Domestic departures - lets wave goodbye.

[HoustonB]

When peak oil is generally accepted by the markets, prices globally will climb like never before and with zero probability of a respite. I have been anticipating this event since 2005 and see it as both overdue and inevitable.

Media discussion of oil consumption (from a USA perspective) seems to be split between the increasing dependence on foreign states that might be a source of terrorists and to a lesser extent environmental damage. There seems to be little talk along the lines of "what plans should we (society) make for when, to all intents and purposes, oil can be considered a thing of the past".

If it happened tomorrow the results would be catastrophic - a sudden mass transition from private vehicles to public transport, would cripple a system that in many places is already overstretched. How many people will choose to default on their outrageous monthly car payments, when all it can do is sit on the driveway and no longer has any intrinsic value? The housing market is already going through a correction catalyzed by defaulters in sub-prime loans. What if the strength of the US economy is merely an appearance of strength? A tipping point may be much closer than we think!

One of the things that many (obviously not all) Americans take for granted is the ability to travel considerable distances in their own vehicles. Jump in the car, drive and top up the gas tank along the way. This paradigm will be the first to go. It is unsustainable and makes no sense from any perspective. Private vehicles will be tethered to home, unless America can repeat something similar to the massive investments that built the Interstate system - a complete rebuild of the national rail system with something that allows people to drive their (now much smaller) private vehicles to the local station and then be whisked in the same vehicle across the nation at incredible speed.

The need for this massive undertaking will become more apparent when jet fuel is generally accepted to be a luxury restricted for use on trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific flights only - domestic departures will soon be a thing of the past, for all countries. The collapse (or significant reshuffle) of the domestic US air industry will be fascinating to watch, so many are in and out of receivership already. The clock is ticking.

PS. I've been car free for a number of years now but the temptation to drop a few grand on a car is ever present - if anything decent is built to replace the USA's truly appalling rail infrastructure, then I hope I can ride on, take a seat, relax, eat, watch a movie (or work) and ride off.

[JeffS]

I am a little skeptical about the practicality of rail in this country. There's just too much land.

It faces the same challenges that mass transit does in cities still struggling to get a usable system in place - that being sprawl. The average distance of residents from city center is typically increasing exponentially. They will not be serves by the initial phases of contruction and thus will not support it. Sure, you could connect major cities but this, again, only serves a subset of the population.

My preference would be to move freight back onto rail. The trucking industry is so large currently though, that I believe they would fight this tooth and nail. Only when there is a strong sense of urgency will the powers that be even consider such a restructure.

[bragi]

I am a little skeptical about the practicality of rail in this country. There's just too much land.

It faces the same challenges that mass transit does in cities still struggling to get a usable system in place - that being sprawl. The average distance of residents from city center is typically increasing exponentially. They will not be serves by the initial phases of contruction and thus will not support it. Sure, you could connect major cities but this, again, only serves a subset of the population.

My preference would be to move freight back onto rail. The trucking industry is so large currently though, that I believe they would fight this tooth and nail. Only when there is a strong sense of urgency will the powers that be even consider such a restructure.

That sense of urgency might come sooner rather than later. Historically, sprawl is a recent phenomenon, made possible only by the availability of really, really cheap fuel. If that goes away, and it looks as if it will, then people will decide that having a 5000 sq ft house in a sea of tract housing, 30 miles away from work, is not nearly as desirable as much smaller place much closer to the center. It's happening already. In many US cities, real estate in central districts is still increasing in value, while suburban properties are tanking. IMO, this trend will accelerate; in the very near future, spread-out suburbs will either become slums or be abandoned completely, in favor of denser developments that don't require a lot of drivng to get anywhere. Places that are connected to efficient public transportation will be much more common, and we'll eventually return to a model resembling that of early 20th century cities. Whether we like it or not. (These ideas are not original, but that doesn't make them any less true...;))

[Sammyboy]

I am a little skeptical about the practicality of rail in this country. There's just too much land.


I'm a little sceptical about the practicality of your country on the same basis. It's too big. Time for a break up into smaller nations. :)

[wahoonc]

I am a little skeptical about the practicality of rail in this country. There's just too much land.

It faces the same challenges that mass transit does in cities still struggling to get a usable system in place - that being sprawl. The average distance of residents from city center is typically increasing exponentially. They will not be serves by the initial phases of contruction and thus will not support it. Sure, you could connect major cities but this, again, only serves a subset of the population.

My preference would be to move freight back onto rail. The trucking industry is so large currently though, that I believe they would fight this tooth and nail. Only when there is a strong sense of urgency will the powers that be even consider such a restructure.

Rail was the primary means of long distance transport for almost 100 years in the US. Was it super convenient like a car no, but neither were cars until the Interstate Highway system was developed. Freight definitely needs to move back to rail, there is no real reason to move freight from coast to coast by semi truck load. There are many, many small towns still on the main rail lines they just aren't served anymore. I expect to see that change in the future. I also don't see why they couldn't take half of an interstate and lay tracks on it;) :D (I realize they may need some upgrades to the infrastructure, but the government already owns the land)
Edit: remove repeated words
Aaron:)

[HoustonB]

I am a little skeptical about the practicality of rail in this country. There's just too much land.

It faces the same challenges that mass transit does in cities still struggling to get a usable system in place - that being sprawl. The average distance of residents from city center is typically increasing exponentially. They will not be serves by the initial phases of construction and thus will not support it. Sure, you could connect major cities but this, again, only serves a subset of the population.

