BIKE: car trouble

[rcbaker]

Just to help provide an alternative to the endless discussion of police 
escort policy (Parkinson's law at work?) -- 

-- here are some interesting numbers concerning the fuel potential of 
hybrid cars from a post on the energyresources list. Given the big 
picture, such cars ain't gonna make much difference except to sooth the 
conscience of greenies. Oil is still going to peak within this decade and 
get very expensive, and TxDOT's billions in toll roads are going to 
default on their bonds soon thereafter (if not before due to slow growth 
and less desposable income since future residents are not so likely to 
have cushy high tech jobs and will seriously rethink paying $10 per day 
in toll fees). 

The CTRMAs are Perry's/TxDOT's way to keep building roads as usual, 
but the biggest threat right now is that Bush's billion $ per day budget 
deficits are going to cause foreigners to stop lending and thus interest 
rates will rise -- choking off the low interest rate loans needed to keep 
building such roads. 

Ben Wear's yearend analysis of transpo news last week was pretty 
good. It carried the important revelation that TxDOT is rethinking tolling 
its existing roads to help raise money to keep building new ones 
because of a political backlash. If so this would certainly slow down the 
current toll road madness.

The good news is that even Houston has light rail now. But (due to the 
historical opposition of bankers developers and land speculators in 
Austin), there is no way to get it here fast enough to have much real 
benefit. Only some commuter rail maybe. By the time oil peaks, it will be 
too late. -- Roger

                      ************************************
 
"...The answer to the "why hybrids?" question is that hybrids are optimal 
for the stop and go driving pattern of urban driving where the output of 
the small engine is augmented for a few seconds of acceleration by the 
electric drive.  But hybrids offer no advantage for constant speed 
turnpike driving, where in principle the diesel has the edge on fuel-to-
wheel efficiency.   For two-lane rural driving involving passing slower 
traffic, I suppose that it would be a case by case and model by model 
comparison between hybrids and diesels.

As to how far into the future the USA would see everyone driving a 60 
mpg vehicle, consider that the present scrappage rate of US passenger 
cars has fallen very low, something around 6% per year.  Meaning that 
all else being equal, if we started building nothing but 60 mpg cars 
tomorrow it would be 16 or 17 years before they replaced the current 
fleet.  

The problem with both hybrids and diesels is that while they do offer a 
softer way down for individual buyers and drivers, they don't do 
anything to solve the structural problem of ever increasing numbers of 
cars and drivers consuming energy.  In 1960 there were 62 million cars 
that travelled 587 billion miles; 1970 89 million cars and 900 million 
miles; 1980 121 million cars and 1.1 trillion miles; 1990 134 million cars 
and 1.4 trillion miles; 2000 134 million cars (but by then light trucks 
were taking almost 50% of new vehicle sales) and 1.6 trillion miles. See 
the pattern?

Or, just looking at the MPG numbers in 1960 the average passenger 
car got 14.3 mpg and used 668 gallons per year.  By 2000 the MPG 
was up over 50% to 22.1 mpg and fuel usage down to 532 gallons per 
year. But meanwhile we know what happened to total fuel consumption.  
So unless something is done to reduce the ever increasing number of 
cars and drivers, simply increasing the mileage to 60 mpg in the future 
won't make much difference.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2002/
html/table_04_11.html

or tiny url:
http://tinyurl.com/38mon

Tinnerman in Kansas

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bicycleaustin.info/private.cgi/forum-bicycleaustin.info/attachments/20040103/4ab943d0/attachment-0001.html