By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
If San Bo's transit system is like San Diego's you pay more to ride than it costs for gas in my full sized truck. Plus the subsidies are bankrupting the city. And most of the time the buses and trolleys run their routes with a small handful of people. I would be interested to see a study on the pollution per person mile spewed by our mess transit.
Ask an ye shall receive:
"A car occupied by one person produces on average 2.06 grams/passenger-mile (g/pm) of nitrogen oxides for work trips. A fully occupied transit bus, on the other hand, would produce 1.54 g/pm, while a fully occupied rail transit system would produce only .47 g/pm for the same distance. Similarly, the car occupied by one person would produce 15.06 g/pm of carbon monoxide and 2.09 g/pm of hydrocarbons. The bus would produce 3.05 g/pm and .2 g/pm of the same pollutants, respectively. From an environmental point of view, trains are the best form of transportation: a full passenger train produces only .02 g/pm pf carbon monoxide and .01 g/pm of hydrocarbons.
A bus with as few as seven passengers is more fuel efficient than the average automobile used for commuting. The fuel efficiency of a fully-occupied bus is six times greater than that of the average commuter's automobile, while the fuel efficiency of a fully-occupied rail car is fifteen times greater than that of the average commuter's automobile. A single person who commutes via a transit system instead of driving alone will save 200 gallons of gasoline per year. A 10% nationwide increase in transit ridership would save 135 million gallons of gasoline per year. This fuel efficiency results in personal savings and in a cleaner environment for all. "
If my auntie had a long mustache, she would have been a train conductor. A fully occupied transit bus? When does that happen? Let's deal with reality, shall we?
Also, I will bet you this is based on those hypotethical fully occupied new buses. The author of this study needs to visit San Francisco or San Jose and see the old jalopies belch out clouds of smoke every time they pull away from a stop.
It is truly hard for me to imagine the above quote was said with a straight face in light of this other quote,
"The author of this study needs to visit San Francisco or San Jose and see the old jalopies belch out clouds of smoke every time they pull away from a stop. "...
I think if you ask the fleet manager at YOUR local TA you will find 6 mpg is a GOOD day!
Indeed the old Oakland Raiders coach, John Madden, turned radio announcer, raconteur, entrepreneur does exactly that when he goes to his gigs around the USA in a custom 500,000 plus commute bus turned home on wheels.
The only bus that is so called "better" are those hydrogen fuel cell buses the Santa Clara County is beta testing. Fuel is only 18 dollars per weight gal.
Having said that, diesel buses are thankfully now running on ULSD. (I would presume) Most if not all are STILL TOTALLY unmitigated!! Even so, the sulfur emissions are 97% less! (500 ppm vs 15 ppm or less) All it needs really going forward is new emissions equipment to equal the smaller emissions footprint like GM Ford DCB 250/2500 diesel product (yes actually mitigate it!!!). This products can also be adapted to run compressed natural gas.
4.5L Diesel
1 liters = 61.0237441 cubic in
Out goring Gore:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070522/ts_alt_afp/usaerospacecompany
I guess I should start saving up my S & H Green stamps' carbon credits!
Above quote is from a GM leader in the article moparbad posted.
I only wonder what alternative fuel he thinks GM is out in front of? Surely he can't be referring to diesel??
Wake up GM, wake up Ford. I'll bet you $1 that you would sell the heck out of a light truck that got 25-30 mpg with the extra torque and life-expectancy a diesel gets. If Toyota gets a small displacement diesel into the Tundra before the home-grown competition gets one into the F-150 and Silverado it will be a disgrace.
Or is it really the Hatfield's and McCoy's dueling in regulator turf wars!!??
"We too, can out regulate YOU"
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Add to that a bunch of small utility vehicles available here that can also be used as family vehicles, and that get excellent mileage with diesel power, and I say the big three deserve everything that's coming to them for screwing us in the US for years.
I think they have sold their souls to the oil companies along with the EPA, CARB and Congress.
The first automakers to beat the regulators at their game of block the diesel will reap huge rewards. It will not take long for the word to spread that we finally have some fuel efficient choices in this country.
The buses that service neighborhoods do seem far more likely to fit your description of running nearly empty.
They saw the great profits that they made in the SUVs and trucks and didn't do the due diligence to look at potential market forces.
