Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Commuting Thread (merged)

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

Unread postby Leanan » Tue 17 May 2005, 07:00:43

Suburban homesteading works because not everyone is doing it, and those who are doing it don't actually have to live off their labor. If something goes wrong, they can go to the grocery store.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby some_guy282 » Tue 17 May 2005, 09:52:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', ' ')
Bears like Puplava have been talking about the inevitability of a huge recession/depression relatively soon for the last 20 years.


Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong. We've been borrowing money and living beyond our means as a nation for a long time now. The budget deficit is huge, and the national debt has spiraled to insane levels. Sooner or later something will have to give.
In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule. – Nietzsche

Time makes more converts than reason. – Thomas Paine

History is a set of lies agreed upon. – Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
some_guy282
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Sun 18 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Pops » Tue 17 May 2005, 11:50:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('arretium', ' ')Keep in mind we are **IGNORING** the increase in costs of foods/other household items due to increased energy prices.


This is the point everyone is truly ignoring; it’s not only about SUVs and gasoline, it’s about everything.

Everything we consume is made possible because of cheap energy to one extent of another.

Everything will increase in price, from houses to hamburgers to hairspray.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
Top

Unread postby JoeW » Tue 17 May 2005, 12:01:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('some_guy282', 'W')hen gasoline is $5 a gallon ($100 a barrel oil), what do you think the job market and the economy will look like then? THEY WONT EVEN HAVE A JOB TO COMMUTE TO.

I think your post is a bit overly pessimistic about the city workers being able to afford the commute. There are plenty of people working in NJ/NYC making $100K+/yr and they concern themselves with the stock market, not with gasoline prices.
Sensible people will make sensible changes when the situation dictates it.

Also, I'm not sure how $100/bbl oil equates to $5/gal gasoline. My back-of-envelope calculations show that $150-$200/bbl crude will result in gasoline in the neighborhood of $5/gal. $100/bbl should put gasoline north of $3/gal. [All of this presumes that there is enough refinery capacity--and if higher prices are due to decreased crude supply, there should be].

JW
User avatar
JoeW
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 647
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: The Pit of Despair
Top

Unread postby nero » Tue 17 May 2005, 13:10:33

I live in a small city (Ottawa) that doesn't really have a bad section of town. It certainly has not experienced any urban decay, and I have never actually seen a "gated community". So I have a question for anyone who has more experience than I do (virtually everyone). I read in the Washington Post article how in the past 10 years gated communities have become the norm for new developments. Is this true? Are these communities really gated such that you have to pass a gate to get into it? Do they have shops/schools in these communities or is it purely a residential environment?

This links back to the thread topic because I am trying to think how exactly the commuters could be induced back into the city when that often means giving up some space and privacy. People are already paying alot (in time) to receive these benefits of the suburbs, what will a few more monetary sacrifices be to them?

I agree that $5/gallon is going to have an effect on the economy, but I don't think it will by itself induce people to leave the benefits of the suburbs unless there is an attractive alternative.
Biofuels: The "What else we got to burn?" answer to peak oil.
User avatar
nero
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Top

Unread postby Leanan » Tue 17 May 2005, 13:31:56

Gated communities may include facilities such as country clubs, tennis courts, swimming pools, parks, golf courses, lakes, riding stables, etc.

$5 a gallon gas will really hurt people on the lower end of the ladder, but those higher up will just tighten their belts.

I do think the economic fallout will affect almost everyone. People will start losing their jobs as the economy slows.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby arretium » Tue 17 May 2005, 15:22:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('arretium', ' ')Keep in mind we are **IGNORING** the increase in costs of foods/other household items due to increased energy prices.


This is the point everyone is truly ignoring; it’s not only about SUVs and gasoline, it’s about everything.

Everything we consume is made possible because of cheap energy to one extent of another.

Everything will increase in price, from houses to hamburgers to hairspray.


You're exactly right Pops. The problem with trying to account for the effects of inflation is you don't know exactly how high energy prices will effect it. We know transportation business will feel the pain the most. We know other oil inensive products will also feel significant pain. We just don't know how that will weed its way down the individual product on the shelf.
User avatar
arretium
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Mon 04 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Seattle, WA
Top

Unread postby arretium » Tue 17 May 2005, 15:30:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', 'I') agree that $5/gallon is going to have an effect on the economy, but I don't think it will by itself induce people to leave the benefits of the suburbs unless there is an attractive alternative.


