US roadways will look like Europe soon...

Rob, I really enjoyed your post by the way. Thanks for sharing that.

 

When vacationing in Denmark last year, I had the opportunity to take a walk along a quiet dirt road that flanks farmed grain fields out in the country where my mom lives. It's wonderfully quiet. At one place near this dirt road, a train track runs parallel to the dirt road, maybe 5-8 meters (15-25 feet or so) from the dirt road. The track is used for everything from high-speed commuter trains to trains carrying freight.

One evening while out walking, a high-speed commuter train whizzed by... yep, just whizzed. It was evident that a train was on its way because the tracks began to 'sing'. Soon I saw it on the horizon. I waved to the conductor as the train sped by very fast... maybe 80-100mph. What struck me was how quiet the train was. I mean, I stood on the dirt road very nearby. There was no vibration in the ground. And with a 'WHOOOOSH', the train passed and was gone. No engine noise. No clackity-clack noise. Just 'WHOOOOSH'.

My mom's house is maybe 1/2 to 3/4 km from the track, in plain sight over the flat fields, and if you listen, you can hear the trains going by all day. But if you don't pay attention, you don't really hear them because they are so quiet.

Here in Davis, I live about 1/2 mile from the tracks, too. We don't have speeding commuter train coming through, mostly it's freight trains going from Davis to Woodland at residential speeds. When the train comes through, everyone knows it... clackity-clackity-clack... And when they start up, there's the chain reaction 'BANG' as each car's connection connects with the next... BANG - BANG - BANG- BANG... for as many cars as there are. Then the engine revs up... And if you're near the track, the ground will vibrate.

The point (sorry so long) is that I agree with you... if we built things to last in the first place, took care of our infrastructure, and didn't just slap things together to be able to call the job 'done', we'd be far better off in many ways, including economically.

 

What a load of crap, when I was a kid, i was number 5 of 8 kids and we all got around in a station wagon (it was a panelvan but you won't know what that is so we will call it a station wagon as that was the size of it). How can anyone say they can't fit 2 adults and 3 kids in a Prius?
I'll add, I think people mover type vans are fine, they are at least primarily designed to move people. It's the USAs facination with pickup truck I don't get. These are not designed to carry people and don't need to meet the same safety standards.

 

quit making excuses for them. you know as well as i do that MOST drive SUV's needlessly and ALONE... an occasional exception is not a blanket reason to attack his post based on the FEW people whose situation applies to your scenarios.

 

no need to apologise. you did nothing or said nothing wrong.

you took a REAL scenario...what you actuallly observed one day...provided stats. that is all..

you were attacked by people who provided no facts, only presumptions based on NOTHING but their own personal prejudices.

in an effort to illustrate the point of your post, i spent the better part of a day gathering facts about people i know. co-workers, friends, etc... getting their driving habits, transportation needs, etc...
(there is one good thing about all this, a friend of mine who works where i do and lives a few blocks from me who has different shift has decided to commute by bike during the good weather season. all this was brought on by my asking him questions, then he started asking about my Zenn, etc... well, he cant afford a Zenn...we get paid very poorly at my job!!...so he has decided to bike it. its only 6.8 miles one way...40 minutes...i do it once a year for bike to work day)

now i realize that observing people during a frozen moment in time only brings up assumptions. so seeing 20 people driving SUV's alone can mean very little. but i be willing to bet that a certain percentage are driving it for pretty stupid reasons.

***i know people who drive SUV's because they like sitting high up and feel its "safer"

***who want to drive a vehicle that is heavier so they survive accidents better

***or they need a 6 or 7 passenger vehicle to haul their 2 kids around.

well...all pretty lame excuses to me... but that is just me.

 

Hmm, I'm rethinking my desire to buy a Prius. I don't want to become elitist.

 

+1 (Land Rover Discovery, Subaru WRX)

Thx.

I wouldn't take any of it too seriously. Go to any internet forum on any car/make and the people will tell you that their car is the best and anyone who buys anything else is an idiot. Try hanging out on NASIOC some time, it makes this forum look like CSPAN.

