As the Antiplanner pointed out on Tuesday, the increase in mass transit ridership accounts for only a tiny fraction of the decline in driving. What else are people doing to cope with high fuel prices? Please take a moment and respond to this unscientific poll. Don’t worry about being precise; just make estimates.
1. Do you think you are driving less this year than last year? If “no,” skip to question 7.
If you are driving less, answer questions 2 through 6. Please answer with estimated percentages rounded to the nearest 10 percent (10, 20, 30, etc.). Keep in mind that the total cannot exceed 100; if the total is, say, 30 percent, that means you are driving 70 percent as much as you did last year.
I’ve reduced my driving by:
2. ___ % by using mass transit more
3. ___ % by walking and cycling more
4. ___ % by trip chaining, carpooling, or otherwise planning trips better
5. ___ % by not taking trips that no longer seem essential
6. ___ % by ______________ (fill in blank)
To the extent I am still driving, I am saving fuel by:
7. Driving the more fuel-efficient of my two (or more) cars
8. Driving slower (e.g., under 55 mph on freeways) to save fuel
9. Telecommuting from home more frequently
10. I bought a fuel-efficient car (30 mpg+) in the last year
11. I plan to buy a fuel-efficient car (30 mpg+) in the next year
12. In addition to or instead of the above, I am doing the following to save energy (fill in blank):
13. I have not changed my travel habits at all.
Furthermore, this medicine is able prescription du canada viagra to repair damaged muscle tissues. One must carefully follow the instructions given viagra on line sales by the health expert are not followed properly. ArginMax: ArginMax for viagra 25 mg Women is a food supplement which intends to promote healthy sexual health with its blend of traditional ingredients and essential vitamins and other important nutrients. When you take Pure Butea Superba the normally happening PDE 5 inhibitor http://opacc.cv/documentos/Codigo%20de%20Etica%20e%20Deontologia%20Profissional%20dos%20Contabilistas%20e%20Auditores%20Cabo-verdianos-APROVADO.pdf cialis in india is discharged permitting blood to surge in.
For the record, the Antiplanner’s answers are:
1. Drive less? Yes
2. Mass transit 0%
3. Walk/bike 0%
4. Tripchaining, carpooling, etc. 0%
5. Cut nonessential trips 20%
6. Other 0%
I am also saving energy by:
7. Driving more fuel-efficient of two cars Yes
8. Driving slower No
9. Telecommuting No
10. Bought fuel-efficient car No)
11. Intend to buy fuel-efficient car No
12. Other No
13. No changes in travel habits No
I imagine there is some polling software somewhere on the web, but instead, just cut and paste the following, with your answers, into your comments.
1. Drive less? Y or N
If Y, I am doing the following instead of driving:
2. Mass transit %
3. Walk/bike %
4. Tripchaining, carpooling, etc. %
5. Cut nonessential trips %
6. Other % What?
I am also saving energy by:
7. Driving more fuel-efficient of two cars Y or N
8. Driving slower Y or N
9. Telecommuting Y or N
10. Bought fuel-efficient car Y or N
11. Intend to buy fuel-efficient car Y or N
12. Other Y or N What?
13. No changes in travel habits Y or N
1. Drive less? Y
If Y, I am doing the following instead of driving:
2. Mass transit 0%
3. Walk/bike 0%
4. Tripchaining, etc. 5 %
5. Cut nonessential trips 20 %
6. Other % What?
I am also saving energy by:
7. Driving more fuel-efficient of two cars N
8. Driving slower N
9. Telecommuting N
10. Bought fuel-efficient car N (but I might take that little old car out of the garage and triple my gas milage)
11. Intend to buy fuel-efficient car N (but I might take that little old car out of the garage and triple my gas milage)
12. Other N
13. No changes in travel habits
BTW, see Portland’s safety tips on riding our toy train:
A safety tip from the City of Portland:
Choose a safe person on the MAX train. When you get on the train, use your intuition to choose someone that you feel would be safe to help you. If someone makes you uncomfortable, or you need help, you can ask this person for help by being direct, “You in the red shirt, I need help! Call 911!”
from: bojack.org/2008/06/the_kindness_of_strangers.html
Thanks
JK
I’ve reduced my driving by:
1. Drive less? Yes (I switched jobs; had nothing to do with gas prices)
2. 0 % by using mass transit more
3. 25 % by walking and cycling more (experimenting with trying to bike everywhere for a month; otherwise works close enough to bike so that’s what’s driving that behavior)
4. 0 % by trip chaining, carpooling, or otherwise planning trips better
5. 0 % by not taking trips that no longer seem essential
6. 50% by changing jobs (had nothing to do with gas prices)
To the extent I am still driving, I am saving fuel by:
7. Driving the more fuel-efficient of my two (or more) cars? Nope; still have the same 1999 econobox that I’ve had for nearly a decade.