My preference would be to move freight back onto rail. The trucking industry is so large currently though, that I believe they would fight this tooth and nail. Only when there is a strong sense of urgency will the powers that be even consider such a restructure.
"Too much land" - yes the distances are considerable, but if you will pardon the cliche that can be viewed as either a challenge or an opportunity. Once one is out of The Rockies there is the potential to lay track (of some kind) that is very straight and very flat i.e. ideal for ultrafast transit.

As wahoonc pointed out with regard to the Interstate system, the government already owns the land.

Also, thanks for mentioning freight and the trucking industry - I completely agree with your preference. I feel the need to edit the original post. The trucking industry will also become a thing of the past. They can put up herculean resistance, but they cant stop the tide from coming in. If the USA is very lucky, and this is where I am skeptical, the inevitable changes will occur on a time line that allows for local adaptation. Skeptical just isn't the right word. Given the inertia of people in general combined with an inability to perceive and a reluctance to believe what is happening in front of them, then considerable hardship for the masses looks inevitable.

The worst case scenario for the USA would be for all those guns to suddenly have much more utility - massive lawless shanty towns surrounding every city. Almost everyone living in real fear, as opposed to the convenient fear that media and the current administration uses for it's own advantage. A massive increase in gated communities for the wealthy. And (sad to say) ultimately the demise of the USA as a super power - which outside the USA would be cheered unanimously.

Perhaps saddest of all is that some of the brightest people in the USA, that have the greatest influence on the population, are all tied up in the adversarial roles of spin-politics.

[maddyfish]

Sounds like sci-fi to me, all off a sudden no more oil? Don't you think it will come on slowly, and while oil tapers off we'll shift the powerplants of our cars to something else ( kind of what's already happening)? Do you really think people who hate and detest public transportation, and who love the complete freedom of movement that a car represents will suddenly say " hey, that old grafitti covered train looks great"? NO
People will go back to horses before they go to public transportation en masse. Just wait untill you see the tailpipe test from 200 million horses.
Sometimes people use the decline of oil to push and justify their views on public transportation. Like there is NO OTHER WAY IN THE WOLRD to power a car. Please.

[lyeinyoureye]

F'n doomers. :D

Concern about peak oil is like throwing away 9 out of 10 meals and complaining we may not have enough food to get by. By inflating demand via minimizing efficiency, oil suppliers can maximize profit. We have trillions of barrels of oil. We're using it as quickly as possible because those selling it want to make as much money as they can, while they can, before something else comes along. They've successfully marginalized public transit, alternative fuel vehicles, human power and EVs. All of which are viable for the consumer from a technological and economic standpoint, but aren't nearly as profitable. Peak oil isn't about finite resources, or run away consumption. It's about manufactured demand, brought about by greed. Yay, greed! :D
http://www.political-reform.net/images/CashPT.jpg

[HoustonB]

F'n doomers. :D

Concern about peak oil is like throwing away 9 out of 10 meals and complaining we may not have enough food to get by. By inflating demand via minimizing efficiency, oil suppliers can maximize profit. We have trillions of barrels of oil. We're using it as quickly as possible because those selling it want to make as much money as they can, while they can, before something else comes along. They've successfully marginalized public transit, alternative fuel vehicles, human power and EVs. All of which are viable for the consumer from a technological and economic standpoint, but aren't nearly as profitable. Peak oil isn't about finite resources, or run away consumption. It's about manufactured demand, brought about by greed. Yay, greed! :D
http://www.political-reform.net/images/CashPT.jpg
Yes all of what you say is valid, but shows no consideration for massive increases in demand from say China, with zero potential for massive increase in supply, and lets just ignore global warming until after the eastern seaboard is renamed Venice.

There will always be oil, please do not draw crass comparisons between peak oil and "throwing 9 out of 10 meals away" - the presence of oil does not mean it will be easy (economical) to extract. The markets are not known for being very forgiving.

[Jolt]

if anything decent is built to replace the USA's truly appalling rail infrastructure, then I hope I can ride on, take a seat, relax, eat, watch a movie (or work) and ride off.

It would definitely be nice if the rail infrastructure were improved! That would make rail travel a viable option for a lot more of people's longer trips--it's much less stressful than driving, but needs to be time-effective and cost-effective for people to use it rather than just driving whenever they need to go out of state. During my first year of college and half of the second, I took Amtrak to get home for breaks (Worcester, MA to northwestern NJ). I really liked it--at least before they changed the schedule so that I would have to switch trains TWICE on the trip (in Springfield, which is totally out of the way anyway, and New Haven). Then it just became a royal pain in the derriere because the layovers added an hour and a half to the trip, sitting in the stations! Shortly after that I was able to start bringing a car to school, so then I just drove home for breaks after that (4 1/2 hour trip) and found it better than taking the train due to the crummy schedule.

[HoustonB]

Sounds like sci-fi to me, all off a sudden no more oil?
The loss of oil will be gradual, the market reaction to "general acceptance that peak oil has been reached" will be a very short lived affair. The results will not look like sci-fi, it will look like The Sudan.

[lyeinyoureye]

Yes all of what you say is valid, but shows no consideration for massive increases in demand from say China, with zero potential for massive increase in supply, and lets just ignore global warming until after the eastern seaboard is renamed Venice.

There will always be oil, please do not draw crass comparisons between peak oil and "throwing 9 out of 10 meals away" - the presence of oil does not mean it will be easy (economical) to extract. The markets are not known for being very forgiving.

