Gas prices knock bicycle sales, repairs into higher gear
Ted
bike shop. Commuters around the country are dusting off their
old two-wheelers — or buying new ones — to cope with rising fuel
prices, bicycle dealers say..."
Associated Press article: http://xrl.us/BikeShops
Dane Buson
> "Four-dollar-a-gallon gas is good for business ? if you run a
It reminds an awful lot of the articles we've seen at the beginning of
summer the last two years. Bog knows I've seen an increase in bike
commuters the last two summers [1]. I expect lots more this year,
especially as we get closer to STP time [2].
It does make me wonder, if a small bump in price to $4 is enough to
cause changes, how much would a real price spike change? What would
people do at $6? At $8 a gallon?
[1] Even more than usual.
[2] Seattle To Portland - the big distance ride in the region.
--
Dane Buson - sig...@unixbigots.org
"If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic."
joseph.sa...@gmail.com
Gas is over $10 per gallon here in Norway. I don't have the reference
handy, but recently I read that bikes account for less than 2% of
commuters in Oslo, and the numbers were on the way down. If it is only
2% in Oslo, I'm sure it's way less elsewhere here.
Gas prices alone are not that important for bike adoption, IMO.
Joseph
Mike Jacoubowsky
> cause changes, how much would a real price spike change? What would
> people do at $6? At $8 a gallon?
I think it will take $6/gallon to make a real difference, because we'll then
be seeing $100 fill-ups. That's something that will cause people to step
back and wonder if it's really worth it, or if they need to drive less.
Perhaps a lot less. And buy smaller cars. But getting people onto bikes
isn't a done deal just because gas prices go high. This remains a
car-centric culture. In the long run, yes, we'll see fundamental change. Not
just increases in numbers use mass transit, but actually demanding more &
better mass transit, and wondering why it doesn't go where they need to. And
some of those people will realize that a bike, either by itself or combined
with bike-friendly transit, *does* go where you need to go.
But it won't happen overnight.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Dane Buson" <da...@unseen.edu> wrote in message
news:ovbmf5-...@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org...
joseph.sa...@gmail.com
wrote:
> > It does make me wonder, if a small bump in price to $4 is enough to
> > cause changes, how much would a real price spike change? What would
> > people do at $6? At $8 a gallon?
>
> I think it will take $6/gallon to make a real difference, because we'll then
> be seeing $100 fill-ups. That's something that will cause people to step
> back and wonder if it's really worth it, or if they need to drive less.
> Perhaps a lot less. And buy smaller cars. But getting people onto bikes
> isn't a done deal just because gas prices go high. This remains a
> car-centric culture. In the long run, yes, we'll see fundamental change. Not
> just increases in numbers use mass transit, but actually demanding more &
> better mass transit, and wondering why it doesn't go where they need to. And
> some of those people will realize that a bike, either by itself or combined
> with bike-friendly transit, *does* go where you need to go.
>
> But it won't happen overnight.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
>
> news:ovbmf5-...@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org...
>
> > In rec.bicycles.misc Ted <nob...@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
> >> "Four-dollar-a-gallon gas is good for business ? if you run a
> >> bike shop. Commuters around the country are dusting off their
> >> old two-wheelers ? or buying new ones ? to cope with rising fuel
> >> prices, bicycle dealers say..."
>
> >> Associated Press article:http://xrl.us/BikeShops
>
> > It reminds an awful lot of the articles we've seen at the beginning of
> > summer the last two years. Bog knows I've seen an increase in bike
> > commuters the last two summers [1]. I expect lots more this year,
> > especially as we get closer to STP time [2].
>
> > It does make me wonder, if a small bump in price to $4 is enough to
> > cause changes, how much would a real price spike change? What would
> > people do at $6? At $8 a gallon?
>
> > [1] Even more than usual.
> > [2] Seattle To Portland - the big distance ride in the region.
>
> > --
> > "If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic."
People look at the total cost of running a car. They will piss and
moan about expensive gas, but they will end up just buying cheaper
used cars. Instead of a typical family having 2 new medium/large cars,
they will get one new one, and one junker. the junker might not use
less gas, but it will be cheaper in th elong run.
