Using the standard measure of average lost time spent each year in traffic jams, L.A./SoCal clearly has the worst traffic in the country, although my own D.C./ Baltimore area, currently tied with San Francisco for second place, is rapidly catching up. This index is measured each year by the Texas Transportation Institute.
Now...those of you who claim that NYC and Boston have bad traffic may have a point, when you look at the amount of bumper-to-bumper crawling through Manhattan or other inner-city parts of NYC and Boston, but the thing that separates them from areas like D.C. and L.A. is that most Northeastern cities, particularly NYC, have large, well-developed subways that carry much of the commuter load that would otherwise be jamming the roads. This is not so for L.A., and added to that fact is that SoCal has an incredibly huge area of suburban sprawl.....D.C./ Baltimore slightly less so. D.C. has a good subway system (I know...I often ride it) but unlike NYC's, it is just too small to carry the vast number of people in the area. So as a result, D.C. and L.A. are the very definition of traffic jams.

 

Newsletters from several of my professional societies indicate the current emphasis is on ethanol and biofuel plants. It makes sense from several standpoints:

1. Ethanol is increasingly important as at least a replacement for MTBE products, and the market for it is likely to expand even more rapidly.
   
   
2. Feedstocks are currently relatively cheap, especially when compared to the unstable price of crude. The potential for profit is greater.
   
   
3. Government regulators are currently putting biofuel plant approvals on the fast track. Rather than require years for hearings and environmental impact statements, most biofuel construction bypasses the bureaucracy and heads straight for the bid process.
   
   
4. Local industrial planning and zoning boards love "green" industries. It give local pols the appearance of being environmentally conscious and lets voters believe they are doing something positive for the landscape. Evidently these folks have never been downwind of a biomass processor or an ethanol unit. WHEW!
   
   
5. The "green" patina associated with biofuels plays well with investors too. Witness BP's current success with their green public image, while operating some of the oldest, most dangerous plants in the US.

While ethanol is a good substitute for MTBE in E10 products, and may become a replacement for gasoline as E100, it may also have some unintended side effects.

With our food and feedgrains in competition with our fuel, we may find putting corn in our fuel tank at cross purposes with putting it on the dinner table. As agricultural production shifts toward fuel products, it may well drive up the price of food. Mexico is already experiencing a spike in the cost of tortillas, thanks to the increasing demand for corn in fuel production. We need to direct more research to using agricultural wastes for feedstocks.

Ethanol and biodiesel have the unfortunate property of being excellent solvents, meaning that additives are required to restore lubricity and anti-corrosion properties to the fuel. That will further add cost to biofuels.

There are no easy solutions, but some relief is on the way. Large new hydrocarbon finds in the deep Gulf of Mexico show more immediate promise, as do more available technologies such as gas hydrates, wind, and cogen facilities. It's going to take more than just political posturing to solve our energy problems for the future.

 

I myself am a big supporter of ethanol as a fuel, like you are, but it is not perfect...it has its drawbacks, besides the supply-and-demand ones you have already mentioned. First, it has much less BTU energy than gasoline, so you need a fuel tank some 40-60 per cent larger than the average gas tank to achieve the same cruising range. Second, alcohol has a higher flash point than gasoline, so it is generally less of a fire hazard, but when it DOES catch fire, it burns with an almost invisible light blue, smokeless flame that is very difficult to see, as opposed to the bright orange and black smoke of gasoline. You could have an engine fire and not know it.

 

Of course full-size SUV's are still selling everywhere but not like they were from the mid-90's through about 2005. There will be those people who need one even at $6 a gallon. It's one of the main reasons GM and Ford has taken a tremendous hit in profits in the last couple of years compared to previous years because SUV's became their bread and butter (along with the usual pickups) during that era. Now they are forced to compete in the car market more seriously as they have been showing.

I don't dispute that. Boston did however have to undertake the "Big Dig" now costing over $15 BILLION (the most expensive road construction project in US history) to help relieve some traffic. Many mornings just driving a 1-2 mile highway area took me 45 minutes getting to college.

 

I don't know how the results are tabulated or how far people commute, but people in the "LA" area commute quite a ways for work.

 

I agree. Every time friends or family come visit here in Hawaii they say we might be up there as well or have one of the worst traffic. If someone were to calculate traffic by minute per mile, Hawaii might just take the cake. We don't have much distance to travel, but it can take 20-30 minutes to just go 2-3 miles. Morning traffic of about a 20 mile distance takes about 2 hours. When we had a freeway closure, that same commute took people 10-12 hours. People left work at 2PM and got home at 2 AM. When there is no problem, we have really bad traffic. If there is any accident, or traffic light out, or any type of road problem it is a disaster since we don't have many alternative routes to take.

 

its too bad ethanol still requires petroleum based fertilizer and petroleum to refine ethanol

ERROR 404 solution to oil not found

 

Wow, I didn't realize it was THAT bad. How do you stand it? What a giant waste of time.

 

20 minutes to go 2-3 miles. In the DC area on places like the Beltway, I-95, I-66, and many other roads it often takes longer then that (sometimes a lot longer), particularly on Friday afternoons and holiday eves. I try never to drive on Friday rush hour if I don't have to.

But I'm not going to doubt your statements about Hawaii.....and, on one of them, you have a good point. In some cases, in the DC area, you can (sometimes) detour and take the long way around jams.........in Hawaii, on the islands, that is not always possible unless you get on a boat.

 

I think we all got off topic....and I contributed to that myself by bringing up the traffic issue. We were discussing oil/gas refineries and the impact their shortage was having on the fuel supply situation.

