# At what gas price will Americans people stop driving? Really . . .



## Zero Signal (Feb 8, 2008)

I hope this is ON topic enough to keep here since it IS on the subject of commuting right? Anyway, I saw an article in a local paper that estimated that people will stop driving at around $4-$5/ga for regular gas. I assume they meant demand will fall dramatically for regular commuters. Now, this will be different for different parts of the country as costs of living (income/costs ratios) will change quite a bit. This was in an Arizona paper and in Tucson, the gas is in the $3.15-$3.30 range around town. 

Call me crazy, but this seems like a low estimate to me. My gut tells me that Americans in general (aside from this small cycling demographic) are excessively stubborn and (I hate to say) lazy to resort to anything but our own cars for primary transportation. I really think we (as a general population, not us in this forum necessarily) would rather continue to pay through every bodily orifice to drive our comfy car/truck/suv that we’ve taken advantage of than concede to hopping on a bike/bus/train/trolley/carpool/whatever. 

Am I just too much of a cynic or do you think gas prices will need to go much much higher than that $4-$5/ga before you really start to see more people on bikes and other alternative transportation?


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

as long as they continue to push the price upwards in at least an incremental method...a few cents here, a nickel there, people will just keep sucking it up and griping but not changing behavior.

If you woke up tomorrow and gas suddenly went from near $4 to $7.50 or $8 a gallon, I think the reaction for some would be to immediately curtain unnecessary trips, combine errands, take the bus, carpool...or, oh yeah, maybe walk or ride a bike to a place they normally drive.

Getting people to wean themselves from the personal auto is probably more difficult than getting people off crack.


----------



## oarsman (Nov 6, 2005)

Zero Signal said:


> I saw an article in a local paper that estimated that people will stop driving at around $4-$5/ga for regular gas.


I think it will have to go considerably higher than that. Gas in Vancouver BC is about CDN$1.20 a liter right now (which would be somewhere close to US$5 a gallon). At this level there has been no appreciable reduction in driving.


----------



## Guest (Apr 11, 2008)

Pretty much everywhere in the world, outside of the US gas is significantly more expensive than you pay in the US.

People still drive.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

Well, considering that I have to take my daughter to daycare every day, and that this year we got more than double the amount of snow we normally get as well as more than our fair share of sub-zero weather, I'd say I don't really have much of a choice. 

I gotta drive. 

And if you think I'm going to stand in sub-zero weather with a 6 month old waiting for a rather undependable bus, you are sorely mistaken.

Right now, I drive my daughter to daycare monday through friday. Monday, wednesday and friday, I try to get her to daycare a little early so I can get back to the house with enough time to ride my bike to work. But that means I've got to get her to daycare about a half-hour earlier, and riding my bike means I don't get home until about six, giving me a whole half an hour with her in the evening before it's time to put her to bed. Yay. 

So, tuesday and thursday I drive to work, which means I get an extra half- hour to an hour with her in the morning AND an extra half-hour at night. Pardon me, but at a certain point, I have to say F*** the world, I gotta spend some time with my family.

More expensive gas means I have to make sacrifices somewhere else- I go out to lunch less, I buy fewer bike parts, whatever.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Cheap gas*



Zero Signal said:


> I saw an article in a local paper that estimated that people will stop driving at around $4-$5/ga for regular gas. I assume they meant demand will fall dramatically for regular commuters. Now, this will be different for different parts of the country as costs of living (income/costs ratios) will change quite a bit.
> 
> Am I just too much of a cynic or do you think gas prices will need to go much much higher than that $4-$5/ga before you really start to see more people on bikes and other alternative transportation?


Considering the number of cars, trucks, and SUVs you see idling in various parking lots, it is clear that gasoline is not nearly expensive enough to discourage wasting it. Considering the number of very large vehicles you see driving back and forth to work (or other errands) with only one person in them, it is clear that gasoline is not nearly expensive enough to discourage wasting it. Name your example, but it is clear that gasoline is not nearly expensive enough to discourage wasting it. But I repeat myself


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

I already drive about 1/2 the miles I used too. I use my bike if possible for round trips of less than 20 miles if the weather is reasonable. It is less a matter of price than a matter of principle.
There is NO public transportation and the closest store is 7 miles away.


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

I think there'll be little change in driving habits until & unless gas hits $7.00 - 8.00 or more per gallon at today's prices. At that point, most folks are *REALLY* going to have to think about it before they belt up and turn that key. Imo, we, as a nation, will continue to drive until we have to make serious sacrifice in order to continue.


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

We have to change the pattern one driver at a time. Last year there was supposed to be a "gas free" day, where everyone would boycott gas stations. This did not happen, but even if it had, there would have been no impact because they would have purchased the next day. I was listening to the radio and they were saying that if the average driver were to conserve 3 gallons a month, it would devastate the oil companies. Since I heard that I have consciously tried to NOT use at least a gallon a DAY. That is almost a 1/2 tank a week.....I used to fill up every 5 days, now I fill up 3 times a month.


----------



## Zero Signal (Feb 8, 2008)

There will always be special circumstances such as adverse weather, day care runs, etc etc. But I would think a very large percentage of people are not necessarily prohibited by these. I also tend to think a large chunk of the working population works within an hour of work, whether it's walking, biking riding a bus or whatever. Aside from advocating riding a bike, there is usually public transportation and carpooling as well. But what I'm getting at is merely, when will people change their habits to include SOME alternative such as these. How much is the luxury of our cars worth? Yeah a lot of foreign countries have much higher gas prices, but they tend to also have smaller vehicles with smaller engines and some countries have extreme penalties for speeding.


----------



## Treker (Nov 7, 2007)

I think you will see people change to smaller vehicles as gas prices go up before they give up driving all together. In my travels to Europe, Japan, Australia, and yes, even Canada, (where fuel prices have been much higher for a long time) you see far fewer large SUV's and pickups on the roads used for personal transportation. 

In most of Europe a really large vehicle is something along the size of a Jeep Grand Cherokee. I would say an average size vehicle is closer to a Honda Civic, with many being smaller. 

The trend toward smaller vehicles is already starting here in the US. The Big Three (GM, Ford, and Chrysler) are all seeing demand for their large SUV's and pickups decline. We can only hope this trend continues, even if fuel prices stabilize or decline.

Later,

Jay


----------



## hankbrandenburg (Aug 3, 2007)

When gas gets to $10/gallon we might see a decent reduction, but only if the prices rises quickly enough to smack everybody in the face. Otherwise the crack analogy applies very nicely.

I live in a DC suburb and it is full of moms making grocery runs in Chevy Suburbans and other large SUVs. In my neighborhood they even drive them 1-2 blocks from home to pick up their kids from the school bus stop. There seems to be no reaction to creeping fuel prices.


----------



## ElvisMerckx (Oct 11, 2002)

For most, gas isn't something they really worry about. If a person is spending say, $20 a week on gas for their routine driving, when gas prices double, they pay $40 a week -- That's an extra $1000 a year, but $20 bucks a week is easily offset by scaling back unnecessary spending in other areas. If you earn a decent salary, the price of gas really isn't a concern unless you consider it in the greater picture of inflation (or unless you buy into the media hype).

Personally, I care more about the price of food. Why does a gallon of milk pumped from a cow 30 miles from my house cost $4.50 a gallon when a gallon of gasoline, pumped from a well in the Middle East, shipped across the globe, refined and processed through hundreds of miles of pipe, transported by truck to my local gas station only costs $3?


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

ElvisMerckx said:


> For most, gas isn't something they really worry about. If a person is spending say, $20 a week on gas for their routine driving, when gas prices double, they pay $40 a week -- That's an extra $1000 a year, but $20 bucks a week is easily offset by scaling back unnecessary spending in other areas. If you earn a decent salary, the price of gas really isn't a concern unless you consider it in the greater picture of inflation (or unless you buy into the media hype).
> 
> Personally, I care more about the price of food. Why does a gallon of milk pumped from a cow 30 miles from my house cost $4.50 a gallon when a gallon of gasoline, pumped from a well in the Middle East, shipped across the globe, refined and processed through hundreds of miles of pipe, transported by truck to my local gas station only costs $3?


you ever experience the work involved to get a gallon of milk?
on top of the fact that a LOT of the expenses involved are dependent on oil prices!

edit: I live across the road from a small dairy farm, say 100 head....and I do not know two harder working people. They have a nice home and live comfortably but have to BUY a day off (hire help) and are on call 24/7 365 days a year. They do well but earn every penny of it...but you know what?...They aren't getting rich. Oil doesn't spoil, it doesn't need to be refrigerated, it doesn't come from live animals that have to be fed and cleaned up after, a good cow is worth several thousand dollars or more.


