patrick.net

jetbay says

“justme” … USA uses 4x as per capita as the rest of the western world, not only because of our less efficient vehicles but mostly because of suburban sprawl with our 1+ acre housing lots and endless strip malls.
Most people in western countries live in apartments or townhouses in walkable areas without much suburban sprawl. Its either city or farm and countryside, not much in between.
Many places in Europe also tax the car based on the size on the engine, or have higher gas taxes or both. I bet the tax on a 5.0 V8 is huge.

While the whole concept of "endless strip malls" and "burbs" is a probably a topic for another time... :) Lemme throw in a contrarian view.

Yes, we have our 1 acre lots vs close in apartment buildings and townhouses. Why shouldn't we? This IS America, lest we forget. Living in the world's foremost economic power has its pros and cons, but let's not forget that there IS a difference between America and a third world country. It's fairly evident. Now, between Europe and America? That gets a bit more fuzzy...but I'll leave with you a parting thought.

While the average person in Europe (or certain parts of it) may feel "happier" overall, their lifestyle is not the same as the average American, who may be "unhappier", but has a different (for better or worse) lifestyle.

I'll pick a cheesy example.

Who in Europe or America wouldn't wanna drive nice V8 powered sports car? How much does it cost on both sides of the Atlantic? :) You have your answer.

While there is a lot of "brainwashing" in America, Europe's not a whole lot better either.

kapone says

let’s not forget that there IS a difference between America and a third world country.

The peasants here are deluded that the streets are paved with gold?

Vicente says

kapone says

let’s not forget that there IS a difference between America and a third world country.

The peasants here are deluded that the streets are paved with gold?
“Eagles are dandified vultures” - Teddy Roosevelt

I would say, unlikely, but I think they do believe that we won't get invaded/attacked anytime soon. Does that happen now and then? Yes. But compared to the rest of the world, America is relatively much much safer.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not expounding that everything is "right" with the US, but where I'm going is that there quite a few "rights" (vs wrongs) that exist in US, vs the rest of the world. There's a price to pay for that.

Now, that being said, I do think quite a few folks in DC need to be publicly shot/beheaded to hold them accountable. Greenspan comes to mind as the first candidate....

kapone says

I think they do believe that we won’t get invaded/attacked anytime soon.

According to quite a few people I know the invasion is already over with. Socialists and "brown people" run the show. Oh wait I forgot gays.

Vicente says

kapone says

I think they do believe that we won’t get invaded/attacked anytime soon.

According to quite a few people I know the invasion is already over with. Socialists and “brown people” run the show. Oh wait I forgot gays.
“Eagles are dandified vultures” - Teddy Roosevelt

That may be, but that doesn't mean that the average person on the street lives in fear of being killed. Go to parts of middle east, Asia, Africa, Europe, former Soviet Union and what not, and people live with "real" fear. Not imagined or economic or anything, but real fear that they may get killed anytime.

Maybe if Americans can ween themselves off of gas guzzling SUVs they wouldn't whine so much when gas prices fluctuate. Americans have always invented a need in their minds for bigger. No sympathy from me.

The average MPG for American automobiles is about 22 MPG, while it true some cars get much better gas mileage and other gets get much worse mileage, the overall average is 22 MPG. Not too bad huh, compare that to the overall average of 43 MPG in Europe, the United States is lagging far behind in conservation. So if 178 million gallons of gasoline is consumed every day, and we import 65% of that, switching over to more fuel efficient cars like Europe, we could cut our consumption by almost 50%!

I drive a diesel pickup that gets about 15 mpg. I just bought new tires for it ($835) and am driving more slowly, and not accelerating so quickly, to maximize my mpg and tire life.

I think fuel prices are still pretty cheap. I have been trying to cut out the waste in my lifestyle, which costs me a lot more than the recent increase in diesel.

For example, I don't like washing the dishes, and would buy new ones when the old ones got dirty. I have something like 28 teflon-coated frying pans because of that. Not to mention plates and bowls and utensils.

