What If - Gasoline is $5 a gallon in 2010?

railroadjames

Seems we're getting mellow as of late. We've all seen this situation (yo-yo prices & news data) giving us all concern for the ol' "what's around the corner?"
I've heard that comments of the sort saying...SUV's are not the problem...well, I'm here to say THEY ARE. They are just one facet of the overall problem. If we want to all cooperate then manufacturers should be producing fuel efficient vehicles and we should be of a mind to buy the same. As to remarks that our prices are low when you take in inflationary terms...I say...When in the distant past do you ever remember the prices fluctuating this EXTREEM. 25-30 cent jumps on any given day. THAT is mind boggling to most of us. I sense trouble around the corner...Don't you?
It's like a "wild-fire" off in the distance that suddenly sweeps up over the hillside and you're in the thick of it B/4 you know it, saying "what the heck happened?"
We all need to conserve -recycle & manage better ways to get from "here to there". Sitting in rush-hour traffic jams just ain't working. Don't ya know!
Our government has got to zero in on this and the rest of our problems with a determined effort from people in the know. Anyone here not aware of the two problems looming just around the corner....Recession & Serious Inflation? :confuse:
Railroadjames(clean air-fuel efficient-mass transit)(words to live by)

bjw1

I saw the topic in this forum, all i have to say is gas will be $5/gal in 2 more years and not 2010 :sick:

euphonium

" We all need to conserve -recycle & manage better ways to get from "here to there". Sitting in rush-hour traffic jams just ain't working"

In the Puget Sound of WA, fuel is wasted in rush-hour traffic jams on I-5, I-90, & US99, while motorhomes are clogging the road getting 8 miles/gallon with usually only two people in 300 sq.ft occupying 40' of lane. Crawling behind the motorhome is an 18 wheeler from Canada heading for Mexico towing a 53' trailer, but when they finally get free of the jam, they pour it on to 15 over the speed limit. Puget Sound also harbors boats up to 26', yachts up to 150' and a few mega yachts. There are more watercraft per capita in Puget Sound than anyplace else and Marina gas is over 3 bucks a gallon now, but the very highly paid employees of the airo space industry, computer business, and micro biology labs can afford it.
The rest of the working people in other businesses and industries such as logging, paper making, & service industries have it very hard to make a go of it. It is those folk who are having a serious problem with the price of gas and they need it to drive up to 70 miles to work because the price of homes is cheaper in the Boonies.
Bottom line, the well off will pay willingly to float their boat while the average person will cut some other item in their budget, but the oil companies will be paid.
Answer: Own an oil company or two as best you can through stock purchases.

perry40

Sorry Highender ... I will agree ... my previous comments were too narrow of scope ... SUV's are only a part of the problem ... our general North American lifestyle (which is consumer driven and largely wasteful), combined with our economies reliance on a non-renewable resource ... add to that the 2+billion Chinese who are trying their best to adopt our way of life ... well, therein lies the reason why our gasoline prices are high ... and will ultimately get higher still.
Yes, needless driving, whether it be in an Escalade or a Echo isn't responsible ... but as a motorcycle owner (which is primarily a recreational vehicle, i.e. "wasteful"), then I guess that makes me a bit of a hypocrite ...

kevm14

I think we should drill, also. Judging by how much effect that texas oil refinery explosion had (at 3% US oil supply), opening up a field in that wildlife reserve (BOY that's a small relative area) should really have an effect.

On the Earth - really, what is the point of conserving? We should use what's on the earth. Why? Because we're here now. The earth was here magnitudes of time before we got here and will continue to be long after we're gone. It's such a small amount of time that "conserving" with that big picture in mind just seems downright silly. To the green folks: how about not personifying the earth, hmm? It's a big sphere of molten rock at the core, with cold crust at the surface. It happens to have an atmosphere that supports carbon based life forms. It's not a person. It doesn't have feelings.
We're here to serve ourselves. Doing anything else would be a disservice to the human race.

I've got my best interests at heart. Pertaining to this topic, it's filling my cars' gas tanks as cheaply as possible. Some people have other agendas. This is mine.

This is a bit off-topic, but fun. If you want to feel really insignificant (puts an interesting perspective on this forum topic), then click here.

rorr

"...just because a particular nation (or idividual for that matter) happens to have more purchasing power, it does not give them the right..."