I strongly believe that 2 factors play in to this:
1. 9-11. 9-11 was the beginning of the end for gas guzzlers. It exposed the instability in the oil producing region, got us involved irreversably in their politics and guaranteed that there would be no more .99c regular (remember 1999?- I remember filling up for .99c). Unfortunately the domestics responded with the great 0% financing program, selling large numbers of gas-guzzlers under the guise of doing their patriotic duty. Net effect they cheapened their brand and reduced profit margins thereby taking a chunk out of their potential R&D budgets.
2. Global warming. No excuse for them here, just blind to teh problem and tried desperatly to lobby the issue away. Whether you have doubts about global warming or not, teh rest of the world does not and gas-guzzlers are jsut not going to move your PR forward. Combine that with high gas prices and you have teh perfect storm.
Now where teh fault lies is easy. It lies in teh corner offices at Ford and GM. Those are the guys that get teh big money to have a strategy and a vision. Both completely lacking.
So here we are, Japanese auto makers lead in hybrid and small car diesel, Euros lead in lux-car diesel.
Amen. Blaming it on everyone else makes them sound only more incompetent. People are not blind, they see vehicles they want to buy, and the gas guzzlers are not on the list. Commercials from GM telling me how fuel efficient Tahoe is make me shake my head in utter disbelief. Not only they have no vision, but they insult my intelligence to boot. Good luck with that strategy.
I agree that it probably can't last but GM and Ford are simply selling vehicles that people will buy. The fault lies with the people who buy these things. Many people need trucks as work vehicles so they have no choice or little choice. Americans are very slow to change. In short, they build em because we buy em.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I really think that is a strategic mistake, they could OWN the market with the vehicles they have if they would put the resources into getting a high mpg diesel into the light truck based vehicles. The Edge might even have a fighting chance if it got 30 mpg....
Most of SF's fleet is electric powered. All of LA's fleet is CNG or LCNG. All of the old fleets are soon to be replaced by newer versions. When the full impact of global warming and the disasters that will be, and are already on us are reacted to, the car as we know it will be dead as a viable transportation device. Mass transit will expand and prevail - finally, but probably way too late.
Mass transit is not the answer for everyone. You cannot judge everyone's transport needs by urban standards only. Get out of the city some time and see how far you can get by bus or train. Only as far as the next city.
I agree on global warming, but the response to it will not be mass transit. Unless you count ferries I guess....
I respectfully disagree. People buy what is most likely to satisfy their needs from the existing offering, not what they want. Barriers to entry in the automotive market are prohibitively high, so it is never a totally "free market". In view of the existing regulations that effectively prohibit an individual from importing any vehicle he might like, a small existing number of producers can manipulate "trends" to their advantage. Obviously even in such a privileged position Detroit still cannot find their behind with both hands if even a completely predictable external force modifies the trend, like rising fuel prices. Once again, a sad commentary on the Detroit management.
It they were so knowlegeable then they also would have GREEN clean autos selling in cities all over America with diesel engines that get 50 mpg..
You're dreaming. I've been driving Fords for too many years. Stop guessing. It doesn't exactly take a nuclear scientist to figure out they are in trouble. They announce it themselves regularly.
If you bothered to read my previous post about driving the rented 42 mpg car (mixed 50/50 driving), you would have noticed it was a Ford. Yeah, clearly I have an anti-Detroit bias. Right.
As for the Japanese vehicles, of course they are pumping us for all they can. Notice that once they started selling their overpriced, overgrown tonka toys here for maximum profit margin, their station wagons and hatchbacks all but disappeared even though they are available in other markets. Why cannibalize their own profits? They're no dummies, and I certainly will make no excuses for them.
Now finally to your pulling the trailers thing. What percentage of the population does that make, exactly? And why would that prevent them from offering fuel efficient vehicles for the rest of the market? I lost the connection here.
Believe I would much rather drive a great mpg light duty diesel Silverado or F-150 than any other vehicle out there. I'm just not sure I can wait until 2011.
BTW, not sure if you missed it but Toyota was way ahead on green and clean.
hahahahahaha.
have you ever BEEN in a suburban area? How about rural? It would be absolutely impossible to make a viable public transportation system where I live with current technologies. Until they come up with the personal teleportation device, it ain't gonna happen. I can't even fathom the billions of dollars it would take to create a system that would connect all of the towns spread over thousands of square miles within commutable distance of me ... and for what kind of income? maybe a couple hundred million a year? Yeah, THERE'S a brilliant business plan for ya.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Now, one REAL factor of mass transit is the not-so-occasional factor of folks who have a phobia of soap, water, and bathing, and that can scare normal folks off a train or a bus in a NY minute...unless they feel safe in a clean environment, mass transit will never work, except in the places where it has been around for many years...