Rob

 

I guess its just that the Prius carries along with it social, economical, and environmental discussions. I currently own an Explorer and am considering a Prius to help save me some money. I drive my Explorer 99% of the time with just me and not hauling anything. That's my personal choice, and if anybody looks down upon me because of that, I guess its their problem and not mine. Its my choice and I have to deal with the economic reasons of making it. Nobody's life is adversely affected by that choice but mine.

 

Thanks Dave, I appreciate your interest in my post. It means a lot to me. I'm afraid that some of the others just misunderstood. I think that when someone says " I don't want a Prius now, because that would make me elitist" is just as bad. or someone saying that "most Prius drivers have replaced smog with smug." I just think that is as judgemental as the rest, even though that person is judging himself? or maybe saying most "others" are? I do not know I just don't like it. I do admit some of my study was subjective instead of objective. I just think that in many situations numbers do not lie. (didn't mean for it to become a big thing.)

 

European road standards are significantly more stringent than those in the US, and have been since roads we first build for automobiles. There is; however, a very simple reason for that. There are far fewer roads in Europe than the US. In fact, quite a number of US states have more paved road mileage than all of the countries in Europe combined. It is, and always has been, an issue of cost in the US, and part of the reason why our fuel has always been much cheaper is that the tax portion on every gallon is far less than anywhere in Europe. The bottom line is you get what you pay for and if you are going to cover the country with roadways from sea to shining sea you can't build them to last 50-years without increasing the level of taxation by an order of magnitude. The federal tax on fuel is only 18.4 cents per gallon which funds the federal share of all highway and transit construction in the US. State taxes are typically more than this, but even in California the total is only around 65 cents (state + federal). Are you willing to pay much more for better roads? Keep in mind that as the fuel economy increases the revenue from fuel taxes decreases so you might want to keep your expectations in check.

What would make a difference with our roads as currently constructed would be lowering the loads carried by tractor-trailer combinations and reducing the necessary tire pressure of those rigs. Automobiles, even SUVs, do little or no damage or create any wear on our roadway's surface courses and bridge decks (just keep in mind that the higher the tire pressure the greater the surface course or deck damage so watch comparing our Prii with SUVs, it is an argument where you can end up with egg on your face). A long term shift of moving trailers using the railroads will help in terms of both overall energy efficiency and roadway preservation but keep in mind that rail expansion is subject to environmental regulation and difficult if not impossible in the urban areas where it is most needed. There are competing interests and it is truly impossible to serve them all.

 

So true. I have three grandchildren, a daughter and her husband living with us now. I had to buy an old van that gets ony about 20 miles/gal. But for you (and me when I have more than four other people that need to travel), passenger miles/gal is more relevant than miles/gal. The problem I have with large vehicles is when they have one or two people in them. And as I'm sure others of you may note, improving the efficiency of a large vehicle will do more to save fuel (on a per vehicle basis) than the same increase in efficiency of a small vehicle.

Dave M.

 

This is quite misleading. It is dangerous to be in a crash in any car or truck. Size isn't always the determining factor. If you drive defensively, wear your seatbelts, and have a safe car with airbags, etc, you are in pretty good shape with a car like a Prius. I'm not talking about being in a classic VW Beetle or econobox without some of the best safety features on the road, of course.

Certainly, you can be terribly injured in any car in a high speed crash, but I'd rather be in a Prius than most SUV's in most crashes. The risk of rolling over in an SUV even in crash avoidance maneuvers is pretty scary. I'd rather crash in my Prius than in my old '95 Isuzu Trooper any day.

 

I think the semi-truck danger is greater. Esp. with the new NAFTA drivers. The SUVs can be gone, but it's not like they are forcing smaller semis, with bumpers that match cars. So, it won't matter.

 

Bob,
The U.S. may indeed be paved over with much more asphalt and concrete than Europe, though I'd be interested to see the statistics... I think it's important to remember a couple of things when making the comparison.