----------



## ElvisMerckx (Oct 11, 2002)

Touch0Gray said:


> you ever experience the work involved to get a gallon of milk?


Yes, my uncle was a dairy farmer in Wisconsin -- spent some time there. I also spent a summer on a family farm in Austria. 

And, yes, there are a lot of oil-dependent factors in milk production, but $4.50 a gallon!!?! Sorry, but I'm outraged. My family spends as much on milk a week as we do gas.


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

We pay about $10/ gallon here. At least when the price goes up four dollars, we will _only_ be paying $14/gallon. In the US, the price will more than have doubled.




toomanybikes said:


> Pretty much everywhere in the world, outside of the US gas is significantly more expensive than you pay in the US.
> 
> People still drive.


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

ElvisMerckx said:


> Yes, my uncle was a dairy farmer in Wisconsin -- spent some time there. I also spent a summer on a family farm in Austria.
> 
> And, yes, there are a lot of oil-dependent factors in milk production, but $4.50 a gallon!!?! Sorry, but I'm outraged. My family spends as much on milk a week as we do gas.


Either you guys drink a LOT of milk....or don't drive much...or both...


----------



## Zero Signal (Feb 8, 2008)

The cost of gas hitting $10/ga scares the hell out of me. That's $330 to fill my tank. That's my payment for the second on our 75/25 mortgage. That would be nuts! I'm a fool so I drive a Bronco. Well I drive it as little as possible, but still.


----------



## Gus Riley (Feb 18, 2004)

The following is just me thinking over the big picture and wondering how/why we as Americans have gotten to this point, and how we might advance beyond it. So, IMHO:

To me it appears we're stuck with growing fuel prices. Considering that many third world countries are blossoming, we are going to catch up with the rest of the world in the area of fuel pricing. The world of OPEC needs us less and less as time creeps on. I'm not sure our old deal with the Saudis exists any longer (Oil for protection). Or the region has overwhelmed our capability to protect in the eyes of the Saudi. 

What I worry about is our cultural setup. Our infra-structure here in the US has always been one that is spread out. To a large degree we as a country expanded during a transportation revolution. Steamboats, then steamboats and trains, as the train system expanded we saw the steamboat wane. All the while we as a people expanded as these new transportation systems developed. Then the big jump in mobility came to us (a small new culture already dependent on our new mobility) in the form of the auto. We found our own oil right in our own back yard. Our expansion exploded!

We were and still are quite different from our European cousins. We have developed as a nation around transportation. With exception to many but not all of our inner cities we are a "spread-out" nation/culture. European culture developed long before a revolution in mobility. The culture in Europe centered around how far, fast and conveniently can a person walk. Hence the culture was closer, not dependent on the auto. This is not to say Europeans are not now dependent on the auto...however they are better prepared to live with little to no auto support than the typical American is. For example, Europe in general has developed a far better and more assessable public transportation system. They remain generally centered around villages, town and city regions. We Americans are not so centered.

What is there to worry about here in the US? Non-dependency on our personal oil consuming modes of transportation is not going to go away easily. What took us more than 100 years to become may take 20 or more years to undo. We have not started in that effort. With that, our culture may continue to drive our local mom and pop conveniences out of business. When the stuff really hits the fan, and we as a culture can no longer drive, our infra-structure is not going to be prepared. Walmart might be 25 miles too far, especially in winter time. 

What's the Answer for us Americans as a whole? I would venture to say we might want ot: 
1. Uncap our own oil wells and rid our dependency on foreign oil. 
2. Develop alternate fuel sources such as hydrogen, solar, nuclear, and geo systems.
3. Begin developing better public transportation systems.
4. Begin a process that will bring our culture more toward a local convenience centered society. Where walking is more viable than jumping into our SUV and driving 25 miles to the "local" Walmart. This means more Mom/Pop grocery stores etc.


----------



## Hooben (Aug 22, 2004)

I think that if what you really mean is... When will everyone start to embrace the bicycle as a ligitamate form of transportation. I don't think that the bike will ever be taken seriously as transportation. The majority of people out there think that 20 miles is an impossible distance to cover on a bike. If the price of gas went to 15 dollars a gallon, you would see some other form of car morph out of the crisis. This isn't Europe, and I don't think the bicycle will ever be taken seriously in the states.


----------



## Gus Riley (Feb 18, 2004)

Hooben said:


> ...The majority of people out there think that 20 miles is an impossible distance to cover on a bike. If the price of gas went to 15 dollars a gallon, you would see some other form of car morph out of the crisis. This isn't Europe, and I don't think the bicycle will ever be taken seriously in the states.


I think you are correct in stating that most Americans cannot imagine riding a bike 20 miles. Most even think we ride at a leisurely pace of 3-5 mph. But even hard core bicyclists will have a problem riding 20 miles in the winter with a weeks worth of groceries on board.


----------



## Zero Signal (Feb 8, 2008)

Harsh winter still falls under special circumstances (sort of, since a lot of the country experiences it). 

And, again, I'm not talking just bikes. I'm talking any kind of change, even if it means carpooling or more development of park & rides or high demand for mass transit. I reiterate; When will we start re-evaluating the luxury of our own cars in general.

I do agree that since we've occupied this country, it's always been about spread and taking the physical size of the US for granted. We've developed the common notion that size is luxury. When people think of America, they think big. Big cars, big houses, etc. Space efficiency has never been an issue, unless you're talking NYC or certain locales.

But on the comment regarding distance . . . people think I'm out of my mind to commute 17-18 miles each way. Non cyclists that is. To cyclists, like to you and I, that's less than an hour so it's a piece of cake.


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

I can remember when gas prices were increasing in the 70's and people were stating that they would never be able to afford $1 a gallon gas. Consumpton of gas just keeps rising with along with the price.

Very few places have decent public transportation, so most commuters have no choice but to use a car.


----------



## steven ward (Feb 26, 2007)

Live here in Britain $22 a gallon, **** weather, ****..... oh don't get me going!


----------



## Gus Riley (Feb 18, 2004)

steven ward said:


> Live here in Britain $22 a gallon, **** weather, ****..... oh don't get me going!


We lived in Britain for 3 years. The weather seemed to be wet and nasty for half of the time we were there. The other half was very pleasant. The nice thing about living there was that just about anything we really needed was not too far away (as compared to here in the US). 

Even with the imperial gallon at $22 that is....WOW!! When we were there we were paying around $3-4.00 a gallon, that was in the late '70s early 80s. The conversion rate to pounds from dollars was on the disadvantage side for us. It was really difficult living on your economy for us even back then. But $22 a gallon is a whooper! 

When I factor in inflation and relativity, I doubt we could make it there now with an auto dependency. Without an auto I think we could get by well in the local area. Be it by walking or bicycling. Here in the US...there is not much of a chance or at least not an equal chance of fairing as well without an auto.


----------



## merckxman (Jan 23, 2002)

*Observations*

I think that $22 a gallon in England would have to include the currency conversion from pounds to doillars? Nevertheless, it's still $22 coming out of the pocket.

Here in Italy in the Verona region gas is approx 1.40 Euro per liter now. 

There are thousands of people riding city bikes every day in Verona. This is part cultural and part that the geography is very conducive to cycling around in the city. What is amazing is the amount of public transportation that exists for getting around. many buses are already natural gas and more get converted. We have been living here almost 3 years without a car and it doesn't present any problems. 

Back in NJ, the western part of the state, the problem is the exact opposite: the geography would be very difficult for most people to bike, and there is 0 public transportation between towns. Cars are a must have, you really can't exist without one.


