gildone

Proven Oil Reserves Fall for the First Time in 10 Years http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=a6.7NWiQ5wGw By Rachel Graham and Alexander Kwiatkowski June 10 (Bloomberg) -- Global proved oil reserves fell last year, the first drop since 1998, led by declines in Russia, Norway and China, according to BP Plc. Oil reserves totaled 1.258 trillion barrels at the end of 2008, compared with a revised 1.261 trillion barrels a year earlier, BP said in its annual Statistical Review of World Energy posted on its Web Site today. The world has enough reserves for 42 years at current production rates, BP said. BP and other oil companies are struggling to replace reserves as access to...

Is this on the line that goes through East Stroudsburg, PA??

I think Akron and Canton need to start by having a bus connection to meet Ohio Hub trains in Clevevland bound for Detroit/Chicago and Buffalo/Toronto to start building demand for the service. I don't know if it would make sense to run bus connections to Hudson or Ravenna to connect to a Cleveland-Pittsburgh train, but I suppose that could be considered as well. This might build demand for commuter services to Cleveland, then that $190 million starts to make more sense. Of course, as the peak oil clamp tightens, it may make sense sooner than we might otherwise expect. Would a bus connection from Akron to Galion or Greenwich for 3-C trains make any sense?

^I thought they were asking for $250 million? I'm glad they are asking for more. What's the reason for the bump up to $400 million? Just to ask for more than you expect to get hoping that you will get what you really want?

I don't see it as the end of the world. I didn't mean to give that impression. I just see it as a reality we need to face up to. I think re-localization is one of the best things that could happen for the well being of our communities and our economy. I also see less driving as a good thing for a variety of reasons.

I don't consider 10-15 years for peak gas and ~2035-2040 for peak coal to be that far off. Furthermore, coal and gas are both extremely dependent upon oil guzzling machinery to extract them. So, peak oil impacts these sources of energy too. I don't see any way around less driving in America's future, very possibly beginning within a decade or less and declining from there. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've been following the issue closely for at least 5 years. I don't see the country moving very quickly given our short time frame. I guess I'm becoming more and more convinced by the arguments of people like Matt Simmons, Richard Heinberg, Kjell Aleklett, and others.

Just to clarify: I didn't say he didn't understand peak oil. As far as peak gas, we're drilling like crazy just to keep production level. I'm not sure he gets that fully, but maybe he does and maybe he has a point about a temporary fix, but still, my main point is that America's future will be one of less driving. That's what I don't think Pickens really gets.