There is a lot of waste in our society, and many opportunities for us to cut out waste and inefficiencies.

Sean7593 says

For example, I don’t like washing the dishes, and would buy new ones when the old ones got dirty. I have something like 28 teflon-coated frying pans because of that. Not to mention plates and bowls and utensils.

There is a lot of waste in our society, and many opportunities for us to cut out waste and inefficiencies.

Kudos to you! BTW - you probably saved yourself some money by not wasting wash water on all of those dirty dishes anyhow. Here's another tip on how to save money on your water bill: try to stop pooping. Start by gradually eating less every day, until you are no longer consuming any food. Less waste all around = greater efficiency. Bonus: cheaper food bill!

>"So if 178 million gallons of gasoline is consumed every day, and we import 65% of that, switching over to more fuel efficient cars like Europe, we could cut our consumption by almost 50%!”

I think most Americans won't have it (switiching to better mileage cars). Many Americans are willing to change presidents because of the price of gasoline alone!

TechGromit says

the overall average of 43 MPG in Europe

I know they're working on efficiency and the stuff though, I can hardly believe they some how able to archieve almost twice the efficiency. 33MPG? I can take it, but 43... well... can that MPG possible even w/ hybrid? Or is that 43km/gal or something?

seaside says

TechGromit says

the overall average of 43 MPG in Europe

I know they’re working on efficiency and the stuff though, I can hardly believe they some how able to archieve almost twice the efficiency. 33MPG? I can take it, but 43… well… can that MPG possible even w/ hybrid? Or is that 43km/gal or something?

I think you are forgetting that their cars are much smaller physically and have much smaller engines. They were running smarts, minis, Benz a cars, Honda fit/jazz light years before it became available in the states. Many models sold in the us actually have larger seats than the same models in the restbof the world, larger seats people, please stop eating like pigs and go out and exercise!!

ih8alameda says

I think you are forgetting that their cars are much smaller physically and have much smaller engines. They were running smarts, minis, Benz a cars, Honda fit/jazz light years before it became available in the states.

Some of there pollution controls are more lax as well. The Smart car in Europe is rated at 60 MPG, but by the U..S. finished adding emissions control components to it, it barely got 45 MPG in the United States. While pollution prevention is important, if your losing 25% efficiency in the process (and burning 25% more gas) does it really help pollution in the long run? The New diesel smart car in Europe is reported to get 85 mpg!

ih8alameda says

Many models sold in the us actually have larger seats than the same models in the restbof the world, larger seats people, please stop eating like pigs and go out and exercise!!

So what if American market cars have larger seats? It's the larger vehicles and engine displacements which are reducing gas mileage.

For what it's worth, I'm both tall and fat. But I was quite comfortable in either my Geo Metro or Dodge Colt(Mitsubishi Mirage). I have been in a Chrysler 300 and I had to bend my neck to the side or ride gangsta' to keep my head off the headliner.

In alot of cases, there's an inverse relationship between vehicle price and space efficiency. It might be that Truckzilla epidemic soothes the egos of stature challenged drivers.

Once we fully electrify things we’ll be carrying less mass in motion, which is good.
I'm giving some thought to buying a Trek Transporter+ as a second vehicle. Check out this review where the guy was using it in the snow. The one thing holding me back is the lack of garage space (as in, I don't have one).

ih8alameda says

I think you are forgetting that their cars are much smaller physically and have much smaller engines. They were running smarts, minis, Benz a cars, Honda fit/jazz light years before it became available in the states.

The coolest car-related thing I saw in Lisbon was the enormous savings in parking space you get when most people drive something the size of a Smart Car or EuroCar - you just park head-on to the curb! Also no need to learn to parallel park :-)

Cook County resident says

So what if American market cars have larger seats? It’s the larger vehicles and engine displacements which are reducing gas mileage.

you're right, that was more my personal dig at fat people =) However, I think in general americans have a very entitled mentality that leads to over-indulgence. In the amount of food we eat, the amount of space we "need", the amount of comfort we "deserve" etc. All this leads to the bigger is better, and in the case of cars and their seats, the bigger, the less fuel efficient. More mass or more HP = more gas

ih8alameda2 says

you’re right, that was more my personal dig at fat people =) However, I think in general americans have a very entitled mentality that leads to over-indulgence. In the amount of food we eat, the amount of space we “need”, the amount of comfort we “deserve” etc. All this leads to the bigger is better, and in the case of cars and their seats, the bigger, the less fuel efficient.