First, Europe is a place that has hundreds of years of history. Towns have been around for centuries, not decades, and as such, there are little roads connecting all the various towns that used to be old farm roads that ran between various farmer properties. As such, it's possible to take 3-4 different routes to get from one town to another, all of which don't involve driving in a straight line.

You see some of that type of 'road design' on the east coast for the same reason ( because roadways span back to the days of horse and carriage, little dirt roads between farms that eventually got paved over), but generally speaking, on the west coast, towns are definitely created and spaced with the automobile in mind. Many towns are connected by straight line roads, and there is most often a clear one-way that is the best way to get from point A to point B.

But let's assume for the moment you are right... One of the reasons that could be is of course because of the mindset of Europeans vs. Americans. Americans always want to be independent and completely in control of their destiny. Cars are status symbols,and the more and better cars you have, the better your status is. In Europe, cars are largely viewed as transportation as any other transportation. Yes, cars are clogging up the freeways more and more in recent years as Europeans wake up to the 'American way' and want to have control of where they go and when, but it is still possible to live in Europe without a car because of the excellent and available mass transit systems, both buses and trains. And so people have a choice with how they want to travel, not always limited to their car.

Another reason why it's plausible that there are fewer roads in Europe is because towns are built intelligently/green.... It didn't take 'global warming' or 'climate change' for people to realize that having your grocery store, baker, bank and other sundry shopping within walking and biking distance was really smart, and enabled people to leave the car home when all they needed was to go pick up a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk.

Also, as we tally up the square miles of roads in the U.S. vs. Europe, let's also remember to tally up sidewalks and bikepaths. I'll only speak about the country with which I'm familiar (Denmark), but it is possible to ride your bicycle from one end of the country to the other, over bridges if necessary, on a bicycle. And for the most part, bicycles don't have to compete with pedestrians because each have their very own 'lane' of travel, which further improves the experience of relying on your own human power for transportation.

If we had those same mindsets here, investing in our infrastructure of mass transit, sidewalks, bike lanes, and walking-distance shooping, we would succeed in getting a large number of those big heavy SUV's off the road, and even with current 'quality' of roads, they would last longer.

 

False.

Your choice of gas hog for personal transportation affects the rest of the world in many ways:
1. Higher smog emissions
2. Higher danger to other drivers
3. Higher cost of gas (since you are using a greater share of a known-limited commodity)
4. Less disposible income to spend at local merchants
5. More money going to hostile regimes

You're correct that it's your choice to drive the Explorer. You're incorrect when you state that "Nobody's life is adversely affected by that choice but mine."

(And it doesn't have to be a Prius; I understand that they're in high demand and limited supply at the moment. But a Yaris, Fit, or Versa would provide most of the benefits as well.)

 

no problem... The Prius, just like any other car on the road is not for everyone. hope you are happy with whatever you decide...

you might want to put less emphasis on what others may think of you and more on what really makes you happy

PS... i do look down on you for your personal choices and i really hope that bothers you

 

That's not true.

1. If I never drive my Explorer again will you notice? What about population expansion. There are brand new drivers on the road every single day. The entire country has to move to Hydrogen fuel cells or something before we will make any headway.
2. Then I don't want to drive on the road with Semi-Trucks. SUV's do not create a danger, its bad drivers. Guns do not kill people, people kill people.
3. I am paying for the higher cost. We all know that Gas Prices are artificially inflated by speculators and our reliance on Foreign oil. Oil is not a limited commodity. We have enough to last us for decades. What's limited is the fact that we can't drill or open new refineries. Is that a long term solution no, but it helps. I want to reduce our foreign independance. Will driving a fuel efficient vehicle change that, not really. Not until we explore our own resources.
4. Wow. Really? I can't even answer this with a serious remark.
5. Yes, but thats never going to change unless we change our drilling habits. Other countries do it without problems. Look at the examples cited with Sweden and Norway (FOXNews.com - Who's Looking Out for You: Republicans or Democrats? - Bill O’Reilly | The O’Reilly Factor)

Don't get me wrong, I like the Prius, and want one. But with the insurance cost of it, and the fact that I can't find one its going to be a little while.