Listen up n3wb. My crass comparison doesn't involve supply. It involves efficiency of use. That's also where most wiggle room in terms of having a market that won't fall flat on it's face when supply does start to decline/undulate, but can still gouge the consumer base for as much as possible. The efficiency of the average auto fleet is proportional to the cost of gas to the consumer. In European countries, where it's taxed more than here, the average new vehicle gets something a wee bit shy of 40mpg. And in France, where gas prices are nearly double what we pay here, the average new vehicle gets 46mpg (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2004/11/average_fuel_co.html), nearly double what the average vehicle here gets.

By deliberately building inefficient vehicles, when the price of oil goes up, and alternatives start to appear, manufacturers will appear to make great strides (i.e. stop building inefficient autos) in efficiency, at roughly the same rate oil prices increase, less what they feel the consumer will stand in terms of gouging. That way they can continue maximize profit w/o undue risk to demand/profitability later on. :p

[thimblescratch]

Maddyfish is right, personal vehicles will always be prevalent with our ever increasing technologies. Suburbs will not become slums, they will have elctric cars in the driveways. Electric cars charged up by green energy (solar, wind, etc). Also they will simply grow local business in each community. How hard would it be to have a local grocery store in that suburb? Community gardens? Rail to the nearest city? These people are not going to move to the city, they are going to keep their mcmansions as an emblem of the lifestyle they cling to so heavily.

There will be more public transportation, there will have to be. The long range view has to be smaller, sustainable communities surrounding large cities.

Rail built along interstates for shipping cargo is a very realistic idea.

Renewable energy could be the thing that boosts our economy when it will be failing the most (scarce oil).

[cerewa]

I'm a little sceptical about the practicality of your country on the same basis. It's too big. Time for a break up into smaller nations

Hmm. Europe seems to be doing the opposite right now.

[HoustonB]

Listen up n3wb. My crass comparison doesn't involve supply. It involves efficiency of use. That's also where most wiggle room in terms of having a market that won't fall flat on it's face when supply does start to decline/undulate, but can still gouge the consumer base for as much as possible. The efficiency of the average auto fleet is proportional to the cost of gas to the consumer. In European countries, where it's taxed more than here, the average new vehicle gets something a wee bit shy of 40mpg. And in France, where gas prices are nearly double what we pay here, the average new vehicle gets 46mpg (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2004/11/average_fuel_co.html), nearly double what the average vehicle here gets.

By deliberately building inefficient vehicles, when the price of oil goes up, and alternatives start to appear, manufacturers will appear to make great strides (i.e. stop building inefficient autos) in efficiency, at roughly the same rate oil prices increase, less what they feel the consumer will stand in terms of gouging. That way they can continue maximize profit w/o undue risk to demand/profitability later on. :p
Once again I agree with pretty much everything you are saying and at a macro level your figures are all reasonable. Where we differ is in a belief that the scope for improvement in vehicle mpg will address the challenges ahead. I see the challenge being orders of magnitude greater than you indicate. I predict when peak oil occurs we will start to see many abandoned vehicles.

The oil and auto industry will be hoist by it's own petard. People will be loath to give up there investment (sic) in their shiny cars and will divert dollars to keeping it on the road, instead of setting aside to get the assuredly more expensive alternative when it finally arrives. Either way, there is a sea change ahead.

Considerable rises in gas prices will result in a considerable drop in demand. Less demand will result in rural gas stations closing, causing people to travel further to get their more expensive gas - it will soon become a self fulfilling end.

I am a technologist not a Luddite, the internal combustion engine has been refined as far as it can go and on overnight change (not that it can happen) from 25 mpg to 75 mpg will not buy sufficient time for society to adapt to the consequences of peak oil.

[Sammyboy]

Hmm. Europe seems to be doing the opposite right now.

Yeah, and I'm loudly opposed to that. There's never been a conglomeration of States, be it created by Empire building and war, or by politics, that hasn't led to oppression. I want there to be one less superpower, not one more.

[JeffS]

The efficiency of the average auto fleet is proportional to the cost of gas to the consumer. In European countries, where it's taxed more than here, the average new vehicle gets something a wee bit shy of 40mpg. And in France, where gas prices are nearly double what we pay here, the average new vehicle gets 46mpg (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2004/11/average_fuel_co.html), nearly double what the average vehicle here gets.

By deliberately building inefficient vehicles, when the price of oil goes up, and alternatives start to appear, manufacturers will appear to make great strides (i.e. stop building inefficient autos) in efficiency, at roughly the same rate oil prices increase, less what they feel the consumer will stand in terms of gouging. That way they can continue maximize profit w/o undue risk to demand/profitability later on. :p


Great conspiracy theory until you realize that vehicle mileage is mandated by the governments of these countries. There may be some correlation, but to say that MPG average is solely a result of free-market pressure is not considering the entire picture.

That the US refuses to raise standards, and continues to allow the light truck loophole is unfathomable to me.

[HoustonB]

Yeah, and I'm loudly opposed to that. There's never been a conglomeration of States, be it created by Empire building and war, or by politics, that hasn't led to oppression. I want there to be one less superpower, not one more.
I agree completely superpowers are in general bad news. However I find it hard to believe that the EU could find a single voice, and there lies its strength. And also the Euro, which I think is the quadrupeds testicals (the dogs bollocks). I have a hunch that the USD is co-dependent on oil. If oil markets switched to trading oil in Euro's the USA economy would tank overnight (I'm exaggerating).