Just happens to have more purchasing power? Like "purchasing power" is something that just falls out of the sky and hits certain people (or certain countries) on the head and goes *poof* - look we've got purchasing power!.

Uh, no.

Purchasing power, by and large, is something that is earned; be it by an individual or a country. And being something that is EARNED, then I would have to say it certainly DOES give them the right to use.

Kirstie_H

OK, we've kind of gone off the rails here - stick to projected gas prices rather than purchasing power.

Now, back to the potential for gas prices to increase: Would it be so bad? Is the price inflation real or perceived?

Forgive me if tables have already been posted, as I can't read every previous post. There's a rough table here showing historical national averages, adjusted for inflation, and for those of you who love charts (don't lie - some of you do!), here's and article with more recent and more frequently graphed data. "In real (inflation adjusted dollars) gas is actually still cheaper than it was back in 1980!" Actually, it's just about even right now.

Prices have been all over the place, so if one can make a projection based on historical trends, it's certainly beyond my skills.

kirstie_h
Roving Host
Host, Future Vehicles & Smart Shopper discussions

iconoclast

Now, back to the potential for gas prices to increase: Would it be so bad? Is the price inflation real or perceived?
Would $5 a gallon be bad...absolutely. Is the price inflation real...yes. Is it necessary based on the amount of oil available...no. Is it based on the ability to make pure profit because of our dependence...yes. The oil companies know how to make money and they will continue to do this as often as we, the consumer, allow them to do so. And like the one post earlier, there are not too many of us going to stop using gasoline and change our driving habits until we are forced to do so. We're spoiled and not used to making sacrifices for the general good...since the general good is a personal perception. The car manufacturers can make more fuel efficient vehicles, SUVs and others. Will they? Not until they are forced to do so by the consumer. Ever noticed how there seems to be some correlation between what oil prices do and what vehicles are made? Now will we see a reduction in big gas guzzlers so we have to buy small cars only to see gas come down and here come the big cars again? Seems like an observation from my perspective over 63 years.

gagrice

Will they drill in Alaska...of course. Will it make a difference...no.

Why would you say that a million barrels a day for 30-40-50 years will not make a difference? It is a million less we have to buy from another country. It keeps those dollars in the US economy. I would think that it would have a big impact.

li_sailor

pf_flyer: ...we're well below the inflation adjusted max price we've ever seen.

kirstie_h: ...gas is actually still cheaper than it was back in 1980!

Funny, I was just looking at that chart:



Here's a better one, showing actual price and adjusted price over a longer period:



Yes, it's true that, in real terms, gas was higher in the 'post '73 crisis' years. But that was based on politics. The recent run-up is based on supply and demand and so is more fundamental.

And I think a better view of the 'problem' is shown by the price of oil, adjusted:



If you ignore the '73 crisis/"cartel attempt at fixing" period of '73 to '80, the runup of the last 2 years is quite significant...again, reflecting supply and demand, not politics.

I totally disagree that it's just media hype...if anything, most of the public is blissfully unaware of the fundamentals of oil and even of how totally dependant we are on it being plentiful and relatively cheap. The more educated we get, the better we will be able to handle it. Look at Social Security...as the basic facts have come out, even the frantic spin of the current administration is unable to hoodwink most of the public.

As for how the $5 gas would affect folks, sure the upper end would not be rocked...but the bulk of the population would not easily handle going from $133/month to $333/month (1000 miles @ 15 mpg going from $2 to $5). $200 a month is not chump change for middle america.

li_sailor

We should use what's on the earth. Why? Because we're here now.

Sure, we should use natural resources...but wisely. We're wasting like mad.

The reason why we should try to conserve is that we don't have a viable alternative to oil yet. The longer we put off depletion, the more time for R&D we get.

One can always increase scope to make any problem seem smaller. Not really useful.

li_sailor

Why would you say that a million barrels a day for 30-40-50 years will not make a difference?

Optimistic estimates for ANWR say 876 thousand barrels a day. World production is 75 million a day. Estimates are that it might reduce the price by 30-50c a barrel. It's about $50 today. That's 1%.

In any case, it's likely that we WILL drill in ANWR. And it will not affect the price of oil.