 

It really depends on how far that "Gas Hog" is driven.

My son around the first of year bought a 2008 F150 super crew 5.8L V8, yep it gets maybe 10 mpg city.. 15 mpg highway. But the kicker is his fuel bill is <$100 / month.. He lives in a downtown high-rise only a few blocks from his office. Through out the week he and his friends walk or take a cab to dinner or entertainment. Once or twice a month he likes to hunt and fish, that's where the truck comes in. It really repulses him to see 80% of his co-workers commuting >20 miles per day, some arriving late and all stressed out because of traffic.

I think commuters are the biggest problem.. >10 miles per day.
It doesn't matter whether your car gets 60 mpg.. if you are driving 5x further than necessary.
Commuters are the PIGS, they want everyone else to conserve so they can afford to live in the wilderness.

1. They have high fuel budget
2. They contribute to traffic for longer periods. (commute time)
3. Road rage.. stuck in traffic for hours.
4. They have less disposal income.. more wear and tear on car and maintenance cost.
5. Less productive at work and more problems at home. They are usually late, take longer to settle down from stress of driving.
6. More money going into hostile regimes.

just my 2 cents.

 

I'm really not sure of what your point is. Europeans were not thinking green in the 1200s or 1300s when people lived within walking distance of the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker. They lived there since walking was the only way to get there. Even in the older eastern US cities horseback was an alternative to walking.

Cities are laid out on the basis of geography and the modes of transportation available at the time. Intercity transportation was driven by the modes available when commerce demanded their development. In Europe, intercity freight shipments were necessary long before the large capacity trucks available since WWII, therefore rail transportation developed early, and because of the limited distances (Denmark is only as wide as Pennsylvania, one of our smaller states), it was possible to construct a rail network to supplement the rivers among the long established cities with relative ease, and under the various oligarchies that existed, relatively inexpensively.

Because of the narrow streets within the cities resulting from being based on simple hores and wagon combinations, distribution vehicles in Europe must be shorter wheelbase vehicles than in most US cities therefore the demand for the large over the road 80K pound plus vehicles that we have in the US never developed. Likewise, these smaller vehicles and their more limited capacity has limited the development of the kinds of Wal Mart or Super Target large scale store that we have here in abundance. As a result, European design vehicles are lighter and run on lower pressure tires, which are the two primary elements in roadway design. Tire pressure is the key element in the design of pavement surfaces (the concrete or asphaltic wearing course or layer) and the total weight of the vehicle determines the required bearing capacity of the subgrade, the soil layer underneath the pavement. European vehicles do not have maximum tire pressures or overall weights that compare with the over the road, long distance trucks in the US. This drives the thickness (and cost) of the pavement sections in the US. Coupled with the vastly greater lane miles of roadway, the issue is and always has been cost. My main point is that SUVs don't damage roadways any more than my Prius (even at 8,000 pounds versus the Prius at about 3,000, even a minimal surface course is able to protect the subgrade). And many, such as my wife's Highlander that runs 30 psi in all tires has less adverse effect on the pavement surface course than my Prius at 42 and 40 psi. although neither has anywhere near the effect of trucks that run between 80 and 120 psi.

Assuming that we see SUVs replaced with Prii, we will see no difference in the effect on roadways so long as the large long distance and distribution trucks continue to exist. Given the need to distribute goods with our current geographic character, that is unlikely to change regardless of how those vehicles are powered, there is little liklihood that we will see improved service life on our roadways.

So, I guess I don't understand how Denmark having bike paths from border to border has anything at all to do with road design or the difference between the quality of the roadway surfaces observed in Europe versus the US. Further, knowing how transportation systems developed, I can only roll my eyes at statements about living next to the butcher, baker and candlestick maker being "smart" when you understand that when those cities were developed there was no other option.

Perhaps the prescriptions for medical weed in California are just to easy to get.