<DrumBeat: June 20, 2008 The Oil Drum Saudi Arabia - opening the tap?>

95 comments on Have we passed “Peak Travel?”

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

oregon7 on June 20, 2008 - 12:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Total Travel Miles = F ( (-)energy costs, (+)fuel efficiency, (-)distance between home/goods/services/workplace/recreationplace, (neutral?)availability of transport alternatives (mass transit/bike), (-)availability of substitute travel goods (internet/telephone/other) )

I just made that up. Make your own equation. Clearly energy costs drive travel miles down... but energy costs can go much higher and travel miles can still increase.

For example economic changes driven by energy costs may cause people to devalue central city locations and continue to drive them further away from the city... while controlling costs by buying much more efficient cars... resulting in more travel miles even in a higher energy cost environment.

The general proposition that energy costs will decrease travel miles is probably correct... but one can imagine complex effects in a changing economy that mitigate that effect... or even produce counterintuitive results.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Joe Average on June 20, 2008 - 8:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Greetings from Melbourne, Oz

Just returned from tennis duty (we were washed out), with two conflicting examples of where I think we're standing...

News this morning on MS radio directly blamed petrol prices for reported downturns in restaurant patronage (though, we are in the middle of winter here!), as well as reporting a ten-year low in consumption at the bowser.

Yet: The idea of being on tennis duty (the boys were playing away) is to meet at a central hub, then head off in a single car. But, guess what! Four boys, four parents, four cars, 8km trip... We all went separately!

So, if we've hit a travel peak, I haven't seen it!

Regards, Matt B
"The approaching storm will engulf the unaware" (I like this analogy. Just hope it's a thundery storm and not a hurricane. And that it doesn't come during the night).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
oregon7 on June 21, 2008 - 3:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Well, each price increment makes a dent first at the lower income level... and then works its way up the income scale. Obviously the price hasn't started enough to bite in your personal situation.

You will see it... nationally... and then personally.

I believe in the U.S. spending on transportation consumes 15 to 20 percent of the family budget. There is a limit at which people begin to travel less.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Joe Average on June 21, 2008 - 8:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I understand the enough-is-enough factor; I'm just curious what the "limit" in Australia might be and if we ever get there any time soon... Or does it all just stop! (The long, slowly declining plateau to the cliff scenario).

Regards, Matt B

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BillJames on June 20, 2008 - 9:54pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I like your equation. It gave me a couple of ideas.

Mobility, like education and free speech, is an aspect of liberty. We need to equate relative to what is important. Here is a first cut at such a formula:

Mobility = Want (hope, desire) + Need - Access Penalty - Energy Penalty - Time Penalty - Distance Penalty (maybe)

In designing transportation systems, we need to emphasize the positive and drive out the negatives.

The distance penalty may not be needed as time and energy penalties likely already include the costs of distance. There are practical technologies today that make distance of less importance. You could take a ship to Europe and enjoy the travel as its own reward; the time penalty would account for the negatives.

The same point can be made for riding a bike. The trip can add to need and want.

It will require time and effort to re-tool transportation but there are alternatives. Other mobility technologies such as ET3 can take the energy and time out of travel. JPods, Vectus, ULTra, etc... can take out the access and energy penalties.

What do you think?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Sheldon H on June 20, 2008 - 10:37pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Bill,

Yes there are alternatives. Unfortunately, they don't include your "GadgetBahn" technologies. Do you reasonably see for instance a highly complicated, pervasive network of podmobiles on elevated, at grade or subway podtracks being easier to maintain in a post peak oil world than a concrete, or cobblestone or asphalt surface accomodating bicylces or very light electric vehicles requiring no computer gadgetry for control headed to the nearest mass transport node. That's your competition!!!!

I think Alan and others have already spelled it out for you yet you refuse to acknowledge reality.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BillJames on June 21, 2008 - 11:46am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

We'll see, we could be deluded but the "GadgetBahn" claim seems an emotional decision.

Cell phones in 1984 would have been claimed as "GadgetBahn".
I am sure the Wright Brothers and Ford were told something similiar.

This quote, written by Dr Patrick Driscoll, is taken from West Point's Decision Making in Systems Engineering and Management.

In fact, one of the most significant failings of the current U.S. transportation system is that the automobile was never thought of as being part of a system until recently. It was developed and introduced during a period that saw the automobile as a standalone technology largely replacing the horse and carriage. So long as it outperformed the previous equine technology, it was considered a success. This success is not nearly so apparent if the automobile is examined from a systems thinking perspective. In that guise, it has managed to fail miserably across a host of dimensions. Many of these can be observed in any major US city today: oversized cars and trucks negotiating tight roads and streets, bridges and tunnels incapable of handling daily traffic density, insufficient parking, poor air quality induced in areas where regional air circulation geography restricts free flow of wind, a distribution of the working population to suburban locations necessitating automobile transportation, and so on. Had the automobile been developed as a multilateral system interconnected with urban (and rural) transportation networks and environmental systems, U.S. cities would be in a much different situation than they find themselves in today.

What is important here is not that the automobile could have been developed differently, but that in choosing to design, develop and deploy the automobile as a stand alone technology, a host of complementary transportation solutions to replace the horse and buggy were not considered.

I am pretty sure the will be a mix of alternative transport solutions. I would recommend letting anyone try anything they are willing to risk their money on. Reality will sort out what is practical.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
oregon7 on June 21, 2008 - 3:38pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I like your proposal. But I like any effort to reduce complex problems to simple equations! :-)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

95 comments on Have we passed “Peak Travel?”

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version