The question remains...what will we do? Give up SUVs for grocery hauling? But more high mpg vehicles? More hybrids? Reduce particulate standards to allow more diesel? Drive less?

larsb

If you see this chart, we had a "worse spike than this" back from July 2003 to August 2003 in Phoenix....up 63 cents in about a month. This current spike is so far only 28 cents in the last month....The difference is (in my opinion) that NOW, the price will NEVER go back down as low as $1.49 again - ever. I think the chart indicates January 2004 as the last time we will ever have gas below $1.50 a gallon...

gagrice

Optimistic estimates for ANWR say 876 thousand barrels a day.

If and when ANWR comes on line it will still have to share the Pipeline with several other fields. I am not sure what the current maximum capacity of the line is. I would say there would not be available capacity for even 876,000 barrels a day for at least 30 more years. The oil in the NPR is just now getting developed. That is not a known quantity as it has not been available for seismic tests till recently. The point is to keep a million barrels plus flowing for many years to come. There is talk of a second line going through Canada for the massive amounts of gas that are still in the Prudhoe field. The goal is sustained oil flow with safeguards for the environment. I think the oil companies are doing a good job. The caribou & waterfowl populations have expanded in the last 30 years. Will it make a difference as far as the price of gas. I doubt it. It will keep us a little less dependent on OPEC.

electrictroy

"March 20, 1958 Premium in CA was .33 a gallon"
"April 17, 1977 Regular in WA was .57 a gallon"
"April 05, 2005 Regular in WA is 2.33 a gallon"

==============================================

INFLATION ADJUSTED to 2005 DOLLARS
March 20, 1958 Premium in CA was $1.90 a gallon
April 17, 1977 Regular in WA was $2.70 a gallon
April 05, 2005 Regular in WA is 2.33 a gallon

Gas now is still cheaper than it was at its peak.

troy

dmcmahon

Those who are looking for a one-stop solution to the problem won't find it. Our civilization's dependency on petroleum is so deep that we will pretty much have to do anything and everything as we head down the backside of Hubbert's production curve. That means driving less, ditching gas-guzzlers, producing ANWR, getting a bigger fraction of what's in each field, coal-to-liquids technology, producing super-heavy oils and tar sands, plug-in hybrids, reusing energy-rich crop wastes.

The current price rise is being driven by the fact that we are nearing or past the world's maximum production rate for petroleum. New discoveries have been running at about 1/6 consumption for the past decade. The only reason the R/P ratio has held constant is because estimates of the size of existing fields went up as better technologies became available. We're not going to "run out", but we're probably not going to be able to produce much more than the ~90Gb/year that we are now, and as fields go into decline the production levels will drop even as demand from developing countries is soaring. There will be some ups and downs as higher prices have depressing effects on developing economies, and some speculative elements come and go, but the long-term trend is inexorably higher.

Gas should be $5 / gallon now, because we should tax it, as Europe does. Nothing else is going to give the average driver the right incentives to buy a fuel-efficient vehicle, live closer to where they work, car pool, or use alternate transportation. CAFE rules certainly won't - they just force car makers to build vehicles no one wants. With gas, Iit's a pay-me-now or pay-me-later proposition. Unfortunately, the US adopted the pay-me-later approach, and we will someday be paying the $5 to OPEC countries rather than using it, as we might have done, to fund energy research.

The easiest of the various things we can do about the problem is to improve fuel efficiency. This doesn't have to mean everyone drives around in a Smart Car, but, yeah, we probably don't need to take a Hummer back and forth to the Safeway, and across the spectrum of more reasonably-sized vehicles, a lot can be done (e.g. hybrid technology) to reduce consumption. The current horsepower race is reminiscent of the muscle-car era of the 60s, and not coincidentally, gas prices in inflation-adjusted dollars are at roughly the same levels. It's going to look a bit silly by 2010.

Lifestyle changes (driving less and/or using public transportation) are going to be harder to make. Telecommuting may be the only such change that will be relatively painless.

One thing I expect to see the US do is start producing synthetic fuels from coal. We've got a lot of coal. It would probably help us to save our fossil energy sources, but in particular coal and natural gas, for transportation needs, rather than burning them up to produce electricity. Sadly, we probably won't look seriously at nuclear power again until a fossil energy crisis is upon us.

One thing I do not think we'll see is a fuel switch (to hydrogen, or ethanol, or natural gas, or whatever). Hydrogen isn't an energy source, because we can't go dig it up anywhere; mostly it's produced in an energy-losing way from gas. Yes, we could produce it from electricity, but that begs the question of where that energy comes from. Ethanol from crops sounds appealing until you look at just how much petroleum is used to grow crops; this is at best an energy break-even. Natural gas isn't an answer because it's another non-renewable resource and it, too, is in short supply and getting pricier. Barring some major advance in nuclear or renewable technologies that makes non-fossil-derived electricity or hydrogen plentiful, we'll be using fossils and recycled wastes to power our transportation for decades to come.

