Posted on Monday April 26th by Martha Kang McGill | 34,308
CLICK TO ENLARGE
While states with the highest populations unsurprisingly tend to use the most gas, the real fuel efficiency picture comes when you examine each state’s fuel consumption per capita. With that factor added, a very different scenario emerges: High-use states like New York actually have low per-capita usage, while states like Alabama, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, and North Dakota — all states with smaller populations and large distances required for drivers — have higher than average consumption, with the highest per capita usage falling on Wyoming. One surprisingly low per capita consumer is Utah — perhaps because of the Mormon population’s tendency to inhabit smaller areas that don’t require long drives?
April 26th, 2010 at 11:41 am
Hmmm… Correct me if I’m wrong, but there seems to be some correlation here between Gasoline consumption per capita and state wealth per capita. Do you think that it could be possible that wealthy people use more resources?
April 26th, 2010 at 11:44 am
Oops sorry, I misread the graph. I thought state size was represented by per capita usage. In that case, that is surprising. Though, I bet if you factored in things like “jet fuel” as well, things would start to shift back.
April 26th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
There is no mormon tendency to inhabit smaller areas that don’t require long drives.
April 26th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
[...] How Much Gas Does Your State Use Per Person? Categories: Business, Culture, Science, Technology, Travel Tags: Gas Previous post: Low-income states have highest broadband competition Leave a Comment [...]
April 26th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
I’d be curious how DC fits in…
April 26th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Re: Utah–I would imagine the more likely explanation is the large family size and that much of the population is too young to drive. So that for much of the population, when they travel by car, they’re basically “carpooling” (think Chevy Suburban full of kids.)
April 26th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
The most interesting point for me in this graph was how *little* the per-capita gas usage varies by state; the delta from high/low to average is only ~10%. If the “best” state uses only 10% less fuel than an “average” state, then I’m not really sure how to interpret the significance of the delta.
//dan.
April 26th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
New Jersey has among the LOWEST per-capita vehicle-miles traveled in the country, thanks to an uncommonly high rate of transit commuting (2nd highest in the country, after New York) and shorter distances between major destinations (NJ is the second most urbanized state in the US, after California…destinations are closer together in urbanized areas). How can this translate into a higher-than-average per-capita gasoline consumption? One possible explanation is that NJ residents drive vehicles that get egregiously worse gas mileage than is the case in most other states — this strikes me as not sufficient to explain NJ’s poor showing on your map.
More likely, NJ’s petroleum consumption data (and Maryland’s, and Delaware’s, two other states I would expect to perform better than the map indicates) includes a higher-than-average proportion of purchases by out-of-state residents. These are three small states through which passes I-95, the major transportation artery for the Northeast Corridor. Interstate traffic likely makes up a larger percent of these states’ total VMT than is true elsewhere. In other words, petroleum consumption data is not a reliable indicator of how much travel is being done by the state’s actual residents, as opposed to people just passing through. I probably would have tried to correct for that if I were making the map.
Also, I second the observations of earlier commenters about Utah. Mormons have more kids than average. Utah’s low per-CAPITA consumption is likely nothing more than a result of the Mormons having padded the denominator of Utah’s fraction with a bunch of kids who aren’t old enough to drive. If you were able to compute consumption per ADULT, I don’t think I’d necessarily expect Utah to perform any better than its Intermountain West neighbors.
April 26th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Re: DC
From some numbers I have from 2001. Washington, DC rates just slightly below DC in per capita consumption.
There really aren’t many conclusions to be drawn from the data other than New York City obviously having a massive impact on gasoline consumption. Another set of data that would be more enlightening might be consumption by metropolitan area.
April 26th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Oops…that should have said rates slightly below New York State in per Capita Consumption.
April 27th, 2010 at 5:39 am
Why is Texas’s area in the graphic so small? It’s smaller than the area of Florida and New York, even though Texas’s total gas consumption is second only to California’s (link).
April 27th, 2010 at 9:14 am
[...] York State Has Lowest Per-Capita Gas Consumption in the Nation (Infrastructurist) More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol [...]
April 27th, 2010 at 10:26 am
I live in St. Louis, MO… one of the cheapest places to get gas. Drivers come here from Illinois just to fill up. Truckers avoid filling up in Illinois and get it here. We’re skewed BIG TIME on that map.
April 27th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Just a coincidence that the red states on this chart are most of the same states that voted Republican in the last election? Drill baby drill.
April 27th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
[...] How Much Gas Does Your State Use Per Person? (The Infrastructurist) [...]