[HoustonB]

It would definitely be nice if the rail infrastructure were improved! That would make rail travel a viable option for a lot more of people's longer trips--it's much less stressful than driving, but needs to be time-effective and cost-effective for people to use it rather than just driving whenever they need to go out of state. During my first year of college and half of the second, I took Amtrak to get home for breaks (Worcester, MA to northwestern NJ). I really liked it--at least before they changed the schedule so that I would have to switch trains TWICE on the trip (in Springfield, which is totally out of the way anyway, and New Haven). Then it just became a royal pain in the derriere because the layovers added an hour and a half to the trip, sitting in the stations! Shortly after that I was able to start bringing a car to school, so then I just drove home for breaks after that (4 1/2 hour trip) and found it better than taking the train due to the crummy schedule.
It's ironic that the USA is so far behind the rest of the world with regard to high speed trains. Last year a colleague decided to get the train from Portland to (I think) somewhere in Illinois instead of driving. He does not like flying. I do not recall the actual time taken, but it was days not hours. The opposite end of the spectrum is getting the EuroStar from London to Paris. The other poster that likened a train to a graffiti covered toilet on wheels (artistic license) has not lived.

[lyeinyoureye]

Considerable rises in gas prices will result in a considerable drop in demand. Less demand will result in rural gas stations closing, causing people to travel further to get their more expensive gas - it will soon become a self fulfilling end.

I am a technologist not a Luddite, the internal combustion engine has been refined as far as it can go and on overnight change (not that it can happen) from 25 mpg to 75 mpg will not buy sufficient time for society to adapt to the consequences of peak oil.

Actually, considerable rises in gas prices won't result in much of a drop in short term demand. Gasoline is very inelastic (http://www.nber.org/papers/w12530.pdf) short term, so considerable increases in price won't do much to demand. Long term, manufacturers will be forced to introduce more fuel efficient models or go bankrupt. That being said, I agree w/ you about the internal combustion engine being pretty refined. Otoh, we still use way more than we need, and vehicles akin to the VW 3L Lupo or 1L protype can easily provide fuel efficient transportation suitable for most people. It's not like supply will instantly fall on it's face, the curve on the way down will be proportional to the curve on the way up.

Great conspiracy theory until you realize that vehicle mileage is mandated by the governments of these countries. There may be some correlation, but to say that MPG average is solely a result of free-market pressure is not considering the entire picture.

That the US refuses to raise standards, and continues to allow the light truck loophole is unfathomable to me.

Vehicle mileage isn't mandated by any France iirc. They just tax the hell out of it... Mileage isn't solely a result of consumer pressure, but it plays a very large part where the consumer has to pay more. The US serves as the largest consumer of gasoline in the world. By increasing world demand by as little as 1%, domestic auto manufacturers can increase worldwide prices by much more because gasoline is inelastic. I ranted about it here (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4358248&postcount=32). It's not a conspiracy in any way, perfectly legal in the eyes of our guberment. ;) Having a toolkit of methods to facilitate consumption is common practice for business. It's only illegal when the guberment deems it so. After all, the best way to rip people off is legally. :p

[JeffS]

It's ironic that the USA is so far behind the rest of the world with regard to high speed trains. Last year a colleague decided to get the train from Portland to (I think) somewhere in Illinois instead of driving. He does not like flying. I do not recall the actual time taken, but it was days not hours. The opposite end of the spectrum is getting the EuroStar from London to Paris. The other poster that likened a train to a graffiti covered toilet on wheels (artistic license) has not lived.

1) two random cities 2000 miles apart
2) two national capitals less than 300 miles apart

I wonder how long it would take to travel from London to Moscow, Odessa or Ankara, for comparison sake.

[JeffS]

Vehicle mileage isn't mandated by any France iirc. They just tax the hell out of it...

Ok, I was assuming they fell under EU standards.

[chephy]

I am a little skeptical about the practicality of rail in this country. There's just too much land. Russia, where I come from, has quite a bit more land and, on average, lower population density - but a quite well-developed and popular rail transit system. There are local trains that take people to suburbs and summer cottages near big cities and there are trains that will take you from one end of the country to the other (in about a week :)). There are some high-speed express trains now too, I believe. Rail is not the ultimate solution, but in combination with other solutions, it can work. In fact, the OP even mentioned a solution: people will get to train stations by their own means somehow (smaller cars, mopeds, bikes or maybe even by local public transit) and take the train for a longer ride. It would be a mistake to try to bring a train stop to everyone's front door. THAT won't work. But using trains to go from one major hub to another AND implementing a local solution for the surrounding area of each hub - that might just work.

My preference would be to move freight back onto rail. The trucking industry is so large currently though, that I believe they would fight this tooth and nail. Only when there is a strong sense of urgency will the powers that be even consider such a restructure. Well, do that too. AFAIK, countries with very developed and active rail networks usually see a lot of passenger AND freight train movement.

[Roody]

And what about Canada and India? Two other huge countries that use rail more than the the US does. Rail is faster than cars, which account for most interurban trips in the US. It's often even faster than jets, when door-to-door travel is compared.

[HoustonB]

... the curve on the way down will be proportional to the curve on the way up ..
I disagree.

At the beginning of the oil-auto industry, increase-in-demand for oil moved in the same direction and largely in time with the ability to increase supply. Oil was plentiful and you would be hard pressed to argue that it was not dirt cheap (unbelievably so).

Peak oil, is the point in time when the two lines separate forever and follow opposite paths - one goes up, the other goes down.

Now if you had said "the curve on the way down will be inversely exponential to the curve on the way up", then I might have agreed.

