At the rate things are going, any money that would be available for global warming mitigation is going to go into subsidizing the oil used by airplanes, trucks, cars, and heating oil so that most Americans do not become hysterical -- or am I being hysterical? From Michael T. Klare's latest article:
Oil at $110 a barrel. Gasoline at $3.35 (or more) per gallon. Diesel fuel at $4 per gallon. Independent truckers forced off the road. Home heating oil rising to unconscionable price levels. Jet fuel so expensive that three low-cost airlines stopped flying in the past few weeks. This is just a taste of the latest energy news, signaling a profound change in how all of us, in this country and around the world, are going to live -- trends that, so far as anyone can predict, will only become more pronounced as energy supplies dwindle and the global struggle over their allocation intensifies.
When most freight moves by truck instead of train, when most long-distance travel is by plane (or car), not train, and when most people can only do daily traveling by car, not train -- then we are set up for the situation we see unfolding, in which the Republican nominee for president is calling for a repeal of the gasoline tax and where, in Wednesday's Democratic presidential debate, Hillary Clinton only added the twist that oil subsidies should be cut so that we can cut the gasoline tax, and where, also in yesterday's debate, Barak Obama talked about getting gasoline prices down.
So let me try this one: As important as pricing carbon is, it will not lead to the construction of national high-speed train networks and urban light-rail/bus rapid transit. Governments at all levels need to start planning and then rolling out train and bus networks. Build trains now!
The hidden cost of coal
Comments
View as Flat
racc Posted 8:14 am
17 Apr 2008
Permalink
dissociated Posted 8:41 am
17 Apr 2008
The government may, if we're lucky, understand the threat but can't justify spending the money until the public totally sees it too. And, you know, people won't see it until it happens, especially with the state of media and education.. And all those overestimations of fossil fuel supplies.
Permalink
infp Posted 11:18 am
17 Apr 2008
Permalink
LGT Posted 1:14 pm
17 Apr 2008
At the rate things are going, any money that would be available for global warming mitigation is going to go into subsidizing the oil used by airplanes ...
http://edro.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/how-many-are-up-ther ...
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:42 pm
17 Apr 2008
Permalink
plaidshift Posted 2:17 pm
17 Apr 2008
I agree that a government worth its salt would be building such infrastructure right now AND legislating a carbon price (such as a revenue neutral tax). Predictable increases in carbon price would "nudge" consumers towards such transportation.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:29 pm
17 Apr 2008
Permalink
morganmghee Posted 2:36 pm
17 Apr 2008
columbian.com/news/localNews/2007/09/09222007news201638.cfm
For a view: youtube watch?v=xcWGBvouTAA watch?v=thKUQUfjZN8
while grinding tracks for maintenance.
There was a story about this being the cause of at least 2 recent wildfires, but you know I can't find hide nor hair...
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:11 pm
17 Apr 2008
Mass Transit schemes are folly. They exist to centralize power in Democrat run government like all public works projects.
People are herded like cattle into smelly tin cars and shuttled where and when the government says they can go.
Meanwhile, once people give up their freedom of independent movement, the bureaucracy can go on strike and demand higher wages and tax citizens ever more.
J. Bailo
Participant
Texeme.Construct()
Permalink
LGT Posted 6:02 pm
17 Apr 2008
(worldwide) That obviously isn't sustainable, and it will be a major cultural trauma ... My family took a train from Chicago to Virginia and back recently, a 24 hour ride ... 8 to 10 hours would be fairly reasonable
The last time I flew to Europe, it took me a total of about 23 hours [from NYC] to reach my destination. The actual flight duration was about 9 hours!
It really makes no sense to rob the proverbial [energy] Peter to pay Paul. The core of the problem is the unsustainable political economy, of which unsustainable movement of people and goods are key components.
Permalink
ArthurLemay Posted 6:28 pm
17 Apr 2008
And, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation on operating costs, the trending of auto costs per passenger mile is now less than buses, and soon will be less than rail.
