Re: Climate Change and oil

[Guest guest]

Hi Mike, How did people get around just before the invention of cars?

By train and streetcar and subway. In 1956, General Motors was

convicted of the crime of buying up and putting out of business all

of the streetcar companies in US cities. But the streetcar system

was never rebuilt.

The answer is to force people to abandon their cars for rail travel:

by train, streetcar and subway. Then our cities would be clean and

we would import a fraction of the foreign oil.

New oilfields? You might enjoy this book:

Challenging Times Ahead by J. Skinner

Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage. S.

Deffeyes. xii + 208 pp. Princeton University Press, 2001. $24.95.

Oilmen thrive on optimism, and for American oilmen, especially,

optimism in their search for crude paid off handsomely throughout

most of the 20th century. By century's end, however, optimism had

turned to pessimism—despite great advances in technology, oil in the

United States has become increasingly difficult to find.

In 1956 oilmen were given a preview of what lay ahead, but few

listened carefully. At the American Petroleum Institute meeting in

San in that year, one of their own, the highly respected

scientist M. King Hubbert, predicted that U.S. production would peak

about 1970 and steadily decline thereafter. Hubbert's method of

analysis was straightforward. He used geological insight to estimate

that the amount of U.S. oil that would be discovered and produced in

conventional ways would be about 200 billion barrels. He then made

plausible estimates of the production rate and from those predicted

the 1970 production peak.

Hubbert was working for Shell at the time, and almost all of his

industry colleagues rejected his analysis. Economists were especially

critical. But Hubbert was a thorough scientist and had done his work

carefully. In the following years he honed and improved his data set

and refined his analysis, but his conclusions were unchanged, as were

the rejections of his critics. Controversy continued to swirl around

Hubbert's predictions until 1970, and then, as predicted, production

of crude oil peaked and began to decline. It continues to do so to

the present day, despite some post-Hubbert discoveries of oil in

Alaska and in the deep waters off the Gulf coast.

The story behind Hubbert's analysis—which requires an understanding

of oil formation and trapping as well as oil exploration—is told with

engaging wit, humor and great insight by Deffeyes. Born among

the oil fields of Oklahoma, as Hubbert was born among those of Texas,

Deffeyes writes with the taut reasoning of a scientist and the

passion of someone raised in the industry. He began his professional

life in the research labs of Shell, where he met and came to admire

Hubbert. Deffeyes spent the latter part of his career as a professor

of geology at Princeton. His background is ideal for this subject,

and the book is a gem, not only for the recounting of the Hubbert

story but also for its intriguing overview of the scientific

unraveling of how, where and why oil is formed and trapped.

But Deffeyes has a log to throw on the fire of controversy. Now that

oilmen have come to appreciate the analytical power of Hubbert's

approach, shouldn't they give a bit more credence to the dire

predictions for the global oil future? Hubbert attempted to make such

a prediction himself, most recently in his last published paper in

1982. Others have since used newer and better data banks to estimate

that the world's yield of oil will be about 1.8 trillion barrels. A

Hubbert-type analysis of the rate at which the oil can be produced

leads to a predicted peak of production between 2002 and 2004 and a

long, slow decline thereafter.

Could such estimates be wildly wrong? Have potentially giant

resources been overlooked? Hubbert made his analysis of U.S.

production at a time when few places were left where giant deposits

might still hide, and his estimate of ultimate yield looks more and

more likely to be correct. Deffeyes addresses the same question on a

global basis by pointing out that geologists have now looked all over

the world, and there are no great unexplored sedimentary basins in

which giant oil provinces might still be lurking. As late as the

1970s there were still hopes that two places—western Siberia and the

South China Sea—might contain oil provinces to rival the Middle East.

Western Siberia is certainly fuel-rich, but the fuel is almost

entirely natural gas rather than oil. There are still some open

questions concerning the South China Sea because so much of the

region is claimed by different countries, but where exploration has

been possible in the region, prospects have turned out to be much

less than hoped—there clearly is no Middle East hiding there.

Hubbert's Peak is an exciting book to read, but readers should keep

in mind that Deffeyes is discussing crude oil and that there are

other sources of energy. The final three chapters address the future

of other fossil fuels, such as coal, gas, tar sands and oil shale;

alternative energy sources; and the need for a new outlook. These

closing chapters are not the meat of the book, but they contain

practical, sensible evaluations of the issues that face us.

Change as a result of the coming shortage of oil is inevitable and

will play a role in the lives of everyone on earth. Read Hubbert's

Peak—it's better to know what lies ahead than to be surprised too

late to respond.— J. Skinner, Geology and Geophysics, Yale

University

www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/14440

[Guest guest]

Here is more for you, Mike.

BOOK REVIEW

Brave nightmare world

The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World by

Reviewed by Isenberg

In retrospect, one of the funniest lines about the US invasion of

Iraq will be the one uttered by the war's defenders who managed to

insist with a straight face that this wasn't a war for oil.

Oil is the lifeblood of the world economy. It is so deeply entrenched

in our societies that it is an existential fact of life. And any

country that happens to have a substantial share of the world's

proven reserves will always be, to use a military term, a center of

gravity.

But as the very lucidly written The End of Oil makes clear, the day

of reckoning for the oil industry is in sight, at least for some of

us, and the costs when the oil runs out and the world is forced to

confront both its energy needs and its abysmal lack of preparation

for a successor to petroleum are going to staggeringly high.

One doesn't have to look far for signs of this. Consider that the US

National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan group of top

energy experts, recently released a strategy, more than two years in

the making, to address major long-term US energy challenges. The

report, " Ending the Energy Stalemate: A Bipartisan Strategy to Meet

America's Energy Challenges " , contains detailed policy

recommendations for addressing oil security, climate change, natural-

gas supply, the future of nuclear energy, and other long-term

challenges.

Also, members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries

(OPEC) meeting in Buenos Aires in mid-December appeared to be more

concerned about the impact on their economies of measures to reduce

greenhouse-gas emissions than about the potentially disastrous

consequences of global warming, which are largely attributable to the

burning of fossil fuels.

If the past is truly the prologue to the future, then author

, a longtime contributor to Harper's magazine, has served us

well. For in large part, his book is a history of not only oil but of

humanity's quest for energy. As he notes, for most of the past 6,000

years, human history has been characterized by a constant struggle to

harness ever-larger quantities of energy in ever more useful ways.

The wide-scale use of coal in England set the conditions for the

Industrial Revolution. A century later, oil and natural gas completed

the transformation, dragging the industrializing world into modernity

and in the process, fundamentally and irrevocably reordering life at

every level.

In short, energy is the Holy Grail. As writes:

Energy has become the currency of political and economic power, the

determinant of the hierarchy of nations, a new marker, even, for

success and material advancement. Access to energy has thus emerged

as the overriding imperative of the 21st century. It is a guiding

geopolitical principle for all governments, and a largely

unchallenged heuristic for a global energy industry whose success is

based entirely on its ability to find, produce, and distribute ever-

larger volumes of coal, oil, and natural gas, and their most common

by-product, electricity. Yet even a cursory look reveals that, for

all its great successes, our energy economy is fatally flawed, in

nearly every respect. The oil industry is among the least stable of

all business sectors, tremendously vulnerable to destructive price

swings and utterly dependent on corrupt, despotic " petrostates " with

uncertain futures.