Ms. Kete of the usually credible World Resources Institute has repeated a myth that US cities "are farther apart than in Europe ..." There is also a vague reference to population density and rail corridors. I think Ms. Kete needs to get properly up to speed before speaking on behalf of the World Resources Institute on this subject... Ed http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/009936.html Worldchanging Interview: Nancy Kete on the Future of the American Transportation System Sarah Kuck June 2, 2009 3:30 PM Article Photo Nancy Kete, a program director at the World Resources Institute, knows that in order to create the bright green cities of tomorrow, we must reimagine how we move about and in between them today. For decades, heavy reliance on the automobile has shaped cities globally, but arguably most dramatically in the United States. To reverse this trend and its harmful side effects, we need a new vision of transportation that will work both for those already entrenched within this system and for those who are seeking to replicate it. Helping developing nations seek out and implement alternative mobility solutions is one of the main goals of the World Resources Institute's Center for Sustainable Transport, EMBARQ. Although the team spends most of its time working on transportation systems in places like Mexico, Brazil, India, and Turkey, they often use their research and experience to influence other political leaders from their headquarters in Washington, D.C. Kete, who is a senior fellow and program director at EMBARQ, recently spoke out about the Obama administration's plan to dedicate billions of stimulus dollars to constructing high speed rail. Kete warns that high speed rail is not a silver bullet solution, and urges the administration to proceed with caution, careful planning and a holistic solution that reflects regional needs. I recently spoke with Kete to discuss this and other issues surrounding the future of transportation in the United States. Sarah Kuck: What does transportation look like now in most U.S. cities? And where can we go from here? Nancy%20Kete.jpgNancy Kete: In most U.S. cities, except for New York particularly and a couple of others, transportation is dominated by car travel. There are a few cities that have a significant amount of trips on rail or bus transit. And then there’s intercity travel, which is dominated by air at this point, with some rail depending on where you are. But the question is where do we go from here? And I think the right way to think about this depends on where do we want it to go from here? What do we want it to look like? Do we think that today’s situation is OK? And if not, what’s wrong with it? We know from a climate perspective that we really ought to be emitting 80 percent less CO2 by the year 2050, at the minimum. And then we want to ask ourselves, “If we wanted transportation to carry its proportional share of that, what would the transportation system look like in 2050 if it was 80 percent less CO2?” It’s almost impossible to imagine that system having the amount of personal travel and the same land use patterns of the sprawl we have today. Even if all the cars people were traveling in were zero carbon, with clean engines, or powered by solar electricity – at a certain point you have so many vehicles on the road and you only have a certain amount of land you can use for all that technological solution, so you have to start to deal with the combination of land use and transportation together. Which is were transit and planning come in. USDOT%20RAIL%20MAP.jpg SK: A few weeks ago, you commented on the Obama administration's plan for High Speed Rail. What do you think the future of high-speed rail should look like in the United States? NK: The answer is, it depends. One of the issues is that our cities are farther apart than in Europe or Japan, where the high-speed rail has worked really well. So we have to be careful as we use the stimulus money for high speed rail to put it on corridors where there are enough passengers to justify all that embedded carbon. It will be very carbon intensive to build the rail and the trains. If they go often and they're full, then it's good. But a train running empty between Chicago and Minneapolis would be a worse outcome than a car in a carpool lane with a couple people driving. But that said, air travel itself is very carbon intensive. We need to carefully pick the corridors that are shortest ones or the ones that are likely to have the highest demand. There are some less carbon intensive ways to connect our cities. You can do that with high speed bus, but if you really want to use high speed rail to connect people faster even than bus could, you would want to concentrate on cities that are reasonably close together to make sure you are going to have the demand for it. And you are going to have to make driving alone or driving more expensive, make it reflect the environmental and infrastructure costs of supporting the driving economy. SK: What advice would you give the Obama administration? NK: Do some really careful demand estimations for each corridor, and start with the corridors where there is a certain density, and a high demand for something other than driving and flying. Prove out the concept with truly high speed rail, and then as people see the benefit of it, the demand for it in other places might increase. In addition, we have to think about tolls and higher fuel taxes to discourage driving on the same corridors that have a lot of congestion on the road so that you drive people appropriately to the transit option. And then the third thing is, the U.S. has a growing population. You want to make sure that growth occurs along these corridors so that you have more density and more riders. Not just to get the riders, but so that you have your infrastructure and your demand in the same place because that’s the only thing that will make it cost effective and carbon efficient. And all that’s called planning, and planning has to become not a dirty word. Planning, pricing and investment all have to align together. SK: What do people commonly misunderstand about how transportation works in the United States? NK: Most people don’t know how much it costs them to drive their own car. We have these externalized costs associated with owning the car, which we don’t pay every time we drive, so once we own a car and we’ve paid those costs, we only see the fuel costs. And when fuel is cheap it looks really cheap to drive our car, and that’s just on the personal side. If we made it clearer, like with pay-as-you-drive insurance, and with fuel prices that more accurately reflected the cost of building and maintaining the road system and protecting the fuel supply, which is related to keeping peace in the Middle East and keeping our access to a steady supply of oil and all the environmental costs..if the driver paid all those every time he/she filled the tank, we would be paying much higher costs all the time and would make different decisions about how much we drove our cars. SK: Would that knowledge of the real costs of driving make people more willing to support public transportation measures? NK: We saw that when gasoline was $4 a gallon last year, ridership on public transport went way up. And then once the demand for public transportation goes up, customers who want to use it, who are citizens, will then want better service. When a lot of people started using it for the first time or went back to it last year that they realized that this is easy, it can be good, it can be convenient. But a lot of people realized too that they needed to increase the quality of it. And then you had constituents for it, for the first time. That’s the way you get better public transportation systems: by increasing the demand for it. I just think the way human nature is, it’s not very likely that people who never use it are going to be very passionate supporters of it for somebody else. SK: Do you have a vision for what intermodal transportation will look like in the future? NK: It is the right vision. It is much more holistic than thinking about Bus Rapid Transit or rail, or even walking and biking. Many people live so far from their home that they can’t do it just with non-motorized transport. The heart of intermodality is information. For example, a smart card will allow you to integrate your fare so you have an advantage for using multiple parts of the system. And then you use the IT section of the system – you optimize the operations part of the system to make it easy for the consumer to get to where they are going as fast as possible -- that’s linking communication information and transportation all as one system, which is all doable. In many places, though, the operations are managed by different companies, so institutional change has to happen. If we don’t merge companies, then there has to be different incentives for multiple companies to want to be operated together, or to redefine the companies so that they are all under one operator. Those are not small changes.

I've heard folks with the Toledo Port Authority say that they aren't really trying to develop the passenger airline industry at the Toledo Airport. They are more interested in air freight.

Pickens understands peak oil, but doesn't appear to understand peak gas. He also doesn't appear to understand that the way out of this mess will have to involve less driving of automobiles and trucks. It's a tough pill for Americans to swallow.

O'Toole gets shot down... :shoot: Randal O'Toole: Taking Liberties With the Facts http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/06/02/randal-otoole-taking-liberties-with-the-facts/ by Ryan Avent on June 2, 2009 The Cato Institute's Randal O'Toole gets under the skin of many of those interested in building a more rational and green metropolitan geography, but in many ways he's an ideal opponent. It would be difficult to concoct more transparently foolish arguments than his. The man is an engine of self-parody. [ :laugh:] Is this spaghetti bowl turning a profit? Photo: Infrastructurist...

^I figured. I know how busy you are. I wasn't really serious.

Krumholz is wrong. They do have cars in the city. See Chapter 14 of the book: Natural Capitalism: www.natcap.org It's just that some parts of the city are closed to car traffic. Quote from the book: "Curitiba still has a half million cars—one for every 2.6 people, the highest rate of automobile ownership in Brazil except in Brasília itself, which was specifically designed around cars. Yet Curitiba also has no traffic problem, for thanks to benign neglect of cars, Curitiba now enjoys Brazil’s lowest rate of car drivership and cleanest urban air. It saves around 7 million gallons of fuel a year, and uses one-fourth less fuel per capita than other Brazilian cities to achieve better access."

KJP wrote: Sounds like you better write to Trains Magazine and straighten them out.

When I took the SW Chief to Arizona/New Mexico in 2007, it was 60 miles outside of Chicago before we hit real countryside. Just making sure. Thanks for clarifying. The latest issue of Trains magazine had an interesting article about the cost of rail vs. highway. Conventional rail is often less expensive to build. The example they used was the Rail Runner commuter rail line in New Mexico. It was actually cheaper to put in the rail line between Albuquerque and Santa Fe than to add a lane on I-25. Rail was $12 million per mile (including stations and layover track) while the highway lanes would have cost $20 million per mile. I've seen the $20 million/mile figure before. South Carolina DOT had a report within the last couple of years that said adding a lane to the state's freeways would average $20 million/mile. I'm not sure of the latest estimates for the Ohio Hub, but I think it's in the vicinity of ~$5-7 million/mile. They admit that comparing costs isn't always cut and dry because, in both instances, construction costs can vary depending upon a number of factors like land acquisition, weather conditions that willl affect repairs, speed, and the geology that's being built upon. They also compared average riders per vehicle mile. Passenger cars: 1.6; Buses: 21.2; Rail transit: 22.8; Commuter rail: 32.9; Intercity (current Amtrak): 20.5

^Good point. The Interstate Defense Highway Act originally intended that the interstates not go into/through downtowns. It was at the behest of city mayors that the highways go into their downtowns. The irony is, they thought that would make it more attractive for residents of the emerging suburbs to come downtown to shop. Obviously, the effect was the opposite.

To me there is an apparent condescending attitude in the way they are asserting their right-- such as the references to "the uninformed and the fearful" and 'punishing riders who know what they are doing', etc. Not really. It was only ~9 miles.

When I lived in Columbus, I often biked from my rented townhouse on West Case Road to my office on Watermark Drive. I could have taken Dublin Road, but I always took the back streets through Upper Arlington because it was quiet, relaxing, I could hear the birds, and there were far fewer tailpipes aimed at me. One of the high risk groups for the negative health effects of air pollution are those who exercise outdoors (jog, bike, etc). No one can argue that all of that car exhaust isn't more concentrated on Dublin Road rather than Upper Arlington's back streets. I live too far from my place of work now to bike. However, since central Berea is set up on a grid rather than cul-de-sac style and the Metroparks goes through the heart of the city (I use the path and never feel at all unsafe, but I'm not one who tries to bike fast on it), I can bike efficiently for my errands and vary my route without having to be stuck in traffic and sucking fumes on Bagley Road.

I don't dispute that bike lanes may not be the best solution for every single situation (like bike lanes sandwiched between the right lane and parallel parking spaces), but at the same time, they are not bad in EVERY situation. On a separate but related note, I gave a couple of good reasons in my post farther up this thread that have NOTHING to do with competency and fear as to why a lot of people don't want to bike on busy streets. Columbusite is correct that connectivity is the real issue. Particularly the cul-de-sac development patterns that reduce connectivity of neighborhoods and force people into their cars. What I really take issue with is not the argument but the cocky and condescending attitude that only certain people are competent riders and everyone else is "uninformed and fearful". This is what's harming the so-called vehicular cyclists more than anything. If these folks would put away the attitude, they'd find others more willing listen.

My point is that once you pass peak, even better drilling isn't going to stop the decline. Venezuela's peak happened before Chavez took over. Then there is the problem of Venezuela's net exports, which are declining as internal demand increases. This results in what has been called "practical peak oil" which is what ultimately matters to importing nations like the US. I'm no fan of Chavez (just go to humanrightswatch.org and read about him), but the reality here has more to do with Venezuela's natural peak and net exports than anything else. They hit their peak 12 years ago. Better drilling may stretch out the decline for a short time, but it won't reverse it or stop it. eigth and state wrote: True, but with an an additional point of clarification, however: the more oil you try to pull out on the up side of the peak, the steeper the downside will be. Matt Simmons explained this in his book: Twilight in the Desert

KJP wrote: Exactly. You can't have it both ways. What the government (at all levels) does, influences the market and has a real effect on people's choices. That's what happened with roads. I don't dispute that back in the day people wanted choices in addition to the railroads. But, what the government at all levels did was skew the transportation marketplace so much that we went from no choice but trains to no choice but cars. If we had a more honestly and accurately priced transportation market no one can argue that our transportation system wouldn't look MUCH different today. Hayward wrote: Then by your own argument, neither our roads or our aviation system are economically justified either. Roads have never paid for more than roughly 2/3 of their capital costs, and it's similar for aviation.

It's not that simple. Transportation policy (actually lack thereof) and transportation funding by the federal government, and by state governments, interfered in the transportation marketplace and has always made driving artificially cheap (i.e. under-priced with respect to its true cost). Many of the costs of driving are externalized (that is, not captured in the cost to the end users): congestion, traffic delays, accidents, air pollution and its effects on health costs, and several others. If these costs were captured in the price of gasoline, it would add $7 to $11 more per gallon (Getting There: The Epic Struggle Between Road and Rail in the American Century, by Stephen Goddard) Coupled with zoning codes that have replicated across the country that separate land uses and made anything but automobile-centric community design illegal, has successfully skewed the transportation marketplace and pushed it in the direction of automobile dominance. It wasn't a simple choice by people. "Transportation...is the most subsidized and centrally planned sector of the majority of the world’s economies—at least for such favored modes as road transport and aviation. It has the least true competition among available modes, and the most untruthful prices." --Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution, p. 40 If we want to find out what people's choices really are, then we have to make driving and parking must bear its true cost, have genuine competition among the different modes, and adopt zoning codes that don't mandate development patterns that can only be serviced by one mode of transportation.

