Keep Biking - We Need To

oilfreeandhappy said:

Here's some interesting facts from the CIA factbook. I've only chosen
comparisons between the US, Europe and Australia.

Population (2005): EU: 457 Million, US: 296 Million, Australia: 20
Million
Oil Consumption: EU: 14.5 Million BBLS, US: 19.6 Million BBLS,
Australia: 796,000 BBLS

I believe that's a daily figure.

Quoted message said:

GDP: EU: 11.65 Trillion, US: 11.75 Trillion, Australia: 612 Billion

Dividing some of these figures:
Oil Consumption per person: EU: .032 BBL/person, US: .066 BBL/person
Australia: .040 BBL/person

Obviously daily.

Quoted message said:

GDP/BBL of oil: EU: $800,000 / BBL, US: $600,000 / BBL, Australia:
$769,000 / BBL

Divide by 365 for annualized rate.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Quoted message said:

Here's some interesting facts from the CIA factbook. I've only chosen
comparisons between the US, Europe and Australia.

Population (2005): EU: 457 Million, US: 296 Million, Australia: 20
Million
Oil Consumption: EU: 14.5 Million BBLS, US: 19.6 Million BBLS,
Australia: 796,000 BBLS
GDP: EU: 11.65 Trillion, US: 11.75 Trillion, Australia: 612 Billion

Dividing some of these figures:
Oil Consumption per person: EU: .032 BBL/person, US: .066 BBL/person
Australia: .040 BBL/person
GDP/BBL of oil: EU: $800,000 / BBL, US: $600,000 / BBL, Australia:
$769,000 / BBL

As much as I agree with the basic premise (that the US uses more than its
share of the world's resources, which is a problem that goes beyond any
moral or ethical issues in that it puts us in an increasingly-defensive
position vis-a-vis the countries rich in oil), we need to look at how the
oil is actually used. To the extent that it's due to inefficiency & waste &
just simply driving around too much, yes, absolute problem. But the US also
is a huge exporter of food products, more so than the other countries listed
(actually, I don't know the breakdown for Australia; could be they're a big
exporter as well). Huge amounts of petroleum products are used in
agriculture, and it may be relevant to factor that out of the equation.

So yeah, we're bad, but let's make it as defensible a case as possible.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

I guess there are 101 ways to make the U.S. look bad, as our consumption is
higher, but U.S.'s productivity is also higher. I'll never forget the time I
spent working in Australia, with it's socialist policies & high import taxes
resulting in unemployment, bashed-up old autos & patched washing machines.
BTW; the U.S. Navy provides Australia's defense. And how much have we spent
for Europe's?
Jim
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here's some interesting facts from the CIA factbook. I've only chosen
comparisons between the US, Europe and Australia.

Population (2005): EU: 457 Million, US: 296 Million, Australia: 20
Million
Oil Consumption: EU: 14.5 Million BBLS, US: 19.6 Million BBLS,
Australia: 796,000 BBLS
GDP: EU: 11.65 Trillion, US: 11.75 Trillion, Australia: 612 Billion

Dividing some of these figures:
Oil Consumption per person: EU: .032 BBL/person, US: .066 BBL/person
Australia: .040 BBL/person
GDP/BBL of oil: EU: $800,000 / BBL, US: $600,000 / BBL, Australia:
$769,000 / BBL

As much as I agree with the basic premise (that the US uses more than its
share of the world's resources, which is a problem that goes beyond any
moral or ethical issues in that it puts us in an increasingly-defensive
position vis-a-vis the countries rich in oil), we need to look at how the
oil is actually used. To the extent that it's due to inefficiency & waste

&

Quoted message said:

just simply driving around too much, yes, absolute problem. But the US

also

Quoted message said:

is a huge exporter of food products, more so than the other countries

listed

Quoted message said:

(actually, I don't know the breakdown for Australia; could be they're a

big

Quoted message said:

exporter as well). Huge amounts of petroleum products are used in
agriculture, and it may be relevant to factor that out of the equation.

So yeah, we're bad, but let's make it as defensible a case as possible.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

oilfreeandhappy said:

Here's some interesting facts from the CIA factbook. I've only chosen
comparisons between the US, Europe and Australia.

