C
Chuck100
Guest
Doubtful. When gas prices almost doubled last August, didn't the TTC's ridership only increase by at most 3%? What I gather from that is that you won't see a major shift until gas hits 3 bucks a litre.
|
|
|
E
Ed007Toronto
Guest
Gas prices didn't stay high enough last year to change people. $1.50 or more permanently might make a difference.
Congestion will be another force in the future. People who live in Manhattan don't drive for this reason. The bigger the city gets the worse it will get. People will get this sooner or later especially since they aren't building any new roads in the city proper.
Congestion will be another force in the future. People who live in Manhattan don't drive for this reason. The bigger the city gets the worse it will get. People will get this sooner or later especially since they aren't building any new roads in the city proper.
S
scarberiankhatru
Guest
If gas prices rise a dollar a year for the next ten years, then people will switch...unless it's a huge jump or a steadily increasing price, people will just get used to paying it. Everyone complains, sure, but only 1 in 100 people actually do anything different.
S
SD2
Guest
Driving is a chore in many cases. It's amazing how stressed out some friends get trying to navigate the city or a highway during rush hour.
A few relatives who work downtown are actually buying condos downtown near where they work because they're so sick of driving back to Mississauga everyday.
They just want to be able to take a nice leisurely walk to work everyday.
E
EnviroTO
Guest
But if the convenience wasn't there would the luxury be enough? The convenience is there because a lot of money has been spent on streets. Off the subway line and GO line transit isn't competitive because they share the street with other vehicles and transit must move faster than regular traffic to compete because it needs to make up for time lost as stops.
An airliner is a form of transit system... you share a plane with a bunch of people you don't know on predefined routes which don't take you to your actual destination but to an airport close to your desination instead. It works because the car cannot compete in terms of travel time. If a flying-car ever gets sold to the public and is made affordable then the airlines are toast as is any hope of reducing wasteful energy consumption.
There is only one way transit can win.... lower travel times with frequent service. In order for that to be practical density needs to be sufficient along corridors to support frequent transit running in its own ROW at speeds faster than street traffic. Anything else will only get a fraction of the total travellers. The cost of gas probably doesn't switch many to transit. Once people have paid for the car, maintenance, and insurance they have invested so much the $2 gas is trivial. With TTC fare at $2.75 for the cost of a fare a regular mid-size sedan driver can get enough gas to easily which easily cover travel within the TTC service area. Transit is only cheaper when the car, insurance, and maintenance is factored in. Transit isn't cheap when compared to gas alone.
A
Antiloop33rpm
Guest
High gas prices will change peoples driving habits. If a person who only a few years ago had monthly gasoline costs of about $100/month/car finds themselves faced with $300/month/car gasoline bills (which at $2/litre is realistic) this is going to be a large enough change that many will start to look at how to alter their driving patterns. It might mean downsizing, driving less, or looking to transit or other transportation alternatives. It might mean moving closer to the city. It might mean working more to cover the cost of bills in the case where their travel habits cannot change.
One group, not mentioned, that will probably be affected moreso than other (aside from the marginally poor) are young people. Its one thing for a person making $60k a year to be able to absorb the rising cost of fuel. But for a teenager or student who is going to be lucky to make $15k/year, an extra $100 - $200 is going to affect them financially to a much greater degree. Its probably going to be within this younger segment of society where the idea of absorbing costs and dealing with it, for the sake of a car are not pursued as strongly as their parents will and instead this is the group that is going to adopt the other alternatives.
The reason more people are not going to switch to transit at the momment is simple. Transit service is totally inadequate. But if you invest in transit and make it faster, more frequent, and continue to be aware of comfort issues, than it will easily find ridership.
The 'war', if there is any war, is not against the car, its against the attitudes and follies the car has created. It's not against suburbia, it's against the excess and waste of its form. It's not about overthrowing one form of transportation for another, it's about a balance of choices.
