Saving fuel? BAH!

[CDeb]

Since the last fuel cost thread got shut down, this was a good opportunity to start another, IMHO:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/5774503.html

May 12, 2008, 11:46PM

What's worth more than gas? Time, apparently

Driving slower saves fuel, but you wouldn't know it on Houston freeways

By RAD SALLEE and ROSANNA RUIZ

Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

If drivers are slowing down to save money in response to soaring gasoline prices, the evidence was hard to find on the road last week in Houston.

Despite the fact that fuel efficiency for most automobiles drops sharply at speeds above 60 mph, a two-day visual survey showed sports cars, luxury cars, clunkers, motorcycles — even a school bus — motoring along at speeds that were neither economical nor environmentally friendly.

Some Houstonians whose vehicles are tools of their trade said they cannot afford to slow down much. Pumping fuel into his van on Friday, flower delivery driver Kenneth Williams said he has to fill up every other day.

As he spoke, the pump at the Washington Avenue gas station finally stopped at $87.01.

"I can't slow down," Williams said. "I gotta do my job."

Martin Simon said he had not considered driving slower and probably wouldn't, even if the price of gasoline rises.

"You have to get where you're going," he said.

[MidtownCoog]

There are exceptions.

I have a V8 that gets 25 mpg going 70 on cruise control.

Then again my wife's SUV gets 14.9 mpg no matter how you drive it.

[CDeb]

I have a V8 that gets 25 mpg going 70 on cruise control.

What does it get going 55-60 mph?

[BrickStamp]

I like having an excuse to slow down. I was chilling out on Sunday afternoon, driving home from IAH at about 65. Not in a hurry, trying to economize on fuel a little. Everyone was shooting past me. It's kind of zen-like, albeit in a somewhat life-threatening way, to drive a little slower on the freeway.

[MidtownCoog]

I have no idea ;-0

[Vertigo58]

Jay Leno said that this year the perfect gift for "Mother's Day" would be

a gallon of gasoline!

[Original Timmy Chan's]

I have altered my own personal driving habits to save $$$ on gasoline. I have slowed down from my old standard of 85 mph on Houston freeways to sitting on 75 mph. That is unless I need to go 80 mph for some reason. But other than that, I don't go over 75 mph anymore.

I now get passed more often than I used to.

[marmer]

I've slowed down to 65 from 75. It makes a surprisingly big difference -- probably 15 to 20% improvement in mileage for my car.

I think I got the idea from sevfiv's original post.

However, it does make driving in traffic a little harder if most people are driving faster than you.

[lockmat]

I've slowed down to 65 from 75. It makes a surprisingly big difference -- probably 15 to 20% improvement in mileage for my car.

I think I got the idea from sevfiv's original post.

However, it does make driving in traffic a little harder if most people are driving faster than you.

I'm now driving between 55-60 and see a good difference. I just stay in the slow lane and usually I've got some company. I've been annoyed by some people who want to go 70-75 in the slow lane. Doesn't make much sense to me.

[RedScare]

Just an update from my previous posts on driving 62 mph to save some gas. Originally, my mpg jumped from 16-5 to 19.7 mpg on the first tank. Since then, the next 2 tanks came in around 19 mpg (a little more city driving). Also, since morning rush hour at 6:30 am seemed to be getting worse, I have started taking the Hardy Toll Road to see if that affects things. Going for another fillup this afternoon.

Funny thing about those who claim that they do not have "time" to slow down. My commute is 41 miles. At 70 mph, it would take 35.14 minutes. At 62 mph, it takes 39.67 minutes. That's 4.53 minutes longer. I save 1 gallon of gas per day driving 62 mph. At $3.50 per gallon, and 9.06 minutes saved, it equates to $23.20 per hour savings.

[houstonmacbro]

I like having an excuse to slow down. I was chilling out on Sunday afternoon, driving home from IAH at about 65. Not in a hurry, trying to economize on fuel a little. Everyone was shooting past me. It's kind of zen-like, albeit in a somewhat life-threatening way, to drive a little slower on the freeway.

60mph on the North Freeway is a test of nerves. I do it all the time, but it leaves me disturbed.