8. Driving slower (e.g., under 55 mph on freeways) to save fuel? Nope
9. Telecommuting from home more frequently? I wish
10. I bought a fuel-efficient car (30 mpg+) in the last year? Nope; see 7
11. I plan to buy a fuel-efficient car (30 mpg+) in the next year? Nope; see 7
12. In addition to or instead of the above, I am doing the following to save energy (fill in blank): Installed a few curly tail bulbs…. but that’s cuz they’re brighter. And that is probably offset by my new wine ‘fridge.
13. I have not changed my travel habits at all. — Pretty much
. Drive less? a little
If Y, I am doing the following instead of driving:
2. Mass transit 0%
3. Walk/bike % only for exercise because it is summer
4. Trip chaining, carpooling, etc. 5%
5. Cut nonessential trips 5%
6. Other % What?
I am also saving energy by:
7. Driving more fuel-efficient of two cars N
8. Driving slower sometimes
9. Telecommuting N
10. Bought fuel-efficient car N
11. Intend to buy fuel-efficient car N
12. Other Y
What? buying less of other things I don’t need as much as transportation
1. Do you think you are driving less this year than last year? Yes.
I’ve reduced my driving by:
2. _1-2_ % by using mass transit more [my wife has always taken the bus to work, starting in college]
3. _1-2_ % by walking and cycling more [Just bought a new bicycle!]
4. _5_ % by trip chaining, carpooling, or otherwise planning trips better [started carpooling with a coworker who lives less than 2 miles from me]
5. _5_ % by not taking trips that no longer seem essential
6. ___ % by ______________ (fill in blank)
To the extent I am still driving, I am saving fuel by:
7. Driving the more fuel-efficient of my two (or more) cars – I only have one car and it gets decent (upper 20s mpg) gas mileage
8. Driving slower (e.g., under 55 mph on freeways) to save fuel – I am not driving slower, but I find myself not accelerating as fast and coasting whenever I can.
9. Telecommuting from home more frequently – nope
10. I bought a fuel-efficient car (30 mpg+) in the last year – nope
11. I plan to buy a fuel-efficient car (30 mpg+) in the next year – small-displacement motorcycle (I hope to get at least 55-60 mpg out of it)
12. In addition to or instead of the above, I am doing the following to save energy (fill in blank):
13. I have not changed my travel habits at all.
#1. Driving less? Answer is no. Ergo…
#13. I have not changed my travel habits at all. I drive a very old car that is in very good repair that gets good gas mileage.
Just for kicks, today I took a Houston Metro bus to work, mostly because I was not in a rush and because I wanted to do some research. Door to door, including walking to my bus stop 3 minutes away and to my company offices two minutes from the end stop, it took about 55 minutes to get to work, which is about what I thought it would take. My one way commute is 9 miles. I have an advantage of living off of Houston’s greatest and busiest street, served by two major bus routes, and work in a downtown office building.
Overall, this means my car saves me 50-60 minutes of time on my commute per day. Even at $15 per gallon gas, which would make cellulose ethanol economically viable, I will probably still be driving my car to work.
1. Drive less? Yes
If Y, I am doing the following instead of driving:
2. Mass transit 1%
3. Walk/bike 5%
4. Tripchaining, carpooling, etc. 20%
5. Cut nonessential trips 10%
6. Other 10% What? Living close to where I work, which is not a new thing, but using less gas was important to the decision.
I am also saving energy by:
7. Driving more fuel-efficient of two cars: N
8. Driving slower N
9. Telecommuting N
10. Bought fuel-efficient car N
11. Intend to buy fuel-efficient car N
12. Other N What?
13. No changes in travel habits N
Mass transit in Birmingham only really exists for people with no other options. I probably have the best access to it available, but it’ll be cheaper to drive until gas hits $8 a gallon.
I did tune up my bicycle. If only I could get in good enough shape to make it up the hill I live on…
Cycling should not even be on the list of things “people doing to cope with high fuel pricesâ€Â.
As I said before, cycling at, say 14mph, a human body burns about 950 calories per hour (200lb rider). That is 68 calories per mile.
Gas for one mile (assuming a 28mpg car, $4/gallon, solo driver) is about 14c.
Can you buy and cook 68 calories of human food for 14c? (that would be $5.17 for your entire 2500 cal daily caloric uptake, or $158/month in food expenses). Perhaps you can, on a very simple diet, say rice and cabbage (certainly not if you eat at the New Urbanist’s Café).
Adding vehicle costs could double the cost of driving, but still cycling would turn out more expensive.
Perhaps cycling can be on the “what people do to feel goodâ€Â, but not on the “how to save money on gas†list.
Personally, I often run to work which is, of course, even worse than cycling on my wallet (and following the environmental logic of resource waste, an environmental crime).
