5 ms·

> It's odd that with all the issues plaguing the US because of higher oil prices, many governments (local, state and federal) refuse to acknowledge that our bui

> It's odd that with all the issues plaguing the US because of higher oil prices, many governments (local, state and federal) refuse to acknowledge that our built environment has made us entirely dependent on oil for the foreseeable future. That’s right. During the 1973 oil crisis, the Netherlands banned private car usage on Sundays to curb oil usage: https://www.theguardian.com/world/from-the-archive-blog/2020/nov/04/netherlands-introduces-car-free-sundays-archive-1973 https://www.theguardian.com/world/from-the-archive-blog/2020... It seems there’s little appetite here for anything like that, even in places that already have excellent public transport by national standards.

ars 4y ago
A ban like that would do nothing useful anyway. Public transport might make more space on the road, but it does not save energy. Numbers: "Public transportation use saves the U.S. the equivalent of 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline annually"[1] "In 2021, about 134.83 billion gallons (or about 3.21 billion barrels)1 of finished motor gasoline were consumed in the United State"[2]. 4.2/134.83 = 3%. [1]https://www.kcata.org/about_kcata/entries/environmental_benefits_of_public_transit https://www.kcata.org/about_kcata/entries/environmental_bene... [2]https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t=10 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t=10
- aplummer 4y ago
  That’s with the current usage though right, not if we used a lot more public transportation and changed the type of it (bud -> train)
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  I’d argue 3% savings is better than nothing, and you have to keep in mind that that 3% figure is in the US we have right now where very few people use transit. If ridership grew, that number would as well. Regardless, a move like that is as much about demonstrating that alternatives are possible as it is about direct savings. The Netherlands started building excellent bike infrastructure around that time, and they’re now in a better position than we are to get by with less oil use.
  - _ea1k 4y ago
    > I’d argue 3% savings is better than nothing, and you have to keep in mind that that 3% figure is in the US we have right now where very few people use transit. I agree. In general, I'm finding that people underestimate the importance of small improvements here. I remember people saying that Russia provides 10% of the world's oil as if that were a small amount. No, its actually a pretty critical amount in terms of price volatility. But the good news it that all it takes is a few 2-3% improvements across the board to effectively negate it. It "only" requires our willingness to take those steps.
- wbsss4412 4y ago
  Public transit is single digit percentage of mode share, so the fact that it has that big of an impact actually implies that the energy savings are substantial.
sammalloy 4y ago
> During the 1973 oil crisis, the Netherlands banned private car usage on Sundays to curb oil usage…It seems there’s little appetite here for anything like that You might be surprised. I remember that California had car-free days (on Sundays, I believe) in the Bay Area in the 1970s. Perhaps someone who remembers the details can chime in. I think it had more to do with bicyclists than with oil.
peckrob 4y ago
Around that same, the US implemented the National Maximum Speed Law [0], more commonly known at the "55mph speed limit" for the same reason. It is widely regarded as one of the least popular pieces of legislation ever enacted by Congress, so hated that it even became the subject of a hard rock song [1]. It was widely ignored by motorists and police alike, with non-compliance rates as high as 85%. Some states made violations of the law basically meaningless, with the "fine" being a few dollars and no points or any other ramifications. It's also why cars over a certain age will have a big circle around the 55 on the speedometer. What's crazy is that this wildly unpopular law soldiered on, in watered down form, until 1995, at which point speed limits fully reverted to state control. And, in retrospect, because of the widespread non-compliance it is believed that it did relatively little to impact overall fuel usage. Interestingly, in Montana, there were some places that, prior to the 55 speed limit, had no speed limit. They were signed as "Reasonable and Prudent", and when the 55 speed limit was repealed, the "Reasonable and Prudent" signs went back up [2]. I have a picture of myself in front of one around that time because I was working as a park ranger in Yellowstone. This changed in 1999, and Montana now has a maximum speed. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvV3nn_de2k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvV3nn_de2k [2] https://images.roadtrafficsigns.com/img/art/Montana-speed-limit-sign-1995.jpg https://images.roadtrafficsigns.com/img/art/Montana-speed-li...
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  It helps if you can practically enforce the restriction. Easy enough to tell if someone's driving a private car when the streets are otherwise mostly empty; hard to monitor everyone's speed and reliably pull people over if they go past the limit.
- mikestew 4y ago
  Montana always had a "maximum speed", they just didn't put a number on it for periods of time. But if you thought 110mph down US 2 was reasonable and prudent (and there are plenty of sections where an argument could be made...), a MT trooper might set you straight.
nikau 4y ago
Perhaps a Sunday ban on rolling coal

