> Anyway, around here, even a small investment in reducing idling (or just cutting funding for traffic quiescence projects) would be equivalent to increasing ve

> Anyway, around here, even a small investment in reducing idling (or just cutting funding for traffic quiescence projects) would be equivalent to increasing vehicle fuel economy by something like 20-80%. sure, but I'd rather just lobby against cars at that point. Especially in a place like the Bay Area that should be mostly served by public transit and dense housing. Lobbying to micromanage idling just feels like a waste of effort for such a negligible benefit.