Who knows? I like to make stuff up, too. I'll suggest our prosperity has allowed us to slide into a homebound lifestyle. TVs and electronic games are cheap and calories are cheaper. Used to be, before air conditioning, everybody would get out of the house just because it was too damn hot inside.

In our isolation, we seem to have grown more fearful. The outdoors seem less safe and there's no excuse for letting the kiddies walk to the school or the park -- no excuse at all, not when there's a paramilitary RoadMonster in the garage which will take them through Terra Incognito as a Conestoga through Injun Country.

But I like efficiency. I'd like to have the choice of the space and fuel efficient small cars that the rest of the world has. And I'd love to know what those foreigners are doing with the space saved by their smaller seats. Haul around an extra couple cubic feet of air, perhaps?

TechGromit says

Some of there pollution controls are more lax as well. The Smart car in Europe is rated at 60 MPG, but by the U..S. finished adding emissions control components to it, it barely got 45 MPG in the United States.

Are you sure about that, Gromit? I have a feeling that there may be other variables at play here.

1. US Gallon versus Imperial Gallon

2. Different driving cycle standard for mpg measurements.

From wikipedia:

In United States customary units there are the liquid (≈ 3.79 L) and the lesser used dry (≈ 4.4 L) gallons. There is also the imperial gallon (≈ 4.55 L) which is in unofficial use within the United Kingdom and Ireland and is in semi-official use within Canada.

I don't have time this moment to look into this, but maybe later.

Cook County resident says

In our isolation, we seem to have grown more fearful. The outdoors seem less safe and there’s no excuse for letting the kiddies walk to the school or the park — no excuse at all, not when there’s a paramilitary RoadMonster in the garage

Right on.

The difference in some of these cars mileage comes from what @justme said. The difference in a gallon. That is huge. EPA vs whatever is used in these other countries to measure MPG is huge as well. In europe they cut down on the acid rain producing emissions, while the US dioxide output. The cars are roughly the same, it's how things are measured.

We lost most diesel cars here because our sulphur laws in diesel were far less stringent than in Europe, and the diesel engines they made simply didn't work with the diesel here. I believe that has recently changed though with diesel #2 becoming more stringent.

Cars have lots of ways of becoming more efficient still. Three big ones:
#1) Weight of pieces used. Plastic vs Steel. Lighter glass. Smaller engine, lighter transmissions, chassis, etc.
#2) More areo dynamic. The cars start to look silly, but it makes a difference, especially over 55mph.
#3) Less rolling resistance, or in other words, smaller, thinner, more inflated tires.

Remove the battery from a prius and see what happens. Not much, other than a decent loss in startup power. It's has lighter glass, lighter body parts, it's far more areo dynamic, and the tires are small and thin. It gets it's great mileage mostly from car improvements, the hybrid aspect makes it more acceptable to drive with the additional power. As they add bigger batteries and electric only modes, it might start to make a bigger difference, but up until now, it's mostly been changes to the car.

I personally think that the biggest improvement in mileage will come when someone figures out how to socially punish/socially explain why they're driving like an idiot. The mpg display in the prius is pretty good, but something that has even more feed back will likely help people drive better. Basically figuring out what the best way to convince people to drive smarter is. Better driving can change a cars EPA rating from -20% to +40%, that's a huge amount.

justme says

TechGromit says

Some of there pollution controls are more lax as well. The Smart car in Europe is rated at 60 MPG, but by the U..S. finished adding emissions control components to it, it barely got 45 MPG in the United States.