[RedScare]

Kinda, but I noticed some interesting things there, too (you have all kinds of time to notice things at 60 mph). Inside the loop, most drivers are in the 60 mph range, due to congestion, and switching lanes to take the 610 exit. Very few are driving 70 or more. Once outside the loop, it stays in the 60 mph range until you get close to Beltway 8, where the freeway gets wider and straighter, and speeds start increasing. Still, many drivers are in the 65 mph range. Once you cross FM 1960, the road races begin. Speeds average 70 mph or more, with many drivers hitting 80. It is hard to keep to 62 mph unless you have cruise control, as the speeding drivers make you subconsciously try to drive faster.

I always leave the left 2 lanes open, so that the fast drivers have plenty of room. By driving that way, I rarely have anyone riding my ass. However, in the mornings, there is much more bumper riding, and the entire body of drivers is much faster.

[lockmat]

Kinda, but I noticed some interesting things there, too (you have all kinds of time to notice things at 60 mph). Inside the loop, most drivers are in the 60 mph range, due to congestion, and switching lanes to take the 610 exit. Very few are driving 70 or more. Once outside the loop, it stays in the 60 mph range until you get close to Beltway 8, where the freeway gets wider and straighter, and speeds start increasing. Still, many drivers are in the 65 mph range. Once you cross FM 1960, the road races begin. Speeds average 70 mph or more, with many drivers hitting 80. It is hard to keep to 62 mph unless you have cruise control, as the speeding drivers make you subconsciously try to drive faster.

I always leave the left 2 lanes open, so that the fast drivers have plenty of room. By driving that way, I rarely have anyone riding my ass. However, in the mornings, there is much more bumper riding, and the entire body of drivers is much faster.

Yep, that's pretty much right on.

And it's funny how morning and afternoon rush hours are different.

[Standeck]

The only truly non-renewable resource is time! Still, money is not unlimited either, so I've slowed down to 75mph on the freeways which is where my small sports car gets about 37mpg.

[houstonmacbro]

Kinda, but I noticed some interesting things there, too (you have all kinds of time to notice things at 60 mph). Inside the loop, most drivers are in the 60 mph range, due to congestion, and switching lanes to take the 610 exit. Very few are driving 70 or more. Once outside the loop, it stays in the 60 mph range until you get close to Beltway 8, where the freeway gets wider and straighter, and speeds start increasing. Still, many drivers are in the 65 mph range. Once you cross FM 1960, the road races begin. Speeds average 70 mph or more, with many drivers hitting 80. It is hard to keep to 62 mph unless you have cruise control, as the speeding drivers make you subconsciously try to drive faster.

I always leave the left 2 lanes open, so that the fast drivers have plenty of room. By driving that way, I rarely have anyone riding my ass. However, in the mornings, there is much more bumper riding, and the entire body of drivers is much faster.

I do drive with the cruise control on.

[RedScare]

I filled up this evening. Came in at dead-on 19 mpg again. My last 4 tanks of gas have averaged 19. So, the changes add up to a 15% increase in mileage. Or, to look at it another way, $3.60 gasoline at 70 mph is costing me $3.06 at 62 mph.

[editor]

I filled up this evening. Came in at dead-on 19 mpg again. My last 4 tanks of gas have averaged 19. So, the changes add up to a 15% increase in mileage. Or, to look at it another way, $3.60 gasoline at 70 mph is costing me $3.06 at 62 mph.

What is it that you're driving? It may have been mentioned in the previous thread, but I don't see it above.

Worst gas mileage I've seen was my friend's 1970 Cadillac with the four-foot-tall fins. It was so wide it barely fit in the lane, and certainly didn't fit in any parking space. At 55 MPH it got 14 MPG. With the air conditioning on that dropped to 7. One day it broke down on a lonely interstate. We found out that night it sleeps eight comfortably.

[westguy76]

I can't speak for anyone else but during the week I drive a crewcab(4 door) Ford pickup(5.3 liter v8). It gets about 14.5 in the city and around 16 on the highway(average). My commute is only 24 miles round trip though. My wife is now a stay at home mom, so as far as gas and toll comsumption that has helped. On the weekends we have started driving the ford explorer(4.0 liter V6) which gets about 17 in the city and 21 on the highway. I drove to Beumont this past weekend with my father in law in the front seat and he encouraged me to keep it at 65 mph(about 2000 rpms on the explorer) I was definately in the minority but what did I do? Add 10 minutes to my travel time. Not that much of a sacrifice, but I have to admit in a newer bigger vehicle with a lot of power(like my truck), on the Highway it just tracks easy and is more comfortable to drive at 80 mph.

[lockmat]

I filled up this evening. Came in at dead-on 19 mpg again. My last 4 tanks of gas have averaged 19. So, the changes add up to a 15% increase in mileage. Or, to look at it another way, $3.60 gasoline at 70 mph is costing me $3.06 at 62 mph.

