Minor changes to how much we drive could free up large sums for transit or other investment

HAMILTON SPECTATOR: Mar 20, 2013

Psst. Hey buddy — wanna save a billion bucks?

Everyone loves a good deal but some offers are so good you suspect it could only be from a dubious character standing in a dark doorway. Not so when it comes to the potential savings from importing less oil into Ontario. Using less oil means less money in the accounts of oil corporations — and more in our pockets for other initiatives.

Ontario still produces oil but only about 1,300 barrels per day — enough to satisfy provincial consumption for less than four minutes. This means we have to import a lot of oil — and export a lot of cash. Assuming a price of about $80 per barrel for imported oil, we spend about $16 billion for the 200 million barrels we use each year.

Ontario passenger cars and light trucks, such as SUVs, use much of the oil we import — about 82 million barrels per year, while freight trucks use another 48 million barrels. As there are effective ways to travel without a car (mass transit, walking, and cycling) and to ship goods without trucks (rail), there are lots of ways to import less oil for transport — and save money.

One litre of fuel will get the average car 10 kilometres. The average car in Ontario is used for 16,000 kilometres of travel per year. A barrel contains 159 litres, which means that the average car will need 10 barrels of oil annually. (A barrel of crude doesn’t convert to a barrel of gasoline or diesel but since all of the crude will become some refined product such as jet fuel, kerosene, or gasoline, we make this assumption to keep the math simple.)

There are 7.5 million registered passenger vehicles in Ontario. Reducing consumption by one barrel per year (or 10 per cent) per car would save 7.5 million barrels of oil annually. Multiplying by $80 a barrel gives us a yearly savings of $600 million — and more than $1 billion over two years.

What practical options does a motorist have to use one less barrel of oil annually?
First, motorists routinely make many car trips each week that are less than 3 kilometres — trips that could be completed with oil-free walking and cycling. Replacing ten kilometres per week of driving in this way means a savings of one litre, or 52 litres per year.

ED is just a biological state that https://www.unica-web.com/DEUTSCH/2015/GA2015-presidents-report-3.html cheap levitra leads to failure of sexual activity. You can buy Bluze capsules from reputed online stores using the credit card. generic tadalafil The ethanol in the alcoholic beverages is considered viagra samples cheap for affecting the vestibular system in the inner ear causing occurrence of the vertigo. Natural Hair Loss Cures – Using natural cures seems to be another remedy that has attracted many people order cheap cialis to regrow their lost hair.
Second, certain car trips can be eliminated by combining them with other car trips, carpooling, or simply forgoing some trips. If each motorist cut out 10 more kilometres of travel per week in this way then another 52 litres per year would be saved.

Third, a transit trip will generally use two-thirds less fuel per passenger than a car, so replacing 15 kilometres of car travel each week by taking transit will eliminate another litre of fuel per week. Some people will be able to take advantage of urban transit systems, while others can make their contribution with intercity travel by mass transit.

Adding up all three options produces a barrel of oil over a year.

The point in identifying the savings potential from reducing oil imports is to calm the helplessness we often feel about our ability to finance much-needed transit improvements.

We already spend lavishly on our transport system, with diminishing returns and increasing costs including congestion, climate change and the destruction of farmland. Individually we spend more than $9,000 each year to own and operate a car (including fuel); collectively, we spend billions for road infrastructure and maintenance plus hidden costs like health care for victims of collisions and pollution.

The irony of our heavy spending on transport is that some groups, particularly the oil corporations, get rich while the community struggles to pay for vital transit projects.

The current debate about appropriate funding models such as carbon taxes, road tolls, or parking fees need not be seen as adding a burden; these are simply ways to discourage oil-hungry automobile travel in order to free up funds for more efficient, cheaper transit.

Reducing the number of kilometres we travel by car is only one way to reduce oil consumption. A Pembina Institute report entitled Bridging the Gulf, for example, identifies five policies to reduce oil consumption for transport including better urban planning and more efficient vehicles.

We don’t really need to turn to people in dark doorways to find the money to finance transit solutions. Redirecting money we now send to the oil companies will not only free up needed funds for transit but also put us on the road to a sustainable, affordable transport future.