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

London had so much traffic congestion that they have created an expensive toll zone in the city--- and it really isn't that different than NYC. Out in the sticks, anywhere in Europe, there is not much public transportation and people are rather car dependent. While there is generally better public transportation in cities, some of that is due to consolidating other forms of transportation--- like having kids ride public buses, rather than "school buses." Imagine how nice the city buses would be if your kids had to use them daily. Italy actually has a higher rate of car ownership than in the US.

The real issue as I see it is lifestyle. My parents live four blocks form a grocery store in a small town, and they drive everywhere. Everywhere is in walking distance--- they just choose to drive. Most people don't consider the time and fuel to drive a half hour to Walmart, rather than stopping at the local (more expensive) hardware store. I see American driving all over the parking lot just to find a spot close to the door.





Gus Riley said:


> We were and still are quite different from our European cousins. We have developed as a nation around transportation. With exception to many but not all of our inner cities we are a "spread-out" nation/culture. European culture developed long before a revolution in mobility. The culture in Europe centered around how far, fast and conveniently can a person walk. Hence the culture was closer, not dependent on the auto. This is not to say Europeans are not now dependent on the auto...however they are better prepared to live with little to no auto support than the typical American is. For example, Europe in general has developed a far better and more assessable public transportation system. They remain generally centered around villages, town and city regions. We Americans are not so centered.
> 
> What is there to worry about here in the US? Non-dependency on our personal oil consuming modes of transportation is not going to go away easily. What took us more than 100 years to become may take 20 or more years to undo. We have not started in that effort. With that, our culture may continue to drive our local mom and pop conveniences out of business. When the stuff really hits the fan, and we as a culture can no longer drive, our infra-structure is not going to be prepared. Walmart might be 25 miles too far, especially in winter time.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zero Signal (Feb 8, 2008)

> I see American driving all over the parking lot just to find a spot close to the door.


Yeah don't get me started on that . . .


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

If you really want Americans to drive less, you have to give them better options.

Right now, I drive because it's the most convenient option. Take this morning- my wife and I got up, put our daughter in her car seat and drove to breakfast- it's about the only time we can really go out to eat. Then, we drove to the bank- had some stuff that couldn't be done online. Then, we drove to target to get diapers and groceries. Why target and not the grocery store down the street? because at target, diapers cost half what they cost at Copps. And, frankly, when you've got a baby, you'll take just about any excuse to get out of the house. Especially when the weather is like it was this morning- 34 degrees with rain/snow.

All told, we probably drove about 20 miles, 30 minutes spent in transit.

If we took the bus, we would have spent 2 hours in transit AND we wouldn't have been able to buy a week's worth of groceries.


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

I don't think I have ever not lived within walking distance of a grocery store--- in the US or Europe. We buy our diapers in walking distance--- and generally buy our groceries in walking distance (at a different store-- closest store doesn't carry pampers). We make several trips per week to buy food- meaning we get out of the house that much more often. Now that I think about it, there are maybe seven grocery stores in walking distance--- although some would be stretching it. There is a cheaper "warehouse" style store that is a drive from here--- but shopping there is so dehumanizing that I would rather pay a bit extra and keep my soul intact.

I hate taking the bus--- but I will occasionally. I usually bike to work. I won't claim that I never drive, but I would rather bike. With a 16 month old, it is about the only riding I can manage. The other brilliant thing about commuting by bike is that I ride in all weather. I would not normally take a "training ride" in the miserable rain we have all winter.




buck-50 said:


> If you really want Americans to drive less, you have to give them better options.
> 
> Right now, I drive because it's the most convenient option. Take this morning- my wife and I got up, put our daughter in her car seat and drove to breakfast- it's about the only time we can really go out to eat. Then, we drove to the bank- had some stuff that couldn't be done online. Then, we drove to target to get diapers and groceries. Why target and not the grocery store down the street? because at target, diapers cost half what they cost at Copps. And, frankly, when you've got a baby, you'll take just about any excuse to get out of the house. Especially when the weather is like it was this morning- 34 degrees with rain/snow.
> 
> ...


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

$1.50....... exactly...OPTIONS.....living where I do, there are times when there ARE no other options


----------



## rodar y rodar (Jul 20, 2007)

Never NOT lived withing walking distance from a grocery store? Depends on what one considers walking distance, I know, but I`ve never lived where I WAS in walking distance from a grocery store by my way of thinking. Currently in bike distance, but a lot of folks wouldn`t see it that way either. I live out of town now (still not in the "boonies") but the house I grew up in was a good three miles from a grocery store and was not out of town by any means- just a long way from any shopping due to the zoning system in place in this country. On one hand, I think it might go a long ways towards keeping cars parked if there were more of a mix in zoning. On the other hand, the stores that would pop up in residential neighborhoods would probably be paying more for their products than Walmart can send the same product out the door for. A lot of folks would probably use the Walmarts and Targets or Windixies or whatever for once a week big shopping and hit up the place around the corner for whatever they forgot or didn`t know they needed when they did the big shoping. That`s prety much the way that I do it now. I also want to say that gas will have to be unimaginibly high for a large percentage of the US to stop driving completely, but I think it`s finally geting to the point where people are starting to pay attention and try to cut back on their useage. Or maybe it`s just that it finally reached a point where my wife and I have changed behavior and I`m reading that into the whole population- I have no evidence to back up my impression.


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

I COULD walk to the store...but at 5 mph, it would take over 3 hours to get there and back. Still in all I don't drive to the store for a single item very often and will generally just wait until I have a number of reasons to go to town. My wife gets 1.5x the mileage I do but uses well over double the fuel. But she has to drive to work (again, 15 mile round-trip) We all need to conserve...like i said before, I heard that if we all cut back as little as 3 gallons a month it would cut billions from the oil company coffers.
As cyclists we have an option...most of us can't quit driving but if we cut back for an errand or two (and I suspect that most of us are doing that anyhow, regardless of fuel costs) we ARE making a difference. A groundswell movement has to start somewhere... I'm with Rodar here, I know a LOT of people that have changed their habits....and the rest....just complain....


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

IMO what Touch & Rodar are talking about is, I think, the crux of the problem. Because of the success of the automobile, and the attachment to the freedom to go wherever we want, whenever we want, the entire structure of our country changed. 

At the time the auto was invented, cities were cesspools of disease and crime. Many still are, because only the poorest people live there. Anyone who had the means to leave the central area of a city, did so. They moved to the safer, cleaner outskirts. As more people followed in their footsteps, suburbs were born. Over the 20th century, almost all central cities began to collapse. Many central business districts (CBDs) are nearly vacant. Local governments are wringing their hands trying to figure out how to attract businesses and shoppers back to those central areas. Renovation projects look good, but most haven't been real successful.

The central city areas have been replaced by malls. Have you ever tried to walk to a mall? Have you ever tried to walk outside, around the perimeter of a mall? If you have, you know it's damned hard. You might be luck to even find a sidewalk. Malls were/are developed because of, and for automobiles. Urban sprawl isn't happening because of population growth, although that's probably a small factor. Urban sprawl is happening because of the automobile. The family stores where our grandparents used walk to get groceries are gone. They're out of business, and many are vacant buildings. Many new cities, which were built after the advent of the car, have no city center at all. Those cities look like solar systems of shopping malls without a sun in the center.

To say that reversing all this would obviously be a huge problem, would be the understatement of the last 200 years. In order to exist without driving as we do now, an entire new infrastructure would have to be built. Malls would go out of business, people would have to abandon their homes in exurbia, and move back to the cities. (good luck convincing them to do that). Due to his poor vision, my grandfather never owned a car...ever. He got along fine, because he lived in a small town of about 2.700 people. Anybody who lived there could easily walk downtown. (Funny..as I typed it, even the word 'downtown" sounded odd. It's at least taken on a whole new meaning.) Downtown was where ALL the businesses and stores were. Grocery stores, clothing stores, hardware stores, department stores, etc. I took a bike trip to N.Y. last summer, and I went through the town. It's almost unrecognizable. I'd guess that 40-50% of all the stores are vacant and boarded up. Naturally, there's a giant Rite Aid on the town square. I didn't see any grocery stores at all. To buy groceries, one would have to travel 8-10 miles one way. How would you do that without a car? Answer...not without a lot of trouble and inconvenience.

