ObeseEurotrash, on 07/30/2008, -2/+1shut the ***** up fatass
  • eSentrik, on 07/29/2008, -11/+91This is why high gas prices can be a good thing. People are finally becoming conscious of their sedentary life style and throw-away culture. High gas prices are a much needed reality check.
    • TheScogg, on 07/29/2008, -13/+12Not true. I used to drive my fat ass to the SuperWalmart with the indoor McDonald's every day and walked all the way inside to buy a BigMac combo meal. Since gas went up I sit my fat ass on my couch with the door wide open so the pizza man can hear me when I yell for him to come in. Now, I'm actually getting less exercise, using the delivery boy's gas, and missing out on those all important alternator pedal/brake pedal calf pushups that used to keep my cankle's toned. Nice wishful thinking though...
      • cowsgonemadd3, on 07/29/2008, -3/+1You used to drive your big donkey to mcdonalds? What did he order?
      • briguymaine, on 07/29/2008, -0/+3I salute you Mr. Cankleman.
      • squaredUP, on 07/29/2008, -1/+2Delievery prices are tied directly to gas prices, so your fat *** will be biking it to MacD's pretty soon.
    • Protuhj, on 07/29/2008, -1/+10People driving less = people spending less at stores...

      Would like to see how sales figures match or don't match driving habits.
      • tehsars, on 07/29/2008, -2/+2...and internet purchases skyrocket :)
      • itsaplayonwords, on 07/30/2008, -0/+0And in a very long string of events, many department stores could depend on internet sales and only work out of factories, creating more space for forest preserves. Though there would be less jobs...

        You really can't win here.
    • hexydes, on 07/29/2008, -9/+6Cool. I'm glad you're willing to punish the people that have hour-long commutes all in the sake of proving a point. You're a real humanitarian.
      • tschau, on 07/29/2008, -2/+1He's not punishing them. He's saying it has positives, which it does.

        Those people have punished themselves - living where they do is a trade-off, and the balance has changed a little bit.
      • thwoom, on 07/29/2008, -5/+1people don't need to have hour long commutes. I'm pretty sure they can find a house closer then that to their work.
      • hexydes, on 07/29/2008, -2/+6Uhm, lots of couples have jobs that are directly opposite directions of each other, and both have to drive 30-40 minutes each way.

        I suppose your next comment is that they shouldn't take jobs so far away. I'm willing to bet you're also the same person that complains about the unemployment rate in our country.

        Please think before you speak.
    • tnoy, on 07/29/2008, -0/+4Yes, I'm also becoming concious of the fact that all my food has gone up in price because its brought to my local store by truck.
    • eSentrik, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1I'm just saying our society has become fossil fuel dependent such that all of our infrastructure is too. This means it is a) hard to switch away from it after developing around it, and b) all costs have gas prices figured into it. We as a society have let ourselves get into this situation and getting out won't be easy.
    • palmy523, on 07/30/2008, -0/+0How is high gas prices a reality check? That's ***** retarded. People can live their sedentary life style and throw away cultures without driving a car.
    • dafunkmonster, on 07/30/2008, -1/+2***** off already. High prices will never be a good thing, you worthless piece of ***** anti-capitalist. Let me guess, you're a member of the ALF, a flaming marxist, and a rim-jobbing worshiper of Al Gore and the almighty "environmental" doctrine.
  • Hetman, on 07/29/2008, -18/+3Good it is working. Now if we just increase the gas tax by another dollar, it should enable alternative fueled cars to be more profitable. Which will increase the number of them being bought.
    • GrammerPants, on 07/29/2008, -0/+11Long term...short term this isn't helpful. We don't want to completely destroy the economy JUST to get alternative fueled cars on our roads.
    • Hetman, on 07/29/2008, -5/+6Europe has been doing it for years and it did not seem to ruin their economy. We should have had a gas tax since the last gas shortage in the 70s. I am sick of America being so short sighted constantly. All it does is hurt us in the long run.
    • mike17032, on 07/29/2008, -4/+6Yes Comrade, soon the motherland will be able to make more of our choices for us.
    • GrammerPants, on 07/29/2008, -0/+0I'm not begin short sighted. All I am saying is if gas is going to go up make sure it does so slowly. Slow enough that it doesn't destroy the economy but fast enough that we make changes because of it. Keep in mind EVERYTHING is effected by high gas prices. I don't feel like paying huge prices for food because the cost of fuel has shot up overnight.
  • DiscoLando, on 07/29/2008, -3/+29This is a clear cut demonstration of how markets appropriately adapt to variables - now if only certain people would realize this applies to a vast number of other things, such as interest rates or anything else the government has their hands on.
  • Wiini, on 07/29/2008, -7/+12Really? I thought the stimulus check would've helped defray some of those extra costs, enabling people to travel more.