Now, considering the fixed costs, rail is absolutely infeasible, and is a total waste of money. The only reason rail works in major metropolitan areas is because traffic and parking costs prevent the use of cars.
I have lived without a car in New York, and Chicago, and it is misery. Public transportation is useless for errands, grocery shopping, bringing children to schools, for older people, pregnant women, and salesmen.
Cars largely pay for the roads and car infrastructure while public transportation needs subsidies since revenues are never even close to the operating costs. In San Jose it would be cheaper to give each rail passenger a voucher for a taxi, and stop the rail system from running.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:51 pm
17 Apr 2008
Second, when buses are cut back "because of" trains, it's because there is a limited amount of funds for public transit, and the problem is not the trains, it's the lack of support for public transit. When bus advocates blame trains they're shooting themselves in the foot, they should get together with train advocates and push for more money for everybody (this fratricide seems to happen in LA, for instance).
Third, I lived in NYC and live in Chicago, and obviously millions of people disagree with you. Again, the problems that do exist -- and there are many -- are because of lack of support for public transit in those cities, not because public transit is inherently bad.
Fourth, you need to consider a metropolitan area as a system as a whole. The NYC subway uses 1.8 billion kwhrs per year, approximately, and it serves 8 million people. Multiply that times 40 to accomodate the whole population of the USA, you have about 80 billion kwhrs, while the total kwhrs used in the US for everything is 4,000 billion kwhrs. Set within a dense town or city, public transit is about as efficient as you can get with transportation.
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 12:16 am
18 Apr 2008
Fueling Transportation Finance: A Primer on the Gas Tax
Delucchi Study Finds That U.S. Motorists Do Not Pay Their Way
Social Cost of Transportation
The highway trust fund is reaching the point of deficit and will require tens of billions in new taxes just to maintain what's been built, and hundreds of billions to expand to meet projected growth.
The Highway Program's Immediate Crisis
AASHTO's Key Findings
More and more people in the U.S. are coming to prefer transit travel. In fact, transit ridership has grown more than twice as much as auto vehicle miles over the past 13 years. Internationally the preference for transit, and the number of new transit system starts, is even larger.
U.S. transit ridership highest in 50 years
Just building new transit routes provides a certain amount of increased ridership and decreased vehicle miles traveled. But the bigger benefit comes from the land use impacts of transit: its role in supporting walkable, transit oriented development. APTA found that the land use role is actually twice as large as the primary effect of public transit trips. So build transit, yes, but more importantly, build transit oriented development. That's where the real economic and environmental benefits are realized.
APTA Study on Transit and Land Use
The Broader Connection between Public Transportation, Energy Conservation and Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:53 am
18 Apr 2008
Independent truckers losing their trucks, jobs, and homes to high fuel prices. Put them to work reviving freight railroads.
And electrify them!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:03 am
18 Apr 2008
Trains already use regenerative braking, but the power is dumped as heat. Use it for recharging batteries or sending power back through the power grid via induction transfer.
Good old overhead train electrification seems to work alright too.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 3:37 am
18 Apr 2008
Passenger trains seem to be gaining some traction especially in some cities such as Austin with light rail, although Am-Trak is a complete disaster except for the core runs in Bos-Wash and maybe Chicago midwest.
Unfortunately when the economy is off and there is less tax revenue from motor fuels, mass transit of all kinds take a big hit because of the funding formula. Having a "tax holiday" on the federal motor fuel tax would be a disaster for funding mass transit including the buses. Nice try, Mr. McCain but it shows a complete lack of knowledge about transportation planning.
Implications for barge and ferry operations, which are usually not federally funded, are unknown. I know that Seattle is having a very hard time with its large public ferry operations, though. -sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
racc Posted 4:03 am
18 Apr 2008
I expect the operating costs of an automobile is now trending upward thanks to high gas prices.