That, however, does not begin to cover the downside. Other factors

must include climate change due to the greenhouse effect; the finite

quantities of petroleum remaining; the challenges of finding,

producing and distributing it; its use in generating electricity -

the fastest-growing segment of the energy market - and its

overwhelming demand on the existing infrastructure; the breakdown of

the energy system in the developing world, where the urgent quest for

survival doesn't allow for environmental considerations; and the

future energy demands of countries such as China or India, to name

just a few of the issues covers.

' reporting is both wide-ranging and insightful. In detailing

the global oil addiction, his travels take him from Saudi Arabian

oilfields to Azerbaijani pipelines to natural-gas terminals in Mexico

to a Vancouver power company to wars between competing gas-station

chains in China.

But he never strays far from his central point: that the energy

economy is changing, and not always for the better. We no longer have

a choice in the matter. To use a favored expression from those who

talk about the probabilities of another September 11, it is not a

question of if, it's a question of when.

Make no mistake, change is coming. And if history is any guide at

all, it will be traumatic. That is assuming that the countries of the

world actually try to cooperate with one another on issues such as

energy conservation or adopting new energy technologies, ie natural

gas, hydrogen, solar and wind. It also assumes willingness on the

part of the existing multinational energy companies to move forward

on these technologies instead of trying to wring every last cent out

of their existing capital stock. That is not something the current US

administration is likely to encourage given its existing ideology.

One of the more interesting issues that covers deals with

the " peak oil " theory; in essence, the point when we hit the halfway

mark in using the entire world's oil supply. While scientists and

free-market ideologues argue over reserves and undiscoverable and

recoverable oil, one estimate has us hitting the peak in just 25

years, around 2030.

Of course, that figure could be off, but other facts are

indisputable - such as the fact that the majority share of the

world's oil is in the Middle East, is controlled by OPEC, which

already exerts inordinate influence over world oil prices, and will

gain more as non-Middle East sources run out. And they are running

out fast. Even taking into account optimistic projections, such as

increased Russian oil production, non-OPEC oil production will peak

in 2015.

However, the book is not entirely gloom and doom. There are things

that can be done. But because of the central role of the United

States as an oil consumer and key market for the rest of the world,

its active participation is required on issues like the increased

availability of natural gas, adoption of a carbon penalty, and an all-

out effort to cut consumption of oil and other energy. Boosting

automobile fuel-efficiency standards would be an example. How likely

is this? Considering the last time the United States got serious

about that was after the 1974 oil shocks, not very.

The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World by ,

2004, Houghton Mifflin. ISBN: 0747570752, 332 pages. US$33.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GA15Dj01.html

[Guest guest]

Hi Lee, and thanks for the link and message. The main reason why

people want cars is because they are there and the general public

has gotten lazy. The old saying; 'you never miss what you never had'

seems appropriate here.

Over here there is far too much emphasis on car ownership and not

enough finance pumped into public transport.

Every commercial TV and radio station runs car ads: car insurance

ads., car repairs, car maintenance and car accessories ads. The

country has gone really wild for car culture and all the while

stinking-up the atmosphere so much that we have the highest rate of

child asthma in Europe.

People quite naturally hate anything to do with pedophilia and if a

child is the victim of one of those and got murdered, there is a

public outcry and the papers are filled with news of it. However, it

becomes only a matter of polite mention if a kid gets killed by a

car, and mentioned more if the driver happens to be a drunken slob

or has been banned previously.

I think that certain measures will come at some point, not only in

this overcrowded country, but in the US too.

I made points about this in several papers recently.

Some of these measures are: penalise multiple car ownership with

huge tax increase on each new car, ie: double the rate of insurance

and road tax (know that?)on each vehicle over ONE.

Special attention needs to be given to the anti-social types who

wish to own SUVs.

Triple the cost of petrol (gas)

Increase the age for getting a drivers' licence to 25. At present

here, it is 17. More young males, new drivers, are killed in cars

than any other group; that problem would be solved with an increase

to a more responsible age for driving.

There are many more measures that could be taken to make the world

safer and more pleasant for all; curbing car-culture is a start, and

will perhaps give the world a longer life too.

Mike.

>

> Hi Mike, How did people get around just before the invention of

cars?

> By train and streetcar and subway. In 1956, General Motors was

> convicted of the crime of buying up and putting out of business

all

> of the streetcar companies in US cities. But the streetcar system

> was never rebuilt.

>

> The answer is to force people to abandon their cars for rail

travel:

> by train, streetcar and subway. Then our cities would be clean

and

> we would import a fraction of the foreign oil.

>

> New oilfields? You might enjoy this book:

>

> Challenging Times Ahead by J. Skinner

>

> Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage. S.

> Deffeyes. xii + 208 pp. Princeton University Press, 2001. $24.95.

>

> Oilmen thrive on optimism, and for American oilmen, especially,

> optimism in their search for crude paid off handsomely throughout

> most of the 20th century. By century's end, however, optimism had

> turned to pessimism—despite great advances in technology, oil in

the

> United States has become increasingly difficult to find.

>

> In 1956 oilmen were given a preview of what lay ahead, but few

> listened carefully. At the American Petroleum Institute meeting in

> San in that year, one of their own, the highly respected

> scientist M. King Hubbert, predicted that U.S. production would

peak

> about 1970 and steadily decline thereafter. Hubbert's method of

> analysis was straightforward. He used geological insight to

estimate

> that the amount of U.S. oil that would be discovered and produced

in

> conventional ways would be about 200 billion barrels. He then made

> plausible estimates of the production rate and from those

predicted

> the 1970 production peak.

>

> Hubbert was working for Shell at the time, and almost all of his

> industry colleagues rejected his analysis. Economists were

especially

> critical. But Hubbert was a thorough scientist and had done his

work

> carefully. In the following years he honed and improved his data

set

> and refined his analysis, but his conclusions were unchanged, as

were

> the rejections of his critics. Controversy continued to swirl

around

> Hubbert's predictions until 1970, and then, as predicted,

production

> of crude oil peaked and began to decline. It continues to do so to

> the present day, despite some post-Hubbert discoveries of oil in

> Alaska and in the deep waters off the Gulf coast.

>

> The story behind Hubbert's analysis—which requires an

understanding

> of oil formation and trapping as well as oil exploration—is told

with

> engaging wit, humor and great insight by Deffeyes. Born

among

> the oil fields of Oklahoma, as Hubbert was born among those of

Texas,

> Deffeyes writes with the taut reasoning of a scientist and the

> passion of someone raised in the industry. He began his

professional

> life in the research labs of Shell, where he met and came to

admire

> Hubbert. Deffeyes spent the latter part of his career as a

professor

> of geology at Princeton. His background is ideal for this subject,

> and the book is a gem, not only for the recounting of the Hubbert

> story but also for its intriguing overview of the scientific

> unraveling of how, where and why oil is formed and trapped.

>

> But Deffeyes has a log to throw on the fire of controversy. Now

that

> oilmen have come to appreciate the analytical power of Hubbert's

> approach, shouldn't they give a bit more credence to the dire

> predictions for the global oil future? Hubbert attempted to make

such

> a prediction himself, most recently in his last published paper in

> 1982. Others have since used newer and better data banks to

estimate

> that the world's yield of oil will be about 1.8 trillion barrels.

A

> Hubbert-type analysis of the rate at which the oil can be produced

> leads to a predicted peak of production between 2002 and 2004 and

a

> long, slow decline thereafter.

>

> Could such estimates be wildly wrong? Have potentially giant

> resources been overlooked? Hubbert made his analysis of U.S.

