I think almost nothing can be concluded from this example. The 47% figure is wildly wrong, but I'm not going to take the trouble to track down the correct one. Next, IF the 1.5 % is correct, then nothing can be concluded from the effects of its being interrupted because it's way too small a figure. Public second guessing is will swamp the actualities.

One needs a public transportation system in which a major part of the public DEPENDS on it in order to conclude anything.

I'm not sure that it's possible to increment one's way into a workable public transportation system anymore. Incrementing our way out of it was accompanied by the growth of the suburbs. And the suburbs were designed around the car. Without a massive, comprehensive system no one is going to abandon their cars. (I have friends who drive into Manhattan from here in Jersey City, despite very good train service!)

Americans are going to have to be blasted out of their SUVs. Very likely we will also have to bomb the suburbs and the malls (joking, whatever agencies lurk here, just joking!) The serious point is, however, that there is no easy way to increment our way out of the system we have built. I would like TODders to argue with me on that one. Well, that's like asking wolves to howl at the moon, isn't it?

Hello DavebyGolly,

The best short & long term mass-transit solution is the bicycle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle#Performance

excerpt:
--------------
In both biological and mechanical terms, the bicycle is extraordinarily efficient. In terms of the amount of energy a person must expend to travel a given distance, investigators have calculated it to be the most efficient self-powered means of transportation.1 From a mechanical viewpoint, up to 99% of the energy delivered by the rider into the pedals is transmitted to the wheels, although the use of gearing mechanisms may reduce this by 10-15% 2 9. In terms of the ratio of cargo weight a bicycle can carry to total weight, it is also a most efficient means of cargo transportation.

A human being travelling on a bicycle at low to medium speeds of around 10-15 mph (16-24 km/h), using only the energy required to walk, is the most energy-efficient means of transport generally available. On firm, flat, ground, a 70 kg man requires about 100 watts to walk at 5 km/h. That same man on a bicycle, on the same ground, with the same power output, can average 25 km/h, so energy expenditure in terms of kcal/kg/km is roughly one-fifth as much.
-------------

Building enclosed and elevated [solar powered or windmills for heat or cooling] bicycle freeways is by far the best solution.  There is no detritus requirement except to build the infrastructure, then everything is biosolar after the system is up and running.  Food ingestion for transport distance is the most efficient we can do.

A nationwide crash program to build this would save so much energy that those unable to pedal, due to age or handicap, could drive Hummers, and it would still be just a drop in the bucket.

Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

Hello TODers,

Or imagine a pedal-powered commuter train of thirty riders in a highly aerodynamic bullet on steel wheels to lower rolling resistance to a minimum:

From WIKIPEDIA again:
---------------------
Even at moderate speeds, most cycling energy is spent in overcoming aerodynamic drag, which increases with the square of speed; therefore, power needs increase approximately with the cube of speed.

Typical speeds for bicycles are 16 to 32 km/h (10 to 20 mph). On a fast racing bicycle, a reasonably fit rider can ride at 50 km/h (30 mph) on flat ground for short periods. The highest speed ever officially attained on the flat, without using motor pacing and wind-blocks, is by Canadian Sam Whittingham, who in 2002 set a 130.36 km/h (81.00 mph) record on his highly aerodynamic faired recumbent bicycle. This stands as the official record for all human-powered vehicles.
----------------
Sam, obviously a world class sprinter, had to break his own wind, and suffered the full effects of drag.  But a bullet train would share the frontal wind resistance and the final drag over thirty riders allowing them a much easier pedaling effort.  In other words, for the same individual effort of going 10mph on an unfaired rubber-tired bicycle, the thirty man team might be able to cruise at 30-35 mph-- which is far faster than most commuting rush hour speeds!

Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

A great big connected peloton.  Hmm - hazardous connecting bikes together.  What you could have is a big moving wind drag (like sail), and all the bikes get in the dam behind it.  Move at constant speeds - 10mph. Then you co-ordinate the intersections intelligently.