While initial costs of rail are high, a rail line has much more capacity than an road. A lane of highway has a capacity of 2,000 vehicles per direction per hour while a light rail line has capacity of up to 30,000 vehicles per direction per hour. So while money will needed to be continually spent on highway explanation, a rail line will not need to be expanded.
Just because rail does not work for some people, doesn't mean there are not a lot of people that it does work for. Cars don't work for everyone either.
Just because you were "miserable" with not having a car doesn't mean there are not a lot of people, including myself who are very happy not to have to suffer the misery of driving everywhere.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 4:33 am
18 Apr 2008
I also assume that electrification would help. Another bizarre fact: about half of the freight that freight trains currently carry is coal. That means that at this point freight rail is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Permalink
rwelborn Posted 5:01 am
18 Apr 2008
-J. Bailo Participant Texeme.Construct()
So I guess you have forgotten how to walk or ride a bike? I must say my daily commute to work, which I dispise, is much like being "herded" to where the government says I should go.
I wouldn't mind dumping my car and my useless car insurance for a smelly, tin, safe, less costly and on-time ride to work.
I also won't be furious when I see people talking on their phones and text messaging while someone else is driving for them.
I bet you love paying 100's of dollars per month driving places, I know it's my favorite thing to do. Maybe that Oil tycoon can take my money and buy himself a bigger yacht. Yippie!
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 5:26 am
18 Apr 2008
in answer to your question, many trainsets are being parked because of reduced consumer demand. That includes imports from the Orient, wood from Canada, and auto parts from Mexico. The largest train "parking lot" is in Wyoming with BNSF operations there. Many are specialized carriers such as intermodal (flat cars used for hauling marine containers), automobile carriers, and so forth.
Trucking is way off too. Even if trains are used the trucks are involved at some point, and since all commodities (except heavy-load trainsets like corn and coal) are off in terms of tonnage.
One indicator I watch are the number of containerships coming into LA and Long Beach, the largest port complex in the US. Low imports and exports there mean less train and truck activity all over. (Disclaimer - it's part of my business to know that.)
So I'm not fussing about anything. Electrification doesn't seem promising for mainline freight rail right now, other than for subways and light rail. The battery-enhanced "Green Goat" makes a fine switch engine though. But here's an idea, all those rail lines have an easement and I'm sure they'd love to carry electric transmission lines (AC and DC) as it would make them a ton of money. Plus they might have an inducement to try electrified motors instead of 3,000 HP diesels, if the cost was cheap (like 8-10 cents per kW-hr). /sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:31 am
18 Apr 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:34 am
18 Apr 2008
Permalink
racc Posted 10:50 am
18 Apr 2008
Permalink
racc Posted 10:55 am
18 Apr 2008
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/ ...
The age of $4 gasoline has arrived. And it's forcing Bay Area residents to change the way they live.
Sometime in the coming week, San Francisco is expected to become America's first major city to pay an average of $4 for a gallon of regular gas. The citywide average, tracked by the AAA auto club, stood at $3.97 today.
It's the latest milestone in a four-year run-up at the pump, fueled by crude oil prices that have climbed to their highest levels ever.
When gas prices began their current climb in early 2004, the run-up looked more like a nuisance than anything else, costing commuters an extra $5 to $10 per week. Now, the amount drivers pay to fill up has doubled, and it's enough to hurt.
In response, drivers in the Bay Area and elsewhere are re-examining the ways they live, work and shop. Some longtime car commuters have switched to BART, Caltrain or Muni. Others have ditched one of their family cars, traded in their gas-hog for a compact or - in the case of a determined few - said goodbye to the automobile altogether.
They have turned to telecommuting and combining all their weekly errands into a single outing. And the results are measurable.
Gasoline sales in California have fallen for two years in a row, according to state data. Mass transit ridership is rising in the Bay Area, while traffic on the region's toll bridges has shrunk.