> production at a time when few places were left where giant

deposits

> might still hide, and his estimate of ultimate yield looks more

and

> more likely to be correct. Deffeyes addresses the same question on

a

> global basis by pointing out that geologists have now looked all

over

> the world, and there are no great unexplored sedimentary basins in

> which giant oil provinces might still be lurking. As late as the

> 1970s there were still hopes that two places—western Siberia and

the

> South China Sea—might contain oil provinces to rival the Middle

East.

> Western Siberia is certainly fuel-rich, but the fuel is almost

> entirely natural gas rather than oil. There are still some open

> questions concerning the South China Sea because so much of the

> region is claimed by different countries, but where exploration

has

> been possible in the region, prospects have turned out to be much

> less than hoped—there clearly is no Middle East hiding there.

>

> Hubbert's Peak is an exciting book to read, but readers should

keep

> in mind that Deffeyes is discussing crude oil and that there are

> other sources of energy. The final three chapters address the

future

> of other fossil fuels, such as coal, gas, tar sands and oil shale;

> alternative energy sources; and the need for a new outlook. These

> closing chapters are not the meat of the book, but they contain

> practical, sensible evaluations of the issues that face us.

>

> Change as a result of the coming shortage of oil is inevitable and

> will play a role in the lives of everyone on earth. Read Hubbert's

> Peak—it's better to know what lies ahead than to be surprised too

> late to respond.— J. Skinner, Geology and Geophysics, Yale

> University

>

www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/14440

>

[Guest guest]

My partner and I gave our car to his son some time ago. We don't miss it one bit. If we need to ride somewhere we can always take a bus. San Francisco has an outstanding public transport system.Mike <mikesey_97@...> wrote: Hi Lee, and thanks for the link and message. The main reason why people want cars is because they are there and the general public has gotten lazy. The old saying; 'you never miss what you never had' seems appropriate here.Over here there is far too much emphasis on car ownership and not enough finance pumped into public transport.Every commercial TV and radio station runs car ads: car insurance ads., car repairs, car maintenance and car accessories ads. The country has gone really wild for car culture and all the while stinking-up the atmosphere so

much that we have the highest rate of child asthma in Europe. People quite naturally hate anything to do with pedophilia and if a child is the victim of one of those and got murdered, there is a public outcry and the papers are filled with news of it. However, it becomes only a matter of polite mention if a kid gets killed by a car, and mentioned more if the driver happens to be a drunken slob or has been banned previously.I think that certain measures will come at some point, not only in this overcrowded country, but in the US too.I made points about this in several papers recently.Some of these measures are: penalise multiple car ownership with huge tax increase on each new car, ie: double the rate of insurance and road tax (know that?)on each vehicle over ONE. Special attention needs to be given to the anti-social types who wish to own SUVs.Triple the cost of petrol (gas)Increase the

age for getting a drivers' licence to 25. At present here, it is 17. More young males, new drivers, are killed in cars than any other group; that problem would be solved with an increase to a more responsible age for driving.There are many more measures that could be taken to make the world safer and more pleasant for all; curbing car-culture is a start, and will perhaps give the world a longer life too.Mike.>> Hi Mike, How did people get around just before the invention of cars? > By train and streetcar and subway. In 1956, General Motors was > convicted of the crime of buying up and putting out of business all > of the streetcar companies in US cities. But the streetcar system > was never rebuilt.> > The answer is to force people to abandon their cars for rail travel:

> by train, streetcar and subway. Then our cities would be clean and > we would import a fraction of the foreign oil.> > New oilfields? You might enjoy this book: > > Challenging Times Ahead by J. Skinner> > Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage. S. > Deffeyes. xii + 208 pp. Princeton University Press, 2001. $24.95. > > Oilmen thrive on optimism, and for American oilmen, especially, > optimism in their search for crude paid off handsomely throughout > most of the 20th century. By century's end, however, optimism had > turned to pessimism—despite great advances in technology, oil in the > United States has become increasingly difficult to find. > > In 1956 oilmen were given a preview of what lay ahead, but few > listened carefully. At the American Petroleum Institute meeting in > San in that

year, one of their own, the highly respected > scientist M. King Hubbert, predicted that U.S. production would peak > about 1970 and steadily decline thereafter. Hubbert's method of > analysis was straightforward. He used geological insight to estimate > that the amount of U.S. oil that would be discovered and produced in > conventional ways would be about 200 billion barrels. He then made > plausible estimates of the production rate and from those predicted > the 1970 production peak. > > Hubbert was working for Shell at the time, and almost all of his > industry colleagues rejected his analysis. Economists were especially > critical. But Hubbert was a thorough scientist and had done his work > carefully. In the following years he honed and improved his data set > and refined his analysis, but his conclusions were unchanged, as were

> the rejections of his critics. Controversy continued to swirl around > Hubbert's predictions until 1970, and then, as predicted, production > of crude oil peaked and began to decline. It continues to do so to > the present day, despite some post-Hubbert discoveries of oil in > Alaska and in the deep waters off the Gulf coast. > > The story behind Hubbert's analysis—which requires an understanding > of oil formation and trapping as well as oil exploration—is told with > engaging wit, humor and great insight by Deffeyes. Born among > the oil fields of Oklahoma, as Hubbert was born among those of Texas, > Deffeyes writes with the taut reasoning of a scientist and the > passion of someone raised in the industry. He began his professional > life in the research labs of Shell, where he met and came to admire > Hubbert. Deffeyes spent the

latter part of his career as a professor > of geology at Princeton. His background is ideal for this subject, > and the book is a gem, not only for the recounting of the Hubbert > story but also for its intriguing overview of the scientific > unraveling of how, where and why oil is formed and trapped. > > But Deffeyes has a log to throw on the fire of controversy. Now that > oilmen have come to appreciate the analytical power of Hubbert's > approach, shouldn't they give a bit more credence to the dire > predictions for the global oil future? Hubbert attempted to make such > a prediction himself, most recently in his last published paper in > 1982. Others have since used newer and better data banks to estimate > that the world's yield of oil will be about 1.8 trillion barrels. A > Hubbert-type analysis of the rate at which the oil can be produced > leads to

a predicted peak of production between 2002 and 2004 and a > long, slow decline thereafter. > > Could such estimates be wildly wrong? Have potentially giant > resources been overlooked? Hubbert made his analysis of U.S. > production at a time when few places were left where giant deposits > might still hide, and his estimate of ultimate yield looks more and > more likely to be correct. Deffeyes addresses the same question on a > global basis by pointing out that geologists have now looked all over > the world, and there are no great unexplored sedimentary basins in > which giant oil provinces might still be lurking. As late as the > 1970s there were still hopes that two places—western Siberia and the > South China Sea—might contain oil provinces to rival the Middle East. > Western Siberia is certainly fuel-rich, but the fuel is almost > entirely

natural gas rather than oil. There are still some open > questions concerning the South China Sea because so much of the > region is claimed by different countries, but where exploration has > been possible in the region, prospects have turned out to be much > less than hoped—there clearly is no Middle East hiding there. > > Hubbert's Peak is an exciting book to read, but readers should keep > in mind that Deffeyes is discussing crude oil and that there are > other sources of energy. The final three chapters address the future > of other fossil fuels, such as coal, gas, tar sands and oil shale; > alternative energy sources; and the need for a new outlook. These > closing chapters are not the meat of the book, but they contain > practical, sensible evaluations of the issues that face us. > > Change as a result of the coming shortage of oil is inevitable and >

will play a role in the lives of everyone on earth. Read Hubbert's > Peak—it's better to know what lies ahead than to be surprised too > late to respond.— J. Skinner, Geology and Geophysics, Yale > University > www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/14440> . Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. -Dr.Seuss . It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing. - Duke

Ellington . Never place a period where God has placed a comma. - Gracie

[Guest guest]

The problem with increasing the drinking age or raising driving age

is that soldiers of 19 or 20 will return from war to find that they

cannot drink and cannot drive, and the feel that the society owes

them this.