Do you run the a/c? I try not to but have had to the past few days, at least on the way to work and at stops.

[houstonmacbro]

I got 32 mpg between my last fillup and today (about 1 mpg less than last fillup). I also have been keeping records and I am paying 15 cents more per gallon today than I was on April 30 (two weeks ago).

Sad.

[RedScare]

Stopped at my favorite Valero in Conroe tonight. Gas jumped 11 cents from last night. It now sits at $3.73 per gallon. Oh, and CNBC just reported that oil topped $135.00 a few minutes ago (there's a nice round number for ya, Niche). Looks like we'll be pumping $4.00 gasoline by July...hell, maybe by June!

Editor, I drive a Toyota Tundra pickup. EPA mileage estimate is 17 mpg highway. Lockmat, I cycle the AC. I run it until the cab is cool, then turn it off until it gets muggy inside. Last week, since the weather was nice and I drive at night, I hardly ran it at all. This week, it is on about 75% of the time.

[houstonmacbro]

Stopped at my favorite Valero in Conroe tonight. Gas jumped 11 cents from last night. It now sits at $3.73 per gallon. Oh, and CNBC just reported that oil topped $135.00 a few minutes ago (there's a nice round number for ya, Niche). Looks like we'll be pumping $4.00 gasoline by July...hell, maybe by June!

Editor, I drive a Toyota Tundra pickup. EPA mileage estimate is 17 mpg highway. Lockmat, I cycle the AC. I run it until the cab is cool, then turn it off until it gets muggy inside. Last week, since the weather was nice and I drive at night, I hardly ran it at all. This week, it is on about 75% of the time.

I've been keeping meticulous records of my gas purchases and fuel prices for the last three weeks. It has been jumping on average 10 cents per week.

I think the government is not being honest when they release inflation numbers because if gasoline is jumping like that, I would bet that most other consumer goods (groceries mainly) are also jumping similarly in price.

[RedScare]

The CPI, the government's inflation index, is WAY undervalued. It always is and always has been. No president wants to be known for runaway inflation, so they pressure the analysts to substitute non-inflationary items for high inflation items. The items on their list change all the time. It is also heavily weighted with things like washing machines, things we buy every 8 to 10 years.

The funniest part is when they talk about "core inflation". That is the inflation index without gas or food included. Oh, yeah, take out the 2 highest inflation items, then tell me that inflation is in check. It does not fool anyone. We all see the gas pump and the cash register at Kroger. It just proves to people that the government is lying to us.

[TheNiche]

The CPI, the government's inflation index, is WAY undervalued. It always is and always has been. No president wants to be known for runaway inflation, so they pressure the analysts to substitute non-inflationary items for high inflation items. The items on their list change all the time. It is also heavily weighted with things like washing machines, things we buy every 8 to 10 years.

The funniest part is when they talk about "core inflation". That is the inflation index without gas or food included. Oh, yeah, take out the 2 highest inflation items, then tell me that inflation is in check. It does not fool anyone. We all see the gas pump and the cash register at Kroger. It just proves to people that the government is lying to us.

No doubt about it, inflation accounting is screwy. There are (multiple) (obscure) methods to the madness, but no matter how you slice it, inflation is just a hairy sumbitch to tackle, as it is caused by so many different factors and means different things to so many different stakeholders based upon the factors that cause it.

[lockmat]

Does the government really make more in taxes from the sale of a gallon of gasoline than the oil companies do?

link

Even if it doesn't, isn't it a shame that it's even close enough to debate? I understand the taxes are used for infrastructure, yes? But were it not for porkbarreling, couldn't the govt lower their tax rate and in return give us considerably cheaper gas?

[CDeb]

Does the government really make more in taxes from the sale of a gallon of gasoline than the oil companies do?

link

Even if it doesn't, isn't it a shame that it's even close enough to debate? I understand the taxes are used for infrastructure, yes? But were it not for porkbarreling, couldn't the govt lower their tax rate and in return give us considerably cheaper gas?

It depends. The more expensive the gasoline, the less "considerable" 40 cents is.

The gasoline tax is already stretched thin enough as it is.

[lockmat]

*hijack alert* (gas related)

Gas is supposed to get over $4 this weekend with the national average at $4.20. I'm not aware of the trend of gas prices after Memorial day, but I doubt it goes down much.