"I think the temporary response to the price shock is past," said Rod Diridon, head of the Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jose State University. "People are beginning to move to different habits now. There are a lot of people looking for a permanent way to cut back on gas."
Cutting back on luxuries
Not everyone can. For those people, escalating prices have forced a different kind of change. They're finding ways to spend less on other parts of the monthly budget.
"It's the luxuries we all have - it's movies, dinners, stuff like that," said Michael Feeley, a landscaper who lives with his wife in Berkeley. "We don't actually sit down and say we've got to cut something out, but we're definitely more frugal."
Feeley used to spend less than $200 per month on gas for his Toyota Tacoma truck, which he uses to haul employees, equipment and supplies to job sites. Now he pays $500.
"When people say everyone's driving a gas-guzzler, well, some of us don't have a choice," Feeley said. "I can't run this business driving a Prius."
Many people, however, do have a choice.
The Bay Area, unlike much of the country, has a well-developed web of mass transit lines, linking cities via bus, ferry, subway and train. Their ridership is booming - particularly on regional systems such as BART and Caltrain that are heavily patronized by commuters.
BART has seen a 6.7 percent increase in the number of passengers through this week compared with the same period a year earlier, said BART spokesman Linton Johnson. Average weekday ridership is at 365,463, with riders taking almost 23,000 more trips on BART each weekday than they did a year earlier.
Bill Buehlman, who lives in San Francisco and works for the city's Homeless Outreach Team, has started relying on BART and Muni to commute and get around town. He estimates he's cut his driving from about 1,000 miles per month to 500 miles.
While Buehlman said he despises the oil companies, he's grateful that soaring gas prices are prompting him and others to reduce the amount they drive.
"I look at it as a gift, a blessing," he said. "The profiteers are giving us the opportunity to make a decision to do something better for our planet, for our community."
Mary Ann Buggs, who lives in Berkeley and works near San Francisco's AT&T Park, switched to BART and Muni after years of driving across the Bay Bridge. So did her husband. But she's a reluctant convert to transit.
"I'm not particularly enjoying it," she said, "because Berkeley to SoMa by the ballpark is expensive (in transit fares) and nowhere near as comfortable as a car ride. But it is cheaper than spending $60 twice a week in gas station excursions."
Buggs and her husband are among a growing number of people avoiding the bridge.
According to the Bay Area Toll Authority, the number of drivers crossing the region's seven state-owned toll bridges this fiscal year has dropped 2 percent compared with the previous year. Six of the bridges have seen falling traffic counts - from a 1 percent decline at the Bay and Dumbarton bridges to 4 percent at the Antioch and Carquinez bridges. Only the Benicia-Martinez Bridge, which received a new three-lane span last fall, has seen an increase in traffic.
While some people rely more on mass transit to avoid high gas prices, others have gotten rid of their least-efficient cars.
For Kim Howard and her husband, Edison Peinado, that meant selling their Jeep Cherokee. The sport utility vehicle got 11 miles per gallon in city driving - not good considering the couple lives north of the Golden Gate Park Panhandle in the middle of San Francisco.
Now Peinado, a pilot with SkyWest Airlines, takes BART to and from the airport when he can. Otherwise, he and Howard must split the use of their one remaining car, a 12-year-old Audi.
It's a juggling act. Howard drives to Campbell for her job as marketing director for the Infonetics tech-industry research firm, but she's able to telecommute much of the time. Peinado gets the car when his return flight to San Francisco arrives too late at night for BART.
"It was more painful in the beginning, but we're getting used to it," Howard said. "It's like most things - you adapt."
She says the change is worth it, both to save money and help the environment. But it's a trade-off, with the couple sacrificing convenience to make it work.
Trying telecommuting
Like Howard, many Bay Area residents have tried telecommuting as gas prices rise.