Hmmm. Try again:
Houston’s mayor sez he’s going to build more mass transit and esp light rail, and that there’s a ‘tremendous’ demand for density*.
DS
* http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91724121&ft=1&f=1001
As I said before, cycling at, say 14mph, a human body burns about 950 calories per hour (200lb rider).
And IIRC I said that was nonsense, chart here, and a 200 lb rider at 14 mph burns 615 cal/hr.
Nonetheless, people do it all the time and don’t wail, gnash their teeth, and rend their garments over this, as their commute burns excess fat, makes them lose weight, makes them healthier, and 95% of them will tell you that they are in a better mood when they get to work and when they get home.
So you find excuses to not ride. So what. Many more find way better reasons than yours to ride.
DS
Dan,
Our mayor here in Houston is term limited. He has about 18 months left in office. Our transit agency here will probably get started on one rail line within the next few months. The others will require either FTA funding or billions in borrowing to pull off.
As far as the idea that there is a tremendous demand for density, about 65 percent of the 500,000+ new residents we have added in Harris County since 2000 did not settle in Houston proper, but either in other municipalities in Harris County or in unincorporated areas of the County. That has been driving the Smart Growth crowd here berserk. In the aggregate, Houston and Harris County have been very slowly gaining density all around since about 1990. Some have been actively fighting density in their areas, but it doesn’t bother me at all.
And aren’t you going to join everyone and take the Antiplanner’s poll?
no,
To the extent I am still driving, I am saving fuel by:
7. Driving the more fuel-efficient of my two (or more) cars–no
8. Driving slower (e.g., under 55 mph on freeways) to save fuel–no way
9. Telecommuting from home more frequently–no, rented an office and moved out of home office
10. I bought a fuel-efficient car (30 mpg+) in the last year–no bought a 13mpg Land Rover in November 07.
11. I plan to buy a fuel-efficient car (30 mpg+) in the next year–no, shopping for another 12-14mpg car for the wife though.
12. In addition to or instead of the above, I am doing the following to save energy (fill in blank): n/a
13. I have not changed my travel habits at all.– Yes except going to the race track to burn a few tanks more often this summer.
Neal, I currently drive about 6000mi/yr and ride about 2000 mi/yr. & the ‘survey’ isn’t really geared toward me, because I cut down my carbon footprint and minless consumption of consumer cr*p years ago. Although we are going up to the mountains in the morning and I’ll be a passenger, so maybe there are some extra fractional miles in there somewhere (non-internal combustion recreation, tho).
Nonetheless. I am driving a little slower (8), and (12)we’re training the future mother-in-law about not jumping in the car 6 times a day to run to the store to buy a CFL for the socket she forgot about.
But anyway, re density, good for your city & I’m surprised there’s some SGers there. Will wonders never cease?
DS
One can find many references to various human caloric expenditures for cycling at 14mph (generally in the range of 500-1000cal/hr).
But let’s take Dan’s number of 615cal/hr@14mph,
…that is 44cal / mile. So, to make biking more economical than burning gas you would still have to replenish the additional caloric uptake with food that costs less than $0.14 (the equivalent gas cost per mile) per 44 food calories. That is $3.18 per 1000 calories. Still seems like you’d have to eat pretty cheap calories (e.g. 1000 calories in Big Macs (2) would still cost you around $6 – if you consider a better diet and add calorie poor, mineral rich vegetables it gets even more expensive).
——–
The dollar cost comparison is even more unfavorable for walking vs. driving.
For walking, the additional human caloric uptake is around 280 cal/hr at 3.5 miles/hour so 80 calories/mile.
So, to make it cheaper than gas, walking commuters would have to replenish the additional caloric uptake with food that costs less than $0.14 per 80 calories. That is $1.75 for 1000 calories, which seems impossibly low to achieve on any balanced diet.
Walking and cycling may have many benefits, but saving money compared to driving a car does not seem to be one of them – they do not belong on APs list of ways to save on gas.
This gets even better when you compare to an efficient car:
25 mph biking:..69 Kcal/mi
60mpg car:…..525 Kcal/mi
Question: what is the energy ratio required to produce food. We know that it is quite high for meat.
Then there is the fertilizer, water pumping, diesel, gasolene, shipping, local store,
Is it possible that driving an efficient car uses less energy per mile than biking?
Thanks
JK
The problem with Gridlock Karlock’s and Ettinger’s “energy logic” is that for practical purposes, a 1/2 mile trip by walking can easily be functionally equivalent to much longer trips via automobile or any other mechanized mode, assuming of course that destinations exist within walking distance.
Even accepting their “logic” (sic) for a moment (I really don’t), it falls apart on its own terms if the food consumed comes from one’s own garden or was grown locally and not shipped halfway around the world from Chile or some other remote outpost. Thus the actual very large energy saving ability of urban walkability, let alone its many other priamry social and secondary economic virtues.