[HoustonB]

1) two random cities 2000 miles apart
2) two national capitals less than 300 miles apart

I wonder how long it would take to travel from London to Moscow, Odessa or Ankara, for comparison sake.
Your comparison of traveling from London to any city that requires traversing many countries (outside the EU), might as well be London to the moon - it looks facetious!

My comparison of London to Paris on EuroStar was clearly stated as being the opposite end of the spectrum. If we took the money spent on <cough> an illegal <cough> war in Iraq and instead spent it on rail infrastructure, the USA would have the start of a rail network to rival any on the planet!

[kf5nd]

I think you are onto something here, and let me twist it a bit.

Let's say you just went $20,000 into debt to buy a nice new Prius.

Well, if we have actual fuel shortages (not just high priced fuel, but periods of no fuel) then your Prius also becomes a non-performing asset, even though it has best-in-breed fuel economy. A Prius with an empty fuel tank is as dead as a Hummer with an empty fuel tank (unless you have a hacked plug-in Prius).

I think a prudent strategy is to have no debt and hold onto a cheap car that runs, even if it doesn't have the best fuel economy.

Nobody is going to talk me into selling my 1998 paid-for, running nicely Corolla with 55,000 miles on it that gets 35 MPG so that I can assume $20,000 more debt and get 50 MPG.

We have to think two steps past today, at least. Step one is high priced fuel. Step two is no fuel.






When peak oil is generally accepted by the markets, prices globally will climb like never before and with zero probability of a respite. I have been anticipating this event since 2005 and see it as both overdue and inevitable.

....

If it happened tomorrow the results would be catastrophic - a sudden mass transition from private vehicles to public transport, would cripple a system that in many places is already overstretched. How many people will choose to default on their outrageous monthly car payments, when all it can do is sit on the driveway and no longer has any intrinsic value?

[Sammyboy]

Ok, I was assuming they fell under EU standards.

The EU doesn't mandate gas mileage either. If they did, it would apply to all EU countries. In the UK, they're taxing higher consuming cars more, but that's not what's doing the trick. $2 a litre for fuel is what's making people buy more efficient cars, and that's all there is to it. For anyone that does any real mileage, the difference is stark. A car which does nearly 50mpg (like the Saab I had 2 years ago) will save you a great deal of money over one which does 30 mpg, far more than the difference in tax. It'll happen in America too. Remember that we've had the sort of gas prices you're looking at now since the late 80's.

[eofelis]

I think a prudent strategy is to have no debt and hold onto a cheap car that runs, even if it doesn't have the best fuel economy.

Nobody is going to talk me into selling my 1998 paid-for, running nicely Corolla with 55,000 miles on it that gets 35 MPG so that I can assume $20,000 more debt and get 50 MPG.

We have to think two steps past today, at least. Step one is high priced fuel. Step two is no fuel.

Yeppers.

I'm ok with my 1991 Subaru, even tho it only gets up to 30mpg.

When it's done, I'll buy another older Subaru for a few thousand bucks. No car payments for me!

If I can't hack another car, I'll just have to make do with a bike.

[HoustonB]

I think you are onto something here, and let me twist it a bit.

Let's say you just went $20,000 into debt to buy a nice new Prius.

Well, if we have actual fuel shortages (not just high priced fuel, but periods of no fuel) then your Prius also becomes a non-performing asset, even though it has best-in-breed fuel economy. A Prius with an empty fuel tank is as dead as a Hummer with an empty fuel tank (unless you have a hacked plug-in Prius).

I think a prudent strategy is to have no debt and hold onto a cheap car that runs, even if it doesn't have the best fuel economy.

Nobody is going to talk me into selling my 1998 paid-for, running nicely Corolla with 55,000 miles on it that gets 35 MPG so that I can assume $20,000 more debt and get 50 MPG.

We have to think two steps past today, at least. Step one is high priced fuel. Step two is no fuel.Exactly. What value is a new car with a 10 year unlimited mileage warranty, if affordable gas can only be expected for say the next 2 to 3 years? That paid for Corolla is much wiser than assuming a dead-end 20k debt - unless you are a sales rep that drives 100k a year.

[bhtooefr]

Honestly, I think the solution is a multifaceted approach.

Bicycles for short trips.

Fuel efficient cars for medium distance trips, and long trips where light rail doesn't go. (I wish my (when 5th gear isn't blown up - it is now, though :mad:) Golf got more than 43.5 MPG.)

Light rail for all other long trips.

Trucking for carrying cargo from light rail to the ultimate destination.

Mass transit.

Conservation.

Biofuels, especially biodiesel, but not solely biodiesel.

[Jolt]

Honestly, I think the solution is a multifaceted approach.

Bicycles for short trips.

Fuel efficient cars for medium distance trips, and long trips where light rail doesn't go. (I wish my (when 5th gear isn't blown up - it is now, though :mad:) Golf got more than 43.5 MPG.)

Light rail for all other long trips.

Trucking for carrying cargo from light rail to the ultimate destination.

Mass transit.

Conservation.

Biofuels, especially biodiesel, but not solely biodiesel.

That's probably the most reasonable thing I've read here today.

[wahoonc]

Russia, where I come from, has quite a bit more land and, on average, lower population density - but a quite well-developed and popular rail transit system. There are local trains that take people to suburbs and summer cottages near big cities and there are trains that will take you from one end of the country to the other (in about a week :)). There are some high-speed express trains now too, I believe. Rail is not the ultimate solution, but in combination with other solutions, it can work. In fact, the OP even mentioned a solution: people will get to train stations by their own means somehow (smaller cars, mopeds, bikes or maybe even by local public transit) and take the train for a longer ride. It would be a mistake to try to bring a train stop to everyone's front door. THAT won't work. But using trains to go from one major hub to another AND implementing a local solution for the surrounding area of each hub - that might just work.