So everything that has happened as far as structure and culture since WWII would have to be reversed. That's a job that I can't even imagine. That's why we continue to drive. That's why we'll continue to drive. IMO, the best thing to hope for is the discovery of a new energy source, hopefully one that causes less environmental damage than our current one does. When gas gets to be 7-$10.00 + per gallon, people will start to cut back. Public transport will become more popular, car pooling will increase, trips to the store will decrease. Maybe neighbors will go shopping together for groceries, clothes, etc. SUVs, large cars, Lincoln Navigators, and Cadillac Escalades will become museum pieces. Most of us will be driving around in cars the size of Altoid cans. 

But, IMO, it's not gonna happen until things get very significantly more inconvienent. Very significantly.


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

I agree- a mall zone is the most unpedestrian friendly environment in existence. I would rather be stranded on a freeway median than try to walk to a mall. 


I have always maintained that I would never live in a neighborhood that didn't have sidewalks. Many suburban areas do not, of course.

While you might suggest that it is "impossible" to overcome what has developed, there are already all sorts of bicycling infrastructure put into place, well after the fact. Handicap curb cutouts were also installed well after the need (and they are great for baby buggies as well). Cities are going back to more and more mixed zoning (retail on the ground floor, offices and housing above). I see changes occurring already--- and I see a lot of empty nesters fleeing the suburbs and returning downtown where there is a bit of life and culture.

The main problem right now, is that many urban schools suck.

Other than that, from a risk perspective, you are much more likely to be seriously injured or killed in a car accident on a longer suburban commute, than injured or killed as a victim of violent crime living in an urban core--- even in Philly. Of course most people do not think that way.


----------



## SantaCruz (Mar 22, 2002)

Americans need to drive cars that get 30 - 35 mpg, or more - that would do a lot to reduce demand and level prices (unless we continue to destabilize oil producing regions).

The only long term solutions are dramatic conservation and to move away from petroleum based combustion.


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

As for public transportation, the logistics of providing it to all or even most americans is impractical at best and more likely impossible. Consider, a bus route even twice a day in my neck of the woods, a loop of 20 to 30 miles returning to a town with one grocery store, one drug store and one large employer for ridership of perhaps 40 per day (if almost everyone used it) would likely use more fuel than people driving. This has to be attacked from a grass-roots level with us being the hub. 
Back in 1970 I think it was Jefferson Starship in Blows Against The Empire (you remember them...well some of you do) said it....


> Tyrannosaurus Rex was destroyed before
> By a furry little ball that crawled along
> The primeval jungle floor
> And he stole the eggs of the dinosaur
> ...


we need to do so VERY serious egg snatching.....


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

fwiw......I am VERY surprised that this hasn't been thrown into PO yet....


----------



## rodar y rodar (Jul 20, 2007)

filtersweep said:


> Other than that, from a risk perspective, you are much more likely to be seriously injured or killed in a car accident on a longer suburban commute, than injured or killed as a victim of violent crime living in an urban core--- even in Philly. Of course most people do not think that way.


That`s probably true, but it has nothing to do with why I chose to live away from town. The main reason is separation from the next bonehead. I don`t want to hear him listening to Hawiaii 5-0 reruns at two in the morning and I don`t want him sniffing my farts through the walls. It`s also nice for views when there`s a good 100 to 300 ft from one house to the next- I can look out any window in any direction and see mountains and desert instead of parked cars and neighbors. And although violent crime isn`t a serious issue "in town" around here, theft and vandalism are getting worse. I`ve lived in my little valley since 1991 and have yet to lock my front door, I`ve never seen graffiti in the neighborhood, when my vehicles are in the driveway I just leave the keys hanging in the ignition, nobody comes knocking on the door to convert me or sell anything. In fact, the one time that I had a pair of trick-or-treaters out here they caught me so much by surprise that all I could find for them was a can of tuna for each. All in all, it`s a very nice life. Unfortunately, it`s also a very irresponsible way to live from an environmental standpoint. As much as it pains the treehugger in me, moving to a downtown or even into town will be the LAST item on my list of things I can do to help the environment.


----------



## rodar y rodar (Jul 20, 2007)

*Small Busses*

I don`t know how successfull it would be around the US (probably depends a lot on exactly where) but I`d like to see a try for smaller busses that could run more frequently than big busses for less. Going to the extreme, many Mexican cities have Volkswagen busses that cruise around their routes and stuff in eight people or so. I think most are independent operations, so they pop up wherever the demand is in the numbers that are supported by the need in each area. Perfect. Something like that might be able to make sense in rural US. Maybe even smaller city busses. Around Reno, there only seems to be one size bus and sometimes they look awfull empty. Gotta wonder how green it is to drive a fleet of half empty busses around all day in addition to all the cars rather than instead of the cars.


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

SantaCruz said:


> Americans need to drive cars that get 30 - 35 mpg, or more - that would do a lot to reduce demand and level prices (unless we continue to destabilize oil producing regions).
> 
> The only long term solutions are dramatic conservation and to move away from petroleum based combustion.


That shouldn't be good enough....I cringe when I see ads for vehicle on TV advertising 30 to 35 mpg...that is mediocre at best That should be the minimum. there is no reason why they can't or won't make vehicles that are far more energy efficient that that. I have had 4 or 5 cars in the past 15 years that have gotten better than 40 mpg, no reason, that is other than collusion with the oil companies. 
I agree whole heartedly with the movement away from petro based fuels but I highly suspect that too is being impeded by the "powers that be"

another question though, why is it that diesel fuel is 20% more than gasoline?.....it requires far less in terms of refining.


----------



## quattrotom (Jul 15, 2006)

Even at $3.50 a gallon, gas is still such a minor cost of owning a car in the US.
Take your 'typical' American driver who does 12,000 miles/year at 20mpg -> 600 gallons
600 gallons/yr x $3.50 = $2100/yr in gas
'Fixed' costs:
Insurance premium for a year ~$500-2000/yr
Depreciation or lease ~$300-400/month -> $3600-4800/yr
tire wear/oil/registration/etc ~$200-$500/yr
Ignore non-warranty repairs

On the low end, gas might be just a 1/3 the cost of owning the car. Gas costs will have to increase by another $2/gallon (well over $5) to make it even half the cost of owning a car for most people.

If you think about the 600 gallon number - an increase of $1/gallon is only $600 extra per year - not a big deal for most people. Once we see a $3 or $4 increase, then it will be interesting


----------



## PDex (Mar 23, 2004)

*Sounds very familiar*

I was in high school during the first gas crisis in '72. I got my drivers license in the mid 70s and was a driving fool during the second crisis in '79. Everything that is being said here was said in the 70s. (With the exception of hydrogen-powered cars.) Things won't change until there is a cheaper alternative. But how people calculate this alternative is not just a dollars and cents calculation, but includes convenience, time, and other personal factors. 

In one job, I commuted about 40 miles. When I left at 6:30, I could be at my desk by 7:10. If I took the bus, I would need to leave 10 minutes earlier to catch the bus, but would not get to my desk until 7:50. The trip home was a bigger disparate difference. So, I got an "extra" hour in the day to do something other than watch the traffic go by. Time is important to people. 

It will be very difficult and costly to shoe-horn efficient transportation systems into the growing cities like Dallas, Denver, Houston, etc. There is a big discussion right now to add rail transportation to Longmont-Boulder-Denver. It will require central train stations and the use of freight lines to get diesel powered trains to Denver. The average commute time to Denver? An hour and 15 minutes. Add in the commute time from the house to the station and you could be spending 3 hours commuting instead of driving 70 minutes. 

I think we should drill, drill, drill for oil just to get rid of the damn stuff as quickly as possible. (Assuming it is a finite resource). Use it all up as quickly as possible to force the market to make changes when it runs out. None of this "to-in' " and "fro-in' ". When it is done it is done and we never have to look back. Think whale oil.


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

Every city should have a toll upon entering-- even on the local roads. Why should outer-ring suburb dwellers who drive in and out of the city each day "enjoy" larger homes and lower property taxes, while pulling their income out from where they earn it? If they want to live in their McMansion, send their kids to a suburban school, yet earn their income in the city, they should pay something to that city to equalize property taxes. Maybe $4/day? It could certainly make things interesting.


