I'd have to say that there might be a fair amount of potential to make physically separated bike lanes, simply because there are so many roads, and so many of them have more than 2 lanes, particularly in cities, which means some of those lanes could be turned into real bike lanes -- because I refuse to ride on roads where I could get bumped by cars, although I know most people are braver than me.  But it would take a fair amount of money and political will to grab some lanes away from cars.

I think they could be safe enough to ride on the road with cars.  With up to 750 watts of federally approved battery electric assist.

But you are right, for the vast majority of commuters, mass transit is where it's at.

"Out of over 108 million households in the U.S. in 2005, only about 59 million have access, and of those that have access, 40 million don't even use transit."

Interesting!  How much has mass transit contributed to this recent demand reduction?  How much present capacity is there left?  How much would that reduce demand, if all present mass transit capacity were used?

How much has ride shating and biking contributed?  what is the potential for oil demand reduction just from these source of savings?  Biking, ridesharing, and full use of mass transit?

Hehey, sorry for all the questions.  But these would seem to be good ones.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

"riding on buses and trains."

Srew buses and trains.  I don't want to ride them.  If you want to ride them be my guest.  But don't force your ideas on me.

I promise to always keep my carbon footprint as small as Al Gore - so I must be green.

"Srew buses and trains."

It's a sick culture that expects our soldiers to go to war so that it can keep guzzling gas as usual.  Whatever happened to the attitude that won WW2?

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."  

Lie, consume, spend, borrow, invade, and lie some more?  That seems to be the McBush strategery. Is that a formula for US energy and financial security?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

amazin', I have a feeling that there isn't too much more expansion possible in mass transit right now, since the transit systems are having to increase fares and even reduce service just as ridership increases.  Much of that is because too much of mass transit is still diesel-based.

On the other hand, if Congress was smart, they'd plow billions into the current mass transit systems, so that they could at least fill up what they have, and then give them billions more to buy more trains and buses -- which would be the medium term plan.  In the long-term, of course, the lines and rail should be expanded

I don't know whether the American Public Transportation Association has any reports trying to show a link between falling demand for gasoline and lower gas prices.  That would be a PR coup!  They should definitely do it, I'll take a look.

Saluki, assuming you want to have a conversation about this and are not just trying to insult people, buses and trains actually help those who stay in cars because 1) it reduces congestion, and 2) it reduces demand for gasoline, thus lowering the price.  I assume that you would appreciate both developments.

Paleocon, I don't know why employers don't go with more telecommuting, they seem perfectly OK -- well, maybe not perfectly -- with sending service jobs to India, why not a town away?  There might be an argument that when people are in one location, they create more innovations, and routine procedures can be moved along because people are in the same room, not the town over.  Although you'd think that a good phone connection with a computer would work fine.

Appearing on the scene next year should be ultra-light hybrid buses.  Most of the weight reduction will come from strong but material-thrifty stainless steel frames.

Urban buses generally run fixed routes.  No reason that we couldn't see fully electric buses which use exchangeable battery packs.  

Dedicated, fully automated battery exchange points around a city could get fossil fuels out of our city public transportation.  

Although I agree that many Americans do not have access to good public transport, there's this aspect as well: Many don't even know that they have access to public transport.

Living in South Orange County suburbs in California a few years ago, I was a constant source of amazement and amusement because I regularly used Amtrak to get around for non-work related trips. So many people who had lived there their entire lives had no idea they could do that.

I discovered a very convenient network of buses as well. They were comfortable, pretty punctual, and very non-crowded.

Which leads me to bring up another interesting aspect: Prejudice. Talking to neighbors I found out that they would never ride buses, because in their opinion only lowlife and social deviants did and I was crazy to even bring it up.

Jon's milquetoast response to Saluki is totally insufficient.  This isn't about making nice for people who drive, it's about getting people out of cars because doing so is better for the Earth.

But back to my point:  Many, if not most, Americans are selfish enough to hold Saluki's and Paleocon's points of view.  They care far more about their own comfort and/or convenience than about the Earth or society as a whole.  It is this attitude that must change if we are ever going to solve the immense ecological and environmental problems humans have caused and are still causing since the beginning of agriculture.  Humans have a basic choice: either evolve mentally and spiritually into far less selfish, materialistic beings, or destroy life as we know it, including the human race.  Half measures won't do the trick.

Thanks for checking me on the other side -- but sometimes I find it useful to try out various arguments to see if they have any effect.  And since the vast majority of people do operate on self-interest, and since I think that we need to transform civilization both for the health of the biosphere and for long-term self-interest, it should be possible to pursue both goals at the same time, because it increases the possibility of going in the right direction.  Or so I hope.