Well, do that too. AFAIK, countries with very developed and active rail networks usually see a lot of passenger AND freight train movement.

I spent a few weeks with my brother in Darlington, England. I seem to recall that London was about 6 hours away by motorcar but less than 2 by train. You could walk about 2 blocks from his house, catch a bus into the center of town, grab a local train to Durham? and then get the express to London. That is how it should be done. To give you an example of the small town (>10k) that we have a retail shop in...you would walk to the train station (possibly cycle) take a local train to the nearest large city (about 45 miles) catch the express to wherever...Priceless:D :p I have always been interested in transportation observation as a hobby, to me there is ABSOLUTELY no reason to use a car for anything under 5 miles and in many cases 10 miles, other than the god awful infrastructure that in some cases forces you to. I currently have to drive 4+ hours to and from my current jobsite every week. Once there I can park the truck and cycle back and forth from the job to the apartment...all of 2 miles:p I see people in my complex get in the car to drive about 3 blocks to the corner store for their Big 20 Dr Pepper. If they would cut thru the complex to the back walk it is under 2 blocks...need I say more?:(

Aaron:)

[bragi]

Considerable rises in gas prices will result in a considerable drop in demand. Less demand will result in rural gas stations closing, causing people to travel further to get their more expensive gas - it will soon become a self fulfilling end.

I am a technologist not a Luddite, the internal combustion engine has been refined as far as it can go and on overnight change (not that it can happen) from 25 mpg to 75 mpg will not buy sufficient time for society to adapt to the consequences of peak oil.

Less demand, if it happens, will result in lower prices, not a sudden closure of gas stations across the land. Adam Smith may not have anticipated the rise of all-powerful global corporations with power surpassing that of most nations, but he's still worth a read.

And, I might be mistaken, but didn't some Germans recently build a diesel engine for a Jetta that gets well over 140 mpg? If we had cars like that, powered by biodiesel made from huge vats of quickly-reproducing algae (which is nearly carbon neutral), many of us could be driving for many years to come, provided the whole house of cards doesn't collapse from sheer stupidity... (Of course, I won't be driving, ever. I hate those infernal machines...)

[bhtooefr]

I doubt that they made a 140 MPG Jetta diesel, but they did make a 78 MPG Lupo (think two sizes down from a Jetta, and one size down from a Geo Metro,) and have a 230 MPG prototype. Only problem was, it cost $30,000 just to build - lots of carbon fiber everywhere. They're reviving the project, with the goal of 200 MPG, and $5,000 to build.

[Wogsterca]

Honestly, I think the solution is a multifaceted approach.

Bicycles for short trips.

Fuel efficient cars for medium distance trips, and long trips where light rail doesn't go. (I wish my (when 5th gear isn't blown up - it is now, though :mad:) Golf got more than 43.5 MPG.)

Light rail for all other long trips.

Trucking for carrying cargo from light rail to the ultimate destination.

Mass transit.

Conservation.

Biofuels, especially biodiesel, but not solely biodiesel.


Not bad, how about a few other enhancements though, for a trip under 1 mile, forget the bike, just walk, I do it all the time. 1 mile to 15 miles, use a bicycle. Trips from 15 miles to say 40 miles, something like a Vespa style scooter, over 40 miles, take the train.

For goods transport, the best bet is container freight, so what you have is say 25 trucks based out of a station, the trucker has a trailer with an empty container, they drive to XYZ company, drop the trailer at door number 2, and grab the trailer at door number 1, they then drive to the station, where a gantry crane picks up the container, and puts it with other containers for a particular train, the truck is left with an empty trailer, the crane then picks up a full container from the arrivals area, drops it on the trailer, the dispatcher notes the container number, prints up a delivery manifest, and the driver then goes and delivers it. He drops the trailer at door number 40, and picks up an empty container on a trailer at door number 37, he then drives to another company, where the process starts all over again.

[bhtooefr]

True, there always is walking, which I left out, thinking it was too obvious. (Besides, unlike driving for the <1mi trip, biking has such infinitesimally small oil consumption/environmental impact over walking that either way is OK.)

[HoustonB]

Less demand, if it happens, will result in lower prices, not a sudden closure of gas stations across the land. Adam Smith may not have anticipated the rise of all-powerful global corporations with power surpassing that of most nations, but he's still worth a read.

I did not say sudden or across the land - you are misquoting me. In rural locations easy access to gas will decrease. I did say the market reaction to peak oil will be much more rapid than the fall in availability of oil.

Ordinarily yes "Less demand, if it happens, will result in lower prices" - but not when the reduction in demand was first caused by an increase in prices. If anything the reduction in demand caused by the increase in price may attenuate the rate of price increase.

[bhtooefr]

Keep in mind, though - rural gas stations make their money on their convenience stores and auto repair services, not just gas. Granted, both of THOSE will have a downturn, as well, but not as much as the gas station side.

[Platy]

Keep in mind, though - rural gas stations make their money on their convenience stores and auto repair services, not just gas. Granted, both of THOSE will have a downturn, as well, but not as much as the gas station side.
I think rural convenience stores will do just fine. I'm familiar with a few of them in Houston's exurban asteroid belt. Seems to me that some are slowly evolving into local grocery stores. For example two of them have non refrigerated shelves with what appears to be locally grown produce. My impression is that it may be supplied on consignment from someone who has a roadside produce stand, I guess I could ask. It's pretty odd to see produce on shelves, but what the hey, that's how evolution works. If enough people start buying groceries there instead of making a 30-mile round trip to the Walmart, it's easy to imagine the selection getting better very quickly.