Houston’s mayor sez he’s going to build more mass transit and esp light rail, and that there’s a ‘tremendous’ demand for density.
I’ll believe it when the private sector moves to provide either. In the meantime, I don’t think Houston’s mayor is willing to put his own money where his mouth is (though he seems inclined to do so with other people’s).
Like Don Boudreaux said recently, politics delivers Svengalis, not salvation.
“Nonetheless, people do it all the time and don’t wail, gnash their teeth, and rend their garments over this, as their commute burns excess fat, makes them lose weight, makes them healthier, and 95% of them will tell you that they are in a better mood when they get to work and when they get home.” –DS
I agree with those from my own experiences. It does take a more time but I’m out and getting the exercise. The ride home is especially good since I have no choice. Usually that time of the day I want to just sit down and relax. Well, I do get to sit down.
msh*tty said: Even accepting their “logic†(sic) for a moment (I really don’t), it falls apart on its own terms if the food consumed comes from one’s own garden
JK: Garden? What garden?
There is no room for gardens in the planner’s communities of high rise condos as far as the eye can see. It takes a couple acres of back yard to grow enough food to live on. Not very walkable.
OR you simply think that growing a few veggies will support a person.
Or, maybe you are one of the planners that dictates high density to others and lives on a five acre plot.
msh*tty said: or was grown locally and not shipped halfway around the world from Chile or some other remote outpost.
JK: It is not about the shipping, it is about all the energy used to produce food on an industrial scale. (there are industrial endeavors other than city planning.)
msetty said: Thus the actual very large energy saving ability of urban walkability, let alone its many other priamry social and secondary economic virtues.
JK: What energy saving? Prove it with some peer reviewed articles, not crap from the sttp.
Thanks
JK
Gridlock Karlock actually used the word “peer reviewed” in a sentence? Talk about a non sequitur!
How does “walkable” translate into “high rises?” Oh, I forgot that is the slander you want to get across; either our development is very low density at a few units per acre, or its the Pearl District or Mahattan; nothing in between! Ever heard of “streetcar suburbs???”
http://stephenrees.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/patrick-condon-on-trams-and-the-city/.
Sheesh! Or should I say Sh**!?
During World War II the vast majority of Americans lived in walkable communities–mostly single family, actually, like most of the prewar portions of Portland–and managed to grow a significant percentage of their food in “victory gardens.” And before the heavy “industrialization” of agriculture, the energy intensity was much lower from use of natural sources, e.g., MANURE, you know, the same as you spew out in your rantings…
I shouldn’t assume that you have a clue, Gridlock, but there is also an emissions free method of synthesizing ammonia fertilizer from air, water, and electricity generated from windmills, which is being seriously pursued by investors based in Iowa. Google it… “freedom fertilizer…”
Oh, yeah Kraplock:
“Peer reviewed”
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713746727~db=all~order=page.
Abstract:
Auto ownership and mileage per car are shown to vary in a systematic and predictable fashion in response to neighborhood urban design and socio-economic characteristics in the Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco regions. In all three cases, average auto ownership is primarily a function of the neighborhood’s residential density, average per capita income, average family size and the availability of public transit. Similarly, the average annual distance driven per car is a strong function of density, income, household size and public transit, and a weaker function of the pedestrian and bicycle friendliness of the community. The similarity of these relationships among the three metro areas, despite their differences in geography and age, suggests that similar relationships may be consistent throughout the United States or worldwide. The application of the results to other metro areas is discussed. The dependence of driving on the policy-related variables of residential density, transit access, and pedestrian and bicycle-friendliness may provide policy makers with additional tools for reducing the costs and environmental impacts of transportation.
Keywords: Location Efficiency; Vehicle Miles Traveled
Gridlock, if you want a copy of this, pay for a copy out of your own pocket.
Hey Gridlock Kraplock:
Also take a look here. You’ll notice that outside of the immediate downtown area and more than 2-3 blocks in these Toronto pictures, there are THOUSANDS of single family houses within easy walking distance of the various subway stations. In fact, the vast majority of Toronto subway riders DON’T live the high-rise apartments, but rather live all over the TTC service area, accessing the stations mainly by walking and by very frequent bus service.
Within 50 miles of the 5 million+ residents of Greater Toronto, there is more than sufficient agricultural lands to feed everyone, plus the other 5 million+/- residents of Ontario. Unlike many countries, the U.S. is well-endowed with very fertile, prime farmlands located within a few hours of most major cities, even in dry California, Arizona, and Nevada. Unless of course, these increasingly valuable farmlands are paved over into ranchettes and other non-farm uses, as Randal and his cohorts don’t seem to have a problem with.