Are you sure about that, Gromit? I have a feeling that there may be other variables at play here.

Yes pretty sure.

European Union (EU) testing rates the 999 cc Smart at 4.7 L/100 km (60 mpg-imp; 50 mpg-US)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rates the vehicle at 36 mpg-US (6.5 L/100 km; 43 mpg-imp) combined.

So the European testing rates the Smart car at 60 MPG (Imperial) and the US EPA rates the vehicle as 43 mpg (Imperial) after the U.S. pollution controls are applied. That's a 28% difference between the European and US models, doesn't matter if you measure it in US Gallons or Imperial Gallons, still works out to 28% difference.

It's HOW you measure it. The rules are different here.

Wiki has some information on it, but not a lot on how the differences effect the numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_automobiles#Fuel_economy_standards_and_testing_procedures

The EPA might have changed things around a bit, but they apparently used to test cars inside, which made it difficult for turbos to pass emissions. So an SUV and a Prius would have the same areo dynamics at high way speeds based on their testing.

The emissions controls on the US cars and European cars isn't that much different.

TechGromit says

That’s a 28% difference between the European and US models, doesn’t matter if you measure it in US Gallons or Imperial Gallons, still works out to 28% difference.

Gromit,

What pkennedy said: Don't forget the effect of how the EPA driving cycle is defined. Maybe the EPA cycle contain much brisker accelaration and harder stops and less coasting. Perhaps this is a reflection of how Americans drive, on the average.

My observation is that American drivers are prone to being acceleration freaks that race from one red light to the other, then sit and wait while I coast in just in time to catch the next green light, and often pass them in the process. You don't see many Europeans driving like that. I visited 6 countries in Europe last year and saw very little of this wasteful and misplaced macho type behavior, be it by females or males.

seaside says

I know they’re working on efficiency and the stuff though, I can hardly believe they some how able to archieve almost twice the efficiency. 33MPG? I can take it, but 43… well… can that MPG possible even w/ hybrid? Or is that 43km/gal or something?

The main difference is smaller cars and just as importantly, the fact that a large fraction (53% in 2007) of new cars have much more efficient DIESEL engines.

Also, the UK (and, I believe, Europe) tax CO2 emissions. Cars emitting less than 100g/km of CO2 don't have to pay a road tax. Also, starting this year, cars that are registered (new, I believe) will have to pay a higher initial fee (those below 130 g/km are exempted.)

Bubble Bobble says

The real problem is that we are transporting our goods with trucks instead of trains

Whaat? Yeah, trains are more efficient than trucks, but what makes you think trucks are burning most of our transportation oil. How about some data? Okay, I'll look it up for you:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbblpd_a.htm

Here one can see that diesel (trucking, marine AND trains) is less than 25% of the total. And gasoline is more than 55% of the total. So passenger cars are more to blame than trucks. Trucks are part of the problem, but they are not the most significant problem.

Or just apply common sense: Think kg(payload)*miles/gallon for trucks versus cars. And are you seeing swarms of truck clogging up our freeways as opposed to automobiles? Are they carrying only 80kg of payload per 1500kg of dead weight?

A general suggestion: If anyone wants to reduce the amount of energy wasted on trucking, stop drinking bottled water. Trucking all that bottled water around must be one of the most wasteful things imaginable. Only air travel wastes more energy relative to what is accomplished.

How about if all the automobile drivers were on trains? All the domestic airline passengers?

So we can agree then that it is more important to place passengers on trains than it is to place freight on trains.

I hope it is clear that I'm not at all against placing freight on trains. What I am saying is that using trains instead trucks for freight is not a complete solution nor the most significant solution to the overall problem of oil consumption in transportation.

Listen, the reason I'm nagging you about this is that your original post was saying that trucking was the "real problem".

The implication being that if only trucks would cease to exist, the problem of transportation oil consumption would be gone, or at least that nothing else would be worth doing until trucking was gone.

This is clearly false, and what the claim does is to push the problem onto some other group (the trucking industry), rather than taking personal responsibility for the problem and reduce personal automobile use.

