[FreedomToCreate]

As bad as it is, the positive is that alternate methods of transportation are boosted when gas prices go up. The current trend of buying large SUVs to commute an hour or two a day is supported by the cost of gas. Gas prices go up, cars get smaller and public transport gets a boost, congestion goes down, air quality improves and people do more things in there local community.

I do understand that the negative effects on people who rely on long commutes to work, but difficult positions can spur positive change if people work together.

[burfog]

This is all about consequences of regulation.

People buy large SUVs because the fuel efficiency law encourages it. Calculations for CAFE involve the vehicle mass and the area of pavement surrounded by the tires. Large SUVs have an advantage in the calculation.

People commute an hour or two because of laws that make it unreasonable to move closer to work. Taxes would reset, fees would need to be paid, and so many people would get their cut of the sale.

[Johnny555]

Regulation is one way to force people to drive more fuel efficient cars (because the less efficient cars will either be priced out of reach or be unavailable completely). But so are fuel taxes as the parent poster pointed out -- make gas more expensive and people will demand more fuel efficiency. I think both have a place -- make less efficient cars more expensive to buy and operate.

It's not just zoning laws that keep people from living close to work, some people just don't want to live in a city so they are happy to commute for an hour if it means they can have a 2400 sq foot house on an acre of land. No amount of zoning can provide large numbers of big single family houses on large lots that are also close to large urban work centers.

Though I just wish those people would stop complaining when cites repurpose streets for transit and bikes for those that do live closer to work and can more easily use alternative transit.