Mike, great comments on the car culture. That is what it is and it

is wrecking our lives by producing a society of endless strip malls

and parking lots.

The the cost of petrol (gas) should indeed be tripled, but that is

not politically possible here. Any politician who wishes to raise

the tax on gas or tax cars is immediately voted out of office. No

matter that our roads are in gridlock. Taxing cars or gas is

political suicide. All anybody wants to hear is tax cuts.

> Mike <mikesey_97@...> wrote: Hi Lee, and thanks for the link and

message. The main reason why

> people want cars is because they are there and the general public

> has gotten lazy. The old saying; 'you never miss what you never

had'

> seems appropriate here.

>

> Over here there is far too much emphasis on car ownership and not

> enough finance pumped into public transport.

>

> Every commercial TV and radio station runs car ads: car insurance

> ads., car repairs, car maintenance and car accessories ads. The

> country has gone really wild for car culture

> I made points about this in several papers recently.

>

> Some of these measures are: penalise multiple car ownership with

> huge tax increase on each new car, ie: double the rate of insurance

> and road tax (know that?)on each vehicle over ONE.

> Special attention needs to be given to the anti-social types who

> wish to own SUVs.

>

> Triple the cost of petrol (gas)

>

> Increase the age for getting a drivers' licence to 25. At present

> here, it is 17. More young males, new drivers, are killed in cars

> than any other group; that problem would be solved with an increase

> to a more responsible age for driving.

[Guest guest]

No true. I live in Central Cal and cannot even walk to the

supermarket and not that I mind walking for exercise but there are

no or intermittant sidewalks between here and there and it is just

too dangerous with a stroller on the roadside. There is no local

public tranportation except the morning ride share that takes you

into town in the mornings and back in the evenings and the school

buses for kids...no good for us stay at home mom's who need to get

around during the day with errands. Mind you I would not consider my

CA town rural either at 25,000 people and 4 Starbucks. Life without

a car would be impossible here. Even a bike would be impractible. I

do not want a car because I am lazy but because there are no

alternatives and I think in most of America outside the major

population centers of the large cities you will find this similar

case.

" Over here there is far too much emphasis on car ownership and not

enough finance pumped into public transport. "

I 100% agree with the above statement.

....some of us need SUV's or big trucks or we would be stuck in the

mud and have no place to carry our 6 kids and all their gear. How

come no one ever mentions or complains about the hundreds of

thousands of diesel big rigs that roar down our highways every

minute? How about improving our national supply chain

infrastructure? Oh..no..that would cut into the profits of big

business and gov...let's take it out on the soccer mom's instead.

> >

> > Hi Mike, How did people get around just before the invention of

> cars?

> > By train and streetcar and subway. In 1956, General Motors was

> > convicted of the crime of buying up and putting out of business

> all

> > of the streetcar companies in US cities. But the streetcar

system

> > was never rebuilt.

> >

> > The answer is to force people to abandon their cars for rail

> travel:

> > by train, streetcar and subway. Then our cities would be clean

> and

> > we would import a fraction of the foreign oil.

> >

> > New oilfields? You might enjoy this book:

> >

> > Challenging Times Ahead by J. Skinner

> >

> > Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage. S.

> > Deffeyes. xii + 208 pp. Princeton University Press, 2001.

$24.95.

> >

> > Oilmen thrive on optimism, and for American oilmen, especially,

> > optimism in their search for crude paid off handsomely

throughout

> > most of the 20th century. By century's end, however, optimism

had

> > turned to pessimism—despite great advances in technology, oil in

> the

> > United States has become increasingly difficult to find.

> >

> > In 1956 oilmen were given a preview of what lay ahead, but few

> > listened carefully. At the American Petroleum Institute meeting

in

> > San in that year, one of their own, the highly respected

> > scientist M. King Hubbert, predicted that U.S. production would

> peak

> > about 1970 and steadily decline thereafter. Hubbert's method of

> > analysis was straightforward. He used geological insight to

> estimate

> > that the amount of U.S. oil that would be discovered and

produced

> in

> > conventional ways would be about 200 billion barrels. He then

made

> > plausible estimates of the production rate and from those

> predicted

> > the 1970 production peak.

> >

> > Hubbert was working for Shell at the time, and almost all of his

> > industry colleagues rejected his analysis. Economists were

> especially

> > critical. But Hubbert was a thorough scientist and had done his

> work

> > carefully. In the following years he honed and improved his data

> set

> > and refined his analysis, but his conclusions were unchanged, as

> were

> > the rejections of his critics. Controversy continued to swirl

> around

> > Hubbert's predictions until 1970, and then, as predicted,

> production

> > of crude oil peaked and began to decline. It continues to do so

to

> > the present day, despite some post-Hubbert discoveries of oil in

> > Alaska and in the deep waters off the Gulf coast.

> >

> > The story behind Hubbert's analysis—which requires an

> understanding

> > of oil formation and trapping as well as oil exploration—is told

> with

> > engaging wit, humor and great insight by Deffeyes. Born

> among

> > the oil fields of Oklahoma, as Hubbert was born among those of

> Texas,

> > Deffeyes writes with the taut reasoning of a scientist and the

> > passion of someone raised in the industry. He began his

> professional

> > life in the research labs of Shell, where he met and came to

> admire

> > Hubbert. Deffeyes spent the latter part of his career as a

> professor

> > of geology at Princeton. His background is ideal for this

subject,

> > and the book is a gem, not only for the recounting of the

Hubbert

> > story but also for its intriguing overview of the scientific

> > unraveling of how, where and why oil is formed and trapped.

> >

> > But Deffeyes has a log to throw on the fire of controversy. Now

> that

> > oilmen have come to appreciate the analytical power of Hubbert's

> > approach, shouldn't they give a bit more credence to the dire

> > predictions for the global oil future? Hubbert attempted to make

> such

> > a prediction himself, most recently in his last published paper

in

> > 1982. Others have since used newer and better data banks to

> estimate

> > that the world's yield of oil will be about 1.8 trillion

barrels.

> A

> > Hubbert-type analysis of the rate at which the oil can be

produced

> > leads to a predicted peak of production between 2002 and 2004

and

> a

> > long, slow decline thereafter.

> >

> > Could such estimates be wildly wrong? Have potentially giant

> > resources been overlooked? Hubbert made his analysis of U.S.

> > production at a time when few places were left where giant

> deposits

> > might still hide, and his estimate of ultimate yield looks more

> and

> > more likely to be correct. Deffeyes addresses the same question

on

> a

> > global basis by pointing out that geologists have now looked all

> over

> > the world, and there are no great unexplored sedimentary basins

in

> > which giant oil provinces might still be lurking. As late as the

> > 1970s there were still hopes that two places—western Siberia and

> the

> > South China Sea—might contain oil provinces to rival the Middle

> East.

> > Western Siberia is certainly fuel-rich, but the fuel is almost

> > entirely natural gas rather than oil. There are still some open

> > questions concerning the South China Sea because so much of the

> > region is claimed by different countries, but where exploration

> has

> > been possible in the region, prospects have turned out to be

much

> > less than hoped—there clearly is no Middle East hiding there.