Barbara Heninger manages a team of technical writers at the Synopsys software firm, with five writers in Sunnyvale and three in India. One of her local employees lives in Santa Cruz and comes to the office once a week. Another, who lives in San Jose, averages three days in the office each week. They work from home the rest of the time.
"This last year or two has been the first when employees cited concerns about the environment and commute costs as some of the reasons for working at home," Heninger said. The arrangement works, she says, as long as telecommuters make a point of communicating regularly with their co-workers.
If gas prices keep rising, she said, she expects more people to try telecommuting. "It will either be that, or people will really start considering how far away they want to live from where they work," said Heninger, who lives in Los Altos. "When I started in the tech industry, it wasn't that unusual to have people commuting here from Danville, because they wanted the big house on the hill."
Still, there remain people who have to drive for work. In some cases, they must drive a lot.
San Francisco cab driver Jorge Perez now spends about $50 per day on gasoline. In addition, he has to pay $100 per day to lease his cab, he said.
"What happens on top of that is what I make for the day," he said. "Sometimes it's difficult to make that much."
It doesn't help that Perez drives a Ford Crown Victoria, which gets about 15 miles per gallon. "They're good cars for the hills of San Francisco," he said, "but they aren't known for their fuel efficiency."
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 12:59 pm
18 Apr 2008
Surveys prove that the more modes you offer the more people will take the alternatives.
And no, Jon, I wouldn't have the that Greenspan job for all the money in the world. I'm just a dumb redneck surfer hippie from South Texas.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
enki Posted 11:44 pm
18 Apr 2008
Moving freight by rail would not be much different than the way UPS or FedEx moves freight. If you could have distribution hubs within 100 miles of most places then truck the freight from those hubs to it's final destination the door would be wide open for electric trucks because that should be an achievable range for them.
I took Amtrack from central Massachusetts to NYC several years ago and was impressed with the service and amenities available. Rail cars are much more roomy than planes and the scenery (and the food) is better.
Mike Johnston
Permalink
Michael Tobis Posted 7:24 am
02 May 2008
At 9 PM she called. The train was stalled for some reason short of Dallas. Amtrak did not want to pay their staff overtime. So in Dallas she was transferred, somewhat perfunctorily, to a bus.
Of course, the bus represented a train, so it had to find its way off the highway and into each tiny town to drop folks off at the train station. On one occasion the bus driver wandered all around a town unable to find the train station.
As the bus which wanted to be a train pulled into Austin at around 3 AM, she phoned us to pick her up. Of course, by then we had finally fallen asleep, and we had to rush to get our bearings. <y wife arrived just in time. Had she been late the net result of Amtrak service would havbe been to leave an 85 year old woman standing alone at a deserted train station in an urban core at 3:30 AM.<p>
Trains are better than busses for one reason. The capital investment implies a long-term commitment to the route. People can move their homes and workplaces to accommodate the route. Nevertheless, the service has to follow through. Long distance train travel should be a delight, not an ordeal.
Americans' regard of public services is always based on debased service. I don't know how to untangle this in general, but the services should understand what business they are in.
I doubt that my mother in law will take the train next time, since it turns out to be a badly run bus service. She would, in the end, have been more comfortable and safe on the Greyhound.
mt
Permalink
javaearth Posted 8:06 am
02 May 2008
If its there people will use it!
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:38 am
02 May 2008
The problem seems to be that their locomotives break down, which means to me that they don't do enough preventive maintenance -- notice the Obama story, he was talking to a guy at a maintenance depot that they were moving, or shutting down. I assume some of that is because of Amtrak's budget.
The relevant story here is NYC. When NYC started to do complete overhauls of all subway cars every 5 years, breakdowns went down radically. and as we all noticed, the airlines just had a huge maintenance snafu.
I'm not apologizing for Amtrak, God knows. But unfortunately, your example is a good example of the importance of maintenance.
Permalink
morganmghee Posted 3:34 pm
17 Jun 2008
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 6:45 pm
17 Jun 2008
How do you figure?
Permalink