The problem remains - trucks.  Then the intersections have to be really smart.

Hello TripHop,

No, think more wildly.  Thirty recumbents on a four steel wheel frame, but only 2 or 3 ft high, same width, fully enclosed like the Japanese bullet train, but no gaps.  Frontal resistance and trailing drag minimized. Dedicated rail path with no intersections.  

When I ride my bicycle, I try my best to synchronize with the streelights so I do not have to use my brakes--I HATE scrubbing off my own energy.  Those pedal commuters who have to cover a longer distance would welcome a 'chain gang' effort to reduce the required energy vs. covering this distance alone.

Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

assembling and disassembly (start/stop) would be an issue if there was any kind of connection.  Magnetic, possibly.  It could be done.  As for the streetlight synchronization - not too hard for automanous vehicles linked to the road system.

My system would have these sails moving to and fro and people accelerate to them from the curb and break from them in a converse fashion.  Dynamic - riders join and leave.  Hills present a problem - and thats where your powered system would excel.

A resurgence of pedal propulsion will save energy and cut obesity. But a "devil's advocate" can point out the 10 calories of petroleum per calorie of food made. I'm sure an anti-bicycle person will take that and motor off with it.

Bike use is a lot better for energy consumption than car use, but it would be interesting to take the 10-1 ag conversion into account. My point is there is no free lunch with the energy. Your theoretical pedal train has one problem. At the start of the trip it will need electric motor assist becuse there are few passengers to pedal. Pedal plus batteries? (store extra pedal power when full)

Bicycles have the same problem of motorcycles: It's a 2-wheel balancing device. Ice can cause a car to go into a flat spin, but 2-wheel devices wreck right on the spot. Usually, you can recover from a spin when your car starts to yaw, but bikes fall down, not yaw. Fortunately for bicycles you are going slower.

A self-solving problem is how lots of people are now badly out of shape. Not for long! :)

Stability is tough problem in HPVs. Upright delta trikes don't handle turns too well, and even the stable recumbent trikes both are less visible and offer lesser visibility to the rider. I haven't tried a quadracycle yet, but if I ever get to Tennessee, I'll stop by Rhoades Car.

EVs at least have the weight of batteries to add stability.

Human-driven vehicles are too light to add stability in wind. A trike will blow over with a nice gust. But the two-wheel balancing ones are least stable. A trike can be outfitted with small motor and low-lying batteries to stabilise it. So can a bike but it's still inherently unstable.

Instability is the major deterrent to scooters and motorcycles. The second is exposure to weather. Cold weather sure deters motorcyclists! But sooner or later gas prices will have to deter driving cars. The scooter could end up being the choice of the working poor who must still commute. And eventually, the bicycle. Public transit in suburbs will remain unviable for some time if not for good. Bike to buses? Possible.

I've covered the issue of escalating gas prices on ordinary commuters in other threads. I used examples with actual cases with coworkers living gallons away. Any step away from the car is easally called a step down in living standards. You either use up more time to commute or expose yourself to danger or both. (car > bus: time, car > motorcycle: danger, car > bicycle: time + danger)

As a single example, about 90% of Miami's (Dade County) population will be within 3 miles (many within a mile or two, and almost none past 4 miles) of a station for their "Subway in the Sky" when their 103 mile system is completed.  Local financing is in place, but about 25 years yet to go since the feds cut matching from 80% to 50%.

If the average Miamian lives 1.8 miles from a station, biking to the station, parking or taking a fold-up bike, seems QUITE viable.

Why won't the Fed provide more money? (I know, it's rhetorical by now) Becuse it might help people who aren't rich! No reason the Miami's proposed L can't be built provided it's not ridiculously high-tech. A normal L, yes, but it's a monorail or other amusement park style thing it's aptly named  as it'll be pie in the sky.