That is absolutely correct. Even in cities like NYC that has good mass transit they are talking of expanding their taxi cab fleet with hybrids. Many people that live in NYC have a car for going out of the city. The only reason I use our trolley system, to go downtown, is the lack of parking. It costs a lot more than driving my truck. It costs my wife and I $11 round trip to go 15 miles to downtown. We still have to drive 4.5 miles to the trolley station.
I think some of our fellow posters have read "Earth in the Balance" and believed the crap there-in. I bought it myself on Amazon for one penny. That was before the current round of politically motivated activism. Which by the way does little to further some important issues facing us such as diminishing resources. Cult like emotionalism for any cause does not attract logical thinking people.
Might be one reason why the regulators continue to throw so many road blocks in front of more mainstream use of diesels in BIGGER vehicles: as one REAL goal is to get folks into lighter and or less safe vehicles that the buying public would not necessarily buy on their own. So rather than solving the problem of a F150 getting 15-19 mpg with a diesel engine that would get more like 25-35 mpg, if you chose the bigger vehicle they want you to suffer with higher fuel costs.
Still only a handful, but the reason why definetly is not a lack of demand. Talking to a cab driver during my last visit to NYC I learned the blocker in fact was TLC (Taxi and Limousine Commission). There used to be only a couple of models being approved to meet their strict (and partly absurd) regulations and standards. Even though many licensees applied to operate hybrids already some years ago, it took TLC ages to get into move. In 2006 they finally added 7 hybrid models to their list of approved vehicles: Ford Escape, Honda Civic + Accord, Lexus RX 400H, Mercury Mariner and Toyota Prius + Highlander. Toyota Camry and Saturn VUE "Green Line" are about to follow this year.
I think mayor Bloomberg wouldn´t have dared last Tuesday to announce all conventional NYC cabs to be replaced by 2012, if TLC didn´t update their list before. It´s qite a challenge to get it done within 5 years anyways...
The end of the car as we know it (emphasis on as we know it) will probably be fairly abrupt. That includes any existing configuration from gas to diesel, to hybrid. The idea of the car and the unlimited use of it as a birthright will die the same death as all other youthful dreams.
Most anyone realizes that some form of intermediate transport, or ride sharing, will still exist; what needs to be admitted is that magnitude and impact are the key factors to consider. The expansion of cab use as an intermediary is a form of shared riding, as is para transit.
The idea of mass transit to everywhere imaginable is a red herring; doing the possible is the real accomplishment. The almost inestimable resources of invention, design, production, sales, advertising, mitigation of health effects, operation, maintenance, recycling, clean up, and disposal of the automobile would have easily paid for thousands of mass transit systems.
The idea that public transit systems dont turn a profit, or break even is bizarre: They are not expected to, anymore than operating my cars turned me a profit. A city in Brazil operates an exceptional "break even" public transit system by design, with any profit going to other systems. Sanitation systems do not break even or turn a profit; they are not expected to. They provide a needed service at public cost without which we choke and die.
Living in rural and some suburban areas, where current mass transit technology does not at present appear viable, will become increasingly more expensive to "rationalize" as indirect subsidies disappear and the real costs of living there plus commuting and car ownership begin to be experienced.
Entrepreneurship and invention will address transport issues in many of the marginal areas. Fewer and fewer people will find it economically viable to live in rural areas by choice, and then having to commute to work/shop/congregate.
Most everyone realizes that the urban sprawl was made possible by the automobile. As the real costs of that development percolate upward the costs of the sprawl, and its disproportionate effect on the environment and quality of life, will push people back into cities.
The idea of living in the "great open spaces" has long ago died for most everyone. Few will be able to afford living there, and even fewer will want to as the world changes rapidly. For the less than five percent who must by necessity live in rural areas the world will be far different - you will have a lot more of the privacy you sought.
As for me: I am saving at least $6000.00 per year net by not having a car all of the time, although I will probably buy another as a form of pleasure and recreation - and because I love cars. Using the bus service, ride sharing, walking, and cabs works well for most of my needs. Renting a car when needed works fine at this time, and may go on indefinitely because I know I don't need one.
As for having lived in the rurals: The family lives there and they admit quite frankly that they are subsidized by city dwellers, and hope it does not stop in their life times.
As for "Earth in The Balance": It is a very basic, and not exhaustive, primer for those just coming to the party - many of us have known, and watched with horror what has been happening for many, many decades and also seen massive opportunities to avoid it talked away. There will be panic and over reaction - natural outcomes of disasters that could have been avoided with a little thought and action; like levee failures, dust bowls, desertification, 911, the titanic, and hundreds more.