One group, not mentioned, that will probably be affected moreso than other (aside from the marginally poor) are young people. Its one thing for a person making $60k a year to be able to absorb the rising cost of fuel. But for a teenager or student who is going to be lucky to make $15k/year, an extra $100 - $200 is going to affect them financially to a much greater degree. Its probably going to be within this younger segment of society where the idea of absorbing costs and dealing with it, for the sake of a car are not pursued as strongly as their parents will and instead this is the group that is going to adopt the other alternatives.
The reason more people are not going to switch to transit at the momment is simple. Transit service is totally inadequate. But if you invest in transit and make it faster, more frequent, and continue to be aware of comfort issues, than it will easily find ridership.
The 'war', if there is any war, is not against the car, its against the attitudes and follies the car has created. It's not against suburbia, it's against the excess and waste of its form. It's not about overthrowing one form of transportation for another, it's about a balance of choices.
O
Ontarian1976
Guest
You guys have to remember that if gas/petroleum prices rise much (and stay high), the cost of taking transit will rise as well.
T
TdotTrickyRicky
Guest
I hesitate to comment on any Wente article because basically she rehashes the same thing every month or so. Basically the concept of the "war on the car" and public transit versus the car don't engage the bigger picture issues. This issue why public transit is fundamentally important in our region is that it is one of our weaknesses and will provide a mobility solution in an increasingly congested city region where the expense, time and convenience of car travel will rise sharply. Car infrastructure already takes up approximately 50 percent of our entire habitable land area, in other words investment in this sector will provide diminishing returns in terms of mobility in the future. Wente doesn't seem to recall how little traffic there was even five years ago relative to now and her citing of present statistics are irrelevent and typical of the self-centred nature of our society today. Transit advocates confuse the issue by suggesting that transit will reduce congestion and reduce pollution. This is completely illogical. Public transit is a manditory mobility solution if we want to move more goods and people in what will become an increasingly congested and polluted city region.
B
blixa442
Guest
By Peter Coy
BusinessWeek
Can't Stop Guzzling
Rising prices are supposed to curtail consumption. So why doesn't that hold true for American drivers?
From Tallahassee to Los Angeles, experts are worried that the price of gasoline is approaching a "breaking point." Any higher, they say, and drivers will curtail their driving sharply. "I believe that another 25¢ to 50¢ increase, people would cut back on consumption," a UCLA finance professor tells the Los Angeles Daily News. "It exceeds the psychological barrier."
The date? March, 2000. The price of gasoline back then? Around $1.50 a gallon.
It's something amazing to ponder as you broil in beach traffic this weekend. Gasoline keeps getting more expensive, but Americans keep buying more of it. They bought 10% more gasoline in the first half of 2006 than in the first half of 2000 even though the price at the pump rose 75%. It isn't just essential trips, either—leisure travel remains strong. Gasoline consumption during the week of the Fourth of July holiday this summer was 2% higher than a year ago.
Why the resilience? After all, when prices of most things rise, people buy less. You would think they would react to costlier gasoline by gradually making such adjustments as carpooling, switching to more fuel-efficient vehicles, or even getting a job closer to home. To an extent, they do. Energy Dept. economists say gasoline consumption, driven by an expanding population and economy, would be even higher today if prices hadn't risen.
GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS. But there is a powerful force undermining the conservation trend: Sticker shock doesn't last forever. People are getting used to high gas prices, painful as they are, and continuing with their old ways of doing things. Some are cutting back on spending in other areas, which has chilled non-gasoline retail sales growth. But a reasonably strong economy with a 4.6% unemployment rate seems to be enabling many families to fill the tank with little strain.
"We have consumers that have a lot more disposable income and are less willing to change their driving and purchase habits to accommodate the higher price of gasoline," says John Maples, an operations research analyst for the Energy Dept.'s Energy Information Administration.
That American drivers aren't cutting back, and may not cut back drastically even if prices go higher, has huge implications for the world oil market. That's because U.S. motorists are the single biggest consumers of petroleum in the world. They use more than 9 million barrels of gasoline a day. That's roughly a third more than the consumption of all types of petroleum by every home, car, and factory in China, the nation whose energy consumption gets all the attention these days.