Anyhow, there are some signs that supply is starting to catch up with demand again, at least temporarily. 87-Octane Shell is down 13 cents now in my neighborhood ($2.96) from its high of $3.09 several weeks ago. With the 5-cent discount coupons that our grocery store prints out on the reverse side of the tabs, I get it for $2.91.

 

IndyCar has used ethanol for years and the series has seen some seriously burned drivers and a few spectators who didn't know they were on fire. Alcohol does burn with an almost colorless flame that is difficult to see in bright sun.

I had a gimble-mounted alcohol stove on my boat that worked very well for years, but demonstrated some of the negative features of alcohol very effectively. First it was difficult to light, requiring a dab of flammable paste to be squeezed into the burner cup and ignited to preheat the burner before turning on the fuel supply. The old Coleman stoves did about the same thing with gasoline - valving a bit of gas into the cup to preheat the burner - except you don't want raw fuel of any kind sloshing around in a boat in a seaway . . . thus the paste.

Thanks to that invisible flame, alcohol stoves make it almost impossible to determine if they are lit. I discovered quickly that while sticking a hand into where you think the flame should be is a direct and effective test, it is painful as well.

The heat output of the burner was rather skimpy for its size. Ethanol under pressure emitted as a fine spray through a pre-heater and mixed with air in the burner seemed to produce about HALF the heat that a similarly-sized gasoline burner would. With patience you could barely boil a pint and a half of water. If you're planning lunch, the first thing you do is light the stove.

Many boaters are converting to propane stoves, but gas has the insidious property, being heavier than air, of seeping into the bilges where it lies in wait for a spark - from an engine or generator. An explosion at sea can indeed ruin your entire day. Not a great idea for use in a galley belowdecks, but perfectly fine for a grill on deck that hangs over the water outside the hull.

The overreaching concern for fire and explosion safety in marine applications makes alcohol far and away the galley fuel of choice. An alcohol fire can be easily extinguished with water. Gasoline requires a class B fire extinguisher, but alcohol can be put out with all that stuff you are floating in. There is literally an unlimited supply of extinguishing agent.

In automotive applications alcohol shows these same drawbacks - difficult to ignite, invisible flame, and low specific BTU content; however it remains easy to extinguish - if you know you're on fire.

For the present, ethanol is a fine additive to replace the evils of MTBE, which would only require a few percent concentration. Ten percent is probably overkill as an oxygenate to reduce hydrocarbon emissions, but it is manageable. The current problem with ethanol as a replacement for gasoline is that consumes so much energy in its production, handling, refining, and transport, that it probably at this point consumes more hydrocarbon than it saves.

 

No question I don't doubt that many cities in this nation have rediculous traffic. The problem in Hawaii is one accident or stalled car and it it near gridlock if not gridlock because we don't have many alternative routes. I've driven in peak traffic hour in California from my trips from San Diego to LA, and Nappa to LA and in between. It is amazing that you see nothing but tail lights as far as the eye can see. However, you move at a decent slow pace. I didn't mind it at all because usually traffic in my state you move a few undred feet, stop for 30 seconds to 1 minute, move a few more hunmdred feet, stop again. Again, this is when there is a stall or accident. Otherwise I would rank it about in par as other major citires. Also, for some reason most of the National studies for many things don't include Hawaii data.

 

It is nearly unbearable. Thankfully, I moved closer to work so I'm only about 2.5 miles from work. I now ride a moped to work. Saves gas as well I also start work just before the afternoon rush hour, and I end work late at night. My wife; however, hits morning down town traffic, but she too is only about 3 miles from work so it is not that bad. Problem is while we may not have as many cars on the road as major large cities, we just don't have much travel options as there are only few ways to get into certain areas. Some areas there is only 1 major road, or 1 major freeway you can take. It is just a bottle neck to cram that many cars into one, two, or maybe 3 roadways.

 

Oh man im soooooooo glad i work out of the house and dont have to hit that morning kailua/over the pali run... that is the worst but its not as bad as the Eva to honolulu run, sun in your eyes going to work and sun in your eyes going home from work in bumper to bumper traffic... wait... their both the worst... god forbid a car stalls on the pali going up thou, then its one lane with NO turn offs cuz your on the side of a mountain, not a road on a mountain but a elevated road on the side of a cliff 2000ft up...

About LA lived there done that... yea its bad 10/110 interchange yea/405 yea... but nothing compairs to oahu....

 

I grew up on in Kaneohe on the windard side and I just moved out of Kapolei. I've experienced it both ways

Anyway, back on topic. I don't mind that gas prices are going up a bit. It is just the way it is going to be from now on. We have had $3+ gas for the last 5 or so years so this is nothing dramatic yet. My personal limit is probably $5 a gallon. When we hit that number is probably when I'll decide to buy a hybrid and give up my V8 and high strung V6 cars. We actually hit or nearly hit $50 a gallon right after Katrina on select areas on the other Islands so I don't doub we are probably a few years away.

By the way mmrashal. I don't think traffic is off topic because traffic affects gas mileage and DOES play a role in what cosumer products people buy in ways of transportation. With the cut back of oil production and refineries, the impact is consumers will have to start thinking about the types of cars they drive, the distance from work where they live, and different types of public transportation available to them. Manufacturers will also have to think about alternative fuel cars, more hybrids, or whatever because consumers one day will not be able to afford gas to fuel their cars. The question is whether we are a few years away from that, or a few decades away.