The analogy of the guy who says he can fly and jumps off of a 100 story building comes to mind: For the first 99.9 floors everything goes extremely well.
I am surprised to see a pretty reasonable percentage of Americans at least thinking of purchasing a smaller and more fuel efficient car. It would be great if more people learned that a smaller car doesn´t necessarily mean less safety and convenience. Facing gas prices of currently app. $6.50 per gallon we live in perfect harmony with this perception here in Europe....!
Everyone moving to cities is not one of them.
Not sure how the city-dwellers support those in the country.
If the city burnt to the ground right now, those I know who live in the country would continue to get water from their well, food from their crops and animals, power from their local co-op and wouldn't take too long to have bio-diesel. They are far better set up for your doomsday.
Cities starve to death with only 5% of the current rural population staying in the country. If you think agriculture is all auto-mated you are way off base.
Why?
Just quoting from some manifesto a list of unsubstantiated assertions is hardly enough. Please provide plausible rationalizations for those assertions.
Otherwise, since your foundations are faulty, your points are... well, pointless.
I do believe you are kind of mixing your disasters to create a smoke screen. If you are one that thinks that New Orleans should never have been built where it is. I agree. If you think that jamming people into cities is good, I disagree. People get along better when they are not forced into a sardine can to live. Being raised in areas of single family homes most of my life I feel the apartment/Condo complex was the worst thing dumped on Americans. I am in the process of selling my 5 acres and moving where it is not so crowded. I happen to like hearing the birds in the morning and not thousands of tires on the highway that is a quarter mile from my home. I believe you are not in the majority. Most folks I know would love to get out of the city. It is noisy, smelly, crime filled and expensive. The cost of a car to commute is easily paid for in what you save over a city dweller.
When you say so many issues were just talked away. I think they were thrown out because they were not practical solutions. Just as Kyoto is a totally flawed solution that NONE of the signors are living up to.
Urban sprawl has just only begun. Drive outside the fastest growing cities of Phoenix & Las Vegas. South of Phoenix there are 100s of 1000s of new homes going up in the desert.
What they all need is a clean diesel car to commute with!!!!
And run that sucker on bio-diesel from algae that is fed the carbon dioxide rich sludge from a power station!
Hypno- you have to lighten up and do some more research. There are workable solutions out there for 99% of the problems. Absolutely may need to change some current habits and practices, but personal transportation is not going away. Its been around since we first sat on horses.
While I read in a few articles the inventory is 18,000, I would stand corrected, if it is indeed NOT!
2) “And run that sucker on bio-diesel from algae that is fed the carbon dioxide rich sludge from a power station!” Total use cycle and related effects will make this less of a utopian solution that it wants to be. It does not address the larger problems of sprawl, resource allocation, entitlement mentality, and more. There are always “miracle” solutions that promise and can not deliver – each one creating its own set of problems. Anyone remember the slogan from the 50’s “Nuclear energy production too cheap to meter.”?
3) “Everyone moving to cities is not one of them (solutions).” Most people already live in metropolitan areas, with the rest of the developing world making the change by the tens of millions. Economic forces and legislative restrictions are already pushing people into the cities.
4) “ Not sure how the city-dwellers support those in the country.” The costs of every mile of utilities and roads provided to rural areas are charged to the total user population either through taxes or fees. The rural use per mile of roads and services is far less than 1/1000 of that of city dwellers. Absent the cost of supporting the rurals, city taxes and fees would be far lower. Conversely; if the rurals had to pay the true costs of their privileges, there would be far fewer people living there by choice. (I am excepting that regrettably dying breed, the legitimate American farmer, but not the agro-corps “farmers” that destroy all that they touch.) Some municipalities do adjust rates upwards for outlyers, but it is an extremely small amount, never approximating the true costs, and is used as a token to the city dwellers who actually foot the bills.
5) “If the city burnt to the ground right now, those I know who live in the country would continue to get water from their well, food from their crops and animals, power from their local co-op and wouldn't take too long to have bio-diesel. They are far better set up for your doomsday.” Doomsday was not the subject, but since it was raised, I can not imagine anyone really believing that the rurals would not be swarmed, swamped, and overwhelmed by the hoards of city dwellers fleeing disaster to the country.