> >

> > Hubbert's Peak is an exciting book to read, but readers should

> keep

> > in mind that Deffeyes is discussing crude oil and that there are

> > other sources of energy. The final three chapters address the

> future

> > of other fossil fuels, such as coal, gas, tar sands and oil

shale;

> > alternative energy sources; and the need for a new outlook.

These

> > closing chapters are not the meat of the book, but they contain

> > practical, sensible evaluations of the issues that face us.

> >

> > Change as a result of the coming shortage of oil is inevitable

and

> > will play a role in the lives of everyone on earth. Read

Hubbert's

> > Peak—it's better to know what lies ahead than to be surprised

too

> > late to respond.— J. Skinner, Geology and Geophysics, Yale

> > University

> >

>

www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/14440

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I will second this. I live in rural MInnesota. The nearest gas station/store is 9 miles away. There is no public transportation. You can't bike to go get groceries....(I am a single parent and have a seven year old with asthma ) I also live on a very limited income and am a college student. If I lived in a city, I would probably use public transportation most of the time, but out here it isn't even close to an option.

Kay

[Flu] Re: Climate Change and oil

No true. I live in Central Cal and cannot even walk to the supermarket and not that I mind walking for exercise but there are no or intermittant sidewalks between here and there and it is just too dangerous with a stroller on the roadside. There is no local public tranportation except the morning ride share that takes you into town in the mornings and back in the evenings and the school buses for kids...no good for us stay at home mom's who need to get around during the day with errands. Mind you I would not consider my CA town rural either at 25,000 people and 4 Starbucks. Life without a car would be impossible here. Even a bike would be impractible. I do not want a car because I am lazy but because there are no alternatives and I think in most of America outside the major population centers of the large cities you will find this similar case. "Over here there is far too much emphasis on car ownership and not enough finance pumped into public transport."I 100% agree with the above statement....some of us need SUV's or big trucks or we would be stuck in the mud and have no place to carry our 6 kids and all their gear. How come no one ever mentions or complains about the hundreds of thousands of diesel big rigs that roar down our highways every minute? How about improving our national supply chain infrastructure? Oh..no..that would cut into the profits of big business and gov...let's take it out on the soccer mom's instead.

[Guest guest]

Hi Lee,

I didn't think about the returning soldiers, but I guess they also

have to get used to the idea that they can't shoot anybody anymore!!

I acknowledge that some of the measures I outlined to combat the

rising car culture can only be realised in a Totalitarian state. In

any case, Lee, I think we may well be heading for that.

I forsee a scenario where we are told that Petroleum will have to

rise and to like it or lump it.

In the UK over 75% of the cost of gas is TAX. Currently it is around

95p per litre, and Diesel is even more expensive almost a pound (£)

the current rate of exchange £ = $ is $1.85 for £1.00.

You can see that you would pay something like $8 for a gallon if

you paid what we do!!

Yet still people drive unnecessarily, distances of less than a

mile.

Tripling the cost may help, but I doubt it.

Hi Lee, and thanks for the link and

> message. The main reason why

> > people want cars is because they are there and the general

public

> > has gotten lazy. The old saying; 'you never miss what you never

> had'

> > seems appropriate here.

> >

> > Over here there is far too much emphasis on car ownership and

not

> > enough finance pumped into public transport.

> >

> > Every commercial TV and radio station runs car ads: car

insurance

> > ads., car repairs, car maintenance and car accessories ads. The

> > country has gone really wild for car culture

> > I made points about this in several papers recently.

> >

> > Some of these measures are: penalise multiple car ownership with

> > huge tax increase on each new car, ie: double the rate of

insurance

> > and road tax (know that?)on each vehicle over ONE.

> > Special attention needs to be given to the anti-social types who

> > wish to own SUVs.

> >

> > Triple the cost of petrol (gas)

> >

> > Increase the age for getting a drivers' licence to 25. At

present

> > here, it is 17. More young males, new drivers, are killed in

cars

> > than any other group; that problem would be solved with an

increase

> > to a more responsible age for driving.

>

[Guest guest]

I hear very much the same stories fromm others here. But how did we

manage before cars came along?

Improving the Bus/Train services is the key, but not feasible.

Make only necessary journeys in cars, unlike those people who take

the car on the most minor of trips. (You know, the overweight

people!)

Mike.

>

> I will second this. I live in rural MInnesota. The nearest gas

station/store is 9 miles away. There is no public transportation.

You can't bike to go get groceries....(I am a single parent and

have a seven year old with asthma ) I also live on a very limited

income and am a college student. If I lived in a city, I would

probably use public transportation most of the time, but out here it

isn't even close to an option.

>

Kay

>

> [Flu] Re: Climate Change and oil

>

>

> No true. I live in Central Cal and cannot even walk to the

> supermarket and not that I mind walking for exercise but there

are

> no or intermittant sidewalks between here and there and it is

just

> too dangerous with a stroller on the roadside. There is no local

> public tranportation except the morning ride share that takes

you

> into town in the mornings and back in the evenings and the

school

> buses for kids...no good for us stay at home mom's who need to

get

> around during the day with errands. Mind you I would not

consider my

> CA town rural either at 25,000 people and 4 Starbucks. Life

without

> a car would be impossible here. Even a bike would be

impractible. I

> do not want a car because I am lazy but because there are no

> alternatives and I think in most of America outside the major

> population centers of the large cities you will find this

similar

> case.

>

> " Over here there is far too much emphasis on car ownership and

not

> enough finance pumped into public transport. "

>

> I 100% agree with the above statement.

>

> ...some of us need SUV's or big trucks or we would be stuck in

the

> mud and have no place to carry our 6 kids and all their gear.

How

> come no one ever mentions or complains about the hundreds of

> thousands of diesel big rigs that roar down our highways every

> minute? How about improving our national supply chain

> infrastructure? Oh..no..that would cut into the profits of big

> business and gov...let's take it out on the soccer mom's instead.

>

[Guest guest]

Before cars came along towns were smaller and local mom and pop

shops were a horse & buggy ride away and we mostly worked from home

or in a nearby farm or factory and grew our own produce and

butchered our owm dinners and were close friends with all our

neighbors. You cannot even compare the infrastructure design and

culture of before cars to that of today. We need to go to the

grocery store or minimart a few times a week or we would probably

all starve.I bet half of up donot even know who half the folks on

their block are and not to mention commute to work (would be noice

to be able to make a good income from home though). Sure it would be

easy to manage like society did before cars if we are all willing to

give up our freedoms and go back to raising our own food locally and

living in pretty much the same 25 square miles for the rest of our

lives.

Amy

> >

> > I will second this. I live in rural MInnesota. The nearest gas

> station/store is 9 miles away. There is no public

transportation.

> You can't bike to go get groceries....(I am a single parent and

> have a seven year old with asthma ) I also live on a very limited

> income and am a college student. If I lived in a city, I would

> probably use public transportation most of the time, but out here

it

> isn't even close to an option.

>

>

> Kay

> >

> > [Flu] Re: Climate Change and oil

> >

> >

> > No true. I live in Central Cal and cannot even walk to the

> > supermarket and not that I mind walking for exercise but there

> are

> > no or intermittant sidewalks between here and there and it is

> just

> > too dangerous with a stroller on the roadside. There is no

local

> > public tranportation except the morning ride share that takes

> you

> > into town in the mornings and back in the evenings and the

> school

> > buses for kids...no good for us stay at home mom's who need to

> get

> > around during the day with errands. Mind you I would not

> consider my

> > CA town rural either at 25,000 people and 4 Starbucks. Life

> without

> > a car would be impossible here. Even a bike would be

> impractible. I

> > do not want a car because I am lazy but because there are no

> > alternatives and I think in most of America outside the major

> > population centers of the large cities you will find this

> similar

> > case.