    Huh. I guess that was a bad idea.
  • Flashtone, on 07/29/2008, -10/+3The whole gas concept is a bit dated. Its time we change, and make it affordable.
  • ngageguy, on 07/29/2008, -5/+19When this first broke last week, gas prices started to fall. hmmmm...
    • ExRe, on 07/29/2008, -1/+3Because oil is a traded market. Just like stock prices rise and fall depending on investors, the same is true for oil.
    • skidooer, on 07/29/2008, -0/+6Well of course. If demand goes down, so does the price.
  • fromaworld, on 07/29/2008, -0/+18This is great news that people are finally altering their driving habits.

    The Highway Funds shouldn't need as much money because people are now putting less wear and tear on the road by driving less.

    This is a win-win to everyone except those that work in road construction/maintenance.....
    • krnldmp, on 07/29/2008, -1/+6Either way. Less wear means smaller maintenance crews required. Less traffic makes it easier to divert or modify and better worker safety.
    • secrity, on 07/29/2008, -0/+7The problem is that cars don't put much wear and tear on the roads, it is the trucks that tear up the road.
      • mustang460, on 07/29/2008, -0/+3and the weather, especially up north with large seasonal temperature changes
    • redux2redux, on 07/29/2008, -0/+4Ha! What a flawed assumption, a governmental agency needing less money.
      • palmy523, on 07/30/2008, -0/+0I USED to drive 7 miles home everyday for lunch, until $3.50 a gallon hit.
  • schneid4323, on 07/29/2008, -15/+30***** the federal government.
    • PabloMac, on 07/29/2008, -2/+11Pics or it didn't happen.
    • scamper22, on 07/29/2008, -0/+7correction: the federal government ***** you.
      • Angus320, on 07/30/2008, -2/+1You missed the "In Soviet Russia" part.

        Wait...
      • itsaplayonwords, on 07/30/2008, -0/+0LOL at this thread here.
  • fatrandy13, on 07/29/2008, -1/+12this really only applies to people who were driving too much anyway.. i hate gas prices the way they are, but i am driving the exact same distances as i was last year, and the year before...
  • ligyron, on 07/29/2008, -11/+4This is GOOD news people. This is exactly what we want to happen. Put the government at stress. That is the only way gas prices are going to go down.

    What's with the "Either way, we can't win" comment above? The people are winning, the government is losing. Keep up the good work
    • danthepiercer, on 07/29/2008, -1/+6you do realize that it is the tax payer who pays for highway upkeep, right?

      i think the comment you are referring to meant only that we get ***** with high gas prices AND get ***** with having to pay for highway maintenance.

      besides, how stressed do you really think the govt is because we all rode our bikes to work 3 times in the last 3 months.
    • saxmaster, on 07/29/2008, -0/+3How will putting the government at stress bring down gas prices?
    • MasterChief4134, on 07/30/2008, -1/+1hey jackass you do relize we the people run the government right?
  • lostsymphonies1, on 07/29/2008, -2/+6What's the big deal? That averages out to be only 40 miles less per person than last May.
    • Pledio, on 07/29/2008, -0/+4You're assuming that everyone in America drives.
    • secrity, on 07/29/2008, -3/+2That averages to be over one mile per day or about one gallon per person; not a lot, but it is a start.
  • naiku, on 07/29/2008, -5/+9oil is down to 122 a barrel....just a matter of time till we see the savings.
    speculation ***** caused the price to rise, which only brought alternate methods for americans to get to work.
    • PabloMac, on 07/29/2008, -3/+5Just a matter of time? When tomorrow's barrel price rises, or a camel farts sideways, the pump price jumps a nanosecond later. When real barrel prices drop, pump prices taper down gradually over the next week or two, but never to the amount it was before the barrel price jump.
  • marcushe, on 07/29/2008, -0/+15The article only states that people are driving less only by using public transportation or bikes - but what about just simply not driving as much?