One thing. If a lot of transit capacity is needed cheap, there are the old fashioned yellow school bus! No A/C but windows can be opened! That would be the "Cuban method" of ramping up transit cheap. Use what you already have, since the Fed's priority is the No Billionaire Left Behind tax cuts and gratuitous wars.

I just found out that my bike dealer is getting a few ZEM quadracycles in this month, so maybe I can try one of them:

www.zemusa.com

He doesn't have much use for Rhoades Cars.

Lightfoot claims their semi-upright utility trikes are as stable as any quad:

http://www.lightfootcycles.com/index.htm

I completely agree with you on the virtue of bicycles. I call what happened in China the Great Leap Backward, in that one respect at least.
It's sure worked for cuba, a country we need to look up to in this.

And 10 MPH is effortless once you're used to riding a bike.

Whew, someone got carried away at Wikipedia.  Someone else needs to go in and correct that entry.  Bikes can't be 99% efficient, since chain drive is only at best about 96% efficient.  Bicycles are the most efficient mass produced land vehicles for transporting people.  I would argue that sailing is more efficient for transportation overall.  

Cheaper and easier than building overhead bikeways, let's require bicyclists to become trained and licensed, and then make automobile drivers responsible for any collisions between moving motorists and bicyclists.  Then everyone can just bike on the roads like most of us who bike regularly do anyway.  

If oil became really expensive, I would expect to see suburbs slowly disappear and human transportation switch to walking/biking/buses/trains.  That's essentially where we were before the oil age, and it's certainly still available as a fallback if needed.  Except for the suburbs part, we could get most of the way there in 5 years if we had to.  The suburbs part means that it would take many decades.

Now my browser window with the link to the chain-drive efficiency finally comes up.  The link is http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/1999/aug3099/30pedal.html, the maximum efficiency of the chain is 98.6%, dropping as low as 81%.  That doesn't count the efficiency losses in the rest of the drive train, and the limiting factor - losses to wind resistance - at higher speeds.
Bicycle riding (or anything human powered) is ultimately fueled by food.  I did some funny math based on the fact that food oils are very close to diesel in energy (people who run food oils in biodiesel cars report no change in mpg).  My my rough math and calorie conversions, a bicycle gets 684 mpg.

A sailboat goes on wind until it wears out(*), which kind of puts it on a different efficiency scale.

* - I think I'd rather pay for bike repairs ;-)

Sailboats can be kept going indefinitely, as can motorcycles and bicycles. My small sailboat was build in the 1970s, and there is no reason my young grandchildren should not be sailing it in the 2070s. My favorite bicycle is a 1985 5-speed Schwinn Cruiser that I had rebuilt at about 25,000 miles and now is good for another 25,000, by which time I'll be ready for adult tricycles.

For commuting I do not recommend sailboats, but as a pleasant way enjoy one's life, sailing is as much fun as you can have with your clothes on.

I've sailed a little and for a while was an avid Wooden Boat reader.  My little "*" joke was just because boat maintenance folks always seem a little more flush, drive a little nicer cars, than the guys at the bike shop ;-)
I have noticed that too, and speaking as an economist, there is a simple--and I believe correct--explanation. Lots of people want to be bicycle mechanics, including many exceptionally intelligent and talented folk; thus this high supply of people in the industry keeps wages down. Working on boats, around fumes from sanding fiberglass, epoxy, gasoline from outboard engines, etc., and working by yourself in big lofts or warehouses or garages is not nearly so much fun as working in a bike shop.

BTW, sailmakers get approximately sweatshop wages for doing highly skilled work. It seems (to me) that everybody and her sister-in-law wants to become a sailmaker.

Sailing instructors do not make enough to support a family, but, OHHHHHH do we ever have fun! My own solution has been to get my income from other sources and donate my skills to teach sailing for fun. And although I can fix my own bikes, I do take them to a master mechanic, because I'd rather spend my time having fun rather than replacing spokes, etc.

Isn't there also some behavioral economics surrounding "mental accounts" which might explain a higher price tolerance amongst boat owners, rather than bicyclists?

