After The Oil Runs Out

What people forget is that cars are incredibly heavily subsidized, in the form of public roads. If the Big Three were forced to build and maintain roads, then I think we'd have real competition on our hands.


As I understood it, Maglev was fairly energy-inefficient. I was under the impression that the entire rail is kept magnitized, even when a train isn't on that stretch of rail. If so, that seems like a waste of energy. If not, then its a pretty good idea : )

Another idea would be computer-driven cars. As we've learned from the Prius (or at least you guys have learned, I don't have one yet), stops and starts waste a whole lot of gasoline. Letting computers control every vehicle on the road would not only increase capacity (cars can go at high speeds, close together, and lanes can be less wide), but eliminate the inefficiencies of stop-and-go traffic. It could be a nice in-between solution before we get those flying cars that run on a thimble-full of water.

 

I have a High School friend who just moved back to San Diego from living in Tokyo for 15+ years. For him commuting to work via the Tokyo mass transit system took 10-15 minutes, door to door! I think part of the issue is the design of populations centers. With the layout of American cities, towns and communities, the car will always be easier and mass transit a PIA. Until, that is change, (if even possible in anything like the near term), I doubt that mass transit will prove to be very enticing whatever the form.

 

So the trains have actual, physical magnets on them, but the rail is comprised of electromagnets? Then I have to ask, why not just embed magnets into the rails too (not electromagnets).

I was under the impression that current superconducting technology was too bulky, costly and inefficient to deploy outside a laboratory.

 

You could have magnets on the track as well, but then you would need something else to propel the train. Also, magnets on a track would attract scrappy bits of metal & cause nasty problems.
There are some control problems not mentioned about the 'float on magnets' approach to maglev. The japanese train had a tendency to develop a nose to tail oscillation. There is some tricky controls to dampen it out. That's one of the reasons the german version uses magnetic attraction rather than repulsion.

 

Actually, I remember watching something about this on the History Channel. I just want to say that I don't mean to sound overly negative; I just didn't think that this technology was anywhere close to being widely adaptable (except maybe in Japan and Germany).

There's also the issue of how it would be used in the US. Tunneling underground for subways tends to be extremely expensive, but overground tracks have their own problem. As you suggested, metal might be attracted to maglev tracks? I guess, given their high speeds, maglev is being considered for city-to-city transport, as opposed to inner-city transport?

 

Another cost/issue of any rail system maglev or otherwise which tends to limit speed are the right of ways. The population areas where such a system would be most cost effective tend also to be riddled with streets, read rail crossings, which have limited the few high speed lines that have been put in in the US. (ie AMTRAK's high speed line between Boston and D.C. which only gets to full speed on a very modest portion of its run).

 

Actually, I would love to see it done. The caveat however, is that it must stand on its own as a profitable industry, unlike airtravel, and most notably, Amtrak. It must also be able to compete with the cost of driving to the destination myself. This will be the hard part due to how cheaply I can travel in the Prius.

 

Wolfman, you have to remember that your travel in a Prius is heavily subsidized by public roads. Like I said before, if the Big Three were building roads, then Amtrack/freight train/maglev companies shouldn't receive government money either. But since that's not true, there really isn't any realistic way that trains can compete with cars.

 

Yes, Our highway system is the most heavily subsided by our tax dollars of all modes mentioned.

 

I must disagree. The road system is funded by US. That's what the road use taxes in fuel are supposed to pay for. No one person can obviously foot the bill, so everyone pays a little bit of the pie through those fuel taxes. OTR trucks pay the lion share due to the sheer quantity of fuel that they purchase every day to operate.

 

Wolfman,

I went to the website for the federal government budget: www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/search.html. (GPO = government printing office) The following is out of the federal budget 2003(act.)/2004(est.)/2005(est.) in millions of dollars:

Federal Highway Administration:
32,516/36,833/35,727

Federal Aviation Administration:
12,560/14,015/14,266

Federal Railroad Administration:
1,205/1,605/1,418

I tried to get the "Gasoline Excise Tax" revenue off the IRS site but haven't been able to download anything off of the web (at least the government websites) that comes in a .xls excel spreadsheet format this morning.