Joseph
Dane Buson
> On May 12, 7:39 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote:
>>
>> It does make me wonder, if a small bump in price to $4 is enough to
>> cause changes, how much would a real price spike change? What would
>> people do at $6? At $8 a gallon?
>
> handy, but recently I read that bikes account for less than 2% of
> commuters in Oslo, and the numbers were on the way down. If it is only
> 2% in Oslo, I'm sure it's way less elsewhere here.
>
> Gas prices alone are not that important for bike adoption, IMO.
But don't you have real public transit there? Most of the US
is...challenged in terms of our public transit setup. Do you know what
the relative percentage is that take the train/bus/walk vs. driving?
--
Dane Buson - sig...@unixbigots.org
"Special cocktails for the ladies with nuts."
-Sign in a Tokyo bar
George
>> It does make me wonder, if a small bump in price to $4 is enough to
>> cause changes, how much would a real price spike change? What would
>> people do at $6? At $8 a gallon?
>
> I think it will take $6/gallon to make a real difference, because we'll then
> be seeing $100 fill-ups.
We are already there. A typical fluffed up fashion statement truck like
a ford exhibition has a 28 gallon tank.
max
Ted <nob...@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:
i'm not seeing a significant amount of traffic on the Fox River Trail
yet, and my workplace bike-to-work website trending seems unrelated to
gas prices, although i've seen a _few_ more bikes on site. I would
opine that $4/gallon isn't a big* motivator yet.
Given the canonical suburbs/commute-distances, at least in west
surburban chicagoland, i'm not entirely convinced we'll see much
commuter biking, unless it is first preceded by an inter/intra-suburban
migration.
The routes just aren't here for more than fairly short commutes unless
your endpoints are proximal to the few rails-to-trails bicycle
superhighways.
*Big... There's two kinds of big. there's population-doubling big
(wow! there's 4X as many bicycle commuters!) (translation: instead of
two there's 8... woo. hoo.).
And then there's percentages of the gross population big (up from 2%
last year, 8% of the Kane County commuters rode their bikes today) (not
true, but it would be a big number).
I think any changes in cycle commuting numbers occurring right now are
occurring in the "five times a *verrry*smmmall* number" regime. I think
that the %daily-commuter numbers is still fairly constant. Say up
from1.3% to 1.5% (numbers kinda made up).
that's what i thimk.
.max
--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.
max
another thought...
A great many of our bike paths <cough, MUPs> are Rail-To-Trail
conversions. I'm thinking that i remember that RTTs can be reverted to
rail fairly -- very -- easily, from a legal standpoint. Feckless
NIMBYism not factored in, of course.
I'm thinkin that the law of unintended consequences might just find us
watching (for example) our beloved Illinois Prairie Path, Fox River
Trail and Great Western trail and Virgil Gilman trail disappear under
the ballast of a light rail line in oh... twenty years or less.
I'm just sayin.
joseph.sa...@gmail.com
> In rec.bicycles.misc joseph.santanie...@gmail.com <joseph.santanie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 12, 7:39 pm, Dane Buson <d...@unseen.edu> wrote:
>
> >> It does make me wonder, if a small bump in price to $4 is enough to
> >> cause changes, how much would a real price spike change? What would
> >> people do at $6? At $8 a gallon?
>
> > Gas is over $10 per gallon here in Norway. I don't have the reference
> > handy, but recently I read that bikes account for less than 2% of
> > commuters in Oslo, and the numbers were on the way down. If it is only
> > 2% in Oslo, I'm sure it's way less elsewhere here.
>
> > Gas prices alone are not that important for bike adoption, IMO.
>
> But don't you have real public transit there? Most of the US
> is...challenged in terms of our public transit setup. Do you know what
> the relative percentage is that take the train/bus/walk vs. driving?
>
I've only used public transport in a handful of US cities, all of
which were much larger than Oslo (New York, Boston, Chicago, LA, SF, a
few others) and light-years better. Since Oslo has only 500,000 people
or so, it's not really a good comparison. Compared to a city of
500,000 in the US it might be pretty good. I don't recall the commuter
break-down. I'll tyr to find it. The important thing for bike usage is
distances needed to be travelled and what sort of destinations. If a
super-market is a long haul, only hard-core types will ride bikes
there. If it is to pop down to a baker for some fresh bread 3 blocks
away, you'll get more takers.