(even when the "boat owners" and "bicyclists" are the same person)

"Boat owners" is a heterogeneous category. Sailboat folks tend to be like me, wonderful mellow and frugal people. People who own big powerboats--well, to be kind, let us stereotype them as the kind who also drive Lincoln Navigators and Cadillac Escalades. When you burn 300 or 400 gallons of fuel on a weekend (not unusual among "stinkpoters" as they are sometimes known;-), then what is a few hundred $ more or less for repairs?

(For self-protection, some of my best friends have power boats and are nice people. Not all rich people who own 80 foot power yachts or 45 ft. sport-fisherman boats are slobs.)

FWIW, Newport Beach slip fees are running around $20/ft.
Which Newport Beach? There is one on the east coast and a big one on the West Coast. And is that per week or per month;-) ?

Most rich folk I know buy their slips and regard them as good investments: We are looking at six digits to the left of the decimal point here. Indeed, the price of slips for big boats in desirable locations has gone up, I'd estimate, at two or three times the rate of prices of luxury homes over the past fifteen years. For the price of a good slip you can buy a nice house . . . .

There have been experimental low speed diesel powered vehicles which have gotten over 1000 mpg. Mammals are very inefficient at converting energy into work with roughly a Carnot efficiency of 1% compared to 8% for early steam engines and 40% for modern diesels.
If it's a 40:1 advantage, why is your best case only 1000 mpg?

And is that a pulse and glide result?

Most likely.
Do you have a link for this?  About half of the work we do at our lab is experimental engines, and I've never heard of anything that comes close to that.  The only references I found in a quick Google search were sites ridiculing the idea, and pointing out that most claims of high mileage have turned out to be plug in hybrids that weren't counting the electricity taken from the grid.  I would appreciate any reference you can give.
According to the Guiness Book of World Records website On August 24, 2004 on a 11.9 mile course near Hiroshima a car with a human driver on board got an average of 11,524 mpg! I couldn't find an english language site saying how they did it. That's eleven thousand miles per gallon.
According to David Gordon Wilson  "Bicycling Science" MIT press.  A bike at 4 mph gets 2440 mi/gal, at 10 mph, 1310 mpg, and at 15 mph, gets 840 mpg.  A bike chain drive is typically about 90-95 % efficient in putting the human power on the road, all things like bearing drag, etc. taken into account.  

And a human is about 20% efficient in turning oatmeal into mechanical power.  Humans are not heat engines and are hence not stuck with the Carnot limit.  They are fuel cells able to use all sorts of fuel, not just super finicky hydrogen like those other fuel cells we hear so much about.

The power capability of humans, again from Wilson, are- flat out max for a few seconds-2300 watts, for 10 minutes, 600 watts, for 1 hr, 400 watts,  and for ordinary people like me, far advanced into geezerdom, for maybe 5 hours, more than 80 watts and I'm dead. 80 watts on an ordinary bike gives me about 9  mph on the level with no wind.  You young guys can call this "effortless' if you want.

i am still working on my automatic bike transmission and making good progress.  I figure that since the market in the US is about $4 E9 I can get maybe 1/1000 of that with which I shall save the world as I desire it.

A so-called horsepower (primitive unit!) is 746 watts

There is nothing wrong with biking at 9 m.p.h.; that is three times as fast as most people walk.

I used to walk 17-minute miles for a couple hours at a time, but age has slowed me down to somewhat over 18- minute miles, and usually not for more than 90 or 100 minutes at a time.

Since I've been on Medicare I've still been able to maintain 12 m.p.h. on a bike, but I rarely go for more than 100 minutes without a rest. Indeed, the part of my anatomy that I first become aware of is my rear end, and I stop to rest it usually about once an hour.

For long-distance riding I now use an electric-assisted bike, a Giant LaFree that I'm very happy with, and to do 30 miles on that machine is a piece of cake. Also, when one is biking home into a 15+ m.p.h. headwind, just putting the electric power on and gearing down turns what would be an unpleasant ordeal into an easy, if somewhat slow, ride.