M sh*t head:
I shouldn’t assume that you have a clue, Gridlock, but there is also an emissions free method of synthesizing ammonia fertilizer from air, water, and electricity generated from windmills, which is being seriously pursued by investors based in Iowa. Google it… “freedom fertilizer…â€Â
JK: I see you just discovered chem 101.
I went through this stuff when Portland was all a thither over peak oil. One of their arguments was we are going to run out of food because we are running out of natural gas (along with oil). They were too illiterate to look at why natural gas is used to make fertilizer (it’s a source of H2) and figure out what other options are available (hydrolysis).
Of course you are wrong about the windmills – we will never get much power from “alternative†energy sources. The electricity would have to be nuke to be practical.
You probably haven’t figured this out yet, but you can also get oil that way. H2 from water, C from coal and a little catalyzing = liquid fuel. If you pull the C out of atmospheric CO2, then you are carbon neutral (I just add this for those that have gotten sucked in by AL Gore’s lies that CO2 maters.)
Thanks
JK
m sh*it head said:
Oh, yeah Kraplock:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713746727~db=all~order=page.
JK: Of course there is little change in vehicle miles per person until you reach a density above that which most people prefer to live in (except idiot planners, of course.) This was well reported by Dunphy and Fisher (“Transportation, Congestion, and Density: New Insights,” Transportation Research Record, No. 1552, Washington DC: Transportation Research Board, Nov. 1996, Table 5) You can see their key data table and plots at PortlandFacts.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm
The key lesson here is that vehicle miles per capita is relatively constant from 50 to 10,000 people per square mile (farmland to major city density). All drive about the same until you get to unusually high densities, at which few people live.
Again the planner is suggesting that people change their lives to conform to some planner’s fantasy.
I assume you know that the only proven, large scale, way to reduce vehicle-miles/person that actually works is to destroy their economic well being. Of course that is what the planners are really doing with their schemes that increase the cost of living and reduce choices.
m sh*it head said: Gridlock, if you want a copy of this, pay for a copy out of your own pocket.
JK: Same to you.
Thanks
JK
Jim Karlock wrote:
“m sh*it head said:
Oh, yeah Kraplock:”
Please guys, play the ball and not the man.
Ettinger wrote:
“One can find many references to various human caloric expenditures for cycling at 14mph (generally in the range of 500-1000cal/hr).
But let’s take Dan’s number of 615cal/hr@14mph,
…that is 44cal / mile. So, to make biking more economical than burning gas you would still have to replenish the additional caloric uptake with food that costs less than $0.14 (the equivalent gas cost per mile) per 44 food calories. That is $3.18 per 1000 calories. Still seems like you’d have to eat pretty cheap calories (e.g. 1000 calories in Big Macs (2) would still cost you around $6 – if you consider a better diet and add calorie poor, mineral rich vegetables it gets even more expensive).”
Which suggests that food is too expensive, and petrol is still too cheap. 🙂
It also doesn’t take into account the ammortised costs of the car over the year. In the UK, the average family car costs $11K per year to run.
It also doesn’t take into account the fact, mentioned earlier that most people stuff their faces, and have to exercise it off. Very few people calory count. Many people also go to gyms, and spend a lot of time pedalling on a stationary bicycle.
A more important problem is how much oil and natural gas goes into producing food. If people have to cycle more and drove less, it won’t kill them. If people have to pay more for their food, it may kill someone, directly or through increased levels of violence. We’ve seen this already in some developing countries.
My response to the survey is this:
In Bath, UK, we have very little parking. I always walk, cycle, and go by bus (usually a mixture of thes things). I’ve never owned a car, and have no wish to own one. So, the increasing fuel prices haven’t impacted on me directly. The price of food has gone up, though.
Dan : “So you find excuses to not ride. So what. Many more find way better reasons than yours to ride.â€Â
—-
I find the suggestion in this sentence rather amusing. Being somebody who runs 2,500 miles a year, some of it commute miles, I can no longer make cycling an intense enough cardiovascular exercise (cycling at 16-18mph my heart rate remains a meager 105-115 bpm – quadriceps bound). So this is actually my “excuse†for not cycling – not intense enough – Planners may want to reconsider their Antiplanner stereotype.
Back to the context of the post, my issue was only whether it was wise for AP to list walking, cycling (or running) as a means to spend less on gas – Personal benefits of exercise were not part of the topic and IMHO are secondary as an issue in a public policy blog.
Francis King: I said that if you add vehicle ownership costs, the cost equation between driving and biking/walking may look more balanced. However the planning minded seem to treat the cost of the extra food as zero. The higher cost of driving in the UK is probably due to all the taxes and fees that you have added to personal transportation. A large portion of these vehicle costs (such as vehicle obsolescence), happen whether you drive the car or not.
“During World War II the vast majority of Americans lived in walkable communities” Living in the middle of nowhere is “walkable”?