"I have a feeling that there isn't too much more expansion possible in mass transit right now, since the transit systems are having to increase fares and even reduce service just as ridership increases."

More investment in mass transit is needed.  And this is a great area for natural gas and eventually electric conversion, from oil based fuel.

Buses and trains can carry big natural gas tanks and/or big batteries.  And trains can operate directly on electric rails.  This sort of conversion is an inexpensive way to reduce oil demand, and start the move to end the tyranical rule of OPEC over the world energy economy.

All we need is around 4 or 5% reduction in oil demand per year to defeat the market manipulators.  As that makes oil war obsolete and stabilizes fuel prices, the economy will recover, providing the capotal and confidence to keep that oil demand reduction going for 10 to 20 years.  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

May move to Geneva.  Can they sense the fate that awaits them if oil demand drops worldwide?  Europe is way ahead on reducing oil use.  If we join in, the mob will be at the door of every billionaire's compound in the oil kleptocracies.

Even Dubai won't be safe for them as al queda turns on their own money men.  

Subsidy diversion will eventually produce terror diversion.  As revolution hits the Saudis.  The "bring 'em on" strategery of duuhbya will be turned around.

Istead of targeting US, the terror groups will target the shieks.  Appealing to the starving mobs clamouring for oil money that is no longer available.

Mass transit could do that.  Win the so-called war on terror, without a soldier killed. Simply riding bikes, trains and buses, that would be patriotic.  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

More public transit means more national security!  Less public transit means less national security!

How many big technologies that we use in our every day lives were created because of military or "space race" concerns?

-David Ahlport

Yes, mass transportation is more efficient.  At least in terms of energy usage.  

Mass transportation is not necessarily efficient in terms of personal time.  

IMHO we are not going to get rid of personal vehicles.  Too many of us are willing to pay extra for the convenience.

So, what to do?

Electric vehicles (BEVs) really don't use much energy per mile and can be easily charged at night when we have extra available energy.  And will continue to have extra energy as we build more wind farms.

Highly recyclable vehicles would take the load off our resource base.  We could, for example, move to ultra-lightweight stainless steel frames.  Save a lot of weight (less energy) and have a component that is 100% reusable.

In fact, stainless steel frames and electric motors have lives that greatly exceed what we experience from our current vehicles.  Could be that rather than buying a new car every few years one would instead buy a new 'body'.  Quick bolt-on.  Melt the old one down and press out another.

It's a plugin hybrid carbon fiber frame/body SUV.  ultrlight, ultrasafe racecar carbon fiber surrounding the passengers.  Easy fueling from regular gas pumps for longer range, daily driving on electric charge from your home plugin.

So shift subsidies from the steel industry to carbon hiber manufacturing.  Zoom pow, mass production reduces costs, making 100 mpg+ vehicles the same price as todays behemoth 2 ton gas guzzlers.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

One place where government subsidies might be a very good idea.

Just like many other emerging technologies the first units are very expensive due to high R&D costs that need to be recovered.  Prices fall drastically with large scale manufacturing.

BTW, Lovins makes a good point about car design.  Weight and aerodynamics are the critical factors.  Size is not as it does not overly impact weight and slipperiness.  

Long, thin cars made from lightweight materials would give plenty room for six people and luggage.  We don't have to drive tiny boxes.

--

(Stainless steel is here now.  Doesn't have to wait for carbon fiber technology to be widely adapted.)

It's not just the high production costs of carbon fiber car bodies that will need to be addressed - end of life issues may be substantial too. Steel car body parts are easily and economically fully recyclable. Stainless steel likewise. Carbon fiber is a little more complicated:

"When it is time to decommission CFRPs they cannot be melted down in air like many metals. When free of vinyl (PVC or polyvinyl chloride) and other halogenated polymers, CFRPs can be thermally decomposed via thermal depolymerization in an oxygen free environment. This can be accomplished in a refinery in a one-step process. Capture and reuse of the carbon and monomers is then possible. CFRPs can also be milled or shredded at low temperature to reclaim the carbon fiber, however this process shortens the fibers dramatically. Just as with downcycled paper, the shortened fibers cause the recycled material to be weaker than the original material."

Something to get properly figured out before going full-tilt boogie on mass production.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

Bob, the most important consideration in terms of reducing weight is to reduce speed.  Thus, if cars only went 30 mph, they could be much lighter (I don't know how much lighter -- anyone know?).  As a side benefit, death by collision also goes down.

And as another huge benefit, you can easily use electric cars to go 30 mph.  The big problem, of course, is that most people want to be able to go faster.  But if there was great rail among cities, then that argument would be severely curtailed.  But it would still take a large cultural shift, obviously.