    'Back in the day, I would maybe go driving for fun, or make a special trip to the bank / drug store / whatever - but now I only drive the most optimized routes I can, and run errands only when their on the way to something else.
  • bbliss17, on 07/29/2008, -1/+3well that is a lot of miles! I think that may be impacting the fact that gas is going down.
  • AmericaIsDoomed, on 07/29/2008, -10/+3The end is near folks. The gas prices is only the first phase.
    • orangefly, on 07/29/2008, -1/+1what part of it fell on your tail....???....
  • jzuska, on 07/29/2008, -9/+6Good.
    Keep fuel prices high!

    Discounts for truckers and livery folks!
    • AvronC, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1They um, get fuel free.....
    • palmy523, on 07/30/2008, -0/+0I hope you expected to get dugg down for that.
  • akchrs, on 07/29/2008, -6/+50Last month I drove 1600 miles to watch an air show at Elmendorf A.F.B. I saw an F-22A Raptor burn more fuel in 2 seconds than I could use in my lifetime. I love this country!!!
    • lostsymphonies1, on 07/29/2008, -4/+26Why the HELL would you drive 1600 to see an air show
      • akchrs, on 07/29/2008, -0/+74Alaska is a big state. I just went to the next town.
      • jzuska, on 07/29/2008, -0/+16HA!
      • cowsgonemadd3, on 07/29/2008, -0/+5Booya!
      • Elliuotatar, on 07/30/2008, -2/+2It wasn't 1600 both ways, it was 800 each way, but goddamn, I didn't realise Alaska was so big.

        It takes me two and a half hours to drive up to the white mountains of NH and that's a long enough haul to discourage me from doing it more than once a year or so. But what he's talking is a 16 hour trip, each way! Damn.

        He must REALLY love airplanes.
      • BedPost, on 07/30/2008, -0/+2This might be the largest reply:parent ratio of diggs I've ever seen.
    • KingGorilla, on 07/29/2008, -0/+5May I also interest you in Nascar
  • Waterpig222, on 07/29/2008, -1/+16WOW now the fed is going to complain about losing taxes. Gas prices have more then doubled in the past few years... The middle class cant win any thing these days.
    • Gerz1219, on 07/29/2008, -6/+5It's more like the middle class is going to complain when their roads start to crumble, while steadfastly refusing to pay for road maintenance with any kind of tax hike.

      I'm tired of all the complaining. If you bought a house 90 minutes away from Omaha, you essentially made a bet that gas would stay $1.50 a gallon forever, and you lost. It's not the government's job to subsidize all the bad decisions made by exurban Americans. Move to a major city and take the subway.
      • saranagati, on 07/29/2008, -0/+3If you're using Omaha as an example when it comes to driving, you have no idea what you're talking about.
      • Gerz1219, on 07/29/2008, -2/+2I was just in Omaha for a wedding a couple weeks ago and I was shocked at the short-sightedness of the entire area's planning. Everything is a 30 minute drive apart, without a rail line or bus in sight. Depressing.
      • burtonbe, on 07/30/2008, -0/+2That's ***** Gerz. I live in Omaha and we have an extensive bus system: http://www.metroareatransit.com/images/SystemMap4- ...
        Maybe you should buy some new glasses to see the brightly colored freaking MAT buses driving all over the place.

        And everything is NOT 30 minutes apart. It takes me 20 minutes to drive from the far southeast (Bellevue) to the far northwest of Omaha.
    • scamper22, on 07/29/2008, -1/+0oh the middle class will win.
      5-10 years plugin hybrids or other green tech will become standard and we will all be wondering why we panicked and spent money on nothing.

  • Chimone, on 07/29/2008, -4/+5Not me, I bought a motorcycle and have been racking up the miles. At 60mpg I could care less about gas prices
    • neutronlaser, on 07/29/2008, -2/+14How could you care less?
      • nbcaffeine, on 07/29/2008, -0/+6He would care less at 70 mpg I guess...
      • bobbothegod, on 07/29/2008, -0/+5If he cared less...

        he wouldn't care at all.

