Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
You are correct. The average American uses eight times as much gasoline as the average Croatian, per the 2003 figures--212 liters per person per year for Croatia versus 1,636 per person per year for the United States. This means that as a portion of the economy gas is a substantially smaller expense in Croatia rather than the United States right now, by almost 30%.Surlethe wrote:There should be a way to measure gasoline reliance. In Croatia, there may be much less total reliance on gasoline, which might mean that $7/gal prices are less harmful to the Croatian economy than $4/gal are in to the US economy, despite the US' ability to absorb higher costs because of our higher GDP/capita.
I may be mistaken but if you're talking about LA traffic, I think a lot of traffic congestion problems can be attributed to just how geographically large LA is when compared to other metropolitans (NYC, SF, San Diego etc.) making vehicles almost a necessity if you want to get anywhere around the city. LA public transportation seems like shit considering my friends who use public transit take almost twice the amount of time to get anywhere and that the services are fairly limited during the late evening. I'm just glad that I live close enough to work that I don't have to get onto that dreadful 405 during rush hour.Kanastrous wrote:I wonder how much of that US consumption is due to poor traffic planning.
All those hundreds of thousands (millions?) of cars, trucks, and SUVs sitting still or intermittently crawling that I pass, every day, must be burning a lot of fuel, just idling.
I'm not usually one to call "ZOMG CONSPIRACY!!1!" but you have to wonder just how so many major news outlets can be so ignorant of the situation. I know that the Millennium Bug and Bird Flu have kind of soured the public on things that might possibly bite us in the ass in a few years time, but is just about every major media outlet really that clueless? Something smells fishy, and while I'm not going to go all-out and claim that there's some sort of cover-up going on, the fact that no red-tops or anyone are trying to turn this into a major story just seems wrong somehow.There's no shortage of explanations for the record rise in oil prices. The trick comes in working out which is right.
You can go back to the laws of supply and demand - oil demand from Asia has been growing fast the past few years.
So far, the supply of oil hasn't kept up. Global oil production barely rose last year despite record prices and high demand.
Then again, the rise of Asia isn't exactly anything new.
It's hard to see what's happened recently in China to justify a doubling in the price of oil in less than a year. If anything, the growth in China's oil demand has been slowing down.
That's why many blame speculators for the price rise - investors in the market betting that prices will keep on going up.
Still others say it's down to oil producers deciding they'll make more money by keeping the oil in the ground than by digging it up.
The truth is probably all of these factors have played a role. And the oil market probably has got bit ahead of itself.
But the speculators are betting on something that's almost certainly true. In a more global economy, there's going to be tougher competition for oil supplies, and higher oil prices will be with us for a while.
LAs traffice problem are related to geogrpahy but it is much mroe a matter of how DENSELY that geography is filled. Not so much the whole area but lets just take LA, the city, itself. it has a populaiton of roughly 3.85 million filling just about exactly 1215 km^2 of land. That leads to a populaiton density of 2,985/km^2. Compare that to NYC, again the city itself, which has roughly790 km^2 of land with 8.21 million residents for a density of 10392/km^2. to 10392 versus 2985. That gives NYC a density advantage of about 3.5 to 1.Pint0 Xtreme wrote:I may be mistaken but if you're talking about LA traffic, I think a lot of traffic congestion problems can be attributed to just how geographically large LA is when compared to other metropolitans (NYC, SF, San Diego etc.) making vehicles almost a necessity if you want to get anywhere around the city. LA public transportation seems like shit considering my friends who use public transit take almost twice the amount of time to get anywhere and that the services are fairly limited during the late evening. I'm just glad that I live close enough to work that I don't have to get onto that dreadful 405 during rush hour.Kanastrous wrote:I wonder how much of that US consumption is due to poor traffic planning.
All those hundreds of thousands (millions?) of cars, trucks, and SUVs sitting still or intermittently crawling that I pass, every day, must be burning a lot of fuel, just idling.
That's exactly it. Denser cities would have fewer traffic problems because they become much more unfriendly towards personal automobiles, and much friendlier towards public mass transit and human-powered transportation. Ergo, fewer people will own cars in a very dense city, because they can get whatever they need to get done without needing one.Chris OFarrell wrote:I would think the denser a city is, the more people are moving around in a smaller area. So for everyone using cars, then you have a LOT of cars in a small area, hence traffic problems / more space needed to be dedicated to roads capable of moving large numbers of vehicles. Where as less dense cities spread those cars over a wider surface area, so the traffic flow improves and you need less in the way of uber roads.
Actually the opposite. In a denser city public transit and walking are incredibly mroe viable as options. Moreover in high desnity cities the trip DISTANCE is short so for a given number of poeple making a given number of trips in a day a denser city will hve fewer passenger miles of traffic even if the cities had near identical vehicle usage rates. Conversely in a less dense city the trip distance is much greater which means roads need to have much greater capacity.Chris OFarrell wrote:I would think the denser a city is, the more people are moving around in a smaller area. So for everyone using cars, then you have a LOT of cars in a small area, hence traffic problems / more space needed to be dedicated to roads capable of moving large numbers of vehicles. Where as less dense cities spread those cars over a wider surface area, so the traffic flow improves and you need less in the way of uber roads.