Mr_Shiftright

You wont' have to wait to 2010 to see $5 because today in Big Sur California (admittedly, a difficult and remote sort of place), regular gas is now $3.79 a gallon. Just heard it on the radio this AM.

rorr

"Look at Social Security...as the basic facts have come out, even the frantic spin of the current administration is unable to hoodwink most of the public."

You were doing fine until you just HAD to throw in a political left jab (pun intended).

electrictroy

"I do object to drilling in ANWR. My objections are based on my understanding of the US Constitution and concepts of social contract between government and the governed."

.

According to the Constitution, the U.S. Congress has absolutely NO power to decide (points to the Bill of Rights, amendments 9/10). It's an Alaskan reserve, wholly within Alakan control, and therefore should be decided by Alaskan citizens & their representatives in the State House.

The rest of us can express our opinions of course, but the final power, legally, lies in the hands of the Alaskan Government.

.

That said, I would advise the Alaskans to wait until 2050. By the time, OPEC, Russia, and Canada will have run-out, or very close to empty. Then Alaska will be the last remaining oil source. Alaskans can charge $500 a barrel and become millionaires.

troy

li_sailor

Good post...agree with much.

On tax v CAFE, I agree that's a big question...or, more aptly, a big possible answer to this topic's question...if oil supply/demand forces $5 gas, should we increase taxes to lower consumption? Of course, a $2 tax at that point produces $7 gas. Ouch. Prob better to tax sooner to put off the higher price. With the current politics, that's as likely as Rivera blowing a save (oops!).

I disagree that CAFE resulted in "cars no one wants". In fact, 2 tier CAFE produced two things: 1) SUVs...which many want and are wasting gas (mostly) and 2) higher mpg cars. Get rid of the 'LTV exemption" and toughen the numbers (like China is about to do) and we could reduce consumption.

One thing I do not think we'll see is a fuel switch (to hydrogen, or ethanol, or natural gas, or whatever). Hydrogen isn't an energy source...

Yes, hydrogen is basically a energy storage device, allowing energy sources not practical to be on board a vehicle get there. But coal to hydrogen is a good way to do this, and I think it will. But we'll have to lick the pollution problem in that approach first.

Barring some major advance in nuclear or renewable technologies...we'll be using fossils and recycled wastes to power our transportation for decades to come.

At $5 a gallon or more :=)

li_sailor

You were doing fine until you just HAD to throw in a political left jab (pun intended).

I think I'm still doing fine :=)

It was an example of how spin doesn't always work. I think you can understand it, regardless of your politcal tilt.

Which, you were doing fine with until you reacted to it :=)

BTW, let's not get personal, ok?

rorr

Oh, I can recognize spin when I see it.....but you're right about one thing, I do find it difficult to not react to it.

The topic at hand was gas prices and their effect; not Social Security.

Mr_Shiftright

Look let's be honest. We are all oil junkies in America and Alaska oil is just going to keep us high for a few more weeks. It's a drop in the bucket of our consumption levels and accomplishes nothing, whether it does damage or not. Junkies don't always act rationally and they tend to freak out when supply is threatened. It is a pretty limp-wristed attempt at a longterm energy policy and not necessary as a short-term policy.

I agree, let's wait 50 years and see what's what.

rorr

"I agree, let's wait 50 years and see what's what."

We may not have that long. From what I understand, the useful life expectancy for the TAPS (Trans Alaska Pipeline) may not allow us to simply wait indefinitely before ANWR is tapped.

logic1

Your analysis ignores how the State of Alaska was created.

The territory was bought by the federal government. Land was doled out to the locals through homestead and sales operations.

The federal government retained large portions of the territory when Alaska became a state, including what is now the ANWR.

If the Alaskan citizens want to repay the federal government, with interest, for the purchase price, they may have an argument. Somehow I doubt they will.

euphonium

There is a definite connection between SUPPLEMENTAL Social Security and the price of fuel. Don't be surprised if your monthly SSS check pays your total monthly gas bill! My other investments will cover my other expenses.

rorr

"If the Alaskan citizens want to repay the federal government, with interest, for the purchase price, they may have an argument. Somehow I doubt they will."