A MOVING TARGET. The resilience of the American motorist helps explain why oil is over $70 a barrel, or more than $50 a barrel above average production costs. Turmoil in the Mideast certainly plays a role. But the seeming immunity of both the supply and demand sides of the global petroleum market to price pressure looms large. On the supply side, oil companies are agonizingly slow to ramp up production to take advantage of the profit opportunity. On the demand side, consumption keeps growing in defiance of rising prices, and a key reason is that America's drivers are pretty near insatiable.
The ceiling on what Americans are willing to pay keeps rising: $3 seems to be the new $2. That's apparent in the monthly Maritz New Vehicle Customer Study, which asks car buyers what they think is an "expensive" price for gasoline. From early 2005 to early 2006, a period when the actual price rose 57¢ a gallon, buyers' definition of "expensive" rose by exactly the same amount—57¢—remaining about a dime above the then-current price.
Buyers' definition of an "acceptable" price went up 37¢. "That says to me that there's habituation, though not complete habituation," says David Ensing, director of research and development for the automotive research group of Fenton (Mo.)-based Maritz.
"THINGS WE NORMALLY DO." There's a myth fed by the news media that Americans are hunkering down and conserving gasoline the way families in World War II planted vegetables in Victory Gardens. More typical is Scott Parker, 36, of Manhattan, who fills up his Nissan XTerra SUV three times a week at around $50 a shot. Parker enjoys road trips on weekends. And although there is a commuter train to Norwalk, Conn., where he works as a marketing director, he prefers to drive. Says Parker: "At the end of the day, I'd rather be on my own schedule." The extra cost of gas goes onto his credit-card balances, which he plans to pay off with his end-of-year bonus. "After I fill it up I'm probably upset for a while, and it passes," he says.
The healthier the finances, the smaller the reaction to costly gasoline. Leonard Mintz, 71, of Norton, Mass., who made his money in the plastics machinery business, just finished an 800-mile trip through the Northeast in his 515-horsepower, bus-size Newell Coach recreational vehicle. Features include heated granite floors, a full-size washer and dryer in the master bathroom, and a tow for his GMC Envoy SUV. Miles per gallon: 6. Concern: zilch. Says Mintz: "We're just doing the things we normally do."
Low- and middle-income families seem to be doing most of the conserving, by necessity. "Our life has changed dramatically," says Jody Kendall, 28, an automotive technician in Mishawaka, Ind. To save gas, he leaves his 2002 Pontiac Bonneville at home and gets a ride to work from his wife, Alison, a waitress. Together they make about $50,000 a year.
Energy Dept. economists estimate that a permanent increase of 10% in the price of crude oil causes a 0.6% decrease in gasoline consumption over two years. The long-term impact is supposedly bigger because people have more time to adjust. But the actual response has been less than that. "We've hardly picked up any sensitivity," says Maples, the Energy Dept. analyst.
HOOKED ON HORSEPOWER. Habits die hard. Highway officials in Maryland and Texas, which compile data on driving speeds, say they see scant evidence of slower driving, even though according to the Energy Dept. every 5 mph you drive above 60 mph is equivalent to paying an extra 20¢ a gallon for gas. Laughs Dinah Martinez, spokeswoman for Houston TranStar, a consortium of transportation agencies: "This is Texas. If we have traffic slowdowns, it's not because they want to. It's because there's a wreck."
Americans aren't ready to end their love affair with cars that go vroom-vroom. Sure, sales of large and luxury SUVs fell 15% in the first half from a year earlier, while sales of compacts rose 8%, according to Edmunds.com. But vehicles of all sizes are getting bigger engines, so there has been no improvement in overall fuel efficiency. On July 17, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that model 2006 cars and light trucks are the fastest and heaviest since 1975. Their average real-world fuel economy is 21 miles per gallon, lower than the 22.1 mpg average of 1987-88, nearly 20 years ago. So much for the idea that energy independence is America's "moral equivalent of war."
If oil shoots to $100 a barrel, consumption could drop noticeably, as it did after Hurricane Katrina last year, when prices rose 46¢ in one week. But if history is any guide, even gas of $4 or $5 a gallon might not force dramatic, lasting changes in American consumption patterns. That breaking point we've been looking for? Maybe there isn't one.
