Right. If every person purchases a hybrid, there won't be a problem for years. But the opposite is also true. If only 2% purchase hybrids, and oil has declined 50% then gasoline prices still rise until gasoline usage is cut in half. The collective response is critical.

I don't credit PHEV with free MPG values. I don't believe that electrical generation will continue to increase in North America. As NG declines people will be forced to use electrical power for heating and industrial purposes. It would not surprise me if oil is shifted to home heating from driving.

Commuting requires two people have the same start point and end point. Thus the percent chance of overlap drops with the square of the commute distance. I would say that overlap is at least 1/4 what it was in 1970. But your right about improved coordination. (I have even thought of working on a kind of suburban taxi dispatch system. SUV drivers can charge for a drop off or pick up on the way to/from work. Those who want a ride call or internet to the dispatch. Not anytime taxi, just commuting).

I am not anti-solution. I have worked enough years in product development to shy away from optimistic estimates (especially when peoples lives are involved). Best to take a conservative view, knowing that something will not work as expected. If we need to plan for the worst, then we should.

Jon Freise

Analyze Not Fantasize -D. Meadows

Just some thoughts.

Park & Ride lots (IMHO) sterilize the immediate area around stations, preventing TOD (although they are also used as a means of land banking. For example, a former P&R parking lot in Miami was replaced by a 12 story residential tower (1st floor planned to be retail). This consumed half the P&R for that station. A net gain IMO.

The cost of parking garages ($10,000 to $20,000/car) would be better spent (IMHO) on more track.

An unlimited amount of bicycle parking should be available at almost every station. And small NEVs should get most of the rest (park 3 or 4 in the space of two SUVs).

The "walkshed" is 1/4th to 1/2 mile in radius if no major auto sewers interfere (assuming decent sidewalks).

In theory (mine), Light Rail & Rapid Rail (subway or elevated) should have stops about every mile once out of the downtown area/Medical Center/high rise condo areas. Minimal Park & Ride at most stops with an occasional larger P&R. People should walk, bicycle or take the bus in most cases (streetcar feeders are best).

But the terminus should be more than 2 miles past the next to last station, and have a very large Park & Ride lot (with a few acres set aside for medium to high rise with ground floor retail).

Devote most of the inner stations to TOD development (a few to Park & Ride deserts). The terminus is designed to lure suburban auto commuters out of their cars and into a mixed ride (car & train).

I believe in the Origin & Destination view of transit. People come from an origin (home, airport, hotel) and go to a destination (work, school, shopping, park, convention center, etc.). Transit has to serve both.

Hope this Helps :-)

Alan

Well I'm not implying that two decades of reconstruction would allow 50% of the population to choose a combination of house and work location to allow them to live comfortably without a motor vehicle at all.
Getting to ~50% of workers commuting via personal automobiles will come from a combination of (here we go again):
1) telecommuting
2) bicycling
3) mass transit
4) carpooling
5) workers relocating closer to job opportunities
6) businesses relocating closer to workers

Of course, what's really important is reducing oil usage, and once you throw in much higher fuel economy, EVs, and the likelihood of lower levels of full-time employment, then you could easily be looking at 30% of today's oil consumption for commuting purposes.

You neglect to consider the indirect energy costs of suburbia. (and you suppose some EV not yet available).

What of asphalt for road repairs (concrete is rarely used) ?

Asphalt = Very Heavy Oil

Snow removal in low density areas.

Street lights in low density areas.

Grass cutting and landscaping (public as well as private lands)

Cost of retrofitting efficient windows & doors plus insulation could exceed (or be high % of) a much reduced market price. Lots of windows in a McMansion. Lots of surface area as well.

Long haul trucks to bring supplies to suburban stores ? And workers as well ? Suburbia needs low paid as well as high paid workers.

Plumbers, Postal delivery, police protection (not going EV I promise you !), cable TV and pizza delivery ?

Running to the store for EVERYTHING !

More costs for water & sewage renewal/person. everything has to be pumped further (I heard that 20% of Phoenix's electricity goes not to a/c, but to pump water & sewage).

BTW, I think it is a myth that EVs go with wind turbines. The vast majority will plug in as soon as they get home (in case they need the car for an errand, they do NOT want to be "out-of-juice") And they will *NOT* accept shortening the life of a very expensive battery for the "general good" by drawing down on it over night.