        I'm giving benefit of the doubt, but the correct teminology is "I couldn't care less."
    • drunkmonkey01, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1so you are using a more fuel-efficient vehicle but driving a lot more miles? those 2 things cancel each other out...
    • ryan83189, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Wait 'till the price of gas triples, then we will see your high tower come crumbling down.
    • Verdanic, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1I thought about that, then I remembered how impractical they are when it's raining hard, the distinct increase in probability of mutilation on a crash at over 20mph, and then of course the fact that I'm in Canada, and the thing would be rendered useless three to four months of the year.
  • neutronlaser, on 07/29/2008, -12/+7Try
    it
    in
    the
    U.K.
    • Spor, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1No no, you put a space between words. Don't worry, you'll get it eventually!
      • palmy523, on 07/30/2008, -0/+0lmao, explain it like you would a 5 year old.

        "It's the biggest key on the keyboard! Keep looking you will find it!"
  • jokerhl, on 07/29/2008, -2/+0Lets see if we tax based on price instead of gallons then we have money for roads and pork barrel projects. Gotta love the way government works.
  • Testies, on 07/29/2008, -2/+6OH the humanity.
    Screw subway, I'm back at the wheel baby!!!!!!!!
    REMEMBER THE HIGHWAY FUNDS!!

  • iamgreg007, on 07/29/2008, -2/+4It's great news from an environmental perspective, but I shudder to think who's pockets the government is going to dip into to make up for that budget defecit. Hopefully it's not education, which is already paying the price of the War Machine.
    • dregin, on 07/29/2008, -0/+7Maybe the military?








      lol
    • bobbothegod, on 07/29/2008, -0/+0Maybe the government will take some of the war money and apply it...

      nevermind.
  • Lucas123, on 07/29/2008, -0/+32I definitely drove a billion or so miles less this month.
  • brainscab, on 07/29/2008, -8/+19People are driving less because people are working less.
    • PabloMac, on 07/29/2008, -2/+3And people are working less because they are Digging more. So Digg is good for the country, and good for the world.
  • totorototoro, on 07/29/2008, -2/+24And now oil companies are (temporarily) lowering gas prices, to get people back into the drivers seat.
    Rinse, Repeat.
    • Logicexe, on 07/29/2008, -1/+9Except that prices always drop around the end of July or early August. The summer driving season is slowing down causing demand to slow down. It's normal and happens every single year.
  • roddack, on 07/29/2008, -6/+4So any chance that gas tax will get removed then since people are driving less?

    Yeah I didn't think so.....
    • Conwaysb0718, on 07/29/2008, -0/+5sorry, we both know it doesnt work that way. they will most likely increase taxation elsewhere to make up for the lost money the gas tax brings in tho, to be sure.
    • jzuska, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2And soon they will remove toll roads.
  • VoteHillary, on 07/29/2008, -0/+3Finally!!!
  • halogenik, on 07/29/2008, -4/+9Rising gas prices aren't the only reason for less travel on the highways. The rate of unemployment and job layoffs is also contributing to the diminish of morning commuters.
  • topbob, on 07/29/2008, -2/+18And now they will lower the cost slightly enough so people are fooled into thinking its nice and cheap again, and continue to destroy the world.
    • Spor, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1How else would oil tycoons make their billions?
  • tarmin21, on 07/29/2008, -3/+7And the market succeeded instantly where government failed for decades.
    • drunkmonkey01, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1succeeded instantly? the price at the pump has risen over a dollar in the past few months, and it just now dropped about 15 cents. thats not what id call success, although its a start
  • OnlyGirlOnDigg, on 07/29/2008, -3/+6Yay! If we environmentalist hippies can't do it, maybe the greedy oil companies and futures markets can!
  • twojciac, on 07/29/2008, -6/+8Imagine that... the market continues to work.
  • bjs3171, on 07/29/2008, -1/+10"Highway funds are at risk."