It is always easier to solve problems by demanding that some other group changes their behavior than by changing what we do ourselves. But is is not right. And in this particular case, it does not even come close to solving the problem.

Bubble Bobble says

Unfortunately, passenger trains require a certain population to make sense, and limit the freedom of the passengers who would otherwise use a car… It just doesn’t work everywhere.

Neither does rail Cargo. You may need trucks for the last few miles in many cases, and for the last hundreds of miles in some cases.

I wonder how many people are still driving vehicles getting under 18MPG, especially alone most/all of the time.

American in Japan says

I wonder how many people are still driving vehicles getting under 18MPG, especially alone most/all of the time.

I know someone who just replaced an 18 MPG SUV for which she was paying $600/month in gas with a new Prius for which she's paying $250/month. Oh, and $500/month in car payments.

If Toyota can just get the cost of that car down. Perhaps a 3-4 year old Prius?
Vicente where are you?

If Toyota can just get the cost of that car down. Perhaps a 3-4 year old Prius?
Vicente where are you?

National Rail Shame!

We spent trillions in the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System because we followed Hitler's example. Because we wanted to be able to easily roll tanks from Detroit to Florida if Castro invaded.

Our society was forever changed by this DEFENSE decision which has distorted our society, and other transport has atrophied.

Here, look at the Confederate railroad:

Now?

I can't get by train from Atlanta to Savannah unless I go through Washington DC.

The "company town" is one solution to requiring less daily brownian motion of people. Another would be go back to single-earner economy. Mom or Dad being paid a decent wage so they can live on one salary. But I guess the billionaires wouldn't like that so forget it.

We spent trillions (inflation adjusted) on railroads wiping out a perfectly good canal system. We spent trillions on a canal system wiping out a perfectly good wagon road system. If the price of oil goes high enough trains might make a big comeback. The technology that makes the most sense at the time wins. Life moves on.

The interstate highway system made most of the wealth of the second half of the 20th century possible. It also caused a myriad of problems like drugs and suburban sprawl leading to destruction of most major cities. Why drugs? Because drugs were limited to a few urban areas prior to wwII. You just couldn't transport and distribute them all around the country before the interstate made it possible.

The big problem with trains is the sheer number of destinations we have freight going to. In Canada, freight trains work wonders, but it's possible to draw a single line through Canada and hit every major city, or essentially 90+% of the population in one route.

Trains could reduce the trucking needs, but it would be nearly impossible to get to all of the small destination points very easily. Europe has a nice train system, but in reality, the sheer number of railroads that would need building would make it impossible to do here, at this point.

Public transit would be nice, even if it was just done in major cities, but everyone ends up going in a different direction. None of the cities here are populated in a way to allow easy commuting.

bob2356 says

It also caused a myriad of problems like drugs and suburban sprawl leading to destruction of most major cities. Why drugs? Because drugs were limited to a few urban areas prior to wwII. You just couldn’t transport and distribute them all around the country before the interstate made it possible.

There was a huge anti-drug mania in this country prior to WW1, cumulating in the Harrison act. The problem was characterized as widespread and pervasive. People could even buy cocaine though the mail.

A few years later, alcohol was widely transported in the US, despite the Prohibition laws and the lack of an interstate highway system.

Bubble Bobble says

Cook County resident says

There was a huge anti-drug mania in this country

WAS??????

Sure. Manias are cyclical. That mania had pretty much run it's course by the 60s.

I really hate to jump in here, but I think the culmination was not in the Harrison Act (1914), but in the 18th amendment (1919). The Harrison Act was primarily about taxation and control* of opium and cocaine but they continued to be prescribed and sold. It requires a constitutional amendment for the federal government to ban something from sale (i.e. "intoxicating liquors") in the U.S., or at least it did until the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. On June 17th we celebrate 40 years of Nixon's War on Drugs.

(*) Well, taxation, control, ... and to prevent blacks from raping white women and white women from sleeping with chinamen (see statements by Hamilton Wright).