Another convenience store near me in urban Austin gave up selling gas a few years ago. It seems to be doing just fine.

[Roody]

I think rural convenience stores will do just fine. I'm familiar with a few of them in Houston's exurban asteroid belt. Seems to me that some are slowly evolving into local grocery stores. For example two of them have non refrigerated shelves with what appears to be locally grown produce. My impression is that it may be supplied on consignment from someone who has a roadside produce stand, I guess I could ask. It's pretty odd to see produce on shelves, but what the hey, that's how evolution works. If enough people start buying groceries there instead of making a 30-mile round trip to the Walmart, it's easy to imagine the selection getting better very quickly.

Another convenience store near me in urban Austin gave up selling gas a few years ago. It seems to be doing just fine.


I just hope you are patronizing those local businesses instead of going to Walmart.

[Platy]

I just hope you are patronizing those local businesses instead of going to Walmart.
Yes, of course.

However there is an interesting situation brewing here in Austin. Walmart is putting in a smaller scale "urban" store in a derelict shopping mall. It's right in the middle of one of our walkable/bikeable neighborhoods, a local transit convergence center and one which is well suited for carfree living. Neighborhood opposition is running very high. Despite that I think it could be a big positive for carfree living in my area. It will be interesting to see how it turns out in practice.

[makeinu]

Honestly, I think the solution is a multifaceted approach.

Bicycles for short trips.

Fuel efficient cars for medium distance trips, and long trips where light rail doesn't go. (I wish my (when 5th gear isn't blown up - it is now, though :mad:) Golf got more than 43.5 MPG.)

Light rail for all other long trips.

Trucking for carrying cargo from light rail to the ultimate destination.

Mass transit.

Conservation.

Biofuels, especially biodiesel, but not solely biodiesel.
Any particular reason you mention light rail as opposed to heavy rail? In my experience light rail systems are barely faster than a bicycle. Heavy rail, on the other hand, can beat out sports cars if the track is good.

Then there's high speed rails, maglevs, etc....but those are expensive.

[lyeinyoureye]

Any particular reason you mention light rail as opposed to heavy rail? In my experience light rail systems are barely faster than a bicycle.

Depends on the area. Light rail in socal used to be pretty quick, cheap, and went pretty far out (http://www.xs4all.nl/~rajvdb/lra/e_htm/e_hs_map.htm).

[JT52]

Peak Oil is a matter of Geology, not Economy and as a someone that works in a Petroleum Engineering consulting firm, I'm well aware of what's available and what's coming and it's not going to be pretty. There hasn't been a major oil reservoir discovery since 2000, the North Sea is crashing and burning (metaphorically, of course!), the Caspian sea has been a disappointment, the Saudis who said they could boost production last year were unable to deliver and instead produced less, Mexico's fields are in decline, one of our major sources, Venezuela, is in permanent decline and the Tar Sands in Canada are proving to be prohibitively expensive to extract from.

No, we've peaked folks and it's just a matter of time before we start seeing shortages, and increased road rage from people sitting in traffic congestion in their 10 mpg SUVs idling away an increasingly expensive resource. As a cyclist, I'm afraid some of that road rage will be directed towards people like us who are just trying to be environmentally aware.

The next several years will prove interesting indeed.

[HoustonB]

Peak Oil is a matter of Geology, not Economy and as a someone that works in a Petroleum Engineering consulting firm, I'm well aware of what's available and what's coming and it's not going to be pretty. There hasn't been a major oil reservoir discovery since 2000, the North Sea is crashing and burning (metaphorically, of course!), the Caspian sea has been a disappointment, the Saudis who said they could boost production last year were unable to deliver and instead produced less, Mexico's fields are in decline, one of our major sources, Venezuela, is in permanent decline and the Tar Sands in Canada are proving to be prohibitively expensive to extract from.

No, we've peaked folks and it's just a matter of time before we start seeing shortages, and increased road rage from people sitting in traffic congestion in their 10 mpg SUVs idling away an increasingly expensive resource. As a cyclist, I'm afraid some of that road rage will be directed towards people like us who are just trying to be environmentally aware.

The next several years will prove interesting indeed.

"Peak Oil is a matter of Geology", that only covers the supply side of the equation. Supply and demand together determine price.

The big question is how and when will the oil futures market react - I do not believe they will wait until it is undeniable, and I do not believe there will be no reaction.

After witnessing the panic in some people over the potential problems associated with computer software and the year 2000, I find it fascinating that a real problem appears to be denied its true significance.

On the one hand I would like to see an end to the conspicuous consumption associated with gas guzzlers and the environmental damage caused - on the other hand I see the importance of oil to the American economy, from people filling their tank to get to work, through to the behind-the-scenes dependence on oil for almost everything in our convenience oriented modern society.

[Wogsterca]

"Peak Oil is a matter of Geology", that only covers the supply side of the equation. Supply and demand together determine price.

The big question is how and when will the oil futures market react - I do not believe they will wait until it is undeniable, and I do not believe there will be no reaction.

After witnessing the panic in some people over the potential problems associated with computer software and the year 2000, I find it fascinating that a real problem appears to be denied its true significance.

On the one hand I would like to see an end to the conspicuous consumption associated with gas guzzlers and the environmental damage caused - on the other hand I see the importance of oil to the American economy, from people filling there tank to get to work, through to the behind-the-scenes dependence on oil for almost everything in our convenience oriented modern society.