ars 4y ago

A ban like that would do nothing useful anyway. Public transport might make more space on the road, but it does not save energy. Numbers: "Public transportation use saves the U.S. the equivalent of 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline annually"[1] "In 2021, about 134.83 billion gallons (or about 3.21 billion barrels)1 of finished motor gasoline were consumed in the United State"[2]. 4.2/134.83 = 3%. [1]https://www.kcata.org/about_kcata/entries/environmental_benefits_of_public_transit https://www.kcata.org/about_kcata/entries/environmental_bene... [2]https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t=10 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t=10

aplummer 4y ago
That’s with the current usage though right, not if we used a lot more public transportation and changed the type of it (bud -> train)
ryukafalz 4y ago
I’d argue 3% savings is better than nothing, and you have to keep in mind that that 3% figure is in the US we have right now where very few people use transit. If ridership grew, that number would as well. Regardless, a move like that is as much about demonstrating that alternatives are possible as it is about direct savings. The Netherlands started building excellent bike infrastructure around that time, and they’re now in a better position than we are to get by with less oil use.
- _ea1k 4y ago
  > I’d argue 3% savings is better than nothing, and you have to keep in mind that that 3% figure is in the US we have right now where very few people use transit. I agree. In general, I'm finding that people underestimate the importance of small improvements here. I remember people saying that Russia provides 10% of the world's oil as if that were a small amount. No, its actually a pretty critical amount in terms of price volatility. But the good news it that all it takes is a few 2-3% improvements across the board to effectively negate it. It "only" requires our willingness to take those steps.
wbsss4412 4y ago
Public transit is single digit percentage of mode share, so the fact that it has that big of an impact actually implies that the energy savings are substantial.

sammalloy 4y ago

> During the 1973 oil crisis, the Netherlands banned private car usage on Sundays to curb oil usage…It seems there’s little appetite here for anything like that You might be surprised. I remember that California had car-free days (on Sundays, I believe) in the Bay Area in the 1970s. Perhaps someone who remembers the details can chime in. I think it had more to do with bicyclists than with oil.

peckrob 4y ago

Around that same, the US implemented the National Maximum Speed Law [0], more commonly known at the "55mph speed limit" for the same reason. It is widely regarded as one of the least popular pieces of legislation ever enacted by Congress, so hated that it even became the subject of a hard rock song [1]. It was widely ignored by motorists and police alike, with non-compliance rates as high as 85%. Some states made violations of the law basically meaningless, with the "fine" being a few dollars and no points or any other ramifications. It's also why cars over a certain age will have a big circle around the 55 on the speedometer. What's crazy is that this wildly unpopular law soldiered on, in watered down form, until 1995, at which point speed limits fully reverted to state control. And, in retrospect, because of the widespread non-compliance it is believed that it did relatively little to impact overall fuel usage. Interestingly, in Montana, there were some places that, prior to the 55 speed limit, had no speed limit. They were signed as "Reasonable and Prudent", and when the 55 speed limit was repealed, the "Reasonable and Prudent" signs went back up [2]. I have a picture of myself in front of one around that time because I was working as a park ranger in Yellowstone. This changed in 1999, and Montana now has a maximum speed. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvV3nn_de2k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvV3nn_de2k [2] https://images.roadtrafficsigns.com/img/art/Montana-speed-limit-sign-1995.jpg https://images.roadtrafficsigns.com/img/art/Montana-speed-li...

ryukafalz 4y ago
It helps if you can practically enforce the restriction. Easy enough to tell if someone's driving a private car when the streets are otherwise mostly empty; hard to monitor everyone's speed and reliably pull people over if they go past the limit.
mikestew 4y ago
Montana always had a "maximum speed", they just didn't put a number on it for periods of time. But if you thought 110mph down US 2 was reasonable and prudent (and there are plenty of sections where an argument could be made...), a MT trooper might set you straight.

nikau 4y ago

Perhaps a Sunday ban on rolling coal