BusinessWeek
Can't Stop Guzzling
Rising prices are supposed to curtail consumption. So why doesn't that hold true for American drivers?
From Tallahassee to Los Angeles, experts are worried that the price of gasoline is approaching a "breaking point." Any higher, they say, and drivers will curtail their driving sharply. "I believe that another 25¢ to 50¢ increase, people would cut back on consumption," a UCLA finance professor tells the Los Angeles Daily News. "It exceeds the psychological barrier."
The date? March, 2000. The price of gasoline back then? Around $1.50 a gallon.
It's something amazing to ponder as you broil in beach traffic this weekend. Gasoline keeps getting more expensive, but Americans keep buying more of it. They bought 10% more gasoline in the first half of 2006 than in the first half of 2000 even though the price at the pump rose 75%. It isn't just essential trips, either—leisure travel remains strong. Gasoline consumption during the week of the Fourth of July holiday this summer was 2% higher than a year ago.
Why the resilience? After all, when prices of most things rise, people buy less. You would think they would react to costlier gasoline by gradually making such adjustments as carpooling, switching to more fuel-efficient vehicles, or even getting a job closer to home. To an extent, they do. Energy Dept. economists say gasoline consumption, driven by an expanding population and economy, would be even higher today if prices hadn't risen.
GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS. But there is a powerful force undermining the conservation trend: Sticker shock doesn't last forever. People are getting used to high gas prices, painful as they are, and continuing with their old ways of doing things. Some are cutting back on spending in other areas, which has chilled non-gasoline retail sales growth. But a reasonably strong economy with a 4.6% unemployment rate seems to be enabling many families to fill the tank with little strain.
"We have consumers that have a lot more disposable income and are less willing to change their driving and purchase habits to accommodate the higher price of gasoline," says John Maples, an operations research analyst for the Energy Dept.'s Energy Information Administration.
That American drivers aren't cutting back, and may not cut back drastically even if prices go higher, has huge implications for the world oil market. That's because U.S. motorists are the single biggest consumers of petroleum in the world. They use more than 9 million barrels of gasoline a day. That's roughly a third more than the consumption of all types of petroleum by every home, car, and factory in China, the nation whose energy consumption gets all the attention these days.
A MOVING TARGET. The resilience of the American motorist helps explain why oil is over $70 a barrel, or more than $50 a barrel above average production costs. Turmoil in the Mideast certainly plays a role. But the seeming immunity of both the supply and demand sides of the global petroleum market to price pressure looms large. On the supply side, oil companies are agonizingly slow to ramp up production to take advantage of the profit opportunity. On the demand side, consumption keeps growing in defiance of rising prices, and a key reason is that America's drivers are pretty near insatiable.
The ceiling on what Americans are willing to pay keeps rising: $3 seems to be the new $2. That's apparent in the monthly Maritz New Vehicle Customer Study, which asks car buyers what they think is an "expensive" price for gasoline. From early 2005 to early 2006, a period when the actual price rose 57¢ a gallon, buyers' definition of "expensive" rose by exactly the same amount—57¢—remaining about a dime above the then-current price.
Buyers' definition of an "acceptable" price went up 37¢. "That says to me that there's habituation, though not complete habituation," says David Ensing, director of research and development for the automotive research group of Fenton (Mo.)-based Maritz.
"THINGS WE NORMALLY DO." There's a myth fed by the news media that Americans are hunkering down and conserving gasoline the way families in World War II planted vegetables in Victory Gardens. More typical is Scott Parker, 36, of Manhattan, who fills up his Nissan XTerra SUV three times a week at around $50 a shot. Parker enjoys road trips on weekends. And although there is a commuter train to Norwalk, Conn., where he works as a marketing director, he prefers to drive. Says Parker: "At the end of the day, I'd rather be on my own schedule." The extra cost of gas goes onto his credit-card balances, which he plans to pay off with his end-of-year bonus. "After I fill it up I'm probably upset for a while, and it passes," he says.