    *face-palm*
    • Elliuotatar, on 07/30/2008, -0/+3With fewer cars on the roads though, doesn't that mean the highway needs fewer repairs? I mean that's the ***** they've been selling us with tolls paid by the axle. More wheels = more damage.
  • whataboutdave, on 07/29/2008, -11/+6Ladies and Gents I give you the free market.
    • skellener, on 07/29/2008, -4/+5The oil industry is ANYTHING but a free market.
    • ExRe, on 07/29/2008, -1/+2The free market works when you have alternate options.
  • SchmuckofNI, on 07/29/2008, -11/+3About time. Now all we need is to have the national speed limit to 55 and gas prices will drop even further. It happened once in the 70s, it can happen again.
  • ThePwnyExpress, on 07/29/2008, -0/+5if we're not driving as much, wouldn't we not need so much money for the highway funds?... and everything kind of balances out?
    • sancho, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2Big trucks (for shipping goods) put an disproportionate amount of wear on the roads. This wear was previously subsidized by drivers of lighter vehicles, who don't put much wear on the roads at all.
  • Tyrghast, on 07/29/2008, -1/+4It's really sad that once people start changing their driving habits for the better, the only thing the gov can think about it "Oh hot damn what we gonna do with all this money!!!"
  • jankind, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2AlI I have to do is look around on my train in the mornings to see this. It may be a little harder to find a seat these days, but I think it's great. I love to see that crowded train station in the mornings. A lot less cars on the road...
  • FreeTalkLIve, on 07/29/2008, -7/+4Americans bought 9.6 billion dollars less things from stores.

    If we can't afford gas, we can't get to the local stores and merchants to buy their products that are already more expensive from high gas prices.

    This will hurt business and wipe out more jobs.

    /***** The World
    • imightbewrong, on 07/29/2008, -3/+2i dont think driving less = spending less in total
      wouldn't consumer's have more extra money to spend at stores, because they saved it on gas?
      • KloroFormd, on 07/29/2008, -1/+4They didn't save it. They spent the money on less gas.
    • JoeMerchant, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Dude, Amazon.com delivers.....
      • jpop, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Amazon (along with other internet sites) are doing real well over the last couple months too. Lots of people are still shopping.
    • ExRe, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Or maybe they just bought more each time?
    • tschau, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Please don't make up numbers and say them like they're statistics.
    • Soytaco, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1Here, allow me to show you one of the article's focal points;

      http://i.l.cnn.net/money/2008/07/28/news/economy/d ...
  • charm803, on 07/29/2008, -0/+4I make it a point to only fill up twice a month. I walk a lot, and I gotta say, I saved moola from the gym and my legs are starting to shape up pretty nicely.

    Coincidence? I think NOT!

    I just refuse to buy gas because it is unbelievably high.
  • sonaboy, on 07/29/2008, -4/+6I actually drove MORE than I do normally because I sold some music gear and bought a scooter, which has replaced my truck as my primary commuter transportation.
    I'm having so much fun, these days I wish my commute was a little LONGER.
    100 mpg kicks ass.
    • GorgarFanClub, on 07/29/2008, -2/+5And you think that we care about you selling some music gear and the other crap you sold and bought?
  • skellener, on 07/29/2008, -1/+6> Commuters are driving less, the federal
    > government says. Workers are leaving
    > their cars at home and finding other
    > ways to get to work

    Probably the best news I've heard all year.
  • bnolsen, on 07/29/2008, -5/+4Ugh I'm annoyed with those little scooters. Folks with scooters that max out at 40mph or so driving on roads with 55 mph speed limit. Those ppl are asking to get squished.
    • td001, on 07/29/2008, -1/+9yeah, a 50cc scooter is illegal to drive on a highway, but on city streets most are 30 mph or less..

      What IS annoying are people in their cars with their heads up their ass..

      like it or not scooters are on the road, so you better get used to it, and maybe pay a bit more attention to the road, instead of iPhone, blackberry, ciggarette lighter, coffee, makeup, food.. childeren, etc..
      • JoeMerchant, on 07/29/2008, -0/+3
        Stop dreaming and start driving (David Lee Roth).....

        It doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong after the cell-phone wielding soccer mom stuffs you and your Honda Scoot under her mini-van.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 93 of 93 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.