Your SUV 60 mile communting driver earning $40k a year and supporting a family won't have a choice. With the example I provided earlier, even those earning $80k a year will feel the effects of high energy prices.
User avatar
arretium
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Mon 04 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Seattle, WA
Top

Unread postby nero » Tue 17 May 2005, 16:47:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')our SUV 60 mile communting driver earning $40k a year and supporting a family won't have a choice. With the example I provided earlier, even those earning $80k a year will feel the effects of high energy prices.


Sure they feel the effects in the pocket book, and in response they will decide to spend less on other things. Your example sounded like they could easily convert from an SUV to a small car and save not only alot on gas but alot on other car expenses. When it comes to a decision to either give up their SUV or give up their home I think the vast majority of people will give up the SUV.

Without an attractive alternative people are going to stick to the suburbs, even as the gas prices increase forcing them to eat out less or drive a smaller car or not save for little johnny's college. People REALLY like their homes and in my opinion their single detached homes will be one of the last things to be thrown overboard as they sink in debt.
Biofuels: The "What else we got to burn?" answer to peak oil.
User avatar
nero
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Top

Unread postby arretium » Tue 17 May 2005, 17:38:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', 'S')ure they feel the effects in the pocket book, and in response they will decide to spend less on other things. Your example sounded like they could easily convert from an SUV to a small car and save not only alot on gas but alot on other car expenses.


My hypothetical intentionally profiled a family making well above the median level of money. Of course they have more financially flexibility, if we profiled someone earning the median, which we could do, you'll find even less of an ability to adapt.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hen it comes to a decision to either give up their SUV or give up their home I think the vast majority of people will give up the SUV.


I agree that they'll try to keep their home. I know I would. But my point regarding fuel costs is that the further more money that familes must funnel into fuel or energy, the less money that these families will have for other issues, and the greater the impact that it will have on the economy.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ithout an attractive alternative people are going to stick to the suburbs, even as the gas prices increase forcing them to eat out less or drive a smaller car or not save for little johnny's college. People REALLY like their homes and in my opinion their single detached homes will be one of the last things to be thrown overboard as they sink in debt.


The problem I see with your reasoning is that your assuming that millions of families are not currently facing maximum leverage. Where are they going to get funds to trade in their SUV for a more fuel efficient car when they owe more money on the SUV than it is worth (negative equity)?

There's a ripple affect at work that I think many people are missing. Since these families have less money to spend on other items, this will cause a decline in consumer spending on non energy related goods and services which sustains the economy. When their spending declines, the companies involved that are suffering reduced revenue will reduce their expenses and lay off staff, which will further excerbate the problem. What I am trying to get at is the cyclical nature on the economy and its effect on families. It's a feedback loop. The families have less money so they spend less. As they spend less the companies have less money to also spend, so they spend less, including lowering their overhead which further reduces the aggregate (macro level) amount of money families have to spend. Some families due to the declining nature of their incomes or the outright loss of it will enter into foreclosure and lose their homes. It's my view that when there is an increase in the number of foreclosures in the suburbs, this will result in a decline in the home values in the area.
User avatar
arretium
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Mon 04 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Seattle, WA
Top

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 17 May 2005, 18:07:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ithout an attractive alternative people are going to stick to the suburbs, even as the gas prices increase forcing them to eat out less or drive a smaller car or not save for little johnny's college. People REALLY like their homes and in my opinion their single detached homes will be one of the last things to be thrown overboard as they sink in debt..


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')The problem I see with your reasoning is that your assuming that millions of families are not currently facing maximum leverage. Where are they going to get funds to trade in their SUV for a more fuel efficient car when they owe more money on the SUV than it is worth (negative equity)?

There's a ripple affect at work that I think many people are missing. Since these families have less money to spend on other items, this will cause a decline in consumer spending on non energy related goods and services which sustains the economy. When their spending declines, the companies involved that are suffering reduced revenue will reduce their expenses and lay off staff, which will further excerbate the problem. What I am trying to get at is the cyclical nature on the economy and its effect on families. It's a feedback loop. The families have less money so they spend less. As they spend less the companies have less money to also spend, so they spend less, including lowering their overhead which further reduces the aggregate (macro level) amount of money families have to spend. Some families due to the declining nature of their incomes or the outright loss of it will enter into foreclosure and lose their homes. It's my view that when there is an increase in the number of foreclosures in the suburbs, this will result in a decline in the home values in the area.


I think a lot of people on this forum have a hard time understanding just how much luxury Americans in general live in. When TSHTF people cut out luxury first, for reasons that should be obvious. Does the family need a third TV set? No, and deciding not to buy one is not going to impact the American economy too much, they are all manufactured oversea's these days. The same goes for your electric shaver, your toaster and at least half the cars sold in the USA.