6) “Cities starve to death with only 5% of the current rural population staying in the country. If you think agriculture is all auto-mated you are way off base.” You have misunderstood, and misquoted. Anyone remotely familiar with population demographics knows that farming employment is well under 5% of the total US population and feeds the U. S., as well as a large part of the rest of the world. If they were the only ones driving we would not be having this discussion.
7) “The cost of a car to commute is easily paid for in what you save over a city dweller”. Once you begin to pay for the actual costs of all services, roads, and utilities you will be completely out of business unless you are in the one percent category – “may they live, but not long”. The indirect subsidies keep them afloat.
8) “Why? Just quoting from some manifesto a list of unsubstantiated assertions is hardly enough. Please provide plausible rationalizations for those assertions.” That one should be obvious to anyone who travels, reads, or associates with a broad range of people. I can not blame those who think they can escape it from trying to do so. My sample is based on hundreds of international students from more than a 100 countries as well as the US who I have seen and spoken with in one way or another for decades. Talk to the “global” young to see what the future holds – it is a very troublesome picture that does not see the “private” automobile as much of a part of it except as a very unlikely hydrogen model, and then in configurations we would not recognize, or find agreeable.
9) “Urban sprawl has just only begun. Drive outside the fastest growing cities of Phoenix & Las Vegas. South of Phoenix there are 100s of 1000s of new homes going up in the desert.” An anomaly soon to disappear, even by Arizona’s estimates, as the water being drawn from aquifers is reducing their levels by more than 100 feet per year with no replacement in sight. Agriculture and over building has siphoned off most river water. Additionally the South West is in one of the longest prolonged droughts in its history.
10) “Hypno- you have to lighten up and do some more research. There are workable solutions out there for 99% of the problems. Absolutely may need to change some current habits and practices, but personal transportation is not going away. Its been around since we first sat on horses.” Ironically, replacing the horse with the auto was hyped as a solution to the unmanageable and very costly waste management problems (horse feces and methane gasses) of urban cities. The reliance on technology to save us is one more of the “someone will rescue us” approaches that has stymied useful changes in resource allocation and population dynamics for many decades.
11) “Most folks I know would love to get out of the city. It is noisy, smelly, crime filled and expensive”. This is an example of the “flight” from problems approach, a legitimate effort now growing impossibly difficult to achieve. Additionally, if as you say most people would like to get out of the city then they would be where you are, and then you would be back to the same problem. If you instead rely on dispersion away from where you are, then the costs of all roads, services, and utilities become astronomical and unsupportable. That is one of the driving exigencies of concentrating people in cities.
12) “People get along better when they are not forced into a sardine can to live.” Anything else but relatively concentrated living arrangements – most are not sardine cans - has and is fast becoming a luxury for the very privileged. All of human history has seen people congregate in close proximity to others for comfort, safety, protection, and economies – the fortunate “outliers” are not the norm but the exception within a very brief sliver of time now drawing to a fast close.
13) Is Diesel the messiah that will solve our problems? Madison Avenue and the Auto Makers will have us soon thinking so, but a total rethinking and reallocation of resources and world views will be necessary if we want to truly address the issues facing us.
Oh, and all the false information concerning REA. That is not a factor in any of the suburban areas in SO CAL. You do need to do more research. You cannot build a subdivision without roads & utilities being in and part of the cost of the subdivision. You are reading from some very uninformed writers. Probably old hack politicians that could not get elected without stuffing the ballot boxes.
One area I believe we are in agreement is the current farming practices that are killing the Gulf of Mexico with fertilizer runoff. Ethanol is NOT the solution to anything. I also do not consider biodiesel from overtaxed farm land a good option.
As far as me owning a diesel vehicle. Just trying to cut back on the use of fossil fuel and GHG.
That is your basis for deciding private transportation has no future??? Talking to a bunch of doped up kids who don't know squat of real life and who will completely change their minds once they leave the academia and get jobs and start paying taxes and mortgages? This is your proof? You just totally blew me away.
I don't even know where to start with questions. I am afraid to ask what you do in academia. I guess I will just forgo the questions and skip the rest of this discussion. It could take us in a wrong direction.
Sorry if I sound nasty, but my, I did expect a little better - trends, numbers, something. Your chit chats with students as a predictor of the imminent demise of private transportation?
That one should be obvious to anyone who travels, reads, or associates with a broad range of people.
Boy, are we full of ourselves today. You know, you should be careful stepping into something, you might not find what you're looking for.
And for all the travel and reading you've done, it is strange you haven't noticed that one of the first things that happen in emerging economies is the explosion of private ownership of cars.