Consider:

The federal government paid 7.2 million dollars for Alaska in 1867 with a total area of 656,425 sq. miles.

That equates to about 1.7 cents per acre. If the area proposed to be developed is 2000 acres, that would be the equivalent of $34.27. Now, I don't know what the overall rate of inflation would be between 1867 and 2005, but I think it safe to say that the amount of money returned to the federal government through the proposed lease more than offsets the intial purchase price.

kernick

It is apparent that many of us have an opinion 1 way or the other on conservation or continue along as we are. I'm of the opinion that due to human motivation and basic needs conservation will never work globally; and it is only globally that it will work. There are simply too many people who don't have the lifestyle we do who want it, really bad. I guess you could go down to the Arizona-Mexican border and see a small example of the world-wide issue for yourself.

But forget that. Let's say we could magically convince people to conserve, and those have nothing and use little oil not aspire to oil-usage. Okay! We're going to save 25% of oil. Growth will continue so oil usage will continue up. So we make 40 years of oil last 50 years. What have you accomplished? Now some may say well that's 10 more years we have to find an alternative energy source. But I don't think the 2 are related.

I would guess that whether we run out of oil in 40 or 50 years, scientific research will continue. How? There will certainly be nuclear and renewable energy sources susfficient to allow research continue. Scientific research does not come to an end when oil runs out. Societies may change to use less energy, but societies for centuries lived without oil. Are we saying we and civilization can't go on if our lifestyle changes?

And whether the next big energy source is discovered in 35, 55, 75, or never, it shouldn't change our basic happiness. I reject the premise that people were miserable when they had horses and bikes.

Life is about happiness, not perpetual worrying about resources which will always be limited. Now I've got to get back to worrying about sun burning out. ;-)

Kirstie_H

I do find it difficult to not react to it.

Difficult, but not impossible :P If you notice an off-topic comment within a post, please just ignore it rather than send the whole discussion off-topic. Thanks!

kirstie_h
Roving Host
Host, Future Vehicles & Smart Shopper discussions

dmcmahon

...magically convince people to conserve...

Germany and Japan have about the same per-capita GDP as we do, yet they use about 1/2 the petroleum we do. No need for magic to make a big difference.

...more years we have to find an alternative energy source...

Exactly. We squandered the last 20 years; we can't afford to squander the next 20.

...whether we run out of oil in 40 or 50 years...

The R/P ratio of 40 doesn't mean we can produce at the current rate and then drop to zero production in 2045. Instead, production will fall off gradually but we'll still be producing something even in 2100. That fall-off, versus rising demand, is creating the squeeze we're seeing at the gas pump. If we can manage to reduce consumption and/or increase our domestic supply by, say, 3% per year, we can possibly stay even with the production decline curve and avoid a crisis, at least for a decade or so.

There will certainly be nuclear and renewable energy sources susfficient to allow research continue.

Only if we invest in them. Renewables have real problems because the sources are very diffuse and intermittent. BP estimated it would take a solar collector 100 miles square to equal the energy flow of one average-sized service station. The energy ROI on renewables is pretty low, at best perhaps 5:1 for wind, as compared with 50:1 for oil. Besides the waste issue, nukes have a problem no one's thinking about: there just isn't as much uranium as you'd think. If we somehow ran our entire civilization (including transportation) on uranium fission, we'd exhaust known reserves in a shockingly-short 4 years. Coal would run it for 60 years. To make fission viable, we need to reprocess fuel (banned by Carter for political reasons in the 70s) and we need to breed and burn plutonium from otherwise-wasted U238. This stretches fission out to 200 years. Since no one's talking about doing those things, I'm not holding my breath for nukes to carry the day.

Societies may change to use less energy, but societies for centuries lived without oil. Are we saying we and civilization can't go on if our lifestyle changes?

Um, like, yeah. The human population exploded during the 20th century. It can't be sustained with out energy-intensive agricultural production. Certainly nothing like our present population could be supported with 19th-century technologies. We face mass starvation if nothing is done.

logic1

You are assuming that the purchase was straight up for land. Many acquisitions involve real property and mineral and and timber rights. There is no reason to assume the price should just break down per acre.

The fact remains the feds, and not the odd 300k people or so who drifted into Alaska since 1867 bought the place.