The healthier the finances, the smaller the reaction to costly gasoline. Leonard Mintz, 71, of Norton, Mass., who made his money in the plastics machinery business, just finished an 800-mile trip through the Northeast in his 515-horsepower, bus-size Newell Coach recreational vehicle. Features include heated granite floors, a full-size washer and dryer in the master bathroom, and a tow for his GMC Envoy SUV. Miles per gallon: 6. Concern: zilch. Says Mintz: "We're just doing the things we normally do."
Low- and middle-income families seem to be doing most of the conserving, by necessity. "Our life has changed dramatically," says Jody Kendall, 28, an automotive technician in Mishawaka, Ind. To save gas, he leaves his 2002 Pontiac Bonneville at home and gets a ride to work from his wife, Alison, a waitress. Together they make about $50,000 a year.
Energy Dept. economists estimate that a permanent increase of 10% in the price of crude oil causes a 0.6% decrease in gasoline consumption over two years. The long-term impact is supposedly bigger because people have more time to adjust. But the actual response has been less than that. "We've hardly picked up any sensitivity," says Maples, the Energy Dept. analyst.
HOOKED ON HORSEPOWER. Habits die hard. Highway officials in Maryland and Texas, which compile data on driving speeds, say they see scant evidence of slower driving, even though according to the Energy Dept. every 5 mph you drive above 60 mph is equivalent to paying an extra 20¢ a gallon for gas. Laughs Dinah Martinez, spokeswoman for Houston TranStar, a consortium of transportation agencies: "This is Texas. If we have traffic slowdowns, it's not because they want to. It's because there's a wreck."
Americans aren't ready to end their love affair with cars that go vroom-vroom. Sure, sales of large and luxury SUVs fell 15% in the first half from a year earlier, while sales of compacts rose 8%, according to Edmunds.com. But vehicles of all sizes are getting bigger engines, so there has been no improvement in overall fuel efficiency. On July 17, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that model 2006 cars and light trucks are the fastest and heaviest since 1975. Their average real-world fuel economy is 21 miles per gallon, lower than the 22.1 mpg average of 1987-88, nearly 20 years ago. So much for the idea that energy independence is America's "moral equivalent of war."
If oil shoots to $100 a barrel, consumption could drop noticeably, as it did after Hurricane Katrina last year, when prices rose 46¢ in one week. But if history is any guide, even gas of $4 or $5 a gallon might not force dramatic, lasting changes in American consumption patterns. That breaking point we've been looking for? Maybe there isn't one.
J
JoeyCuppa
Guest
Some Letters to the Globe about Wente's article:
Kicking the car habit
DEBORAH PERCY
Toronto -- After years of car dependency, I skeptically decided to experiment with public transit. My experience has been very different from that of Margaret Wente (The War Against The Car Will Never Succeed -- July 22).
Cycling to the subway results in trips taking less, rather than more, time. Hopping on and off the TTC to do errands gives me a freedom that I never had with the car. I no longer worry about parking, parking tickets, traffic and irritating and increasingly dangerous drivers.
The few moments to myself allows me to read a quick New Yorker piece or finish a chapter in a novel, things that I'm too busy to do at home. The added exercise, including standing from time to time on a swaying streetcar, eliminates the need for any fitness classes. Oh, and there's that environment thing, too.
The war against cars will never succeed? Never say "never."
--------------------
Ode to autos
ERIC VELLEND
Toronto -- Re The War Against The Car Will Never Succeed (July 22): In her ode to the car, Margaret Wente is being incredibly shortsighted when she thinks used cars are an "alternative" form of transportation for "lower-income people." She's forgetting that used cars require the same expensive insurance, gas and parking as new ones. Many Torontonians simply can't afford to own an automobile, new or used, and public transit is their only way of getting around.
Perched up high in her SUV, Ms. Wente can't see the rest of us waiting at the bus stop.
Kicking the car habit
DEBORAH PERCY
Toronto -- After years of car dependency, I skeptically decided to experiment with public transit. My experience has been very different from that of Margaret Wente (The War Against The Car Will Never Succeed -- July 22).
Cycling to the subway results in trips taking less, rather than more, time. Hopping on and off the TTC to do errands gives me a freedom that I never had with the car. I no longer worry about parking, parking tickets, traffic and irritating and increasingly dangerous drivers.