----------



## PDex (Mar 23, 2004)

filtersweep said:


> Every city should have a toll upon entering-- even on the local roads. Why should outer-ring suburb dwellers who drive in and out of the city each day "enjoy" larger homes and lower property taxes, while pulling their income out from where they earn it? If they want to live in their McMansion, send their kids to a suburban school, yet earn their income in the city, they should pay something to that city to equalize property taxes. Maybe $4/day? It could certainly make things interesting.


Now you've done it. It's sure to get moved to PO now. 

That's why "wage" taxes were instituted; and when instituted, usually result in business flight from the city.


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

There are far too many roads into an US city, anyway. We have these types of tolls here, and I live very near the edge of the city, so it is a bit of an annoyance, but it also promotes optimizing our trips OUT of the city.

I don't think you can drive into Manhattan without paying some sort of bridge or tunnel toll--- and of course London has its congestion tax. I don't see much business flight in either city.



PDex said:


> Now you've done it. It's sure to get moved to PO now.
> 
> That's why "wage" taxes were instituted; and when instituted, usually result in business flight from the city.


----------



## Gus Riley (Feb 18, 2004)

I recently read that the price of diesel is so much higher for a couple of reasons. First, there is a higher world demand for it. Second, (believe it or not) Katrina has a big impact on it! I have a hard time believing either reason. China and India seem to be where the finger of reason is pointed as far as increase in world demand. However, these two countries’ diesel thirsts have not all of a sudden increased eight fold in the past year and a half. And Katrina!? This I suspect is the grasping for any reasons remotely possible in an effort to line the pockets of those stand to benefit the most from increased fuel prices. 

Another reason has recently surfaced. The cost of unleaded is being kept to a lower level than it really should be. This is done through a shell game of sorts by raising the cost of diesel to offset the cost of unleaded gasoline. Thereby the American public is lulled into thinking their gasoline price is great and it is a good thing they don't have to buy diesel, “Their Mississippi” of sorts. Of course some would see the truth in the fact that they really are paying for diesel through consumer goods.

I think we can avoid another catastrophic occurrence equal or worse than the '30s depression. That is by bringing the development of alternative fuels to a higher priority. If the rest of the world takes their share of fossil fuels, we "are" going to be in a bad way. "Doom and Gloom" I know. But stop and think, "What will this country do without it?" National security would most certainly take most of the share we gain from the "World portions”, this alone would leave the general American public in short supply that only the rich could purchase. I see no other way to satisfy the American necessity for energy than alternative fuels. To me the hand writing is on the wall.

How high will the price of fuel become before the American public cannot afford to buy it? A wild estimate might be $10 a gallon. However, the price for heating oil, natural gas, and electric also play a crucial part in this question. How much can we afford to pay in keeping our homes warm in winter? Again, alternative fuels could be the answer. 

Now go out and explore the possibilities. “What one man can dream, others can make possible.” Quoted from an unknown source (unknown to me anyway)


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

That is strange, in Europe, diesel is generally cheaper than petrol.

http://www.aaroadwatch.ie/eupetrolprices/
http://www.see-search.com/business/fuelandpetrolpriceseurope.htm



Gus Riley said:


> I recently read that the price of diesel is so much higher for a couple of reasons. First, there is a higher world demand for it. Second, (believe it or not) Katrina has a big impact on it! I have a hard time believing either reason. China and India seem to be where the finger of reason is pointed as far as increase in world demand. However, these two countries’ diesel thirsts have not all of a sudden increased eight fold in the past year and a half. And Katrina!? This I suspect is the grasping for any reasons remotely possible in an effort to line the pockets of those stand to benefit the most from increased fuel prices.
> 
> Another reason has recently surfaced. The cost of unleaded is being kept to a lower level than it really should be. This is done through a shell game of sorts by raising the cost of diesel to offset the cost of unleaded gasoline. Thereby the American public is lulled into thinking their gasoline price is great and it is a good thing they don't have to buy diesel, “Their Mississippi” of sorts. Of course some would see the truth in the fact that they really are paying for diesel through consumer goods.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gus Riley (Feb 18, 2004)

filtersweep said:


> That is strange, in Europe, diesel is generally cheaper than petrol.
> 
> http://www.aaroadwatch.ie/eupetrolprices/
> http://www.see-search.com/business/fuelandpetrolpriceseurope.htm


Until very recently, it has always been far cheaper here in the US as well. A mystery it is.


----------



## Joshua Finch (Mar 31, 2008)

There is a real reason why places with bad climates never saw large populations grow until electricity and combustion engines.

Funny how now we think we SHOULD be living in places where you can't go anywhere without a vehicle, living someplace where otherwise you would be snowed in...


----------



## PDex (Mar 23, 2004)

*Interesting that you mention NY.*



filtersweep said:


> There are far too many roads into an US city, anyway. We have these types of tolls here, and I live very near the edge of the city, so it is a bit of an annoyance, but it also promotes optimizing our trips OUT of the city.
> 
> I don't think you can drive into Manhattan without paying some sort of bridge or tunnel toll--- and of course London has its congestion tax. I don't see much business flight in either city.


Yes, NY was also considering a congestion tax but was voted down recently by the state legislature. Yes there are tolls to use bridges, tunnels for Boston, NY, Philly, Balto, etc. I'm not sure if you are talking about an additional $4 (or so) on top of these existing tolls. 

Most suburbs around Philly now have their own version of the wage tax.

http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/PhilInqEIT.htm 

And you want them to pay more? 

Philly lost a lot of business when the wage tax was instituted. At the time, my father worked for GE near Drexel. Eventually the division was moved from a convenient spot near 30th Street Station out to King of Prussia - a move that required my father to commute by car. There are many more examples. Check out "A Prayer for the City" which featured Ed Rendell's fight to bring in and keep businesses in Philly.

$4.00/day * 5 days/wk * 50 wks/yr = an additional $1000/yr in taxation. Not many cities in the world are like London - it is a world-class city with many cultural amenities. Institute the commuting head tax in places like Philly, Cleveland, Baltimore, Detroit will only propagate each city's decline.

EDIT: Sorry. After re-reading my post I realize it is a stream of consciousness posting.


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

interestingly enough, the diesel engine was invented to run on vegetable oil. My son-in-law, who is by trade, a diesel mechanic, runs his 75 mercedes diesel on 100% recycled fryer grease in the summer, in the winter, he drives our old neon that gets 40 t0 55 mpg on unleaded. The other car, a jetta diesel, runs on bio diesel, which itself has inherent problems .

We need to explore new fuels, we need to conserve, we need to remember it is NOT all about the cost.....it's about taking care of a relatively fragile ecosystem too. I use my bike more and car less more to conserve than to save money....


----------



## rodar y rodar (Jul 20, 2007)

Gus Riley said:


> How high will the price of fuel become before the American public cannot afford to buy it? A wild estimate might be $10 a gallon. However, the price for heating oil, natural gas, and electric also play a crucial part in this question. How much can we afford to pay in keeping our homes warm in winter? Again, alternative fuels could be the answer.


Yeah, with most of the talk around driving I tend to forget about the other uses of fossil fuel. Unfortunately, the cost of heating our homes goes up pretty much at the same rate as the cost of driving to the mall but there`s less that can be done about it. The real shame is that a lot of folks are going to find it really tough to keep their houses heated even to say 50F inside while another bunch of folks is still grumbling about the cost of that drive to the mall or to the office.

Toll to enter "the city"? Hmmm. I wouldn`t like to see a toll booth on the highway, but I have to admit that some kind of T-A-X would be fair. I make my way from my trailer (AKA McMansion) to town at least once a week for shopping, entertainment, or just hanging out by the river. It`s the outskirts I want- not an empty tundra. Same thing the rest of my neighbors want, I suppose. Makes sense that we should pay some for the city we depend on even though our addresses are outside the oficial limits.