Simple economics, as long as supply exceeds demand, which it has until recently, prices remain rather reasonable. However, once demand exceeds supply, then prices increase, and can increase quite a bit, over a relatively short period of time. If your lucky, the price increase reduces demand, which reduces pressure on supply, which reduces the pressure on price. For example, how many peoples driving habits would change if the price went up to say $7 a gallon, over a six month period.

[Thor29]

There's a lot of wishful thinking going on these days. Biofuels are wonderful when just a few well-meaning hippies are making the stuff. But try to run ALL the cars on biofuel and the environmental degradation would make gasoline power look like running on happy thoughts. The arable land of the USA is pretty stressed already to feed people and cows. The main reason we can make so much food is because of nitrogen based fertilizers (a fossil fuel product). There is also a lot of pressure on the water supply. Vats of algae don't grow out of nothing - they would require inputs of minerals, and organic matter from somewhere. Then there's electric cars... The fantasy is that we would generate electricity from solar and wind. It ain't gonna happen on that scale.

Now lets say you wanted to try and save what's good about civilization. If so, then while oil is still plentiful you would use that energy to put in place a sustainable economic system that is entirely circular. An economy that does not grow (growth is by nature unsustainable) and only uses energy from the sun (which includes wind or wave power) and recycles all materials in an endless loop. The problem is that if you buld an infrastructure and economic system based on cheap oil, then wait until oil is not cheap to build a better system, the opportunity is lost. We're already past the point of no return. It'll be interesting to see how the fall of modern civilization plays out. Will it be a gradual decline or a domino effect? Is the fall imminent or do we have a couple more years to play with our Ipods, ride carbon fiber road bikes, and post our rants on the internet? Hmmm.

[bhtooefr]

Well, there's also not using as big vehicles. This is a bit radical, even for me, but subsidize the hell out of extremely fuel efficient cars (and GOOD road bikes), and make the subsidy even HIGHER if you're trading in an SUV. So, let's say you're trading in an H2 that gets 9 MPG for a (I know it doesn't exist, but...) Lupo 3L TDI that gets 78.

The subsidy could pay for the car.

Sustainability of that subsidy might be tricky, though.

[Wogsterca]

Well, there's also not using as big vehicles. This is a bit radical, even for me, but subsidize the hell out of extremely fuel efficient cars (and GOOD road bikes), and make the subsidy even HIGHER if you're trading in an SUV. So, let's say you're trading in an H2 that gets 9 MPG for a (I know it doesn't exist, but...) Lupo 3L TDI that gets 78.

The subsidy could pay for the car.

Sustainability of that subsidy might be tricky, though.

Better might be something like this, the magic number is 100MPG, so at 100MPG we have no tax, however for every 1MPG below 100, we add 1% to the gas guzzler tax, so the H2 that gets 9MPG, we take 100 and subtract 9, means your paying a 91% tax. The average American car that gets 19.5MPG, your paying an 80.5% tax. Betcha Detroit would have a 100MPG car on the market within a year. Now we make it harder, every 3 years the magic number goes up, by 25MPG. So in 2010 it goes to 125MPG, and that is what we base the tax on.

Older vehicles are then added to the program, in order to renew your plates, you pay a new tax, based again on the magic number, but we reduce it by 2.5MPG for every year of the cars age (only on cars that were purchased, before the program started, no age break for the newer guzzlers), for every 1MPG less then the magic number, you pay an extra $20 in licence fees. So that new H2, would pay $1820 for the plate renewal, in gas guzzler fees. Lets take a 1995 Buick that gets 15MPG, the car is 12 years old, so we take 100 and subtract 30 for the age, and 15 for it's actual MPG leaves 55MPG that we are short, so the tax is $1100. The reason why we knock some off, for older cars, is that they are more likely to be driven by people who are unable to easily afford a new, low consumption vehicle. Yes, vehicles over 40 years of age would be exempt, but then, if you can get 40 years out of a modern car, you deserve the break. The tax is lower, so it's not as big a hit, on poorer people, however it's still high enough to encourage them to move to a lower consumption vehicle.

Now, commercial vehicles would require a different plan, first they would need to be owned by a registered business, and bear commercial plates, only vehicles used for transportation of materials, goods, carrier trades or passengers would be exempt. They owner would need to have all licences and go through all required inspections. For example a licenced plumber needs a van for transporting materials for his trade, so he is exempt. The store that transports sold goods, needs a truck for delivering product, so they are exempt, FedEx or Joes Courier Service need trucks, so they are exempt, but they would need to be licenced as couriers, in order to be exempt. A bus line, conveys passengers, is licenced as a bus company, so they are exempt.

The soccer mom's SUV, well unless soccer mom is registered and licenced as a bus line to carry passengers, and has all the legally required equipment installed for a bus, and undergoes all the required inspections, then no, and BTW, if it's a bus, it can only be legally driven by someone with a bus drivers licence, so soccer mom would need to have one of those as well.

The government, with all this new found money, would rebuild the rail network, they would do this by assuming the ownership of the tracks and rights of way, then upgrading everything to new higher standards. Railway cars would then be licenced just as road vehicles are now, except at a federal level. Yup, every railway car would need a licence plate, but this could be done over time, and might be done over a period of several years. Of course, it would then be possible for new railways to start up, bus and trucking companies might also look at adding rail fleets. Eventually Amtrak would be sold off, since it would, no longer needing to pay track leasing fees, would over night become profitable. Some railways would be exempt, for example some transit systems, like the NYC subway.