China is going to be hurting a lot worse than the USA in the first stages of the global crash, when we stop buying their manufactured goods and the EU stops buying the third world and OPEC countries will not have the disposable cash to give them a market on the same scale. The USA can be self sufficient in nessecities at least for the first few years, and I suspect the EU can come close to self sufficiency if properly motivated. The luxory market is going to die quick and hard when the crash starts.
Last edited by Tanada on Tue 17 May 2005, 18:10:14, edited 1 time in total.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17094
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Top

Unread postby some_guy282 » Tue 17 May 2005, 18:10:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JoeW', ' ')Also, I'm not sure how $100/bbl oil equates to $5/gal gasoline. My back-of-envelope calculations show that $150-$200/bbl crude will result in gasoline in the neighborhood of $5/gal. $100/bbl should put gasoline north of $3/gal. [All of this presumes that there is enough refinery capacity--and if higher prices are due to decreased crude supply, there should be].

JW


I did a quick mental calculation to get $100/bbl oil to $5 gallon gasoline. I figured oil has been $50ish for a while now, and gas is a little over $2 a gallon. If you double the price of oil and gasoline went up proportionately, I figure gas would be just shy of $5. I remember Simmons giving a calculation that oil would have to be $170 a barrel to be conserved the way it should be, and that price would translate to $7 a gallon gasoline.

So... for every $50 a barrel of oil increases, gasoline increases about $2 a gallon. Is that about right?
In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule. – Nietzsche

Time makes more converts than reason. – Thomas Paine

History is a set of lies agreed upon. – Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
some_guy282
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Sun 18 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby bobeau » Tue 17 May 2005, 18:56:20

some_guy282,

You're neglecting federal/state taxes + cost to refine + profit margins for the stations. While these don't necessarily remain static they're not going to follow the % increase in oil prices.

http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/cars ... mergas.htm
User avatar
bobeau
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Wed 06 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby hull3551 » Tue 17 May 2005, 19:22:27

I read most of the posts here and find this thread to be very insightful.

There are a few items I would like to add:
*Fear – Americans are fear driven. Presidential elections are based on fear. We will gladly move far away to the ex-burbs to prevent our families from being subjected to the evils of the city, even at a huge expense to us – both financial, mentally, and physically.
* Ignorance – The media continues to portray this as a short-term problem, and fails to recognize the long-term implications of resource depletion.

On the flip side:
* Aging Boomers – I’ve read numerous times where the boomers stuck in the ‘burbs with ever decreasing access to public transportation will in effect become prisoners in their subdivisions far removed from basic services. This will increase dramatically as more stringent legislation is passed as the aging population (in denial of their deteriorating health – just look at all the drugs and advertising out there prolonging youth).
* Rejection of Generica - Gen X’ers and younger are pretty much disgusted with the bland lifestyle of homogenized, plasticized society in the ‘burbs. Face it, the suburbs have absolutely no character and I cannot tell if I am outside of Cincinnati, Atlanta, or Sacramento – other than a token palm tree or other distinguishing geographical feature. We obviously want to breed drones, and suburbs are the perfect place to do it.

Not to get way off topic, but I do think there are many other factors that will impact how suburbs are viewed in the next decade, peak oil being an obviously big item among them.

A equally large issue is the population still in rural America – mostly (and increasingly) impoverished. These are the ones driving the larger and less fuel-efficient vehicles and working the low-paying service jobs. Okay, but now I’m really straying from the topic. :roll:
User avatar
hull3551
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun 13 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Bellingham, Wash
Top

Unread postby hull3551 » Tue 17 May 2005, 19:24:55

Oh, and one last thing:
Supposing your fuel bill increases $10,000/year. That’s actually anywhere between $13,000/$15,000 per year in increased wages before taxes, benefits, etc. are taken out.
User avatar
hull3551
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun 13 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Bellingham, Wash
Top

Unread postby cat » Tue 17 May 2005, 20:52:40

I think that the suburbs are a little more complicated. As a matter of fact, we moved to the suburbs from the inner city so my husband could be closer to his job. Where I live jobs are spread around all over the area, the two largest employers are spread out all over the suburbs. Downtown seems to be reserved for bankers, lawyers and government. To complicate things even further, most people only stay with a certain employer for probably a couple of years. We moved here to be close to my husbands job, but since then he has worked in three other places and now has a 45 minute commute. (He does not drive an SUV). If we moved into the suburb he works in now, I am sure it wouldn't be permanent and with kids in school, moving around is not an option. I know this is true for many of my neighbors as well. He's best bet will be telecommuting. As a side note, I do drive an SUV which I am planning to dump now that I have become aware of our precarious situation. I will get a little better mileage with a minivan, but not much and with a family of 5 an elderly mom in tow and carpooling duties I need some capacity but there are no options out there I can find. If anyone has any ideas, let me know. It is hard to imagine that we will all be able to get fuel efficent cars in time to soften a difficult crash.
User avatar
cat
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon 09 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Western Washington
Top

Unread postby jmacdaddio » Tue 17 May 2005, 22:40:35

This has been a great thread. I never thought it would last this long.