I was actually talking about the assumption that if everyone uses private transport in a dense environment, not public. Indeed, dense environments plus solid public transport are the answer to a LOT of problems. Even IF Peak Oil wasn't going to happen, it would STILL be the answer to a LOT of problems.CmdrWilkens wrote:Actually the opposite. In a denser city public transit and walking are incredibly mroe viable as options. Moreover in high desnity cities the trip DISTANCE is short so for a given number of poeple making a given number of trips in a day a denser city will hve fewer passenger miles of traffic even if the cities had near identical vehicle usage rates. Conversely in a less dense city the trip distance is much greater which means roads need to have much greater capacity.Chris OFarrell wrote:I would think the denser a city is, the more people are moving around in a smaller area. So for everyone using cars, then you have a LOT of cars in a small area, hence traffic problems / more space needed to be dedicated to roads capable of moving large numbers of vehicles. Where as less dense cities spread those cars over a wider surface area, so the traffic flow improves and you need less in the way of uber roads.
Maybe it's time to design vehicles with short ranges but good enough for in-city use? Then between towns, run a monorail or something,GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:However, in a less-dense city, things are spread out. As a result, there's a greater perceived need for cars, as errands start to exceed the comfortable distance for human-powered transportation, and wait times for mass transit also grow uncomfortably long. Ergo, more people will own cars in a lower-density city, and when you put enough idiots in charge of multi-ton kinetic-kill vehicles . . . hilarity ensues.
Once upon a time the US had exactly that system. Cars were only as good as the roads (which basically didn't exist between cities in sufficient numbers) so they were confined to the city and the immediate environs. Inter-urban rail lines ran all over the place. In the DC area there were inter-urbans to Frederick, Baltimore, through most of Arlington/Alexandira and down to Fredricksburg. Add n the in-city bus/trolley/street car systems and you could just hop from rail system to rail system faster than you can go the same distance today during rush hour.Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Maybe it's time to design vehicles with short ranges but good enough for in-city use? Then between towns, run a monorail or something,GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:However, in a less-dense city, things are spread out. As a result, there's a greater perceived need for cars, as errands start to exceed the comfortable distance for human-powered transportation, and wait times for mass transit also grow uncomfortably long. Ergo, more people will own cars in a lower-density city, and when you put enough idiots in charge of multi-ton kinetic-kill vehicles . . . hilarity ensues.
It's likely they're using the results from different sources or even the same source from different weeks. The DOE numbers are moving slightly downward for the most part while the API has reported a year over year increase for April after several months of slightly lowered demand. In any case we're looking at fairly small changes, only a percent or two so far.The Kernel wrote:Funny, I heard a report on NPR the other day that said the exact opposite. They said that demand was actually increasing or staying flat and that Americans were just finding new ways to pay for the gas.phongn wrote:Actually, US consumption actually has started to drop in reaction. And while you might not notice much at the pump; a lot of other people do.
I really hope so. I am looking at buying a cheap small diesel, but the tax is keeping me from it. Not mention that if I buy a new car there will be payments per month and higher insurace in addition to the diesel tax. I am not at all sure I would yet benefit from driving a diesel even though it would halve my fuel costs when accounting for all that.Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:Tax revenues will drop eventually when transportation costs start driving people out of work and to collecting unemployment support while businesses start going bankrupt due to the aforementioned transportation costs. I think the Government here in Finland will have to suck it up eventually and drop taxes on fuels or end up being seriously fucked. The situation here in Finland is worsened by the fact that we have a separate tax on diesel-operayed vehicles. The tax is paid once every year and is relative to the vehicles mass. For example, for a regular mid-sized family sedan the tax is about 400€ a year. There currently exists heavy pressure in favor of removing the tax entirely.
Don't know what the situation is up there in Finland but over here diesel is 9.27kn/liter while gasoline is 8.74-9.08kn/liter.His Divine Shadow wrote:I am looking at buying a cheap small diesel, but the tax is keeping me from it.
Agreed on all accounts. I did some math a few months back when I was considering buying a diesel myself. With 40km in work driving every day, I counted I would save around 400€ or so a year after I deducted the diesel tax. Now the difference has shrunk even further as diesel gains on 95E on prices. As such, I really don't have any other choice but keep driving. No bus connection. I really do wish we could get back the public transit options we used to have. I could take the bus to work and use the car on weekends.His Divine Shadow wrote:I really hope so. I am looking at buying a cheap small diesel, but the tax is keeping me from it. Not mention that if I buy a new car there will be payments per month and higher insurace in addition to the diesel tax. I am not at all sure I would yet benefit from driving a diesel even though it would halve my fuel costs when accounting for all that.Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:Tax revenues will drop eventually when transportation costs start driving people out of work and to collecting unemployment support while businesses start going bankrupt due to the aforementioned transportation costs. I think the Government here in Finland will have to suck it up eventually and drop taxes on fuels or end up being seriously fucked. The situation here in Finland is worsened by the fact that we have a separate tax on diesel-operayed vehicles. The tax is paid once every year and is relative to the vehicles mass. For example, for a regular mid-sized family sedan the tax is about 400€ a year. There currently exists heavy pressure in favor of removing the tax entirely.
What they need to do is start making busses run again, in the "olden days" people in the country got on the bus and went into Vaasa to shop, it came a few times a week.
I think we are going to need multiple busses every day covering the space between Vasa-Närpiö and Vasa-Pietasaari for all the commuters. First at 6,7,8 in the morning and then at 3,4,5 and 6 in the day for people going home, that could probably take care of most people driving cars to work, lots of people living in Vaasa commute to these areas.
My commute is 50km one way to Korsnäs (halfway in between aasa-närpiö) from Vasa and it's not that fun, if it weren't for being allowed to write if off my taxes because they do not have any public transport I would not be able to.