April 27th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
@Dallas: Factoring in jet fuel would skew the results without correlation to the inhabitants. Atlanta, GA, for example, is a major airport hub, but the travel isn’t primarily from locals. Salt Lake City, UT would also face the same problem as would destination cities, like Las Vegas, NV. An international hub and destination city, like Honolulu, HI, would get ridiculously skewed.
April 27th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
The reason Utah is one of the states is because there really isn’t anywhere to go here. It is so small of a region of population that everything you need is literally within 20 minutes of where you are. Also, since most Utahans don’t seem to recognize the fact that there are other states out there other than California, most of the residents here live in the same communities as their parents and siblings, thus the need for travel is greatly reduced. Moving here from Texas was quite the culture shock, I’ll tell you that.
Another reason (which I believe is the real reason) is because Utahans simply DON’T KNOW HOW TO FREAKIN DRIVE!!! lol Finally my suspicions have been confirmed!!! Utahans can’t drive and the ones who can, drive badly!
April 27th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
What it boils down to is the availability of viable public transportation options and job market. I live in Nashville, Tennessee where a 3 mile cab ride costs $14, airport service to downtown can be upwards of $30-40, a 10 mile or so trip, bus service is spotty unless you are inside the downtown loop, and there are no trains save for one that comes from another county and returns once per day. No wonder New York is the lowest, massive job market and multiple affordable public transportation options.
April 27th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
[...] Comments With the push for energy independence comes a deeper look at gasoline consumption habits. This infographic provides a look at gasoline consumption per capita for all fifty states. Although Iowa [...]
April 27th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Utah, the people there can’t afford to buy gas. 2 Reasons, the state doesn’t pay but very little in wages, and the gas stations rip you off, BIG TIME. AND UTAH IS HARD CORE REPUBLICAN
April 27th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
How much of there little survey takes into account that some states have major freeways threw them I-5, 10, 40, 80, 90, 95 to name a few. So travelers are always buying fuel there. Except Utah. buy it before you go threw that state and don’t stop at all cost. They should but signs at the state line, “You’re Now Entering the Twilight Zone”.
April 27th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
You have to take the large differences in gas taxes into account in order for this analysis to be meaningful. http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/upload/GASOLINE_TAX_MAP_APRIL2010.pdf. New York’s overall gas taxes (state+federal) are almost 20 cents per gallon higher than NJ (50.7 cents vs. 32.9 cents).
April 27th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
Utah is at the low end of the spectrum because the majority of the state’s population is concentrated in the corridor from Ogden to Provo (including Salt Lake City). So it may look like it’s not dense but it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Utah_population_map.png
April 27th, 2010 at 7:07 pm
Does this take into account all the diesel that the farmers use for their tractors, combines, etc? Plus, my state (ARkansas) has a lot of boats and off road vehicles and minimal transportation.
April 27th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
This is a terrible graph for what it’s purpose is. As others have pointed out, the delta between min and max is so small percentage wise that you have to make up very small, useless boundaries for low, medium and high.
April 27th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
The author is quite skillfully–she may not even realize–setting up this chart to represent much more than it does. First, the author invites the reader to take for granted the “unsurprising” statement that states with higher populations tend to use more total gas. Second, she ties the per capita chart to the statement by referencing their relationship to the “fuel efficiency picture.” Third, she concludes on behalf of the reader that “the real fuel efficiency picture” is presented by looking at the per capita data. In three steps, the author implies to the reader that this chart shows that higher population states are more fuel efficient, because there is a relationship between fuel efficiency and consumption per person. However, the chart only presents consumption divided by population and does not present fuel efficiency, which is a dynamic, multi-faceted concept.
As presented, the chart itself cannot really be used to conclude/compare much of anything. How can the author imply that this chart has anything to do with fuel efficiency when we don’t even know how the chart determines what constitutes “consumption”? It may seem absurd, but the term “consumption” could mean “to drink,” because there does not appear to be any definition provided.
So as not to pick on the author, I would especially like the people who have made silly, political remarks about this data to answer the following questions…
How does this calculate “consumption”?
1. Is it based on the volume of gas purchased within the state, the volume of gas shipped into the state, some averaging of a state’s vehicles’ mpg and estimated distance traveled, all over a period of 1 year?
2. Does it include the “motor gas” required to get it there in the first place, if it’s transported in?
3. Does “consumption” include gas that is produced within the state, and if some/all of that gas is shipped elsewhere, how is that factored into the equation? I would think the state receiving it would be the consuming state and the producing state wouldn’t have that amount factored against it.
4. Does “consumption” include gas that out-of-state residents (e.g., semis, cross-country drivers, etc.) buy and use in their vehicles while in the state?
5. Is there any correction based on terrain, miles of roads, major inter-state highways, elevation, etc. to “standardized” the numbers?