Thus, to really bring down oil use, you have driving within a town or city or densified suburb -- then those areas are linked by electric trains.

Well that sounds good space.  The shortened fibers can be added in with longer new fibers too.

One good thing will be the elimination of rust.  These vehicles will last a lot longer.  Then the same vehicle can be upgaded every few years with a better battery or backup generation system.

I'm thinking they could start out now with a flex fuel 15 kw Honda generator that runs on gaslone or natural gas, then switch to solid oxide fuel cell/turbine generator when they become available.  That would raise efficiency from 20% ro 70%.

Also lighter, quicker charging batteries with maybe an 80 mile range will be available in a few years.  Start out with a 40 mile plugin range, then upgrade a few years later.

Lovins has solved the cost problem with his Fiber Forge process, it allows stamped out body parts made of carbon fiber just like they stamp out metal body parts now.  Cost should be comparable once mass production is up and running.

And this hypercar design saves parts by integrating the body and frame in about 8 stamped pieces.  Compare that to the complex welded frames and body panels in steel vehicles.  An order of magnitude fewer parts means big savings in mass production.

Not to mention the simplicity of battery electric drive.  Modern ICEs have a dozen processors controlling their operation.  And on the order of 1000 parts.  Battery electric is on the order of 100 parts.  With a couple processors.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

I'd be happy to have a 35 mph 80 mile range electric car for commuting, shopping, going out to dinner etc, as well as for local business use. I'd want a/c and heating - here in NC we have four real seasons - and room for four adults. Ninety five per cent of my driving is on 35 mph or less roads. For out of town trips I'd rent.

Saw a Smart car today, the gas engine seemed such an anomaly, sounded like a lawn mower.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

Also lighter, quicker charging batteries with maybe an 80 mile range will be available in a few years.  Start out with a 40 mile plugin range, then upgrade a few years later.

How long does it typically take for a battery to recharge on an electric car currently, and how much (if at all) could this recharge rate be increased?

For the affordable batteries now, but an hour or so for expensive nano tech lithium ion.  

But overnight or at work recharge is fine for now.  Gasoline, diesel, or natural gas powered onboard backup generation gives the same range as a regular gasoline vehicle.

The average daily trip is 23 miles, so a 40 mile range is going to cut gasoline consumption 80 or 90% on average.  

As batteries and backup generators get better this percentage will increase.  A 90% reduction across the economy as a whole be a goal that could be 10 to 20 years out.  The economic threat from OPEC and Russia will be neutralized with a 4 to 5% reduction per year.

And that also takes care of the military and security threat over time.  We have a means to defeat the major threats to the free world without firing a shot.  Plugin hybrids, electric mass transit, and electric freight rail.  

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

I just don't get the "cars increase convenience and save time" argument.

Although an individual trip may (but doesn't have to) take more time on public transit, on the bus, I can read, nap, or just zone out---none of which you can do while driving. I don't have to look for or pay for parking when I get to my destination. I also don't spend any money or time maintaining a car. If I "had" to get a car (for work), my quality of life and the time I have for doing things I care about (which do not include driving) would plummet.

The more things you own, the more things that own you. A car is just one more thing to own that sucks up time and money.

is different than other people's lives.

"I just don't get the "cars increase convenience and save time" argument."

I'm guessing that you live in an urban area and don't have any hobbies/activities that require you hauling more stuff than you can carry in one hand.

Try looking at how your life would be if you had a couple of kids and needed to haul them around with you as you ran your weekly errands.  

Think about bringing home groceries for four as opposed to calling out for a pizza or carrying groceries for tonight's dinner for one.

Riding buses and owning little works fine for some people.  Other people just don't want to live in crowded conditions and want a more complex life.  

Paying for a car is a choice they make in order to have the lifestyle that appeals to them.  As long as they can afford to do so they are going to avoid the bike/bus lifestyle of the urban single.

and we live in a town, and we don't have a car -- although it would certainly be more convenient with a car.  There are enough stores around here, especially with my trusty shopping cart, to do most of what I need to do, and the transit is decent enough for most travel -- the worst part being getting to other people who live in less dense areas.  So the point is -- particularly in even denser areas like Manhattan -- it doesn't have to be something for single people, although the lack of a car increases inconveniences if you have children.

I'm guessing that you live in an urban area and don't have any hobbies/activities that require you hauling more stuff than you can carry in one hand.

Bob, I bet mihan's response would be that you've proven his point.

The more things you own, the more things that own you. A car is just one more thing to own that sucks up time and money.

(Although I do share the aversion to crowded conditions.)

Simplify, simplify. - Thoreau