Joseph
Stephen Harding
> But don't you have real public transit there? Most of the US
> is...challenged in terms of our public transit setup. Do you know what
> the relative percentage is that take the train/bus/walk vs. driving?
Just read a NYT (or perhaps MSNBC) article about this in the US.
Public transit use is up about 5% in the larger cities with
well developed transit systems (Boston, NYC, SF) and a little
less so with less developed or newer public transit like Houston.
Southern cities, with more car-centric attitudes have lower
increases than northern or western cities.
It's been up about that much over the first three months of this
year during a time when the economy is on the down side and
public transit use typically falls a couple percent (according
to Boston and NYC transit authority stats).
So there's definitely a tick upward in public transit as a result
of higher fuel prices.
I'm seeing *many* more bicyclists now on road and path locally as
well. Can't say the regional buses look that much fuller though,
but I'm glad to have all the extra company pedaling to and from
work these days.
I think it's great!
SMH
Stephen Harding
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>>> It does make me wonder, if a small bump in price to $4 is enough to
>>> cause changes, how much would a real price spike change? What would
>>> people do at $6? At $8 a gallon?
>>
>>
>> I think it will take $6/gallon to make a real difference, because
>> we'll then be seeing $100 fill-ups.
>
>
> We are already there. A typical fluffed up fashion statement truck like
> a ford exhibition has a 28 gallon tank.
My Dodge pickup has 35 gallon tank and I've had the infamous
$100 fillup for a time now if I let the tank run dry as I was
once prone to do.
Because the pumps around here have limits of $75 for credit
cards, and only $50 for ATM cards, I now fill up at a bit under
1/2 tank.
But with the help of my bike, that would last me three weeks
(at 16 mpg).
SMH
Stephen Harding
> I'm thinkin that the law of unintended consequences might just find us
> watching (for example) our beloved Illinois Prairie Path, Fox River
> Trail and Great Western trail and Virgil Gilman trail disappear under
> the ballast of a light rail line in oh... twenty years or less.
>
> I'm just sayin.
But technically, that's what the proclaimed purpose of "rail banking"
as promoted by Rails-to-Trails groups. Save these rights of way for
future use when maglev of whatever reoccupies them. In the meantime,
they become public recreational facilities.
Personally, I don't think they'll ever get converted back. We'll be
driving around in our personal hydrogen powered vehicles before we
have to choose re-creating a passenger rail network.
SMH
Red Cloud
Norway is a big open country. It is not like little flat country like
Dutch. Not only that Norway is too mountainous not good for bike
ride.
Ted Mittelstaedt
> > "Four-dollar-a-gallon gas is good for business ? if you run a
> > bike shop. Commuters around the country are dusting off their
> > old two-wheelers ? or buying new ones ? to cope with rising fuel
> > prices, bicycle dealers say..."
> >
> > Associated Press article: http://xrl.us/BikeShops
>
> It reminds an awful lot of the articles we've seen at the beginning of
> summer the last two years. Bog knows I've seen an increase in bike
> commuters the last two summers [1]. I expect lots more this year,
> especially as we get closer to STP time [2].
>
> It does make me wonder, if a small bump in price to $4 is enough to
> cause changes, how much would a real price spike change? What would
> people do at $6? At $8 a gallon?
>
It won't ever happen in the US.
As oil prices continue to rise, the cost of doing stuff like pulling 'ye
olde oil
furnace' in the basement out and replacing it with Natural Gas becomes
cheaper than continuing to buy oil, as a result more people do that and
oil consumption drops. It now becomes economical to extract oil from
tar sands and such and people start doing that so supply rises. It will be
much more expensive oil, but it won't be double today's prices in
todays dollars, and it will mainly be fueling freight trains and delivery
trucks
where the fuel costs are spread out over a lot of people.