The Inuit may have a claim to the oil and other mineral wealth greater than the rest of the Union's taxpayers. The rest of the Alaskans have no greater claim than any other US citizen.

rorr

Are you then in favor of shutting down production at Prudhoe bay? Why not apply that same line of reasoning to Louisiana oil?

li_sailor

Junkies don't always act rationally and they tend to freak out when supply is threatened.

Exactly. The first reaction is usually denial, including "what problem"?

I've been posting on Edmunds' boards for a long time and I can't count the number of times I've heard things like "we have plenty of oil" or "there's plenty of waste elsewhere" or "it's a free country and I'll do what I want".

... let's wait 50 years and see what's what.

Hmmm, I wonder what the price of gas will be in 2055. In specialty shops, I mean :=)

logic1

Who said anything about shutting down production?

I said I have political ideas well outside of autos - which the Edmunds monitors consistently say are not allowed here - about allowing production in the ANWR which was established by Eisenhauer.

The better analogy, in my mind, would be should now allow exploration for shale oil in Yellowstone, or even geo thermal, or perhaps should California allow timber interests to hit Giant Sequoia National Park?

reddogs

Question 1:Will they drill in Alaska...... Will it make a difference.... ??

Answer: OF COURSE it makes a difference, oil prices are speculative and as such are VERY sesnsitive to changes in supply & demand, a good example is the price swing to $55 from what were $10-20 per barrel before investors came across this latests "China needs oil" mantra.

Question 2: How do you SEE people conserving gas??

Answer: When you SEE your neigbor take the Toyota Echo instead of the Ford Expedition to pick up eggs at the 7-11, they are definitely conserving....

Logic1, I think your objections to drilling in Alaska "based on my understanding of the US Constitution and concepts of social contract between government and the governed" is a stretch [a : to amplify or enlarge beyond natural or proper limits b : to expand (as by improvisation) to fulfill a larger function ] in every sense of the word. But I do agree, that government has to be held accountable and be responsive to "the governed", as it can swing from one extreme to the other depending on events and issues.

Down here in Florida the goverment has been at the other end of the pendulum on the oil drilling issue and passing laws to protect against it. They are going overboard to protect animal habitats and in leauge with Environmentalists are taking away our property and kicking us off our land so that the Fish, Alligators, Panthers, Manetee's and other Wildlife can frolick to their hearts content on our Constitutionally Protected Rights and Property while we CANNOT step foot in it under full penalty of the law. So if a few caribou are inconvinience by drilling in ANWR, I say "Better you than I" because they are letting the Environmentalists run rampant down here under pretext of preservation...... :mad:

li_sailor

...I'm of the opinion that due to human motivation and basic needs conservation will never work globally...

I have no idea what this means. It's certainly possible for the US to move the fleet to higher mpg over a period of years, by many means...voluntary, CAFE, gas tax, etc. Likewise in the growing markets, like China...where, although their consumption rate is dwarfed by ours (the US), they are enacting an even tougher CAFE than we are. Conservation is as possible as waste, just more desireable :=).

Now some may say well that's 10 more years we have to find an alternative energy source.

I would be one.

...societies for centuries lived without oil.

Yikes. Did they have today's standard of living? Put down that flint for a moment and think about it.

... it shouldn't change our basic happiness.

This is one of the major problems today. Many folks think there is never a need for sacrifice. No need to 'scale back a little today to do better tomorrow'. Our spinning leaders have us (some of us) convinced there is a free lunch, that debt never has to be paid and good times are right around the corner.

Life is about happiness...

It's about happiness balanced with responsibility. Without that balance, we all know what we would do all day :=)

Kirstie_H

It's generally a good idea to read and digest posts from the hosts. Posts carrying on a discussion after I said "stop" have been removed.

Keep in mind that this is not a discussion about where we should/should not be drilling for oil, purchasing oil, shutting down production of oil,or searching for oil. The topic is what if we DO hit $5/gallon in 5 years time? What effect will this have on the economy, driving habits, the direction vehicle manufacturers take?