6. Does consumption include “motor gasoline” that our military uses on bases?
7. If consumption includes boats, what happens when the boat is on a river that’s a border between states?
Does the term “motor gasoline” include what is used in farming equipment, semi-trucks, construction equipment, lawn mowers, ATVs, etc.?
Is per capita based only on the actual total population of a state, or is it “of-age” drivers, drivers actually licensed, etc. Does this include projected numbers of “extra legal” members of a state (don’t know if the Census provides information like this)?
My imagination is that this is based off of the total volume of barrels purchased within the state (probably through commercial gas stations) under a theory that it’s then consumed within that state, by that state’s residents (i.e., 1 barrel purchased = 1 barrel consumed) and that total amount is divided by the Census’s population records for that state. Even assuming I’m right, there are still many unanswered questions.
April 27th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Utah isn’t that poor. It’s certainly not poor by the standards of the Deep South, where gas consumption is plenty high.
April 27th, 2010 at 11:27 pm
I wonder what the results might be if this gasoline usage map were overlaid with a map of SUV and pickup truck ownership per capita by state.
April 27th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Texas has twice as many miles of highway as any other state. Not surprising they made the cut.
April 28th, 2010 at 7:24 am
I second MLD. If you’re traveling anywhere in Utah, you’re either going north or south on I-15. There aren’t too many branches to waste fuel on.
I was surprised as anyone to see Utah in the green. We Mormons have anything but a culture of conservation. We do have a culture of frugality, though (we’d buy gas at a thrift shop if we could). And, as mentioned, a culture of large families.
Plus, we know and trust our neighbors. Maybe we get together for rides more than most.
April 28th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
[...] a good question. The good folks at Infrastructurist decided to answer it with the average citizen in mind, illustrating the layout of all 50 states’ gas habits in a [...]
April 29th, 2010 at 10:21 am
I would like to know the numbers behind this map. Is consumption based on gallons sold in a given state or some other criteria. Indiana has notorious low gasoline taxes and is located in the middle of major traffic through area. We have always had people from other states making special trips to Indiana to fill up tanks. The only state with as low or lower taxes in Kentucky and they are also red…it is always nice to print a source with data.
May 2nd, 2010 at 8:20 pm
1) Who took this pole & WHO did they include ?
2) Everyone knows figures don’t lie ! . . . RIGHT! - but LYERS FIGURE !
3) The total population of South Dakota ( including my daughter & Grandson ) doesn’t add up to equal the population of MILWAUKEE, WI!
4) As an Ex- Truck Driver ,. . .. I’d bet nobody included all the Trucks fueling up in one state, and driving half way across the country & then sitting IDLING in some Corn field Truckstop somewhere @-40 degrees F while the driver gets his mandatory TEN HOURS of D.O.T. required rest ! ( Note that that doesn’t mean he/she is sleeping , just that the truck is parked !!)
5) The largest consistent consumer / offender of gasoline consumption . . . get ready GARDENERS !. . . is that annoying/ noisy blasted lawn mower you insist on dumping so much of your income into annually ! I’d bet nobody counted THOSE !!
6) Who counted the recreational vehicles ? Our Lakes, rivers & streams turn gastly colors with the spew of those engines!
7) I’m running for a popularity pole here! . . . . Who counted the Farmer’s tractors, Combines & etc. ? OOPS! Forgot THOSE TOO, huh?
My point is that we need to quit believing these manipulative bullshitters, get our heads out of the sand ( Among other dark places) & realize we are being flim flammed by the Snake Oil salesman!!
Detroit had inventions that they “acquired” ( uh HUM!! Often at proverbial gun point ! ) in the NINETEEN FIFTIES and before, that would produce automobiles that would quite easily accomplish well over 100mpg. . . in a ‘52 HUDSON! or a lead sled ‘49 Merc! Today’s fuel “Economy ” ( OMG!) is a travesty against all of creation & is GOING to put Y O U on the “Endangered Species List “. But hey!. . . that’s alright! Maybe we can ship you up to Alaska to work on the Pipe Line & let Sarah Palin shoot YOU from her Airplane & then do a National Geographic program about it on PBS !!