And in another 2 years the Toyota Prius will be plug-in (according to
Toyota) and you will see increasingly people powering their Priuses by
wall electricity. In the US, the percentage of electric power generated
by burning oil has been dropping like a rock, the percentage of electric
power generated by burning coal is rising, and by burning natural gas, and
by wind. And the US has a lot more stocks of natural gas than of oil,
and our coal reserves dwarf both of those.
In another 5 years, all the major automakers will have plug in hybrids.
All current presidential candiates have strongly endorsed tax credits
for plug in hybrids.
Cost per mile of an electric car is about a quarter of that of gasoline,
see:
http://www.team-fate.net/wordpress/?page_id=11
And last but probably most importantly, the Arab countries in the Mid-East
frankly don't like the US. They have had 50 years of European and US
interference, everything from the British colonization efforts to the UN
carving Israel out of Palestine, and the US mid-east interference. They
simply want Europe and the US to go away and find some other place
to get fuel from. The Mid East Arabs are jumping for joy at the prospect
of selling all their oil to China because unlike the Western countries which
have this annoying hangup about Human Rights issues, China couldn't give
a damn if every Arab has 50 wives all wrapped in burkas.
By the end of your lifetime you will see the United States pretty
independent
of foreign oil. It will be very painful to get "over the hump" in the
transition
from gasoline to more expensive gasoline and electricity, but it
will happen. It is, actually, much more a problem of retraining people
in how they use their cars, and remembering that every second their car is
sitting in their driveway or their garage, it needs to be plugged into an
electrical outlet,. recharging. And it is also one of dealing with city
laws.
For example in my city, a large number of homes have no garages or
driveways. People park their cars on the street in front of their homes.
Now, imagine what would happen if all those cars were plug in hybrids.
If allowed, people would be running extension cords from their homes
across their lawns, across the sidewalks, to their cars. I am quite sure
the city would get rather pissed off about this, and would likely pass
an ordinance prohibiting it. That would require those people to run
conduit under the sidewalk, which makes it a permanent electrical
installation -all the sudden, you now have a requirement for permitting
and you suddenly have added a $500 bill for an electrician to put in
a remote electrical outlet just to charge your car's battery.
Ted
Tom Keats
Stephen Harding <smhar...@msn.com> writes:
> My Dodge pickup has 35 gallon tank and I've had the infamous
> $100 fillup for a time now if I let the tank run dry as I was
> once prone to do.
>
> Because the pumps around here have limits of $75 for credit
> cards, and only $50 for ATM cards, I now fill up at a bit under
> 1/2 tank.
>
> But with the help of my bike, that would last me three weeks
> (at 16 mpg).
That's how I figure the rising price of gasoline will
generally affect cycling. People will still retain
their motor vehicles, but use them more selectively.
They'll want to save their precious gasoline for when
they /really/ need it.
Some folks might wisely opt to take up cycling to
save gas & money. The trouble is, taking-up cycling
"cold" is, at the outset, difficult for many people.
And it's not just a simple matter of obesity or lack
of coordination or phyique. A body has to be trained
through practice to ride a bicycle with confidence
and deportment.
As we all know, certain muscles have to learn how to
work together instead of fighting against each other
in order to make a bicycle go. Eventually (and
actually fairly quickly) it all comes together.
But I think we regular riders tend to forget how difficult
it can be for the beginner or returner-after-a-long-time,
who could easily be discouraged by a lack of support and
motivation. And then they'll end up saying: "I can't do it."
That would be a cryin' shame.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
Jym Dyer
=v= This one?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/business/10transit.html
> Public transit use is up about 5% in the larger cities with
> well developed transit systems (Boston, NYC, SF) and a little
> less so with less developed or newer public transit like
> Houston. Southern cities, with more car-centric attitudes
> have lower increases than northern or western cities.
=v= Actually, though this is true of the San Francisco
metropolitan area, but not San Francisco itself. Notice that
the _Times_ article goes on to mention ridership increases
in the regional BART and Caltrain systems, but not for the
city's Muni. Muni is so messed up that the densest city on
the West Coast is *losing* riders even as transit ridership
increases in nearby sprawling communities!
=v= This is because mayor Gavin Newsom has saddled the city with
simultaneous cutbacks and fare hikes, with predictable results.
