Comment Log Display

I truly feel that this method is not reliable to the masses, it is
unrealistic and I can’t say that it will suit the needs that it is
intended for. Also look at the other transportation systems we
already have in place and for me safety is a huge concern and with
the results of the other transportation system (I.E. Bart, public
buses) I don’t see how this would be any different in terms of the
safety of the people . Most of us can barely afford the little that
we do have and “higher taxes” and/or buying a new “zero emission
car” isn’t a luxury I can afford.

Comments on Transportation Symposium to Discuss 50% Petroleum
Reduction Goal
 
 
I am writing to express my strong concerns about the direction ARB
seems to be heading on meeting the goal of a 50% reduction in
petroleum usage by 2030. The ideas presented at your recent
symposium are unrealistic and expensive.

Most Californians can't just cut their gasoline use and travel
distances in half. We rely on our cars to get us to work, and don't
have the luxury of quitting our existing jobs just so we don't have
to drive so far every day. And spending billions of dollars on
high-speed rail won't help us with our daily commutes or everyday
mobility needs.

Most of us also can't afford new electric cars, higher taxes or
"carbon pricing" to help subsidize zero emission vehicles and
renewable fuel production, or the infrastructure necessary to
support them.

Under AB 32 California consumers pay some of the highest energy
costs in the country. Please take the economic and practical
impacts on hardworking Californians into account as you proceed
with your transportation planning.