I did some quick and dirty math to figure out that the US is much more vulnerable to oil price spikes than our European friends because we don't tax it like they do. Someone else on the board pointed out that taxes are generally static. So, if oil prices double then the cost of gas in the US might go up 75% or so by the time it gets to the pump. If crude prices double, the price at the pump in the UK or Europe might go up by only 25% or thereabouts since the price of crude is a much smaller component of the price paid by the customer thanks to their high taxes on gas --- again, I may be wrong, and some might say I'm making stuff up, but it seems logical to me. (UK and European readers feel free to correct this.)

Hypothetically a driver in the UK driving 1000 miles a month getting 30 mpg would spend about $160 or so on gas at $5 a gallon. If UK prices go up to $7, the gas bill goes up to $220 or so ... so he cuts back from three pints of beer a day to two at his local pub.

To keep it constant, a US driver getting 30 mpg in an econobox driving 1000 miles a month would spend about $70 a month on gas at $2 a gallon. If crude prices double and he's now paying $4 a gallon, now it's $140. Seems manageable enough ... perhaps not if the family is on a tight budget thanks to maxed out credit cards, high mortgage payments, etc.

Let's change a few of the numbers to match a "typical" American situation. A US driver putting 1500 miles a month on a Ford Leviathan XLT at 15 mpg (I'm being generous) is currently spending about $200 on gas at $2 a gallon. Double gas prices to $4, and now that's $400. An increase of $200 a month will put the maxed-out people over the top. While our UK friend can cut back on beer to come up with the extra $60 for the petrol man, our US family will have to make some major adjustments to come up with $200 more. No braces for Sally, no karate for Billy, no vacation to Club Med for Mom and Dad.

From what I know of Europe it's much better prepared to deal with oil price shock than the US -- we Americans are facing a period when we will need to make major lifestyle and public decisions.
User avatar
jmacdaddio
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat 14 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Leanan » Wed 18 May 2005, 00:55:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s a side note, I do drive an SUV which I am planning to dump now that I have become aware of our precarious situation. I will get a little better mileage with a minivan, but not much and with a family of 5 an elderly mom in tow and carpooling duties I need some capacity but there are no options out there I can find. If anyone has any ideas, let me know. It is hard to imagine that we will all be able to get fuel efficent cars in time to soften a difficult crash.


Drive slower. Seriously. SUVs and minivans hit maximum fuel efficiency at about 45 mph, due to their high, boxy shape. You may find a big difference in your gasoline bill if you just slow down.

It's true that now many businesses are in the suburbs. But I think that will change, as fuel prices rise. It was cheap oil that created our current system - big box stores and office parks, out in the boonies where land is cheaper. As oil prices rise, businesses will move back to the cities, closer to their suppliers and customers.

Peak oil will be the death of the "eBay" method of doing business. It will become too expensive to ship small amounts to people's doorsteps. Instead, there will be central distribution hubs again.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Commuting in Atlanta

Unread postby frankthetank » Wed 18 May 2005, 13:31:04

Isn't fun

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')OP 10 MOST EXPENSIVE PLACES FOR DRIVERS

Metro area, Annual cost, Gas price

Atlanta, $4,573, $2.20

Birmingham, $4,448, $2.19

Nashville, $4,418, $2.20

Orlando, $4,382, $2.27

Jacksonville, $4,202, $2.28

Pensacola, $4,181, $2.28

Indianapolis, $4,151, $2.33

San Francisco, $4,149, $2.69

Raleigh-Durham, $4,117, $2.25

Los Angeles, $4,091, $2.61

Source: Sperling's BestPlaces.


AJC.com has an article about Atlantas number 1 spot. Although there gas prices aren't the nations highest, there commute is a crawl. I remember seeing something a while back about Atlanta's horrible commutes. A lady would drive to work hours early and then sleep in her car @ work because the commute is so bad.

Isn't there more to life then sitting in a car on your way to work?

My commute is 10 minutes and i think thats bad!
User avatar
frankthetank
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6202
Joined: Thu 16 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Southwest WI
Top

Unread postby ararboin » Wed 18 May 2005, 13:40:00

My commute is zero minutes and I think that's good.
User avatar
ararboin
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron