Get Ready to Spend $6,000 a Year on Gas

As it stands, the fuels or electricity by which public transport is driven is no different to the fuel I use in my car.

Until or unless that changes, your sermon is moot.

reply to post by 44soulslayer

---

You're not really equating the amount of fuel per passenger that public transport uses with the fuel consumption per person of a private vehicle are you?



That's just silly.

I'd give this post 10 stars if i could.

I completely agree that I'm willing to pay not to have to ride public transit. I don't mind when it's not rush hour and there aren't a lot of people on it. But I refuse to be packed into a bus or train with people who evidently refuse to take a shower. Not to mention that it's a veritable germ warfare petri dish. I'll pay and pay until I can't pay anymore not to have to deal with that.

Plus, it is expensive. $2.75 one way. Plus, it takes so damn long to get anywhere. To drive to the store it takes 5 minutes, 10 with traffic. To take transit it is a 5 minute bike ride to the stop, 5-15 minutes waiting on the bus, then a 20 minute busride. And if i'm to fit all the groceries I can on my person then I'd have to go every day to get a week's worth of food. That means paying $5.50 a day to lose my valuable time and be inconvenienced. No Thanks.

reply to post by budski

---

Again, a contentious point you've raised.

Ive seen buses where there are only 1 or 2 people on it. How fuel efficient is running a double decker 3.2 litre diesel bus when there are only 2 people on it?

Compared to that I think my car is a damn sight more efficient.

The thing with public transport is that it is admittedly highly effective at rush hours for mass transit.

But what about at 2 in the morning when there are hardly any people about? Why is it efficient to circulate buses for that insignificant minority of people who need it at that time? I would rather those people use cars to travel point to point, rather than send a bus around a 60 mile circuit just to take them from one stop to the next.

Your intentions are good Budski (as usual), but the practical aspects are rather a different issue

Granted, if the buses were hydrogen fuel cell powered, with the hydrogen developed by solar energy electrolysis of brine- i.e completely renewable and efficient, then I would pack in the car for public transport even if it caused me inconvenience. However as long as public transport is even less efficient than me and my automobile, I shall keep driving.

reply to post by 44soulslayer

---

You seem to be forgetting that public transport is only a small part of the overall picture here, and only mentioned as a way of conserving the fuel we have left.

Here's the thing - the fuel is going to run out, and by people refusing any kind of collective responsibility, it's going to run out sooner.

It's also going to cause more wars as resources become scarcer.

The longer we can conserve the fuel, the better chance we have of developing alternative sources of energy.

The BIG problem I have with public transport, especially the train operators, is the prices they charge. It's cheaper to use my car for long, or even short journeys rather than rely on "public" transport.
Successive PM's and Chancellors are always on the lookout for new ways to hit the motorist, the current excuse being man-made climate change, and see drivers as an easy target. Ever higher road tax, fuel prices and the encouragement to leave our cars but never any offer of a realistically viable alternative for a lot of people, unless they happen to live within, or close to, a large town or city.
The real kicker is the amount of public subsidy (taxpayers money) still being paid to the big rail operators, while at the same time they get to pay less tax or have it deferred - rolled over from one year to the next, and the next, and the next etc, whilst the big shareholders get their dividends and the boardroom boys get nice fat bonuses.

Forgive me for sounding a little irked but I always thought the idea of a private company running something was that they do so, outside of the public sector, NOT get fat cheques from the transport dept and the chancellor to make themselves richer. If they cannot run the businesses without public money then they do not deserve to have them in the first place.

See links below for examples:

www.guardian.co.uk...

www.taxresearch.org.uk...

I still think a national rail and bus network, if run properly, not by a bunch of idiotic business failures, would be a great thing. I admit, British Rail was hardly a shining example but that's down to the leadership. The amount of money paid to the big operators since privatisation, if properly invested in a nationalised network would probably be less than has been spent. All it takes is a bit of thought and applied common sense, but no!, they prefer to prop up big business instead and make us all pay, whether we use it or not.

No wonder Richard Branson has that smirk on his face so often.

reply to post by budski

---

In response to the fuel preservation strategy- yes, but conserve it for whom? Public transport does not need all the remaining fossil fuels. The surplus will be sold on the open market and I hope to buy some.

I happen to think that conservation of fuel is NOT the solution to a shortage. We must diversify into alternative methods. As fuel prices go up, alternatives become more and more appealing to research and get into. Im personally involved with a biofuels project in Africa.

I believe the solution to the world's energy problem lies not in neo-luddism and revertion to collectivist transport measures, but technology.


[edit on 14-5-2008 by 44soulslayer]

As fuel is conserved, the profits of the big corporations who control energy policy will be lessened - we have to become less reliant on oil, both in the long and short term - and using it all up isn't the way to go.

As far as biofuels are concerned - which is more important?
Fuel for cars or food for bellies?

Fuel for bellies, definately. That works big time. I see where you are going with the public transport, and the town i am in has a clean public transport system. They won't let vagrants or anyone that smells rancid on, for the health and comfort of anyone else that is on. They also run anywhere from ontime, to an hour behind, so if you are pressed for tim, and have a busy schedule, you lose in the long run. Luckily for me, my girlfriend and i share a vehicle, and our jobs are only about 2 miles from each other.

$6,000 seemed a bit high until I read that it included gas other than automobiles.
I currently spend (at this rate) $1,200 per year on fuel.Last year I spent approximately $900.I drive only when I need to and take the occasional trip out of Dodge for a mental health day.
I'm in the courier business and the company I work for doesn't give it's drivers a fuel surcharge.........period........yet they charge the customer for it.
They want me to do more work for the same pay as last year.I told them what they could do, and it involved using their hand.
Fuel for the truck has jumped 60% from last year and I'm not able to recoup those expenses.......until we find a better company to work with.
Other "green" options are too expensive for us common folk, so yes,things will get way more expensive at the stores or things will come to a grinding halt.
WestJet ( a Canadian carrier) has announced an increase in ticket prices ranging from $20 TO $45 depending on the destination.

reply to post by budski

---

Budski an unusually ignorant post from you!

1. Conserving fuel by decreasing demand will mean a decrease in price. This lessens the attractiveness for companies and governments to invest in alternative fuel sources. High petrol prices (£1/l) mean an ecologically sound alternative will be more viable even if it costs 75p/l. Low fuel prices will only be a disincentive to diversify, and will moreover encourage the purchase of petrol.

2. Biofuels do not necessarily have to come from food crops. In fact the source I worked on was :

en.wikipedia.org...

Non-viable for human consumption and can be grown in industrial wasteland (even heavy metal impregnated soil!), is hardy and drought resistant. Non-arable land can be used for its cultivation. However the critical fuel price must be above 50p/L otherwise it is cheaper to use petrol.

reply to post by 44soulslayer

---

I wasn't talking about any particular biofuel, in case you hadn't noticed.

The fact is that some biofuels are partly responsible for the current food shortages.

As far as your very basic understanding of the markets and their dominating forces is concerned, I'd suggest a re-think on your part.

reply to post by budski

---

Care to educate me on the market forces in that case?

Agreed, some biofuels are detrimental to food sources. Which is why we need to only invest in those sources (such as the one I mentioned), which are commercially and ecologically viable. Ideally Algae derived biodiesel would be a dream... but its several years away from viability.

Hell, I already pay around $110 a week on fuel between my truck and my wife's car. That's $5,700 a year, give or take. I am glad I didn't buy another truck earlier this year, though, at the rate the prices for them are dropping I should be able to pick up a fantastic deal on one before the end of the summer.

reply to post by 44soulslayer

---

Of course, but it'll have to be tomorrow or friday - I'm a bit frazzled because it's so late.

I'd also be very interested in hearing about sustainable and non-interfering sources of biofuel - you can u2u me the links if you like, or post them in the thread for general perusal and discussion

About public transport, well the other day i paid 2 pounds for a 10 minute bus trip, if i'd have gone in my own car it would have cost me less, just saying.

Trains also are so expensive, it's cheaper for me to drive to london from where i am than to use a train, actually it's also cheaper to fly but that's a whole other story I walk wherever i can (although quite ill at the moment so that's mostly out now).

You know the worst part of not owning a car? I remember a few years back i applied for a very nice position somewhere, on the application was a question "Do you hold a valid driving license and do you own your own car". Turns out that was a major part of the job, whether you could drive and having your own car was just a bonus apparently. I could drive but i wondered about that questin, they could lose a good worker just becuase they don't drive.

What about the water/ hydrogen gas? Or was this debunked? www.waterforgas.com

This may be the worlds savior if true. Hmm.