Sailboats are quite common where I live. Some describe them as  a hole in the sea you pour money into, they require quite a lot of maintainance.
Big fancy boats with engines and electronics and electric lighting systems are nothing but expense and trouble.

I sail small boats (10 to 23 ft. long, mostly) and use for auxilliary power oars or paddle or 55 pound thrust electric trolling motor. My total out-of-pocket sailing expenses, including costs of towing boats on trailers is about $400 per year, (plus more if I go cruising in Caribbean or Mediterranean, etc.) and I try to sail at least 1,000 hours each summer. Most of the time I sail with a University affiliated sailing club, and once the membership fee ($200 for nonstudents, less a $20 discount for early joining) is paid I can use the boats all that I want. My big expense is driving to and from various lakes--of which there are 10,000 or more in Minnesota. However, only about 500 to 1,000 of those lakes are very good for sailing.

The ice today just finished clearing away from small lakes in southern Minnesota, and so tomorrow I can sail;-)

Or maybe this afternoon . . . .

Thanks Odograph. Now, to add some fun. If it takes 10 calories of petroleum to make 1 calorie of edible fuel (food) the result is 68.4mpg - still quite an improvement albeit at the cost of speed. (can't have everything!) That is still better than a hybrid or smaller motorcycle. However, you save in energy of manufacture and healthcare costs as you get healthier. Healthcase uses energy too, so if everyone rode bikes, that would represent a lot less petroleum used for the prescription drugs.

Now, the fuel mileage skyrockets when you use less energy-intensive agriculture. With fully natural methods, you get the whole 684. Bicycles shine when combined with the natural agriculture but aren't SO good with petro-agriculture.


In the late 1990s I was in Beijing, and they still had the bicycle economy going.  There was this contraption that they had put together - in the back you sort of had a small flatbed over an axle with wheels on either side, and the front was essentially the front half of a bicycle.

These things seemed remarkably efficient for carrying small amounts of cargo around town.

Then there was the time that we saw a guy who had 3 refrigerators loaded up on the back of one of these things. Relatively small fridges to be sure. It was too heavy for him to pedal so the guy was walking the thing up the street.

You can pull some amazing things with a human 1/2 to 3/4 hp "motor".  See BikesAtWork.

I expect people could design some kind of human-powered farm equipment based on peddle power that would be more effective than hand/arm powered sythes and such, but more efficient than tractors -  if human labor were to become cheaper than petroleum labor.

In the olden days of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century in the U.S. draft animals were scarce and costly; many farmers could not afford them. Hence, what they did was to hitch up the wife in place of a mule, and she did the heavy pulling.

Thus what a guy used to look for in a woman has changed, at least in some places, but not necessarily in my home town of Lake Wobegon, where: "All the women are strong; all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."

In the olden days of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century in the U.S. draft animals were scarce and costly; many farmers could not afford them. Hence, what they did was to hitch up the wife in place of a mule, and she did the heavy pulling.
*********************
That may have been true in Europe or Asia, possibly. But not in America. Draft animals in America were cheap because land for fodder was cheap.
Your statement is true for the U.S. after (roughly, depending on region) 1825. Prior to that time, and especially in the eighteenth century it was common for wives to be used as draft animals.

You learn a lot when teaching American Economic History, which I used to do;-)

And after 1865 in the South :-(
"
 Americans are going to have to be blasted out of their SUVs."

I sure agree.

That's the problem with Hemenway's article - the 5 points one has to believe to be a doomer are all extremely believable and proven by history.

They are disproven by history too ;-).  Everybody just chooses the bits from history that they find psychologically appealing.
"Very likely we will also have to bomb the suburbs and the malls (joking, whatever agencies lurk here, just joking!)"

The suburbs will coalescense as things contract.  Personal mobility for majority will be less about the car and more about personal and PT.  This is 2020 I am thinking.