----------



## MTT (Oct 14, 2005)

I don't know how high prices need to go, but I hope they make us change two key factors in American culture soon. First the way we develop (and rehab) communities in the future. Someone mentioned earlier we have to be closer to the things we have to do to survive. I can't blame the guy for not getting on the bus with a 6 month old; most of us don't have a choice, because of poor planning (or cheap gas) in the past. 

Second we need to transform all the cities that don't have good public transportation, and I am not just talking about new western large towns and cities, this should be done up and down the east coast as well. I can use Seattle as an example, because I live and commute here. We get 74% of our electricity from hydroelectric plants, yet our public transportation system is mostly diesel-powered buses (some electric downtown, which is good). We need trains badly! We have really bad traffic problems every day, and we are 1/10 the size of cities that deal much better with daily volumes much higher than ours. 

On a positive note there are more Priuses than any other new car. I think more and more people are connecting the dots. I sold my car; for many reasons, but the main one is I don't like the man I become when I drive every day. Anger management- sell your car and get a new bike- that is my formula for keeping sane (and married)........MTT :cryin:


----------



## Gus Riley (Feb 18, 2004)

They say there is a silver lining to every difficult situation. I guess the upside to our gas prices as they are now and as they continue to grow is that every time I fill up one of my vehicles I think I come close to doubling the value of said vehicle.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

Joshua Finch said:


> There is a real reason why places with bad climates never saw large populations grow until electricity and combustion engines.
> 
> Funny how now we think we SHOULD be living in places where you can't go anywhere without a vehicle, living someplace where otherwise you would be snowed in...


Yeah, you keep telling yourself that when the water runs out down south. We get snow, we get rain, we get water. For that, you can keep your warm winters to yourself.


----------



## Leopold Porkstacker (Jul 15, 2005)

Sometime last year it suddenly dawned on me that I was driving 170 miles per week to get to/from work, so I decided it was ripe time to start biking 3 to 4 days per week. As a result, I have managed to get that figure down between 34 - 68 miles per week of driving, and the rest on the bike. It takes about 10 minutes longer by bicycle than by car, by the way. Meanwhile, my wife is away on international business this week, and I am picking up/dropping off the kids at daycare, so I have no choice but to drive them (takes 45 - 55 minutes to get to or from work) so I’m driving her Prius so as to not feel the financial constraint as much (we just paid it off two weeks ago). Two years ago I drove her Prius exclusively for 2.5 months while she was in the hospital and I managed to get a whopping 56.4 MPG out of it driving it like a complete hypermiling grandma. I panicked when the gas engine started jerking, which meant that the three electronic warnings from the car really meant that I NEEDED GAS NOW, but I got over 540 miles on a tank of gas before the car started acting silly.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

The real problem is that right now, in America, most of us have a certain amount of driving we pretty much HAVE to do. 

Our lives are built around a de-centralized world. We buy houses where we can afford them. We work where we get paid the best. Rarely are the two close. And even if they are close for one, what are the chances of work being close to home for two working adults? pretty slim.

Our families are scattered across the city, or even the country. My brother may only live 10 minutes from my parent's house, but I live 6 hours away. Holidays = driving- it's not like there's a train, and you can suggest the bus until your face turns blue, but that ain't gonna happen until greyhound is replaced by someone who cares.

Anyone who says that people driving less is a good thing is an idiot. WHy? because right now, there's no infrastructure to replace driving. So if people are driving less, it means that they're doing less. People still have to go to work and school, so they'll spend their gas money on that. What they won't spend their money on is vacations, drives into the country to buy farm-fresh whatever, drives downtown to the art gallery or the museum or the theater.

Right now, people driving less means people will be spending less on some of the few things that are still actually made locally.

And when food prices go up and selection goes down because it's too expensive to ship fresh, out of season veggies, more people suffer.


----------



## Leopold Porkstacker (Jul 15, 2005)

buck-50 said:


> The real problem is that right now, in America, most of us have a certain amount of driving we pretty much HAVE to do.
> 
> Our lives are built around a de-centralized world. We buy houses where we can afford them. We work where we get paid the best. Rarely are the two close. And even if they are close for one, what are the chances of work being close to home for two working adults? pretty slim.


Funny you mention the proximity thing, as last year I turned down a gig making $27,000.00 per year more to go work somewhere 10 miles closer to home. Was I stupid? I dunno. Still on the fence about that career “move”. Not like VMWare is the _best_ company to work for, afterall, but certainly the work would have been more high-tech than I am currently involved in… but I have more time to spend with my wife and two boys, and 34 mile round-trip on a bike is certainly a lot easier than a 54 mile round-trip! :thumbsup:


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

When we relocated, we went "car lite"--- and chose to live somewhere near a bus line in the city. While I almost never use the bus (rather bike) it is there if we need it. I would rather pay an extra $500/month in mortgage than for an extra vehicle. Our house has already appreciated by more than 50% in two years. Our car would have only depreciated.

We could have paid the same money for a larger house, out in the sticks--- and have been required to buy a second car... and used both cars far more often.

People can afford what they choose to afford. It is all priorities. Secondly, it isn't idiotic to drive less. It merely redistributes spending differently--- and likely HELPS local businesses as the expense of the big box retailers.



buck-50 said:


> The real problem is that right now, in America, most of us have a certain amount of driving we pretty much HAVE to do.
> 
> Our lives are built around a de-centralized world. We buy houses where we can afford them. We work where we get paid the best. Rarely are the two close. And even if they are close for one, what are the chances of work being close to home for two working adults? pretty slim.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cycle_Spice (Jun 28, 2006)

I know it's OFF TOPIC but I stopped driving at $1.20/L I've got a WRX I don't drive, so I'm selling it.


----------



## francoaa (Mar 19, 2008)

Oxtox said:


> as long as they continue to push the price upwards in at least an incremental method...a few cents here, a nickel there, people will just keep sucking it up and griping but not changing behavior.
> 
> If you woke up tomorrow and gas suddenly went from near $4 to $7.50 or $8 a gallon, I think the reaction for some would be to immediately curtain unnecessary trips, combine errands, take the bus, carpool...or, oh yeah, maybe walk or ride a bike to a place they normally drive.
> 
> Getting people to wean themselves from the personal auto is probably more difficult than getting people off crack.


I have seen many post about this. So instead of reading everyone's (sorry and do not know it all either) best example of my thought. I agree with above statement. It will be hard for americans to wean themselves off gas. I kinda of blame the government. Since common you all they knew this day was coming back in the 70's. So we still made more roads and more urban neighborhoods. Plus did not our big guy in the that big white house just cut millions of dollars off amtraks budget. I mean what is right with that decision? Duh? So the people we elect are all doing us in. Pluse congress still has not even consider to lower the speed limit on our roads back to 55mph. Remember when they did that. Does this mean I am too old to be on this if remembering all this?


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

#1 I don't see any reason to move this to PO, we are just discussing reasons to commute by bike.

#2 Miss M and I were talking about how we are going to need to buy another tank of gas sometime fairly soon-in the next couple of months or so. It will be our first of the year. Let's see..... 27 gallon tank x $3.50 a gallon=not even $100=pretty cheap if you ask me.

#3 We saw a big increase in the number of bike commuters when gas prices jumped after Katrina and no real decrease since then. It will likely take another big jump in price before there is another big jump in cycle commuters.

#4 BOB trailers solve all those "the store is too far to walk" issues. We are thinking about geting a second trailer so we can both haul things at the same time. Cyclists should really think about getting a trailer, I am convinced they will pay for themselves in a year or less.

#5 There is no bad weather, just bad clothing. I have yet to experience weather that keeps me off the bike for more than a day or so. Weather tends to come and go and if you really need to you can always take a shovel and clean off those nasty stretches of snow/ice that mess up your commute.

#6 Burbs really do suck for cycling but it is amazing how many malls you can ride your bike to without much problem if you search for good routes.

#7 Nice discussion.


----------



## Becky (Jun 15, 2004)

The question of the expenses of diesel vs. gas came up earlier in this thread. 