Population (2005): EU: 457 Million, US: 296 Million, Australia: 20
Million
Oil Consumption: EU: 14.5 Million BBLS, US: 19.6 Million BBLS,
Australia: 796,000 BBLS
GDP: EU: 11.65 Trillion, US: 11.75 Trillion, Australia: 612 Billion

Dividing some of these figures:
Oil Consumption per person: EU: .032 BBL/person, US: .066 BBL/person
Australia: .040 BBL/person
GDP/BBL of oil: EU: $800,000 / BBL, US: $600,000 / BBL, Australia:
$769,000 / BBL

The comparison with Australia is interesting, because it's probably the
next most car-oriented society to the US. But the difference is still
great -- probably because Australia is actually more urbanized than the
US, with more of its population concentrated in and around major cities.
These cities have decent public transportation that people actually use.
Also, Australians are less likely to view American-style 50mi commutes as
normal. Unless they're making special trips, they tend to stick close
to home in their daily routine.

Matt O.

Thanks for the correction. Sometimes these GDP figures are confusing.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

As much as I agree with the basic premise (that the US uses more than
its share of the world's resources, which is a problem that goes beyond
any moral or ethical issues in that it puts us in an
increasingly-defensive position vis-a-vis the countries rich in oil), we
need to look at how the oil is actually used. To the extent that it's
due to inefficiency & waste & just simply driving around too much, yes,
absolute problem. But the US also is a huge exporter of food products,
more so than the other countries listed (actually, I don't know the
breakdown for Australia; could be they're a big exporter as well). Huge
amounts of petroleum products are used in agriculture, and it may be
relevant to factor that out of the equation.

It's an interesting point. Actually the amount of petroleum used in
agriculture in the US pales in comparison to what's used just driving
around. It's those incessant trips across sprawlburbia that are the
culprit.

Australia is probably different. I found Jared Diamond's account of
Australian agriculture in Collapse quite shocking -- the land is so
infertile that agriculture is not even possible without massive infusions
of petroleum based fertilizers. This is true in the US too, but not to
the same degree.

As a former resident I found this chapter in the book the most
interesting. So did a couple of other people I shared it with, who had
also spent a lot of time there. The reason it's so interesting is that
Australian culture is so enamored of the land, pastoral and agricultural
traditions, etc. It was a surprise to find out just how much of a sham
the whole thing is.

Matt O.

My wife and visited Australia a while back. We loved the Mass Transit
system in Sydney. It was convenient and very easy to use. We're
pretty active though, and we didn't mind hiking from the station to our
eventual destination.

We also took the train from a town near Cairns through Brisbane to
Sydney. It was great! They only add on about a 10% surcharge for a
Sleeper Car. Amtrak, our excuse for a National Train System, doubles
or triples the price.

Can you even bring a bike on Amtrak?

Good point. I did a little looking around, and I found this statement:

"Agriculture directly accounts for 17% of all the energy used in this
country." Source:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html

Taking 17% off from the US total isn't correct, because these other
countries also use a lot of energy in their agricultural systems.
Also, the 17% is for all forms of energy, including electricity. So
using this figure is a "best-case" scenario for the US statistics.
Here's the revised data with this factored in. Bottom line, we're
still the oil gluttons.

Population (2005): EU: 457 Million, US: 296 Million, Australia: 20
Million
Oil Consumption: EU: 14.5 Million BBLS, US: 16.3 Million BBLS (19.6 x
..83),
Australia: 796,000 BBLS
GDP: EU: 11.65 Trillion, US: 11.75 Trillion, Australia: 612 Billion

Dividing some of these figures:
Daily Oil Consumption per person: EU: .032 BBL/person, US: .055
BBL/person
Australia: .040 BBL/person
GDP/BBL of oil: EU: $2,192 / BBL, US: $1,975 / BBL, Australia:
$2,106 / BBL

oilfreeandhappy said:

My wife and visited Australia a while back. We loved the Mass Transit
system in Sydney. It was convenient and very easy to use. We're pretty
active though, and we didn't mind hiking from the station to our
eventual destination.

I lived in Sydney as a teenager. I took the train to school, and
everywhere else. Because of the great public transit I had the run of the
city, in a way I never could have the US. It was a great experience, and
I feel privileged to have had it.