Well my family is going to be getting a heat pump soon.
Though as for the price of gasoline it only liberals worrying about the price of gasoline.
Although this post generated lots of comments, only 8 people actually voted (9 if you count the Antiplanner). The average of those 9 substituted transit for 0.3 percent of their driving, walking and cycling for 3.5 percent, trip chaining/planning for 3.9 percent, and skipped less essential trips for 6.5 percent.
Only one person (me) is driving the more economical of two cars a little more; three say they have modified their driving behavior to save fuel; one recently bought a more fuel-efficient car and two say they plan to soon. Two people say they have not changed their transportation behavior at all.
While this is a very small, unscientific sample, it tends to confirm my suspicion that the biggest short-term change in American travel behavior is to skip less essential trips. It will be interesting to see what long-term changes there are, especially if (as I suspect) prices decline by 50 cents to a dollar per gallon this fall.
Ettinger, Your argument is probably true for the small minority of Americans who aren’t carrying around a few thousand calories of reserve fuel. The ones who resemble an Escalade could probably cycle everywhere for a month before they needed to consume any extra body fuel. Once they have lost their excess reserves they will, of course, use less fuel walking, cycle and travelling in autos. Wives might or might not appreciate their frisky “new” husbands but that is probably where the extra calories will be burnt. In the immortal words of Monty Python -nudge nudge wink wink say no more!
msetty, A container ship can transport food halfway round the world using the same energy needed to get it home from the supermarket in an SUV, or to a farmer’s market in a pickup.
Grain fed livestock are probable the very worst source of energy for human powered transport. New Zealand beef, lamb and cheese is grass grown. However grazing uses a small fraction of the petrochemical fertilisers needed for grain crops, both per acre and lb of meat.
jk claimed “we will never get much power from “alternative†energy sources”
How do you heat your home in summer? What is the source of the world’s streetlighting between sunrise and sunset.
Stop confusing “power” and “electricity” and you just might end up improving your standard of living.
Jim claims “I assume you know that the only proven, large scale, way to reduce vehicle-miles/person that actually works is to destroy their economic well being.”
Not true, as any young Japanese will tell you. When parking space costs more than the fastest broadband what would you spend your money on? Well, young Japanese have even given up on the bling factor of owning a car and spending their ample incomes on 3G, laptops and all the other modern tools of travel minimalism. They haven’t got poorer, they’ve got wired.
Kevyn Miller said: jk claimed “we will never get much power from “alternative†energy sourcesâ€Â
How do you heat your home in summer? What is the source of the world’s streetlighting between sunrise and sunset.
JK: What is you point? Are you suggesting that we should go back to an 18th century lifestyle?
Kevyn Miller said: Stop confusing “power†and “electricity†and you just might end up improving your standard of living.
JK: I can assure you that I know the difference.
However it appears that you don’t since power is the rate of doing work, while electricity only becomes power when you have both a flow (amps) and a forcing (volts).
Thanks
JK
This seems to prove that it only makes sense for fat & obese people to bike or walk since they need to burn calories and not replenish them.
1. Drive less? Y
If Y, I am doing the following instead of driving:
2. Mass transit 0%
3. Walk/bike 0%
4. Tripchaining, carpooling, etc. 50%
5. Cut nonessential trips 50%
6. Other % What?
I am also saving energy by:
7. Driving more fuel-efficient of two cars Y
8. Driving slower N
9. Telecommuting N
10. Bought fuel-efficient car N
11. Intend to buy fuel-efficient car N
12. Other N What?
13. No changes in travel habits N
Oops! My response should have read:
1. Drive less? Y
If Y, I am doing the following instead of driving:
2. Mass transit 0%
3. Walk/bike 0%
4. Tripchaining, carpooling, etc. 5%
5. Cut nonessential trips 5%
6. Other % What?
I am also saving energy by:
7. Driving more fuel-efficient of two cars Y
8. Driving slower N
9. Telecommuting N
10. Bought fuel-efficient car N
11. Intend to buy fuel-efficient car N
12. Other N What?
13. No changes in travel habits N
antiplanner: “It will be interesting to see what long-term changes there are, especially if (as I suspect) prices decline by 50 cents to a dollar per gallon this fall.”
Didn’t the gasoline price spike in 1979-1981 give us a clue? Americans began buying smaller, more efficient vehicles. Had gasoline prices remained high, it seems unlikely that large SUV’s would have become the vehicle of choice for the middle class.
If real gasoline prices remain above $4.00 (2008 prices), I expect American households to also pay more attention to reducing distances between work and residence. I don’t think Americans will give up low desntiy housing. Rather, the geographical dispersal of workplaces will allow more low density housing to be built close to those workplaces. That is, the edgeless city rather than the central business district or the edge city will evolve as the solution to long commutes.