Check out http://www.caranddriver.com/feature..._when_the_world_is_running_short_of_it_column

From the article:
"Al Mannato, a fuel-issues manager at API, explains that oil refineries tend to fall into two categories: catalytic cracking and hydrocracking. Most U.S. refineries are set up for catalytic cracking, which turns each barrel of crude oil into about 50-percent gasoline, 15-percent diesel, and the remainder into jet fuel, home heating oil, heavy fuel oil, liquefied petroleum gas, asphalt, and various other products. In Europe and most of the rest of the world, refineries use a hydrocracking process, which produces more like 25-percent gasoline and 25-percent diesel from that barrel of oil. So the rest of the world is already maximizing diesel production. In fact, despite using a refining strategy that minimizes the production of gasoline, Europe still ends up with too much of the stuff, so it exports it to America—about one of every eight gallons of gasoline that we consume. 

Meanwhile, Americans are already using most of the diesel fuel that our refineries produce, so if sales of diesel cars take off, keeping the diesel flowing here will put further demands on tight worldwide diesel supplies and probably cause the price to rise even more. Our oil industry could, of course, start converting its refineries from catalytic to hydrocracking and start producing more diesel and less gasoline. 

Doing so—and here’s the Catch-22—would reduce the output of gasoline and likely increase its price. Moreover, such a switch, Mannato explains, amounts to a major refinery change that would take 5 to 10 years to accomplish. Building some new hydrocracking refineries would add diesel capacity without squeezing gasoline supplies, but due to their nearly universal unpopularity, there hasn’t been a new refinery built in America since 1979. "

Interesting food for thought...especially as DH and I debate purchasing a diesel as our next car. We will certainly commute by bike as much as possible, but can't escape the need for a reliable car at least occasionally.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

filtersweep said:


> People can afford what they choose to afford. It is all priorities. Secondly, it isn't idiotic to drive less. It merely redistributes spending differently--- and likely HELPS local businesses as the expense of the big box retailers.


Sorry- maybe too harsh. Lemme 'splain.

Of course, driving less in the long term is a great thing. Getting ourselves weaned from cars is an important change and could seriously improve our quality of life. In the long run.

Short term, driving less is bad. Short term, there aren't a whole lot of options for most folks. We've got an infrastructure designed for and around cars, and that can't change overnight. We don't have reliable short-range public transportation (trams, buses, commuter rail) in most of our cities and towns, we don't have reliable medium-range transportation (inter and intra-state rail, long range buses that don't suck) in great chunks of North America, and our cities are built around commuters living in the burbs and driving to get stuff.

It's gonna take a generation to fix this. Short term, there aren't a lot of quick fixes.

Every year, my city builds more bike paths (practical ones, too- not just pretty ones), more bike/pedestrian bridges over major streets and highways. But the budget is only so big, and they can only do so much every year. The streets still have to be maintained for cars. My city is working on commuter rail options and improved buslines, and even intra-state rail. But it's all gonna take a while. My daughter will (hopefully) see the fruits of my tax dollars. And so will I, but it won't be tomorrow. And in the mean time, There's still a lot of driving that has to be done. 

On top of that, you can't force people to change. They have to want to change. And to want to change, they have to see more benefits in the new way of doing things. And one of the things that's going to have to change is our love of instant gratification. Cars=I can get what I want when I want, [email protected] the cost. Public transportation=I have to think ahead, and do I really need that?

That's a pretty big change.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*just smaller*

I agree with one of the above posts, people will never "give up" driving, they'll just migrate toward more efficient vehicles. I don't think people ride bikes because of the cost of gas. I think people ride bikes because they like it.

Gas prices edging higher and higher will, I think, definitely start people thinking about more and more fuel efficient vehicles. Heck, my neighbor recently sold his Hummer and bought a Suburban! On down the chain, people will tend toward more efficient, even if not everyone makes the leap straight to a Prius.


----------



## MTT (Oct 14, 2005)

Yes more tolls- for all cities, because we almost never factor in how much the health and environmental factors cost. We have to take our environment into account. I have heard several people on here talk of their children, well what kind of world do you want them to get? All of my friends that live in NY take the train to work, I wish I had that option here in Seattle. 

MTT


----------



## MB1 (Jan 27, 2004)

*Let's try this scenario.....*



Fixed said:


> I agree with one of the above posts, people will never "give up" driving, they'll just migrate toward more efficient vehicles. I don't think people ride bikes because of the cost of gas. I think people ride bikes because they like it.......


The price of a gallon of gasoline in the US goes up to $5.00 in the next year or so. Then there is a recession of some duration and gas prices in the US slowly drop back down to $3.50 a gallon.

The recession ends.

A couple of years later hordes of drivers go out and purchase a nice new big low-milage vehicle for the "safety, comfort and style."

It has happened before......

I'm just sayin'


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Touch0Gray said:


> That shouldn't be good enough....I cringe when I see ads for vehicle on TV advertising 30 to 35 mpg...that is mediocre at best That should be the minimum. there is no reason why they can't or won't make vehicles that are far more energy efficient that that. I have had 4 or 5 cars in the past 15 years that have gotten better than 40 mpg, no reason, that is other than collusion with the oil companies.


I am with you. There is NO reason we can not have medium to large cars and mid-size SUV/Pick-up trucks getting 45-55 MPG.

My Dad laughs like hell whe I tell him my Ford Explorer get 13-15 MPG is the city. He says his Dodge Tradesman Van from *1979 *got aboput the same milage per gallon. So in close to 30yrs engines can get more fuel efficent?

You are DAMN RIGHT their is something going on.

To make a long story short, years ago my Grandad was working on a hydro/air powerd engine that could power a small car. Chyrsler and an oil company paid him off to never pantent the engine ealry stages and give up. Needing the money he gave in.

Way too much money for us to ever truly get more efficent petro cars.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

MB1 said:


> #4 BOB trailers solve all those "the store is too far to walk" issues. We are thinking about geting a second trailer so we can both haul things at the same time. Cyclists should really think about getting a trailer, I am convinced they will pay for themselves in a year or less.
> 
> #5 There is no bad weather, just bad clothing. I have yet to experience weather that keeps me off the bike for more than a day or so. Weather tends to come and go and if you really need to you can always take a shovel and clean off those nasty stretches of snow/ice that mess up your .


Yeah, taking my kids to school my be fun in one of those when it's 90+ degress outside with impending thunder storms everyday!  .


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Well I am very close to the breaking point right now. I will be looking to sell my Explorer very soon if gas continues to go up and fails to stabalize under $3 a gallon. I drive 7 miles each way to work 5 days a week, then another 6 miles to get my kids from school/grandparents around noon.

But $55-60 every 5-8 days is gettig to be a bit much. I am now trying to bike to work 3-4 days a week. Cutting back overall driving and speed. 

I will be looking into a smaller Hybrid SUV/Track or car by ealry next year. It must get at least 20-22 MPG in the city, be a nice vehicle and fun to drive/own.

Lot's Tree-Huggers tell me I should not complain and it's my fault for owning a SUV. Well wehn I bouhgt it in the summer of 2005 gas was what $1.75-1.80 a gallon when I bought it. I had o problems with that type of pricing back then. Also who KNEW it would be as high as it is now in less than 3 yrs.

SO NOW I need to do something.

When do must American's give up? Who know. Maybe $6-8 a gallon?

It's harder than people to realize to give up a luxury like we enjoy and try other ways to get around and too work. Not everyone can live in the city and walk to work and every where else.

We are trying to stay closer to work (more the wife) by living in a small er house/lot and keep close to the downtown area. Yes, we give up a pool, 6 room house, etc to keep our driving/commuting down.

But not everyone can! Rding the bus from 2-3 hrs for most to get to work in NOT resonable.


----------



## skulls (Sep 15, 2005)

Sadly, in my view, retail gasoline prices are now where near high enough to make a real dent in gasoline demand. I think it would take gasoline prices well in excess of $10 a gallon before you noticed any real change. People will cut back on other things, like eating out, entertainment, even rent, but not on driving. Too many houses are located too far away from schools/shopping/work to offer the option of "not driving." Also, it's just ingrained in US culture. People really think that because they go to work and pay taxes, they have the right to cheap gasoline and new highways where ever they go. 