Quoted message said:

We also took the train from a town near Cairns through Brisbane to
Sydney.
It was great! They only add on about a 10% surcharge for a Sleeper
Car.

Long trips by train to neighboring cities seemed ridiculously cheap.
Obviously the trains were very heavily subsidized. This is the cost,
which results in high taxes, and other problems.

Quoted message said:

Amtrak, our excuse for a National Train System, doubles or triples the
price.

Well, it costs a lot to provide that service. Think about it -- how many
people fit in a sleeper car, vs. regular seats. On top of that is cost of
running essentially a hotel.

Quoted message said:

Can you even bring a bike on Amtrak?

Absolutely. The details vary by route. Sometimes the bike has to be
boxed, other times not. Bike/train commuting on the Amtrak Metrolink
routes around Los Angeles is very popular.

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole said:

oilfreeandhappy said:

My wife and visited Australia a while back. We loved the Mass Transit
system in Sydney. It was convenient and very easy to use. We're pretty
active though, and we didn't mind hiking from the station to our
eventual destination.

I lived in Sydney as a teenager. I took the train to school, and
everywhere else. Because of the great public transit I had the run of the
city, in a way I never could have the US. It was a great experience, and
I feel privileged to have had it.

I visited Australia for a few weeks and while we were in Sydney we
didn't bother getting a car. The trains and ferries were fantastic. We
did, however, rent a car for driving from Uluru to King Cyn to Alice
Springs.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

oilfreeandhappy said:

My wife and visited Australia a while back. We loved the Mass Transit
system in Sydney. It was convenient and very easy to use. We're
pretty active though, and we didn't mind hiking from the station to our
eventual destination.

We also took the train from a town near Cairns through Brisbane to
Sydney. It was great! They only add on about a 10% surcharge for a
Sleeper Car. Amtrak, our excuse for a National Train System, doubles
or triples the price.

Can you even bring a bike on Amtrak?

Mr Oilfree,

Do you realize how energy intensive mass transit is? How do you think
moving those very heavy vehicles occurs?

Wayne

Wayne Pein said:

Mr Oilfree,

Do you realize how energy intensive mass transit is? How do you think
moving those very heavy vehicles occurs?

Those who love mass transit tend to ignore the cost of passenger trains
or lightly loaded buses. The same thinking causes folks to buy a Prius
paying $4k over a similar car expecting the delta in petrol to make up
the difference.

Even if it could, then there is the cost of the replacement batteries.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:37:42 -0700, Paul Cassel <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Wayne Pein said:

Mr Oilfree,

Do you realize how energy intensive mass transit is? How do you think
moving those very heavy vehicles occurs?

Those who love mass transit tend to ignore the cost of passenger trains
or lightly loaded buses.

Buses only need a few passengers (5 or so) to consume less than the same
number of people in cars (at 1 apiece, of course, as most of the miles,
especially in the US, are made), the same goes for trains with higher
absolute numbers.

Jasper

Jasper Janssen said:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:37:42 -0700, Paul Cassel <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Wayne Pein said:

Mr Oilfree,

Do you realize how energy intensive mass transit is? How do you think
moving those very heavy vehicles occurs?

Those who love mass transit tend to ignore the cost of passenger trains
or lightly loaded buses.

Buses only need a few passengers (5 or so) to consume less than the same
number of people in cars (at 1 apiece, of course, as most of the miles,
especially in the US, are made), the same goes for trains with higher
absolute numbers.

True, buses and trains are *much* more efficient than cars... as
generally used. Large "cars" are the worst of all...

One of the biggest reason for the differences between the US and the
rest of the world, is because gas and oil are cheap here, and we seem
to have abandoned any attempt at conservation. Our current
administration seems to support using as much fuel as possible, and
even the recent price increases are not enough for many persons to
select smaller vehicles based on cost.

Jim said:

II'll never forget the time I
spent working in Australia, with it's socialist policies & high import taxes
resulting in unemployment, bashed-up old autos & patched washing machines.

OK, then explain Europe with its socialist policies and traditionally
high import taxes, but which has generally better cars and better
washing machines than the US has.

I think you are looking at a situation that's cultural and calling it
economic.