The few moments to myself allows me to read a quick New Yorker piece or finish a chapter in a novel, things that I'm too busy to do at home. The added exercise, including standing from time to time on a swaying streetcar, eliminates the need for any fitness classes. Oh, and there's that environment thing, too.
The war against cars will never succeed? Never say "never."
--------------------
Ode to autos
ERIC VELLEND
Toronto -- Re The War Against The Car Will Never Succeed (July 22): In her ode to the car, Margaret Wente is being incredibly shortsighted when she thinks used cars are an "alternative" form of transportation for "lower-income people." She's forgetting that used cars require the same expensive insurance, gas and parking as new ones. Many Torontonians simply can't afford to own an automobile, new or used, and public transit is their only way of getting around.
Perched up high in her SUV, Ms. Wente can't see the rest of us waiting at the bus stop.
C
Chuck100
Guest
Monthly fixed costs which might include any combination of insurance, financing, lease, license renewal, parking, gas at $1.00 per litre, and maintenance, probably average out to at least $750 per month bare minimum for an average person. If the price of gas doubles, it may add $150 a month to the operating cost. So if gas increases in price by 100%, a typical driver will only see their monthly costs increase by 20%. Most people would just say meh, and continue to enjoy climate control, music, and their own private door to door limousine.
A
Antiloop33rpm
Guest
Which they waste anywhere from 2 - 3 hours a day in simply commuting too and from work. Commuting can be a drag as it is, but I find commuting in a car too be the worse form. I prefer biking or walking because its healthy and a good start to the day. If thats not possible, transit can be ok too since at least you can read or not have to worry about driving.
The notion that travelling by car is the end all, be all of travel is less about reality and more about indoctrination. Yes cars are useful and do have benefits. But wasting several hours each day stuck in congestion while limited to driving and perhaps talking on cell phone? I wouldn't classify that as luxury. I have no doubt that many people will drive until their very last breath and that some, like Wente, will justify their excessive SUVs and thirst for oil by any means possible. But if more people had access to better and more efficient transit, and given that while a 20% increase in owning a car might not matter to everyone, it is going to affect a fairly sizeable number of people (primarily the young, seniors and pensioners, and those in the lower socio-economic ranks).
Never underestimate the power of propoghanda and there are few industries that can match the auto industry in this regards.
S
scarberiankhatru
Guest
"Which they waste anywhere from 2 - 3 hours a day in simply commuting too and from work."
Honestly, who spends 3 hours a day commuting by car? I could get to Trenton or Kitchener and back in less time.
"Commuting can be a drag as it is, but I find commuting in a car too be the worse form."
You wouldn't say that if you had to commute 15, 20, 30 or more km each way. No one prefers taking transit anywhere other than downtown.
Honestly, who spends 3 hours a day commuting by car? I could get to Trenton or Kitchener and back in less time.
"Commuting can be a drag as it is, but I find commuting in a car too be the worse form."
You wouldn't say that if you had to commute 15, 20, 30 or more km each way. No one prefers taking transit anywhere other than downtown.
C
cdl42
Guest
"their own private door to door limousine"
Who is this with their own private limousine? 'Cause they'd be silly not to make use of it. Is the chauffeur included?
Comparing the average private auto to a personal limo is just kinda... disturbing. To me anyway. Like those people who use a drive-thru, find a parking spot, and eat alone in their car.
Who is this with their own private limousine? 'Cause they'd be silly not to make use of it. Is the chauffeur included?
Comparing the average private auto to a personal limo is just kinda... disturbing. To me anyway. Like those people who use a drive-thru, find a parking spot, and eat alone in their car.
A
Antiloop33rpm
Guest
Your right. I despise commuting. That's why I live and work in an area where I can walk or bike to work. That's why I refuse to work in the suburbs. And it will only be because the only other alternative is homelessness that I will subject myself to 30km, hour long commutes (by bus, subway, or train). I have dealt with commuting before and maybe some people will put up with it for a cheaper, bigger home or whatever else they gain from it. But personally, I can think of far better things to do with my time and money.