If comments can't be kept on-topic, we'll assume that this discussion has run its course.

kirstie_h
Roving Host
Host, Future Vehicles & Smart Shopper discussions

rorr

Okay, consider my axe grinding over for the day. I'll try to keep on topic.

kernick

you: Germany and Japan have about the same per-capita GDP as we do, yet they use about 1/2 the petroleum we do.

me: maybe a coincidence that they also have a much higher population density/sq.mile and thus more public transportation. Also taxes have a major impact on consumption (so the typical German has much less money to actually spend).

you: If we can manage to reduce consumption and/or increase our domestic supply by, say, 3% per year, we can possibly stay even with the production decline curve and avoid a crisis, at least for a decade or so.

me: bailing water on the Titantic. Same result 10 years later.

you: Only if we invest in them. Renewables have real problems because the sources are very diffuse and intermittent.

me: My point wasn't that we would have enough energy for everyone to maintain their current lifestyle. My point was that there would be enough energy to continue research into alternative energies, whether there was oil or not. We have sufficient nuclear plants to generate power to conduct fusion experiments or other experiments.

you: Um, like, yeah. It can't be sustained with out energy-intensive agricultural production. We face mass starvation if nothing is done.

me: Hmm. From WWII until the last few years China had very little mechanization and managed to grow from about 500 million to 1B+ people. Kind of shoots down your theory. Maybe you'd have to learn how to farm, cut trees for fuel, and such. I guess if you didn't want to work you might starve. I guess that would be a crisis for you?

logic1

If you compute US population on a straight person per square mile basis, population density is probably much lower than Germany and Japan.

But the US has a lot of square miles - the Great Plains, the Southwestern Deserts, much of Alaska, where almost no one lives. If you compared the densities where most US people live and commute with Germany, the two are probably closer than you may think.

Japan is a different story. Almost a third of the Japanese people live in Greater Tokyo with much of Northern and Western Japan very empty.

Your take on China does not equate with the facts. Chinese agriculture has kept pace with the population growth for two reasons: huge strides in agriculture technology that is highly energy intensive and the high protein strains of rice developed in the Philippines in the 1960s. The biggest social problem in China right now is the mass unemployment in rural areas. This is because the new farms do not need people. They use tractors and machinery. The Chinese also have huge and very energy intensive fish factories sailing the 4 corners of the Earth.

rorr

Okay - if we accept hypothetically, for the sake of this topic, that gas IS at $5/gal in 2010 then.....

1. Recession
2. Stepped up production of domestic oil in currently verbotin areas (discussions of whether or not ANWR should be utilitized will be a moot point whether the actual effects are negligible or not. The general public supports drilling in ANWR today with gas at around $2.30/gal nationally; that pressure can only increase if gas is at $5.)
3. Driving habits will change only moderately IMO. Those who are predisposed to buy the most efficient vehicle/conserve/car pool/use mass transit are already doing so. Some will be driven to the point of changing their habits but it will be forced on them economically and it will be resented.
4. Vehicle manufacturers will be selling far less SUV's/light trucks and far more efficient vehicles. Rising gas prices (economics) will succeed where CAFE (legislation) could not. GM will be in extremely dire straights.
5. Possible large resurgence in the rail industry for transportation of goods.
6. Serious plans/construction of production facilities for utilization of shale oil in the US and oil sands in Canada.
7. Increased use of renewable energy sources (wind/solar/hydro/geo) will barely keep up with increased demand; particularly if hydrogen fuel cell technology takes off and there is substantial demand for hydrogen.

Perhaps we could start another topic on What If Gasoline is $2.50/gal in 2010? Personally (and this is a gut feeling), I think this scenario is about as likely.

rorr

There are other reasons (besides density) why public transportation works better in Europe and Japan than the U.S.

1. Cost of fuel. Obviously, when fuel prices are higher (as through taxation in Europe/Japan), it becomes more difficult to afford the 'extravagence' of using your own car for commuting on a daily basis.

2. Americans have traditionally over the last several decades (since WWII?) have had much more disposable income with which to become addicted to the car. On the other hand, much of Europe and Japan was too busy rebuilding their respective countries to get to this point.

3. Most cities in Japan and Europe, even those essentially rebuilt since the war, were not built around the car. Cities in America WERE essentially built around the car (except of course the larger, older metropolis' on the east coast where, strangely enough, mass transit works much better.) In other words, mass transit works better only in those places where the automobile really DOESN'T work.

4. Mentality of Americans, for better or worse, is inherently different from the Europeans/Japanese. Particularly the Japanese. We are much more independent, less willing to tie our schedules down to others, despite the fact that it may be 'better for us' as a society. This independence has been ingrained in us across generations and I think is one of the main reasons why we use mass transit only when conditions become SO bad for the use of private cars (through either economics, traffic congestion, or legislation) that we are FORCED to use mass transit.

logic1

Can't really argue with your points.