Then he hired some fare inspectors ("Muni Goonies"), who have
not managed to find enough fare-evasion going on to justify
their own salaries, but who have certainly managed to make the
experience much less pleasant. One of them yelled out their
apparent mantra: "If you don't like it, call a cab."
=v= I don't like it, so I bike.
> I'm seeing *many* more bicyclists now on road and path locally
> as well.
=v= The nice weather might also have something to do with it.
<_Jym_>
P.S.: Mayor Newsom is currently off touring to explain how
"green" he is. If he should happen to drop by your town,
drop by and ask him how ecological it is, exactly, to destroy
a city's transit system.
Jym Dyer
> like pulling 'ye olde oil furnace' in the basement out and
> replacing it with Natural Gas becomes cheaper than continuing
> to buy oil, as a result more people do that and oil consumption
> drops. It now becomes economical to extract oil from tar
> sands and such and people start doing that so supply rises.
=v= These are both finite, carbon-spewing sources, and the
"economy" of the latter is burdened by the energy required in
its extraction, which has a multiplying effect.
> In another 5 years, all the major automakers will have plug
> in hybrids. All current presidential candiates have strongly
> endorsed tax credits for plug in hybrids.
>
> Cost per mile of an electric car is about a quarter of that
> of gasoline, see ...
=v= The "economy" of this is poised to be thwarted as well.
The dumbass peddling of PHEVs as "GEE WHIZ 100+ MPG!" ignores
the "gallons" that go into making the electricity, with zero
thought to the consequences of increased demand. If PHEVs are
to be anything resembling a solution, they would have to be
deployed widely, and if they're deployed widely, the price of
electricity goes up. And, since conversion of energy from one
form to another is always less efficient, carbon-spewing would
actually *increase* thanks to these supposedly-green vehicles.
<_Jym_>
Jens Müller
>
> I've only used public transport in a handful of US cities, all of
> which were much larger than Oslo (New York, Boston, Chicago, LA, SF, a
> few others) and light-years better. Since Oslo has only 500,000 people
> or so, it's not really a good comparison. Compared to a city of
> 500,000 in the US it might be pretty good. I don't recall the commuter
> break-down. I'll tyr to find it. The important thing for bike usage is
> distances needed to be travelled and what sort of destinations. If a
> super-market is a long haul, only hard-core types will ride bikes
> there. If it is to pop down to a baker for some fresh bread 3 blocks
> away, you'll get more takers.
In usual German towns you'll have a supermarket (or discount store, like
Aldi) in about 2-3 km at most.
max
Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> wrote:
i hear what you're saying... i'm not sure, because i've been too lazy to
look at the numbers in 12 years, but i think the favor does indeed go to
electric vehicles, by a small margin.
Ultmately it'll be a comparison of cycle efficiency from the point a
fuel is extracted (or planted, or whatever) to that fuel's energy
hitting the pavement via tires.
Electric power would tend to see some advantage in that power plant fuel
doesn't need to be refined "as much" or at all, compared to gasoline
(caveat uranium), and cheaper to transport, i thimk. Otoh, there's the
power loss over transmission lines and to a very tiny extent
transfromers...
I'm wondering if the production cycle efficiency of a car engine is as
thermodynamically efficient as a giant power plant... my guts say no,
but the difference is probably a lot smaller than 20 year ago.
Then, i wonder about emissions control. No real clue, but my guts tell
me giant industrial process.
At least electric cars should tend to be lighter, smaller, quieter,
which is someting of a benefit. Every electric car should have some kind
of regenerative braking, which is good.
Perhaps, in the house of Tomorrow, vinyl siding will be replaced by
solar cells. Shingles too.
Of course, there's gonna be the cost of butching up the nieghborhood
grids to handle the large night time power demand. Summer heat waves
are going to be bitchin ... do i have a car to drive to morrow or try
and fail to sleep in my own puddle of sweat?
I guess i'd be causitously hopeful for phevs. but i can't speak w/
authority, only clever hand waving.
....
i'm going to get a rickshaw and charge fatasses to go places while they
watch my muscular, spandexed buns.
.max
Ted Mittelstaedt
"Jym Dyer" <j...@econet.org> wrote in message
news:Jym.14May2...@econet.org...