> >

> > " Over here there is far too much emphasis on car ownership

and

> not

> > enough finance pumped into public transport. "

> >

> > I 100% agree with the above statement.

> >

> > ...some of us need SUV's or big trucks or we would be stuck in

> the

> > mud and have no place to carry our 6 kids and all their gear.

> How

> > come no one ever mentions or complains about the hundreds of

> > thousands of diesel big rigs that roar down our highways every

> > minute? How about improving our national supply chain

> > infrastructure? Oh..no..that would cut into the profits of big

> > business and gov...let's take it out on the soccer mom's

instead.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

How did we manage b4 cars came along? Trolleys or streetcars.

History of Tramways and Evolution of Light Rail

http://www.lrta.org/mrthistory.html

http://www.trolleystop.com/

http://www.trolleymuseum.org/

They made cars unnecessary. They also led to the development of

towns and cities that were so integrated that cars were not needed.

They led to the type of close neighborhoods that people seek today.

> >

> >

> >

> > I hear very much the same stories fromm others here. But how did

> we

> > manage before cars came along?

[Guest guest]

It is amazing. I live in Japan for several years and all that time

the thought of needing a car never even entered my mind. The railway

and bus transportation system was just so incredible. You could get

from here to there down to the minute without worries of delays and

with trains coming in cycling thru every few minutes I never once

felt the frusration of waiting for a train or late bus. It just did

not happen and I actually enjoyed using the railways. Not so in the

US. They could be a good model for a public transportation system.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > I hear very much the same stories fromm others here. But how

did

> > we

> > > manage before cars came along?

>

[Guest guest]

The railway and bus system in Japan is that much better? Why? Do they

run on timetables?

>

> It is amazing. I live in Japan for several years and all that time

> the thought of needing a car never even entered my mind. The railway

> and bus transportation system was just so incredible. You could get

> from here to there down to the minute without worries of delays and

> with trains coming in cycling thru every few minutes I never once

> felt the frusration of waiting for a train or late bus. It just did

> not happen and I actually enjoyed using the railways. Not so in the

> US. They could be a good model for a public transportation system.

[Guest guest]

No comparison...Yes, all trains and buses are all on time

tables...some as often as every 5 minutes in the cities and are

pretty much always on time. I would be able to calculate exactly

what bus I needed in order to cath the right train in order to

connect to another etc...without any problems. Very efficient. I

did not feel like I was waiting around all day for transportation.

> >

> > It is amazing. I live in Japan for several years and all that

time

> > the thought of needing a car never even entered my mind. The

railway

> > and bus transportation system was just so incredible. You could

get

> > from here to there down to the minute without worries of delays

and

> > with trains coming in cycling thru every few minutes I never

once

> > felt the frusration of waiting for a train or late bus. It just

did

> > not happen and I actually enjoyed using the railways. Not so in

the

> > US. They could be a good model for a public transportation

system.

>

[Guest guest]

....also, on the rare occassion the train was delayed you could pick

up a little train slip confirming this to hand into your boss at

work. A valid excuse. Imagine that.

> > >

> > > It is amazing. I live in Japan for several years and all that

> time

> > > the thought of needing a car never even entered my mind. The

> railway

> > > and bus transportation system was just so incredible. You

could

> get

> > > from here to there down to the minute without worries of

delays

> and

> > > with trains coming in cycling thru every few minutes I never

> once

> > > felt the frusration of waiting for a train or late bus. It

just

> did

> > > not happen and I actually enjoyed using the railways. Not so

in

> the

> > > US. They could be a good model for a public transportation

> system.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Here is an interesting link about it...

http://www.demographia.com/db-htld-rail.htm

> > > >

> > > > It is amazing. I live in Japan for several years and all

that

> > time

> > > > the thought of needing a car never even entered my mind. The

> > railway

> > > > and bus transportation system was just so incredible. You

> could

> > get

> > > > from here to there down to the minute without worries of

> delays

> > and

> > > > with trains coming in cycling thru every few minutes I never

> > once

> > > > felt the frusration of waiting for a train or late bus. It

> just

> > did

> > > > not happen and I actually enjoyed using the railways. Not so

> in

> > the

> > > > US. They could be a good model for a public transportation

> > system.

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

That is wonderful. Meanwhile, the Washington Post printed this story

a while ago. I wonder how Japanese feel when they visit the Capital

and see how inefficient the DC bus system is?

Progress Has Passed Metrobus By

Outdated System Is Plagued by Unreliable Schedules, Inefficient Routes

By Lyndsey Layton, Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, December 27, 2005; A01

As shifting housing patterns, job growth and an influx of residents

have transformed metropolitan Washington over the past three decades,

Metrobus has done little to adapt, remaining essentially the same

system since opening in 1973.

The nation's fifth-largest bus system still follows the basic

contours of the D.C. streetcar lines of the 1950s.

Each day, 443,000 passengers -- many without options -- grapple with

a transportation system of last resort. Buses are so unreliable, even

Metro's chief executive has acknowledged that the schedules are

fiction. Riders must transfer multiple times to reach their

destinations. One bus line averages 84 passengers per trip, while

another carries four.

A mismatch between demand and service has produced hidden rush hours,

with standing room only on some buses at 11 on weeknights or 3 p.m.

on weekends. Metrobus officials have not analyzed ridership on some

weekday routes in three years. And it's been five years since they

monitored passenger loads on weekend routes, Metro officials say.

The problems at Metrobus -- outdated operations, under-investment and

an unresponsive bureaucracy -- come in addition to other troubles at

the area's transit agency. Its board of directors took steps this

month to remove Chief Executive A. White, who has been

criticized for failing to hold staff members accountable and taking

too long to resolve problems.

For most of its history, the bus system has been overshadowed by the

subway, which carries tourists and downtown professionals and draws

the attention of Congress. Transit officials have repeatedly promised

to put Metrobus on equal footing with Metrorail, but the buses have

never been able to attract the same kind of money and institutional

support. None of the 12 members of the Metro board of directors is a

regular Metrobus rider; some can't remember the last time they rode

one.

" Metrobus really is the poor stepchild, " said D.C. Council member Jim

Graham (D-Ward 1), who represents the District on the Metro board.

Metro statistics show that compared with subway riders, bus

passengers are more likely to be black women and people with lower

incomes who are less likely to own a car.

nne Harding, 53, who commutes daily between Capitol Hill and

14th and U streets NW, believes the problems of Metrobus are linked

to demographics. " It doesn't escape my notice that on many of the

buses I ride, I'm the only white passenger, " she said. " Buses serve

lower-income neighborhoods. And it makes me think, Is there a

connection? "

Metro officials say that they have made significant improvements,

including the installation of SmarTrip fare boxes, and that the bus

system will benefit from new technology and equipment coming into

place in the next several years. " We're very, very serious about

giving the buses a strong level of management attention, of moving

forward to make this bus system a good system, an excellent system, "

White said.

Failing Grades

At White's request this year, a panel of bus managers from Houston,

Toronto, New York and San Mateo, Calif., outlined a series of

deficiencies with Metrobus, pointing to faulty operations and aging

equipment in the 1,460-bus fleet.

" You need to invest in your bus service, " panel leader

Scanlon told the Metro board. " You have a case of a rubber band

stretched too far and about to snap in some cases. "

Metrobus is failing even by its own standards. An internal audit

showed the system did not meet seven of its eight goals last year,

with too many breakdowns, accidents, incomplete runs, passenger

complaints and absent employees.