Best Hopes for a dead Exurbia and shrunken Suburbia,

Alan

I will recopy a post from a dead thread (my post was the last one) where I also responded to Nick.
....
You are apparently not familiar with the Urban History of the destruction of our central cities and downtown commerce.

It was not a typo. I can see a late term McMansion in a dying suburb going for $40,000 (2007 $) near the end. Over half the suburb empty, poor schools, poor public services, squatters beginning to show up, and "poor people" of the wrong color in most of the others. See once middle class & working class urban neighborhoods circa 1966.

There is a "herd" mentality is real estate. Just listen to any Realtor talking about the "hot" areas. Or contemplate why anyone (more that 1.1% of the population at least) would, of their own free and INDEPENDENT choice, chose avocado colored appliances. Yet a majority of new homes came with either avocado or harvest gold appliances and some simply TERRIBLE looking shag carpets.

Most Americans make herd decisions regarding housing.

About 30% of Americans today want to move to TOD. Fulfill that need and vacancies appear all over suburbia. Even 15% vacancy drives down home values, and realtors will steer you away from them. Americans used to move, on average, once every six years (I do not have current data), so it will be fairly easy for a "bad area" to empty out. Panic is also a good driver for change.

Remember Cramer's 7 million foreclosures ?

And as Americans once went for ranch homes with avocado appliances and orange shag rugs, they will (post-Peak Oil) brag about their walk score #s and non-oil commutes (with far greater underlying logic). Lower property values translate into lower tax revenues and poorer schools (the demographics will change as well).

Lead-acid batteries will easily support EVs for 4 mile commutes, but not 40 miles.

Most of the items I listed were historic examples that built Suburbia and Exurbia while destroyed fine neighborhoods and downtowns. They will work in reverse as well, with the added burden of the reality of excessive energy use.

Best Hopes for the Decline of Suburbia coupled with Greater Energy Efficiency,

Alan

BTW, the decline in density in New Orleans has resulted in higher prices. But our grocery and other prices are still in-line with close in suburbs and lower than further out Exurbs. Every other day I can buy sweet corn that was on the stalk that morning at my corner grocery store (2nd generation) for 45 cents/ear (on sale a couple of weeks ago for a quarter). The fresher sweet corn is, the better :-)

Your the one advocating it in general the two biggest expenses for a government are roads and schools in that order.

Not to mention federal funds matching. Roads are a huge expense. And rail is not cheap either. When push comes to shove your going to spend tax money that ensures people can get to their jobs. EV's+Roads are not a solution for everyone electric rail is. I don't think you fully comprehend how much roads cost. Next in general our current road infrastructure is in sad shape so you better include the large amount of rework needed to just keep what we have.

Your comment about concrete shows you really don't understand concrete is not cheap and takes a lot of fossil fuel to create.

The only reason they made since is you always had a new suburb growing up past the old one this sprawl generated a lot of wealth. Your not even considering the impact of the slowing and reversal of suburban growth. Even with EV's people would want to live closer in you don't want to be the guy at the edge of EV range. So given your argument the direction of flow is back towards the city center.

I don't have anything against EV's and plan to live near a critical route in the country probably using a EV in fact I refuse to buy a car till I can get a decent plugin hybrid.
I'll strive to get close to a rail station. The EV is to get to a rail head and a hospital not for commuting.

But I recognize that they are a luxury for those that can afford them in the future I don't see them as critical for the average worker. Your making huge assumptions about whats viable EV's are just a small part of the Iron Triangle and switching to EV's is not enough to ensure survival of the economic system. They will exist and people will use them but they are not a solution.

http://sabinenews.com/litesasphalt/asphalt.html

A recent study on highways in Texas indicated that rehabilitation of an asphalt pavement can be completed 2.8 times quicker than rehabilitation of a concrete pavement. Overall, the concrete construction averaged 7.9 working days. The construction costs were about $120,000 per lane mile for concrete as compared to $39,000 for asphalt.

I've seen up to 1 million a mile for certain types of roads.
Feel free to figure out who is going to pay.

Not me.

EV's are cheaper than trains

Perhaps as first cost (debatable and indeterminable till EVs that Suburbanites can use for commuting are on sale) but very unlikely for total life cycle costs.