> > As oil prices continue to rise, the cost of doing stuff
> > like pulling 'ye olde oil furnace' in the basement out and
> > replacing it with Natural Gas becomes cheaper than continuing
> > to buy oil, as a result more people do that and oil consumption
> > drops. It now becomes economical to extract oil from tar
> > sands and such and people start doing that so supply rises.
>
> =v= These are both finite, carbon-spewing sources, and the
> "economy" of the latter is burdened by the energy required in
> its extraction, which has a multiplying effect.
>
I'll let you in on a little secret, the energy required to produce a
BTU of oil energy ALSO greatly exceeded that BTU. It was
just Mother Nature expending the energy, not man.
Vehicle travel -requires- fuel that is burdened by the multiplying
effect your referring to. Why - because the requirements for
it are so specific. You can't use a fuel in a vehicle that produces
toxic byproducts. You can't use a fuel that has exacting and precise
burning requirements. You can't use a gas unless you want to blow
the entire block up during a typical traffic accident. Nor can you
use a fuel that has special dispensing requirements because gas
stations are self-serve and most people are morons. Or special
storage requirements like very cold storage. What it
boils down to is about the only fuel that is practical is a liquid fuel
that is liquid at room temp, is not so acidic that it eats holes in
the fuel tank, is not so poisonous that it kills people if it's slopped
on someone's hands by accident, and creates a burn product that
doesen't kill everyone behind the vehicle who breathes it, and
has sufficient energy density so you don't need 200 gallons of it
to go 100 miles. Gasoline meets all this which is why we use it,
and why for the forseeable future most vehicles will still continue
to be at least partially liquid fueled.
> > In another 5 years, all the major automakers will have plug
> > in hybrids. All current presidential candiates have strongly
> > endorsed tax credits for plug in hybrids.
> >
> > Cost per mile of an electric car is about a quarter of that
> > of gasoline, see ...
>
> =v= The "economy" of this is poised to be thwarted as well.
> The dumbass peddling of PHEVs as "GEE WHIZ 100+ MPG!" ignores
> the "gallons" that go into making the electricity, with zero
> thought to the consequences of increased demand. If PHEVs are
> to be anything resembling a solution, they would have to be
> deployed widely, and if they're deployed widely, the price of
> electricity goes up. And, since conversion of energy from one
> form to another is always less efficient, carbon-spewing would
> actually *increase* thanks to these supposedly-green vehicles.
Unlike oil, electricity can be generated by a lot of other things
than burning coal. In fact, wind generation is the fastest growing
generation method today. And Europe is way ahead of the US.
DOE has estimated there's enough wind resources in the US
to generate 10 times the amount of electricity that we use now.
The only other power source of significance is nuclear energy,
and until the waste disposal problem is solved (considering what
it is, that will probably be never) it's a non-starter.
It is a lot cheaper to get 1 horsepower of energy out of electrical
power than out of burning oil. That is why wind is still behind
where it could be - it has only been recently, when the cost of
wind generation has dropped (mainly because windmills are
becoming commodity items due to their popularity in Europe)
to where it's unbelievably dirt cheap, that incentive has started
to exist to put in wind generation.
You can't do much with coal other than burn it in a power plant,
due to the extensive need for scrubbers and other pollution control.
Thus, skyrocketing oil prices are not closely coupled to electrical
generation, and power generation costs don't jump when oil prices
jump. If PHEV's were widely deployed, then even if electrical
demand doubled, it would just mean that wind and other cheaper
generation projects (cheaper than coal) would be put online even
faster.
If most electrical generation in the US were from oil, why then
there would be this close coupling your refer to, and you would
simply be moving the "burned gallons" from car engines to electric
power plant engines. But, cars do not burn coal now, and so
your moving the "burned gallons" from oil to coal. Since coal
is much more plentiful than oil, this price increase in electricity
that your referring to just isn't going to take place. And the
electric power grid has to be built to carry peak capacity during
the day, at night there's tons of unused capacity on the power grid.
More efficient utilization of the power grid means the costs to
maintain the grid are spread thinner, and that helps prices drop
as well for electricity.