Meanwhile, the average Metrobus is more than 10 years old, twice the

age recommended by experts. And although it carries fewer riders than

the subway, the bus system draws more than twice as many complaints.

In October, the latest month for which data were available, the

transit system logged 657 rail complaints and 1,456 bus complaints.

In surveys, Metrobus riders say their biggest concern is that buses

stay on schedule. But managers have no idea whether buses run on

time; they do not monitor performance.

And the expert panel found that Metro employs too few supervisors to

fix service problems. The system has 20 street supervisors to manage

1,245 buses that run during peak travel periods. By contrast, Ride On

in Montgomery County has 30 street supervisors to monitor a bus

system about one-seventh the size.

" Once a bus leaves a garage, unless the bus supervisor sees something

or the bus operator calls it in, we're essentially unaware of what

that bus is doing or where it is, " said Jack Requa, Metro's chief

operating officer for buses, who cited the system's limited

resources. " Every year, budgetwise, has been tight. . . . We make

small improvements. These outsiders come in, and they see it in a

different light. "

The expert panel flagged another problem tied to too few supervisors:

Buses travel in herds, disregarding the schedule. Metro blames the

problem, which it calls " bunching, " on traffic congestion. But

passengers complain about it happening late at night, when there is

no congestion.

One veteran Metrobus driver, who asked not to be identified because

she hadn't been authorized by Metro to speak, said some drivers do it

intentionally so the bus ahead will pick up the passengers. " A lot of

people just want to get by. They don't want to work, " she said.

For riders, bunching is a widespread frustration.

" If you're taking a line where the buses are spaced 15 minutes apart,

and you get to the stop and you've just missed two that are running

together, you have to wait there for another half-hour, " said Wesley

Flamer-Binion, a 24-year-old District native who often grows so

frustrated that he hails a cab. " I want to take public

transportation. But the buses are just not reliable. "

Since the criticism from the panel, White has asked the Metro board

for $2.8 million for additional supervisors and dispatchers next

year. But he said Metrobus needs another $7.4 million to ease

overcrowding and improve performance -- money that is not budgeted.

The agency has approved a $488 million spending plan that calls for

the purchase of nearly 900 buses in the next five years. That will

reduce the average age of buses in the fleet to 7.4 years, but 5

years is the average in top-performing systems.

Metro is replacing malfunctioning destination signs, a problem that

forces drivers to tape hand-scrawled signs to their windows. Riders

complain about hot buses in summer, cold buses in winter and leaky

buses during rain.

" It makes me angry, " said Tim Monaco of Glover Park, who counted

three of five August nights when the bus he was riding in Northwest

Washington did not have air conditioning. He began commuting with a

towel so he could wipe sweat from his face.

Until two months ago, drivers were not regularly inspecting buses

before their shifts as required by federal law, internal records

show. And even since operators started reporting safety defects,

maintenance workers have been repairing only a fraction of them. Of

498 safety defects reported by operators Oct. 12, 11 percent were

repaired, said Fred Goodine, Metro's assistant general manager for

safety.

Inefficient Management

In 2002, White declared " The Year of Metrobus " and pledged to attract

middle-class riders to pump up revenue and make the service more cost-

efficient. But Metrobus has had trouble attracting and keeping riders

who have other options.

, a 27-year-old law student who lives in Columbia

Heights, quit riding the bus three months ago when she realized she

could find parking near her classes on Capitol Hill. That ended what

she said was an " intense " commute on Metro's most crowded line, the

70 route along Georgia Avenue.

Metro managers often learn about poor service only after riders get

angry. " If we get a lot of complaints that indicate there's a problem

on a line, we'll go out and ride the line and see if there are

adjustments that can be made, " said Jim , acting general

manager for operations.

Constance Rucker gathered more than 100 signatures on a petition in

the fall demanding timely service on the T18 line that takes her

between her Prince 's County home and her downtown job. Rucker,

51, has been late to work so often because of tardy service, she

could lose her job -- an account her employer confirmed.

" We all understand about traffic, but if you post a schedule, you're

supposed to follow that schedule, " Rucker said.

Metro has added little service to overcrowded routes, saying it lacks

money. The X2 line, which runs from Minnesota Avenue SE in Anacostia

to McPherson Square via Capitol Hill and Metro Center Station,

averages 59 passengers a trip. Fares pay for most of the operating

costs of that line; the public subsidy is about 38 cents a passenger.

A regular Metrobus fare is $1.25.

Meanwhile, the agency rarely eliminates routes with low ridership

because of an institutional resistance to cutting service. The Kings

Park line between Mason University and the Pentagon Metro

station averages seven passengers a trip who pay an express fare of

$3. That means fares pay 11 percent of the cost to run the line and,

for every person boarding that line, taxpayers pitch in $10.27.

For the first time, White's proposed budget recommends that Metro cut

a handful of poor-performing routes and use the $2.4 million in

savings to add buses to the most overcrowded lines.

Technology Lapses

Metro knows how many people ride its buses each day, but the only way

it can tell how many get on and off at each stop is to

deploy " traffic checkers " to ride each route. The number of checkers -

- for all the buses and trains -- has been cut from 24 to 21,

said. With five vacancies, the number drops to 16.

But 239 buses are equipped with automated passenger counters, which

can log what times a bus arrives at stops, how many riders get on and

off, and how long the bus remains there -- all of which can help

managers develop the most efficient service and schedules.

The devices have been in use across the country for 20 years and are

becoming increasingly popular. But the counters on Metrobuses are not

in service because Metro has not bought the required $2 million

software.

In 2001, Metro received $3.5 million from the federal government to

install another device on its buses: automatic vehicle locaters.

Similar to global positioning devices, the locaters allow dispatchers

to track buses so they can send help if one breaks down or suggest

alternate routes around a traffic jam.

But the system hasn't been used because other necessary pieces -- new

radios for buses and dispatchers and a computerized scheduling

system -- have been delayed. Internal Metro reports estimate the

radio system is three years behind schedule because of technical

problems.

A third technology to improve service, used by systems from San

Francisco to Rehoboth Beach, Del., tells riders when the next bus is

due. Metro installed a real-time information system in the subway in

2001 at a cost of $11.5 million. But officials have said they

couldn't afford a similar system for bus riders.

In September, Metro decided to spend $6 million to allow riders to

find the location of Metrobuses using cell phones or the Internet or

by consulting signs at five rail stations served by bus lines:

Pentagon, Silver Spring, Friendship Heights, Anacostia and Gallery

Place-Chinatown. But at the other 12,430 Metrobus stops, those

without Internet access or a cell phone will not benefit when the

program is launched next year.

Some solutions are decidedly low tech. In Metro's surveys, non-riders

say they avoid the buses largely because of the lack of information

on routes and schedules. Although subway maps are free and seemingly

everywhere -- inside rail stations, in telephone books, even on T-

shirts -- a Metrobus map is a rare thing.

Two years ago, ridership on an Arlington County route jumped 30

percent after the county took it over. The difference was a green box

the county installed at 22 bus stops displaying the schedule and

route. " Before, there was basically nothing at the stops except a

rusty pole and a 25-year-old Metrobus sign, " Arlington County transit

coordinator Hamre said.

The Sierra Club lobbied Metro for a year until the agency agreed in

2003 put a systemwide Metrobus map on its Web site and said it would

distribute the map for free. Metro had been selling bus maps at a

$50,000 annual profit.