While waiting at the bus shelter at Front and Bagley for the #86 this morning, I noticed that RTA had posted a laminated paper advisory sign regarding the construction on/closure of Front Street. It informed people that they needed to board the bus at Front & Bagley during construction rather than the stops on Front north of Bagley because the bus is detoured, and that passengers could call the RTA Answer Line with any questions. Helpful, thoughtful, and I'm glad RTA thought of this. HOWEVER, there is a problem with the sign. It had four holes punched into it (I assume for wind if it's posted on a RTA sign post at a stop without a shelter). The position of the holes were such that one of them took out the last two digits of the RTA Answer Line Phone number listed on the sign. I'll try to get a picture of it and post it here, but it will be a couple of days before I can get to it...

Idiocy from George Will Ray Lahood, Transformed Secretary of Behavior Modification George F. Will NEWSWEEK From the magazine issue dated May 25, 2009 You might think the Department of Transportation would be a refuge from Washington's inundation of painfully earnest and pitilessly incessant talk about "remaking" this (health care, Detroit) and "transforming" that (the energy sector, the planet's temperature). Transportation, after all, is about concrete practicalities—planes, trains and automobiles, steel, asphalt and concrete. Furthermore, the new transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, was until January a Republican congressman practicing militant middle-of-the-roadism. He knows what plays in Peoria, and not just figuratively: He is from there. Peoria is a meatloaf, macaroni-and-cheese, down-to-earth place, home of Caterpillar, the maker of earthmoving machines for building roads, runways, dams and things... URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/197925 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ My response to George's idiocy: Dear Mr. Will: Regarding your May 25, 2009 column about USDOT Secretary LaHood and "smart growth", it would be helpful, and far more professional of you, if you would get your facts straight about a subject before writing about it. So liberals want the government to force people to ride mass transit and live in high-density developments? What about government mandated zoning codes that have been replicated all across the country that make building anything but automobile-centric sprawl illegal? That's not limiting people's choices and telling them how they should live? What about transportation policies and skewed funding that limit the choice of the vast majority of Americans to reaching for their car keys or nothing, and limit freedom of mobility only to those who can afford cars and are able to drive? That's not social engineering? What about the dozens of state and national polls over the past decade that have shown that a clear majority of Americans want more transportation choices (i.e. freedom). If they didn't, then all of the states like Tennesee (Nashville), New Mexico (Albuquerque), and Florida (Tri-Rail) (to name a few) that have launched new commuter rail services in recent years would be failures. The fact is, they have all been successful and there is solid support for more. But, the federal government--under both Democrats and Republicans alike--has favored roads over other modes. And, if denser, new urbanist-style communities are only useful to government planners who don't want Americans to have any freedom, then why have such areas not suffered nearly as much in the real estate downturn as the automobile-centric suburbs and exurbs? Could it be that--gasp--there is a MARKET for it? That is to say, a CHOICE many Americans want? Roads in America have, for the past 50+ years been the recipient of more government largess than any other form of transportation. At best, so-called user-fees cover about 2/3 of the cost of our roads (not counting externalized costs). That means the rest is coming out of our paychecks. Also, it seems you haven't noticed that Highway Trust Fund is bankrupt and has recently required an infusion of billions in general revenue funds to stay solvent. Please spare us the worn out, empty-headed lecture that conservatives are the the only ones who want Americans to have any freedom of choice. This is a case where conservatives like you are the ones who want to limit freedom.

^cut of the nose to spite the face...