Granted the carbon footprint thing is a problem with coal. The
answer to that is simple enough - just enforce the current environmental
permitting process better and you just make wind generation plants
more attractive, so the utilities will build those, instead of coal plants.
Ted
Matt O'Toole
I doubt the hydrogen dream will ever be realized, at least in our
lifetime. But just try to take those trails away once people are used to
them.
Matt O.
Chris T
> In article <857e2165db39cfbcc79dcb334f77d...@pseudo.borked.net>,
>
> i'm not seeing a significant amount of traffic on the Fox River Trail
> yet, and my workplace bike-to-work website trending seems unrelated to
> gas prices, although i've seen a _few_ more bikes on site. I would
> opine that $4/gallon isn't a big* motivator yet.
>
> Given the canonical suburbs/commute-distances, at least in west
> surburban chicagoland, i'm not entirely convinced we'll see much
> commuter biking, unless it is first preceded by an inter/intra-suburban
> migration.
>
> The routes just aren't here for more than fairly short commutes unless
> your endpoints are proximal to the few rails-to-trails bicycle
> superhighways.
>
> *Big... There's two kinds of big. there's population-doubling big
> (wow! there's 4X as many bicycle commuters!) (translation: instead of
> two there's 8... woo. hoo.).
>
> And then there's percentages of the gross population big (up from 2%
> last year, 8% of the Kane County commuters rode their bikes today) (not
> true, but it would be a big number).
>
> I think any changes in cycle commuting numbers occurring right now are
> occurring in the "five times a *verrry*smmmall* number" regime. I think
> that the %daily-commuter numbers is still fairly constant. Say up
> from1.3% to 1.5% (numbers kinda made up).
>
> that's what i thimk.
As someone who lived much of his 26 years in the western suburbs of
Chicago, I can state with certainty that bicycle commuting is not
something that will increase. The roads are not designed for bikes.
Simple as that. And it would take a huge amount of household
reshuffling for it to even begin to happen. Many people live a long
distance from their jobs, requiring commutes of 20+ miles each way.
If people were to relocate to within a reasonable distance to their
jobs it /could/ happen, but I doubt it. The sprawling nature of the
Chicago suburbs make it unreasonable to think bicycle commuting will
be commonplace in the future. There will be smaller, more fuel
efficient cars, I'm certain. But that's about it.
Living in Chicago now, I've sold my car and ride my bike everywhere.
This isn't in response to gas prices, it's just logical. Chicago has
a decent transport system (it would be much better and on time if
people stopped driving!) and plenty of bike friendly roads to get
anywhere. I don't miss my car at all. However, one of the major
issues with this city having a large number of commuters is the
weather. I'm a year round rider, but many of the people I see riding
now are not. They're unwilling to ride in 5 degrees, the snow, the
rain. And, I admit, it sometimes sucks. A lot. But it's a decision
I made because I feel it's the right thing to do. Most people who
have a car in the city simply don't need it. There's no reason to
drive a car 4 miles from your lakeview condo to your job downtown.
It's foolish.
Hmmm, I fear I've begun to rant. :-)
Tom Keats
Maybe that real estate will be "needed" for biofuel-producing
crops so that our expensive, imported cabbages 'n spuds can
still be shipped over long distances. That is, if /anybody/
would still be growing food crops instead of biofuel crops.
Jym Dyer
> too lazy to look at the numbers in 12 years, but i think the
> favor does indeed go to electric vehicles, by a small margin.
=v= The only study I know of which looked at the right variables
was conducted in 1993, by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District in Southern California, back when there was a goal to
to promote so-called ZEVs. Working with utility companies, they
projected that off-peak recharging of electrical vehicles, along
with improved "demand-side management" (i.e. energy-efficiency
measures) could provide electricity for an not-so-world changing
19% of the cars and 7% of the "light-duty trucks" on the road.
=v= Having a greater proportion of the cars on the road sucking
up electricity would pass this tipping point, which would mean
an *increase* in emissions.
=v= This study is so old that it predates the surge in SUV sales
("light trucks"), which are now a far higher percentage of the
cars on the road. This of course makes the numbers much worse.
<_Jym_>