But when Beryl Randall of Silver Spring called Metro for the

systemwide map in May, he was launched on an odyssey. He was told to

go to a subway station, then to the Montgomery County Commuter

Express Transit Store, then to Metro headquarters. But he never found

a map.

Finally, a Metro worker said she could send him a map she found in a

desk drawer. " How do you run a transit system without letting people

know where you're traveling to? " Randall asked. " It just seems

elementary. "

Suburbs Pulling Ahead

From the beginning, the buses were an afterthought. The transit

agency, which was created to build a rail system, was forced by

Congress at the time to assume the operations of four failing private

bus companies. Metro's engineers, planners and managers were focused

on constructing a subway for the future; buses were considered a

holdover from the past.

Problems worsened in the 1980s, when several suburban counties found

it cheaper to run their own bus systems than pay for Metrobus. In the

1990s, when the District plunged into severe fiscal trouble, city

officials cut Metrobus service by 13 percent. With money dwindling,

Metro managers began deferring investments in the bus system.

Today, area communities have pulled ahead of Metrobus in innovation

and technology.

Montgomery County, Arlington County, Prince 's County and

Fairfax City are either using real-time bus information on their

systems or experimenting with it.

Using a $500,000 federal grant, Arlington is building a control

center for bus service on Columbia Pike where managers will be able

to track Metrobuses and tell Metro dispatchers how to keep them on

schedule. The county also plans to create " super stops " where waiting

passengers can monitor buses on closed-circuit televisions that will

also provide news and reports on weather and traffic.

Arlington and Fairfax counties have launched premium bus service on

Columbia Pike and Richmond Highway, paying for frequent service, new

maps and innovative devices, including technology that holds a green

traffic signal so an approaching bus can get through an intersection.

Since the upgrade on the Columbia Pike route in 2003, ridership has

increased from 9,000 to 11,500 passengers a day.

In the District, the city launched the D.C. Circulator in July, bus

service designed to run so often that schedules aren't needed, using

new buses designed for quick boarding and unloading.

And in October, the District signed a contract with Clear Channel

Adshel under which the advertising firm will build about 800 state-of-

the-art bus shelters and will pay the District more than $150 million

over 20 years to place ads there. The shelters will be equipped with

bus maps and real-time information signs and will be maintained by

the ad agency.

In contrast, Metro stopped building bus shelters in 1987, except for

a few at new rail stations.

" It's a management problem, " said Debra Atkins, a 44-year-old bus

rider who says the Metrobus she takes in Prince 's is

chronically late. " I think they push paper and chat and do what they

do. They don't go out. There are no checks and balances. . . . I'm

sure they're paid six figures, a lot of them. But I don't see them

doing their jobs. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2005/12/26/AR2005122601054_pf.html

[Guest guest]

Hi Amy.

You make some very valid points. I yearn to able able to live in a

society such as you describe, but the whole of my existence is

plagued with car users abusing the very air that I breathe.

I think I was born at the wrong time, but I certainly wouldn't miss

kids having no shoes to wear, and the diseases that we have

irradicated in modern times; it's a question of balance and we

appear to have fallen out of it. Lee makes the point of good public

transport, particularly in Japan. To me that is the answer.

I occasionally see old photos of England in circa 1902, it looks

like an uncomplicated life to me, quiet and restful.

Oh for a time machine!!!

Mike.

> > >

> > > I will second this. I live in rural MInnesota. The nearest

gas

> > station/store is 9 miles away. There is no public

> transportation.

> > You can't bike to go get groceries....(I am a single parent and

> > have a seven year old with asthma ) I also live on a very

limited

> > income and am a college student. If I lived in a city, I would

> > probably use public transportation most of the time, but out

here

> it

> > isn't even close to an option.

> >

>

>

> > Kay

> > >

> > > [Flu] Re: Climate Change and oil

> > >

> > >

> > > No true. I live in Central Cal and cannot even walk to the

> > > supermarket and not that I mind walking for exercise but

there

> > are

> > > no or intermittant sidewalks between here and there and it

is

> > just

> > > too dangerous with a stroller on the roadside. There is no

> local

> > > public tranportation except the morning ride share that

takes

> > you

> > > into town in the mornings and back in the evenings and the

> > school

> > > buses for kids...no good for us stay at home mom's who need

to

> > get

> > > around during the day with errands. Mind you I would not

> > consider my

> > > CA town rural either at 25,000 people and 4 Starbucks. Life

> > without

> > > a car would be impossible here. Even a bike would be

> > impractible. I

> > > do not want a car because I am lazy but because there are no

> > > alternatives and I think in most of America outside the

major

> > > population centers of the large cities you will find this

> > similar

> > > case.

> > >

> > > " Over here there is far too much emphasis on car ownership

> and

> > not

> > > enough finance pumped into public transport. "

> > >

> > > I 100% agree with the above statement.

> > >

> > > ...some of us need SUV's or big trucks or we would be stuck

in

> > the

> > > mud and have no place to carry our 6 kids and all their

gear.

> > How

> > > come no one ever mentions or complains about the hundreds of

> > > thousands of diesel big rigs that roar down our highways

every

> > > minute? How about improving our national supply chain

> > > infrastructure? Oh..no..that would cut into the profits of

big

> > > business and gov...let's take it out on the soccer mom's

> instead.

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Ironically, I find my car is my " time machine " that would empower

drive me far away off the paths beaten down by the fast pace of

modern civilization.

I think a good camping escape is in order his year.

Amy

> > > >

> > > > I will second this. I live in rural MInnesota. The nearest

> gas

> > > station/store is 9 miles away. There is no public

> > transportation.

> > > You can't bike to go get groceries....(I am a single parent

and

> > > have a seven year old with asthma ) I also live on a very

> limited

> > > income and am a college student. If I lived in a city, I

would

> > > probably use public transportation most of the time, but out

> here

> > it

> > > isn't even close to an option.

> > >

> >

>

>

> > > Kay

> > > >

> > > > [Flu] Re: Climate Change and oil

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > No true. I live in Central Cal and cannot even walk to the

> > > > supermarket and not that I mind walking for exercise but

> there

> > > are

> > > > no or intermittant sidewalks between here and there and it

> is

> > > just

> > > > too dangerous with a stroller on the roadside. There is no

> > local

> > > > public tranportation except the morning ride share that

> takes

> > > you

> > > > into town in the mornings and back in the evenings and the

> > > school

> > > > buses for kids...no good for us stay at home mom's who

need

> to

> > > get

> > > > around during the day with errands. Mind you I would not

> > > consider my

> > > > CA town rural either at 25,000 people and 4 Starbucks.

Life

> > > without

> > > > a car would be impossible here. Even a bike would be

> > > impractible. I

> > > > do not want a car because I am lazy but because there are

no

> > > > alternatives and I think in most of America outside the

> major

> > > > population centers of the large cities you will find this

> > > similar

> > > > case.

> > > >

> > > > " Over here there is far too much emphasis on car ownership

> > and

> > > not

> > > > enough finance pumped into public transport. "

> > > >

> > > > I 100% agree with the above statement.

> > > >

> > > > ...some of us need SUV's or big trucks or we would be

stuck

> in

> > > the

> > > > mud and have no place to carry our 6 kids and all their

> gear.

> > > How

> > > > come no one ever mentions or complains about the hundreds

of

> > > > thousands of diesel big rigs that roar down our highways

> every

> > > > minute? How about improving our national supply chain

> > > > infrastructure? Oh..no..that would cut into the profits of

> big

> > > > business and gov...let's take it out on the soccer mom's

> > instead.

> > > >

> > >

> >

>