The good news, however, is that as oil prices keep rising, you'll see increased interest in and support for things like bike lanes, bike commuting, better public transportation, and communities built with fewer car trips in mind. Even better, you will see renewable energy applications such as electric cars and second generation biofuels become cost competitive with gasoline. I believe that enough money is being invested in basic research regarding renewable energy right now that in 10-15 years, you will see some new energy sources that actually work economicallly, and in about 25 years people will actually use them. For all that people complain, high oil prices are the best thing for the world right now. They are keeping Mexico and Venezuela off financial life support (for now), and are forcing people to look into alternatives in a way that government regulations or programs never can.


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

Fixed said:


> I agree with one of the above posts, people will never "give up" driving, they'll just migrate toward more efficient vehicles. I don't think people ride bikes because of the cost of gas. I think people ride bikes because they like it.
> 
> Gas prices edging higher and higher will, I think, definitely start people thinking about more and more fuel efficient vehicles. Heck, my neighbor recently sold his Hummer and bought a Suburban! On down the chain, people will tend toward more efficient, even if not everyone makes the leap straight to a Prius.


correct me if I am wrong please, but isn't a Hummer just a Suburban with different sheet metal and wheels?


----------



## MTT (Oct 14, 2005)

One more point I know many of you see, but has to be made again. Our addiction to middle eastern oil and gas is fueling the extremists who are trying to kill us. Recent information (in a LA divorce of all places) has shown that Bin Laden did not have as much of his family's money as we once assumed. So where does he get the money to fund Al Qieda (not worth looking up the spelling)? Saudi friends who support his view of the world (among others in the region). 

If the Nazis sold oil to fuel their distorted world view, would we not have found another way? No way around it driving a Hummer is a bad choice on many levels, including our policy in the middle east. I know several Marines that have been over there and they know why we are there, and most don't agree with W. They go back because Marines are there, end of story................MTT :mad2:


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Touch0Gray said:


> correct me if I am wrong please, but isn't a Hummer just a Suburban with different sheet metal and wheels?


The H2 is a Tahoe in Hummer Clothing. The H3 a Tralblazer.

Now a *real* Hummer is totally different all together and is made by AM General.
Like the H1 and Humvee used by the Military.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*close*



DIRT BOY said:


> The H2 is a Tahoe in Hummer Clothing. The H3 a Tralblazer.
> 
> Now a *real* Hummer is totally different all together and is made by AM General.
> Like the H1 and Humvee used by the Military.


H2 to Suburban. Their drive train is very similar, but the H2 gets 1-2 mpg worse, as it's quite a bit chunkier. The point of it is the small change, incremental steps these things might take. Few may go from H2 to Prius, but at every category of vehicle, many might tend toward the next increment or two of efficiency. It may add up to something.


----------



## JeffS (Oct 3, 2006)

Touch0Gray said:


> $1.50....... exactly...OPTIONS.....*living where I do*, there are times when there ARE no other options



Well there's the problem...

It's all brought on by the initial choice that everyone conveniently forgets they made.


----------



## rodar y rodar (Jul 20, 2007)

I think Fixed is right that people don`t generally bicycle to work because it`s cheaper as much as because they like it. Some exceptions, of course, but no matter how high gasoline goes most people aren`t as studmuffinly as the MBs are will pay what they need to for gas, carpool, move, whatever before biking as a form of transportation. Well, of those who don`t already bike anyway.
EDIT: Maybe that`s a good thing. The thought of my wife driving home from work in her car is bad enough- the image of her weaving back and forth on the shoulder of the highway while she struggled to pedal up from town is more than I could stomach.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Fixed said:


> H2 to Suburban. Their drive train is very similar, but the H2 gets 1-2 mpg worse, as it's quite a bit chunkier.


Sure? 

The H2 is built under contract by AM General at a specially constructed plant in Mishawaka, Indiana, USA. Although it shares GM's GMT820 truck platform with the Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon, those vehicles differ in many ways and are constructed in three other GM plants. The H2's final frame assembly is made up of 3 sections: The front uses a modified GM 2500-Series utility frame, the mid-section is all new and is completely boxed, and the rear section uses a modified GM 1500-Series frame which is upgraded for the 8,600 pound (3629 kg) gross vehicle weight. The hummer H2 does 0-60 in 14.7 secods.

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2008-hummer-h2.htm

*News*
Redesigned H2s are now expected for 2010, two years later than earlier reported, but will still move to GM's latest "T900" large-truck architecture. Today's H2 uses the T800 platform now phasing out among GM's biggest pickups and mainstream SUVs. Sources say the replacements will be somewhat smaller, lighter, and presumably more fuel-efficient, which we hope is not just wishful thinking.

EDIT: The Tahoe and Surburban use the same T800 platform. Just the body is longer on the Syrburban. So we are both right!


----------



## MTT (Oct 14, 2005)

Hopefully soon they can buy a plug in hybrid mini-van or truck. I know it is judgemental, but I can't understand the need for a Suburban, unless maybe 6 people are car pooling. I am so out of step with most of American culture that I may never understand...........MTT


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*fuel economy*

Better MPG is the point. H2 gets 10-14, and Suburban gets 15-20, according to <a href="http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suv/112_0611_fullsize_suv_comparison/chevrolet_suburban_interior_engine.html"> Motor Trend</a>. Not exactly steller, but an incremental improvement.


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

JeffS said:


> Well there's the problem...
> 
> It's all brought on by the initial choice that everyone conveniently forgets they made.


HOWEVER....I used exactly 150 gallons of LP to heat my house this winter, in WI, a cold snowy year....
I also work on premise and only drive maybe 3 days a week.


----------



## MTT (Oct 14, 2005)

Well at this point we need to make all the changes we can- you are right every bit helps, and at least they are starting to think about it. I am waiting to buy a new car. A plug in hybrid would bring my MPG up into the hundred range, as we rarely go farther than 20 miles round trip, and neither my wife nor I have to drive to work. There are some really cool electric and/or hybrid ideas out there, I hope many of them actually get to market. Again I can wait since I don't have kids and I live near all the stores I need to live well, so I can get away with waiting...........MTT :thumbsup:


----------



## rodar y rodar (Jul 20, 2007)

Touch0Gray said:


> HOWEVER....I used exactly 150 gallons of LP to heat my house this winter, in WI, a cold snowy year....
> I also work on premise and only drive maybe 3 days a week.


Wow, how did you manage that? Alternate heat source? Super insulation? Thermometer set at 40F?


----------



## akatsuki (Aug 12, 2005)

There are infrastructural problems, but really, reading through the comments, people value their supposed independence and their McMansions over the price of commuting or their time. One advantage of taking the train to work is I can read a book and not waste an hour commuting three miles like I used to in Chicago.

It is the chicken-egg problem, drivers fight investment in public transit but then use the lack of transit as an excuse. My view is let 'em drive but they should pay for it. I would just be happy ending the massive public subsidies to the car infrastructure. Let drivers fund the oil wars.


----------



## JohnnyTooBad (Apr 5, 2004)

I don't think cars will go away. People will drive smaller cars, and we'll start to see more plug-in electric. Think about the Tessla. A sports car that can do 0-60 in something like 5 seconds and go over 200 miles on a charge, and be charged (with a powerful home based charger) in about 4 hours. It's an expensive car, at $90k, but a toned down version could be a real option for car commuters. Then, go and run the power generator facilities on nuclear, wind, solar and hydro, and the need for gas go way down. Just put solar panels on your roof, and use the electricity to charge your car, and you are now at $0 for fuel costs. The truck drivers will suffer, though, which will make goods more expensive.

But link this thread to the threads about dealing with companies and facility managers that seem to be anti-bike, and you get an issue that needs dealing with.

I might need to buy a Bob, or use my kid trailer to start hauling things on my bike.

I also have a Honda Reflex. It's a 250cc "scooter" (can do 80mph - freeway legal), that gets 60mpg in stop&go traffic, 70mpg on the highway. So that's an option also. I use that when I have to go to other local offices during the day.

Gas was over $3.50 last night.

In reality, I see this price spike as temporary. I sort of wish it wasn't, as I don't drive much, but supplies are high, and demand is low. The price will come down, although it may take gov't regulation to do it, as right now, the oil companies are simply gouging the consumer. I can't wait to see Exxon's earnings for '08. I'm betting on $10B/qtr, and over $40B for the year.


----------