As corporations move to the far suburbs – where most people prefer to live – we will see a reduction in average commute times and maybe even commute distances. Matthew Kahn last year point out that beyond 7 miles from a central business district, commute times actually decrease as distance to the CBD increases.
http://greeneconomics.blogspot.com/2007/03/does-sprawl-enhance-our-day-to-day.html
1. Yes
2. _0__ % by using mass transit more
3. _1__ % by walking and cycling more
4. _40__ % by trip chaining, carpooling, or otherwise planning trips better (my wife and I carpool every day but wednseday this year)
5. _0__ % by not taking trips that no longer seem essential
6. ___ % by ______________ (fill in blank)
To the extent I am still driving, I am saving fuel by:
7. Driving the more fuel-efficient of my two (or more) cars
yes, brand new civic… whoo hoo. Don’t have prius money quite yet.
8. Driving slower (e.g., under 55 mph on freeways) to save fuel
Tried it but the lead foot prevailed.
9. Telecommuting from home more frequently
not an option.
10. I bought a fuel-efficient car (30 mpg+) in the last year
yes
11. I plan to buy a fuel-efficient car (30 mpg+) in the next year
if i get a raise
12. In addition to or instead of the above, I am doing the following to save energy (fill in blank):
Keeping the A/C off during the day. I live in Austin so my house is hot. Live life in you underware! bought power strips for almost all of my outlets and turn the off before I go to work
13. I have not changed my travel habits at all.
I’m always changing my habits.
“As corporations move to the far suburbs – where most people prefer to live – we will see a reduction in average commute times and maybe even commute distances.” — John Dewey
Interesting point. I think the real problem there we tend to assume a trend will go on forever. Gas more expensive? Congestion getting worse? There’s going to be more pressure on employers to offer satellite offices or set their operations up so people can work from home. And as that becomes more common it may not be such a big deal to have a big SUV that you’re maybe driving 5,000 miles a year.
“There’s going to be more pressure on employers to offer satellite offices or set their operations up so people can work from home”
Oh, I completely agree! I don’t foresee 100% telecommuting for most workers, but perhaps 40% to 60%.
IMO, the challenge is not energy sources or road funding, but rather a management problem. Managers need to build measurement and accountability into the design of jobs, which will then enable a dispersed workforce to achieve the same productivity as a concentrated one. That sounds simple, but I think it is not.
Matthew Kahn last year point out that beyond 7 miles from a central business district, commute times actually decrease as distance to the CBD increases.
However his conclusion is not Deweys, namely:
Overall, three-quarters of the metropolitan areas had lower levels of emissions in central cities. In addition,
It’s 10 miles in this paper summary, but nonetheless he relates today that he was to be quoted in this NYT article about exurban living becoming increasingly untenable for a place that prk might know. Nonetheless, in the summary, he and Glaeser state:
The density portion, of course, we already know, but we must also look at wishing for companies to open satellite offices to have their workers close the live-work gap*.
I wonder why a company would increase its costs with having to rent additional space for uncertain benefits to the bottom line. I don’t see it, unless there is some coercion or subsidy in there somewhere. Surely that policy is a non-starter here.
DS
* I’m all for closing the live-work gap.
Dan: “However his conclusion is not Deweys, namely:
Overall, three-quarters of the metropolitan areas had lower levels of emissions in central cities
Well, Dan, I don’t think I wrote anything about emissions, did I?
I’m pretty sure that Matthew Kahn agrees with me about the effect of dispersed workplaces. Here’s a note I sent to him last week:
My informal observations of post-1990 sprawl led me to believe it would reduce commute times. It appears to me that the geographic dispersal of both workplaces and residences – in contrast to the earlier creation of bedroom suburb rings – will actually be more energy efficient than attempts to build high density into already sprawled post-automobile cities.
Do you still suspect that job suburbanization can reduce commute times?
And here’s Professor Kahn’s response:
Hi John,
I agree with you. Ed Glaeser and I have found that in the suburbs of big metro areas that people are commuting at higher speeds. Some of these folks will thus move further (in distance) away from their job to keep their commute time constant. This depends on their demand for land and new exurban housing.
The point is that georgaphical dispersion of workplaces makes shorter commute times, and even shorter commute distances, possible. Whether commuters actually opt for such shorter commutes depends, IMO, on their tolerance for high fuel expenses.
Glaeser and Kahn found that lower density means more VMT, as I wrote above.
I’m not sure what your argument has to do with that, and Kahn reinforced this added VMT in the e-mail reply to you.
Commute trips are, of course, only ~1/4 of all trips.
Nonetheless, it is readily apparent on the ground that polycentrism has dispersed workplaces, as land rents drove this move.