So here's the deal...

- Obviously these high gas prices will affect poorer people the most, at least the ones who own cars.

- They have desires just like middle/upper class people and they like their own space (single-family house).

- Dense housing is going up all over and is popular for the rich.

Could poorer and lower middle class families start demanding denser housing? If this trend in rising gas prices continues, how long will it be before the tradeoff for good schools and nice neighborhoods start to be less of a factor?

This dense housing doesn't need to be inside the loop. It can be in lesser desired areas (but not necessarily undesirable areas), which hopefully will keep rental rates and condo/townhome prices down.

Or will people continue to be nonreactive for the most part and just ride it out. No pun intended.

I know I don't make perfect sense, but hopefully yall get the idea.

[RedScare]

Well, to answer your question, no, poor people will not be able to demand denser housing, as poor people have little clout. If non-dense housing goes out of favor, the price will draw the poor to it. The poor will always get the crumbs, since they are least able to afford proactive approaches to their lives. All of these SUVs that the rich and upper middle class no longer want will be reduced in price until the poor buy them, even though they get terrible mileage. The higher priced inner city land will be bought for gentrified housing, forcing the poor into less accessible suburban housing. That is just the way the market works.

At least the high price of gas is lessening resistance to mass transit, which the poor will also get to use, so they will get some of the crumbs. But, just as the poor do not have the money to upgrade into fuel efficient vehicles, they also do not have the resources to upgrade into new dense inner city housing.

EDIT: Actually, not all suburban housing is spread out. The lower priced subdivisions squeeze houses onto pretty small lots. But, it is not dense in the sense that you are suggesting, just smaller inner city sized lots.

[lockmat]

Well, to answer your question, no, poor people will not be able to demand denser housing, as poor people have little clout. If non-dense housing goes out of favor, the price will draw the poor to it. The poor will always get the crumbs, since they are least able to afford proactive approaches to their lives. All of these SUVs that the rich and upper middle class no longer want will be reduced in price until the poor buy them, even though they get terrible mileage. The higher priced inner city land will be bought for gentrified housing, forcing the poor into less accessible suburban housing. That is just the way the market works.

At least the high price of gas is lessening resistance to mass transit, which the poor will also get to use, so they will get some of the crumbs. But, just as the poor do not have the money to upgrade into fuel efficient vehicles, they also do not have the resources to upgrade into new dense inner city housing.

EDIT: Actually, not all suburban housing is spread out. The lower priced subdivisions squeeze houses onto pretty small lots. But, it is not dense in the sense that you are suggesting, just smaller inner city sized lots.

That makes sense, good thinking.

Tell me where I might be wrong again, but this is my thinking.

If an apartment developer were to buy some relatively cheap land in a non-highly desirable area and build some major mixed use, people would move in. I could be wrong, but I'd think that he'd still get good return b/c it's not like he paid high dollar like a place inside the loop.

I think one place this could really work is along the new north LRT line and stations. I personally don't really see that area gentrifying. But it could be a hotbed for mixed use/high density development for people that live around there.

[RedScare]

That makes sense, good thinking.

Tell me where I might be wrong again, but this is my thinking.

If an apartment developer were to buy some relatively cheap land in a non-highly desirable area and build some major mixed use, people would move in. I could be wrong, but I'd think that he'd still get good return b/c it's not like he paid high dollar like a place inside the loop.

I think one place this could really work is along the new north LRT line and stations. I personally don't really see that area gentrifying. But it could be a hotbed for mixed use/high density development for people that live around there.

Well, let's first get the "mixed use" thing out of the way. It is a stupid new urbanist term, at least the way it is used on this forum. An apartment developer who puts apartments above retail will probably have a bunch of empty retail space on his hands, mostly because apartment people are not good at leasing retail space, and vice-versa. However, building apartments on 3/4 of a block, with retail on the other 1/4 accomplishes the same goals. Retail across the street from dense housing does, too. We just don't call it "mixed use", and everyone complains about it. There is a good Dallas Morning News article about all of the empty mixed use storefronts in Dallas. I'll try to find it.

Back to your suggestion. The problem with new construction is that it is expensive. That is the major reason that this would not work that well for the poor. They could not afford it without subsidy. And, building apartments near rail stations will not attract poor people. It will attract young upwardly mobile people. Parts of the Near North already ARE gentrifying, so I would disagree with your opinion that it won't. Once rail goes in, it will accelerate. It might not be half million dollar townhomes, but it will gentrify.