Although, see some of my posts from about a week ago. Two unlikely parties, the US Gov't and Los Angeles have gotten together on a bus project. The project involved a fairly low initial capital investments: basically, buses designed with floors lower to the ground for faster ingress and egress and gps systems on buses to control staging and trip stop lights. Results have been far better than expected with significantly faster bus trips and marked improvements in ridership.

Also, changes in the US mentality may be closer than those of us over 25 think. I read somewhere that teens today are far less likely to have a driver's license than any generation since the 1950s. Polls indicate a significant percentage of teens have no real interest in driving.

rorr

Well, since I'm nearly 25 years past my teens, sometimes it's difficult for me to understand the current mindset. :confuse:

I can only go based on MY convictions as a teen/young adult: getting a DL meant freedom. When the local hangout is a puny little strip center and it is 30 miles into town, one gains an appreciation (addiction?) for the automobile very early. Granted, as our urban areas gain density (arguable), and congestion/fuel cost rise, I see where it makes more and more sense to develop a 'herd' instinct and go with mass transit.

Would this trend increase if fuel costs head towards $5/gal in 5 years? Consider this; as fuel costs increase, those less able to afford the financial crunch will gravitate more and more towards mass transit. As fuel cost increase, and mass transit is used more and more, is it conceiveable that traffic congestion could decrease to the point where those who currently use mass transit due to CONGESTION rather than economic needs would return to their cars? Would we then see more of a 'class warfare' issue erupt between those forced to use mass transit due to economics against those who 'flaut' their economic superiority by driving?

lemko

Public transportation has an image, fair or unfair, of being the conveyance for the poor or losers. Until this image changes, I don't see a mass acceptance of public transportation regardless of fuel costs. Even some of those who are poor don't want to look it by taking the bus.

rorr

Exactly, and much better phrased than my post.

Okay - so how does one go about eliminating that stigma? Rolling Starbucks/newstands concessions for morning rush hour and happy hour in the evening? Perhaps institute 1st class/business class/and economy class seating on the bus with some nice perks available to those who pay?

In short, how does one make it "cool" to use mass transit without "demonizing" the car?

Kirstie_H

And public transportation for anything but large cities is really hard to achieve. This country is so vast and has so much rural area and mid-sized towns, that even a comprehensive public transportation system for all metro areas would leave half the population completely unserved, and they'd still be forced to drive - regardless of income.

What about mass transit for longer journeys? Amtrak's service lines (except on the East Coast) make it difficult to consider taking the train for long journeys. For example, I live in St. Louis, and it would take me several days, a drive to a bus stop 60 miles away, and an out-of-the-way stop in Chicago to get to Denver. I can drive it in 11 hours. Would heavily increased fuel prices cause more of a focus to be directed toward improving cross-country train service? Would this be a good investment, or a bad one?

kirstie_h
Roving Host
Host, Future Vehicles & Smart Shopper discussions

logic1

But be clear: you are talking our generation and smaller cities.

There is no stigma taking mass transit in Chicago and New York. Indeed, some of the best train lines in New York and Chicago thread along the string of those cities' finest residential pearls.

logic1

I think intracity trains work only in the dense corridors such Boston to Wash DC, the Pacific Coast, and maybe Chicago to Milwaukee.

Otherwise, the better bet is probably improving interurban bus service or - more importantly - making more efficient airplanes and fixing airport and air traffic problems that leave planes circling around the airports wasting fuel and aggravating passengers.

rorr

Have to agree with you regarding intracity train service. For the vast majority of the country, rail lines are predominately used to move freight rather than passengers. Also, most of the rail lines are privately held as opposed to the public highways. AmTrak moves at THEIR schedule. As fuel costs rise, I can see higher train traffic but it would be centered around the movement of goods rather than people.

But I can see increased use for intracity bus service. I think two of the problems facing intracity bus service NOW is from the 'loser/poor' stigma mentioned above by lemko and the time problem similar to Amtrak. Where I live, it is about a 3-hour drive to Houston and a 1.5 to 2 hour drive to San Antonio. My brother-in-law (recently retired from the USAF) was in town over the holidays, sans car, and was looking into taking a bus to San Antonio to visit other relatives or to Houston to visit friends. The San Antonio trip would have been better than 4 hours and the trip to Houston close to 7. He ended up renting a car.....