Whether this translates into an additional step involving increased costs with “satellite” offices remains not only to be seen, but remains a dubious business move, esp as demand for SFD will decrease in coming years (to only ~25% of all housing units by 2050).
DS
No time to respond to everything right now, Dan, but one statement intrigues me. Why do you believe demand for SFD housing will decrease to 25% of all housing units by 2050?
Of the 124MM housing units in 2005, 78MM were SFD and 8MM were manufactured housing, presumably detached as well. Of the housing units constructed from 2002 through 2005, about 70% were SFD. Why do you think this will change?
I’ve reduced my driving by:
2. 0 % by using mass transit more
3. 10 % by walking and cycling more
4. 5 % by trip chaining, carpooling, or otherwise planning trips better
5. 5 % by not taking trips that no longer seem essential
6. ___ % by ______________ (fill in blank)
To the extent I am still driving, I am saving fuel by:
7. Driving the more fuel-efficient of my two (or more) cars – 1 car
8. Driving slower (e.g., under 55 mph on freeways) to save fuel – much, much slower – I drive a Saturn, so it’s expected.
9. Telecommuting from home more frequently – no
10. I bought a fuel-efficient car (30 mpg+) in the last year – no
11. I plan to buy a fuel-efficient car (30 mpg+) in the next year – no
12. In addition to or instead of the above, I am doing the following to save energy (fill in blank):
13. I have not changed my travel habits at all.
A note on the caloric intake argument:
First, its a small fraction, but one should at least acknowledge the approximately 100 calories/hour that are burned just sitting idly in the car.
And as far as cost: ignore the transportation costs of the food, for, like the gasoline, these costs are already factored into the unit price. So one sees 600 calories per/hour versus $3.75/hour (1 gal/hr innercity). A bagel and cream cheese, my daily breakfast, is less than $1.00 out of the home (for me even less, because I shop the bakery outlet and get a half dozen bagels for a $1.25) and it comes in at 400 calories.
4 cent/cal.
Personal experience: when I increase my cycling mileage, I tend to shift from more expensive fats and proteins to carbs.
For the record, I hitch a trailer to my bicycle and ride about twenty miles round trip to take my son to daycare. No greenie be I…I’m just cheap as all.
Why do you think this will change?
Demographics are changing in the US.
Aging populations tend to like SFA, family size is decreasing and changing (now only 34% HHs are ‘traditional’ family), market increasing for urbanization/densification (to be proximate to elder-friendly services that don’t require driving), etc. A short explanation here, typical .ppt for his presentation here.
Where I practiced in Washington State, once I explained to the community that the future will likely not look like the past (and hence how we created the built environment won’t pertain in the future), they understood why we were seeking to change our zoning to be more flexible to be able to adapt to this change. Folks get it, as Boomers have had lots of time to think about what to do.
DS
Dan: “Aging populations tend to like SFA”
Can you provide any evidence to support this assertion? The federal government’s most recent American Housing Survey shows that of 22.2 MM housing units with elderly heads of households, 16.3 MM are single family detached units. 75% of elderly households are in SFD. That’s a higher share than the population at large. Of course, to anyone who gets out and looks at who is living in newly built apartments and condos, that shouldn’t be surprising.
Dan, have you seen the explosion in what is known as active adult communities? SFD communities which are age restricted and which generally include golf course, tennis courts, and health facilities? If Boomers move from pre-retirement homes – and many will not – they will be much more likely to move to active adult communities than to condos and townhouses, IMO.
The link you cited also implies that empty nesters will no longer prefer suburban SFD housing. While many empty nesters do downsize, I have seen no evidence to indicate they opt for townhouses and condos in large numbers.
Again, if you have any evidence to support your assertion that an aging population will opt away frm SFD housing, please supply it. As a member of the soone-to-be aged population, who associates with many other Boomers and discusses retirement regularly, I’m am confident that Boomers are not going to move away from the type housing they have lived in almost all their lives.
One more thing: statistics which show an increase in the number of new condos can be misleading. Many of us who are Boomers, as well as the generation before us, are buying condos in warmer climates as winter homes. Arizona is full of such snow bird housing units.
The issue is not what is on the ground now, John, but what is projected to be on the ground. Revealed preferences are misleading due to the prevalence of Euclidan zoning.
So. The key in the Nelson data is the NEW units built – note the component of re-use. Wrt elderly, the migrators want as in 2. below and the remainder generally want to age in place, as in 3 below:
Aging population housing choice: [1., 2.*, 3.] (mouseover).
The developers in the place where I practice seek me out as I understand this dynamic and thus can assist them in their planning.
DS
* At the same time, the 1996 [AARP] study found older households especially receptive to decreased auto dependence: Easy access to public transportation is either very or somewhat important (71 percent), as is living within walking distance of a food store (49 percent), a drug store (54 percent), and their doctor’s office (53 percent). [pg 642]