Chalo Colina

Matt O'Toole said:

oilfreeandhappy said:

Amtrak, our excuse for a National Train System, doubles or triples the
price.

Well, it costs a lot to provide that service. Think about it -- how many
people fit in a sleeper car, vs. regular seats. On top of that is cost of
running essentially a hotel.

Amtrak is so broken in most places that there's not much in the way of
lessons that can be drawn from it-- except that subsidized monopolies
don't have to be functional to survive.

How in the world could coach passage on a crappy, infrequent train cost
more than coach passage on a jet airliner? Airlines are money-losing
operations these days, but then so is Amtrak. And how is it that
Amtrak passes through entire sections of the country without having any
stations in them?

It seems to me that the federal government keeps Amtrak on life support
so they won't have to allow a real business to provide functional
cross-country rail service. If we had that, about half of our airlines
would fold.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Can you even bring a bike on Amtrak?

Absolutely. The details vary by route. Sometimes the bike has to be
boxed, other times not. Bike/train commuting on the Amtrak Metrolink
routes around Los Angeles is very popular.

It's true that where Amtrak has stations, there is no better way to
send a bike around the country (at least if you're not particular about
it arriving on a specific scheduled train). I've been able to ship
bikes that were too big for UPS or FedEx Ground, and Amtrak personnel
were very friendly and accommodating about it.

Chalo Colina

Quoted message said:

Matt O.

Jasper Janssen said:

Buses only need a few passengers (5 or so) to consume less than the same
number of people in cars (at 1 apiece, of course, as most of the miles,
especially in the US, are made), the same goes for trains with higher
absolute numbers.

Jasper

If one examines the relavent actual fuel consumption per passenger mile
statistics, mass transit systems, even the most heavily used, in the US
get roughly the same passenger per mile fuel consumption as the average
car (ie gas guzzler) with one occupant, the driver. This is because
transit keeps moving whether anyone is using it or not, and the vehicles
are very heavy. And transit proponents never consider the fuel used
transporting replacement drivers around, which would reduce transit
actual fuel economy.

Cars are parked when not in use. Have a fuel efficient car (or carpool
or both) and transit can't compete.

If transit was so good, people would clamor for it, but people don't
want it unless driving is miserable. Here in Chapel Hill NC, transit is
FREE. Yet few "townies" use it, except those who are forced to by
increasingly restrictive parking on campus where they work. It is used
almost exclusively by students who don't have the option to drive. Many
routes are virtually empty during non-peak student times. When the
students are totally gone, the busses are virtually empty.

Further, when it became "free" (i.e. even more heavily subsidized than
normal), walking and biking plummeted. Close-to-campus bus stops, which
previously had few boardings, now have many boardings. People are too
lazy to walk or bike a couple of blocks. So, previous non-polluting
travelers are now "motorists," except they are chauffeured. And it makes
our local transit artificially look better than it is. If our transit
was populated only by people who would otherwise drive alone (rather
than walk, bike, or carpool), it's fuel consumption would be truly ghastly.

Wayne

Wayne Pein said:

If one examines the relavent actual fuel consumption per passenger mile
statistics, mass transit systems, even the most heavily used, in the US
get roughly the same passenger per mile fuel consumption as the average
car (ie gas guzzler) with one occupant, the driver. This is because
transit keeps moving whether anyone is using it or not, and the vehicles
are very heavy.

If you are going to make preposterous assertions like that, you had
better back them up with reputable sources, preferably with hard
numbers attached.

Chalo Colina

Chalo,
I agree. Some hard data should be forthcoming to back that statement.
However, I have read that airlines do use more fuel than if all the
occupants drove cars. This was stated in a Worldwatch Institute
article.

If used heavily in a major city, Lightrail can vastly reduce car trips
within a city. This has been proven in Denver, Dallas, St. Louis, and
Minneapolis, where it is a big success. I hear this isn't going so
well in Baltimore though, and they recently closed 3 stations. The
justification and feasibility of these systems for Denver and St. Louis
were not compared to buses though. The studies compared the cost of
expanding infrastructure for more car-lanes, etc. The thinking here is
that the gridlock is so bad that the city needs a system apart from the
roads, which the buses did not offer.