EVs are likely to use significantly more electricity than Urban Rail (again comparing a known to an unknown). A large part of this delta is power losses battery out/battery in. Another large part is that rubber tires have dramatically higher rolling resistance, and most battery types cannot accept regenerated power from braking as quickly as it is produced.

Standard life for rolling stock is 40 years, although they can be pushed past that (New Orleans is operating streetcars built in 1923 & 1924 this morning).

Accidents alone will limit average EV life, and then battery life, salt damage, etc.

In freight service with heavy loads, the latest concrete ties are expected to last a half century (no real world experience). Use the same ties in lighter duty service and life expectancy is not a concern unless there are site specific issues (under a road bridge with salt dripping down for example).

Steel rails almost always last 40 years in public transit service, and often longer.

Trolley wire lasts 30 to 50 years typically (new, thicker wire should last longer). Silver alloys should also last longer as well (add 1 troy ounce of silver/ton and wear is reduced by 1/3rd with no change in electrical properties, add more silver and/or cadmium for even better wear properties).

The oldest subway in the USA opened in 1897 and I took it to get to the ASPO-Boston conference. The life of subway bores is also indeterminable.

OTOH, roads are falling apart today and their repair costs can be expected to escalate as oil and other energy costs increase. Railroads use sand and not salt to deal with ice.

New taxes will be required to get EVs to pay for the costs of maintaining roads. I think that you are deceived by the cost of road maintenance (including stop lights, policing, etc.) that is borne by property taxes, gas taxes and general revenue. Today, EVs get a pass on all of that.

Will the MASSIVE social cost of 45,000 dead and hundreds of thousands of life altering injuries continue with Suburban EVs ? I suspect a drop, but still 10,000s killed every year.

Best Hopes for Long Lived and Safe Infrastructure,

Alan

"I think it takes about 15 years to replace the car fleet."

Actually, old cars stick around a long time. But, they don't get used much.

Cars less than 1 year old represent more than 10% of all vehicle miles. Cars less than 6 years old represent 50% of all vehicle miles.

Partial electric cars that can be easily upgraded to plugins(hybrids) are now 2.2% of new car sales, and growing 55% per year.

"As soon as people don't want to buy new ICE cars, then trade-ins will become impossible and the replacement rate will slow further."

Again, not if it means losing their job, or spending $100k+ to move close to their job.

Musashi - I think you are reading more into my statement than what I said...or certainly what I meant, so let me clarify:

Your assumption was:

"someone with no provable legit income..."

"Your assertion that someone would give them such a vehicle on a credit card or without a credit check is very naive."

I did NOT say anything about the specific purchase process, credit or income checks, or income source, or depreciation of property. I was commenting on the TYPES of cars Durandal cited that could be seen in "ghetto" neighborhoods and I challenged the bias in his/her statement. (I also disagree with the price points you cited for these vehicles - "a 50 or 100K car" - With the exception of the occasional Hummer, I think the range is more 30K-50K.)

Because I've lived in very "transitional" neighborhoods for most of my life I have a different perspective. Yes, I would agree one can see all manner of luxury car brands in poorer communities, but why? I don't jump to the assumption that the purchases were made with illegal income. Sure, there are some pimp mobiles rolling around, but that's not the majority.

I think that when 1-5% interest rate come-on offers for car loans are heavily promoted, and car dealers ask for very little money down for long leases (low monthly payments), some of these people jump to be able to own what they believe is an accessible part of the "American Dream." A car is much easier to acquire than buying a house. Having a fancy car makes some lower income people feel like they've "made it." But my view is they are being USED by the system and ripped off.

The car dealers don't have an individual's best interest in mind. They could care less about how that person is going to afford their other bills, all they care about is qualifying them for the loan (not unlike sub-prime mortgage lenders). The dealerships just push to get the papers signed, hand over the car keys, and collect a commission. I know that's how it works because a few decades ago when I was, admittedly, more naive about how the car business is run I was suckered into signing up for an exceedingly high car loan interest rate by one of these shysters.

My beef was that while Durandal acknowledged the straw person s/he is criticizing is "uneducated" - and that's the core problem. I think many low income people have been brainwashed into believing that they need to be "consumers" rather that pragmatic savers. I objected to Durandal's blaming the victims.