We’ve GOT the technology to get totally away from fossil fuels, Kids! We just haven’t had the Brass below the Belt buckle to demand it & Dethrone the Corporate “Kings” who are “too BIG ” to fail! Use that John Deere 4 x 4 tractor to pull your heads out!! Force these clowns to pull the corks on these Stone Age filing cabinets chock full of shadily swindled patents & come up with some REAL transportation alternatives! Detroit is a stinking GHOST TOWN anyway! That “Horse” is DEAD ! Show me what else Ya got & I’ll b e delighted to see ” IN GOD WE TRUST” printed on our currency . . . WHEN I see Trust in a SPIRIT we all refer to as “God” come back into this Country, rather than the*god* carried in your bank account! Strong words? YUP!…in some SORROWFULLY WEAK times with NO excuses! The Barn is plushly carpeted & it’s fine time we all get down to the bare floor! In case you’re steaming & wondering who I think I am . . . I haven’t used my car in at least 3 days & have driven less than approx. 50 miles this week ! I arranged for my home to be 4 blocks from my Grocery store, bank & most other services I require. I’m walking my talk! I rarely produce more than a brown paper grocery sack full of garbage in a month ! Besides, my point is NOT to point blaming fingers at the common consumer. I’m doing my sincere best at shouting a wake up call ! A call to demand better because it’s certainly available! The “powers that be” are stubbornly clinging to their Golden Goose ( get a clue , boys ! Not only is that goose DEAD, . . . it’s pretty well cooked as well !).
May 3rd, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Adding another possible data point to the Utah question…CNG.
They are pushing it hard with subsidies and it’s working. My dad and two brothers each have CNG retrofitted cars. With CNG equipped gas stations popping up all along the I-15 corridor and an average fill-up running $3-$4 it’s bound to move the needle.
I don’t even know of a CNG station in VA…
May 5th, 2010 at 8:50 am
I’d consider land use in the equation as well, and transit availability. Utah has very clustered patterns of settlement, lots of planning, affordable housing that’s close to workplaces, and the best transit in the intermountain West. And it’s getting better all the time.
California’s interesting as well, as in, interesting that it didn’t quite make the best category. As tightly packed as human settlement is in California it ought not to need much gasoline. Indeed, the Golden State does quite well on land use, all things considered, with metro LA more densely populated than metro NY and SF intensely clustered within a London-style greenbelt, but the killer here is housing costs, heavy clustering of employment centers and the lack of public transit, leading to some brutal commutes. If, through land use patterns (changes in housing policy and commercial zoning practices in order to enable people to live closer to work) and better, more frequent and more interconnected transit, California could lower its average commute time it would quickly turn green on the map.
May 5th, 2010 at 8:54 am
Do enough New Yorkers cross into NJ to fill up to make a dent in the statistics?
May 5th, 2010 at 9:16 am
[...] on per capita state gas consumption from here. via [...]
May 5th, 2010 at 9:40 am
Good point, Tim Evans, about New Jersey, and I would add that lots of New Yorkers buy gas in N.J. because it’s cheaper; New Jersey has a very low state gas tax. (Not that that’s a good thing; Jersey has terrible roads and high tolls. There is no free lunch.)
May 5th, 2010 at 10:00 am
Utah and NJ are the most obvious anomalies, and they more or less show that the map has little value.
Why is NJ so different from NY? Maybe it’s just that NJ has low gas prices and it’s surrounded by high price states.
Why is Utah different form Wyoming? Utah is actually pretty densely populated in the Ogden, SLC, Provo area, and Mormons build neighborhoods that are within walking distance of their churches. It also has good natural gas utility coverage, and the highest percentage of natural gas powered vehicles in the country.
If you subtract out the effect of Manhattan and Utah, and account for border crossiing to avoid gas taxes, I bet the whole country is the same.
May 5th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Does this account for sales at Highway gas stations, too? If so, the red strip from MN down to the gulf could be explained by the heavily used I-35. Also: What about agriculture?
May 6th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
[...] Andrew Sullivan this morning, I stumbled across this interesting infographic that displays relative gas consumption, both on a per-state and per-capita basis. Like everyone I [...]
May 11th, 2010 at 8:31 am
[...] Anyway, speaking of the cotton gin, the invention that launched the cotton boom of the antebellum South, check out this map of per capita oil use by state, published on a blog called the The Infrastructurist [...]
May 16th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
I think the reason why gas in New Jersey and Delware and Mayland is so high is that these three states are all one giant expessway. Most of the 12 Lane sections of Interstate 95 run though these states and they are activly widening massive sections of the New Jersey Turnpike from 6 to 12 lanes wide in many sections. Also I noice that when I drive though these areas it’s nothing but very high numbers of cars so dense on all the super highways that it froms what could be a river of metal.
A way that could possibly maybe lower these three states down from a Red to a Purple might be to add new eletric branch lines to the NEC and have them turn many of the oil powered passanger trains into eletric. Expand some of the transit systems with more eletric powered trains.
The only thing I don’t understand is why is Iillnoise so low on the gas usage meter consdering right now they are widening most of all the major expessways around the major cities and suburbs.