To address your contention, I need that number as well, but maybe you or someone else can get that number as I was unable. However, the money that the federal government put into the Federal Highway Administration dwarfs that which goes into the rail administration. And don't the railroad companies such as Union Pacific pay taxes on both the diesel fuel burned as well as the land the track sits on?

 

I have no idea what this is going to look like, so here goes:

The excise taxes as listed in the IRS spreadsheet break down gasoline and other related road use taxes into seperate columns. The overall totals included other non related excise taxes, so this is a cut and past of the relevent information that I could find.

This is the link to the appropriate spreadsheet to understand the numbers:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03ex21te.xls


Tax liabilities by type of excise tax, total...................................................................... 40,998,482 45,533,817 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Retail excise taxes:
Luxury taxes:
Passenger vehicles.................................................................................................................................................. 532,180 440,347 428,471 401,535 407,222 341,981 252,834
Boats (repealed, January 1, 1993).................................................................................................................................................................. 108 -- 283 -- -- 19 --
Aircraft (repealed, January 1, 1993)....................................................................................................................................................................... 9 19 3 -- -- -- --
Jewelry (repealed, January 1, 1993)................................................................................................................................................................... -126 -5 -- -- -- -- --
Furs (repealed, January 1, 1993)....................................................................................................................................................................... 54 5 -- 12 -- 1 --
Dyed diesel fuel used in trains:
Total, excluding floor stocks......................................................................…...................................................................... 148,600 152,700 206,617 170,463 170,960 167,161 147,408
Floor stocks ...................................................................................................................... 1,173 4 -- 7 -- -- 1
Dyed diesel fuel for certain intercity or local buses....................................................................................................................... -4,523 -4,589 2,589 2,458 2,317 2,380 1,731
Special motor fuels:
Total, excluding floor stocks...................................................................... 41,300 37,300 18,745 23,757 19,535 18,404 17,570
Floor stocks...................................................................... -2 -- -- -17 -1 -- --
Compressed natural gas............................................................................................................................................... 866 1,047 1,025 865 1,145 1,026 895
Alcohol fuels [2]..................................................................................................................................................... 166 28 258 -377 807 5,462 408
Fuels used commercially on inland waterways...................................................................... 125,520 120,687 117,313 121,903 118,666 114,110 111,311
Truck, trailer, and semitrailer chassis and bodies,
and tractors...................................................................... 1,804,000 1,785,700 2,119,063 2,956,880 2,775,788 1,573,968 1,574,947
Manufacturers excise taxes:
Gas guzzlers [2]............................................................................................................................................................ 52,641 48,155 47,687 68,327 70,788 78,157 79,705
Highway-type tires [2]................................................................................................................................................................... 354,100 368,500 388,594 416,658 420,299 354,769 372,800
Aviation gasoline [3]......................................................................................... 5,681 43,909 60,741 57,832 58,472 49,687 62,574
Gasoline except for use in gasohol:
Total, excluding floor stocks................................................................................................................................................................................ 19,653,800 20,836,000 20,644,998 21,236,659 21,040,777 20,619,195 20,942,138
Floor stocks........................................................................................................................................................ 2,118 -1,491 1 -65 2 -21 2
Diesel fuel, except for trains and intercity buses:
Total, excluding floor stocks [2].............................................................................................................................................. 7,091,500 7,160,800 7,497,816 7,895,919 8,229,762 8,208,994 8,214,559
Floor stocks............................................................................................................................................................ -2,382 105 -66 121 -133 -- --
Gasoline for use in gasohol by alcohol content:
Total, excluding floor stocks:
5.7 percent under 7.7 percent .......................................................................................... 8,258 1,390 741 42 65 9 77
7.7 percent under 10 percent ............................................................................................... 5,732 4,498 3,792 13,228 4,266 4,839 4,835
10 percent or more ............................................................................................................. 293,120 214,090 241,946 231,114 265,273 243,702 302,407
Floor stocks ........................................................................................................................ 4 -3 -- -- -- 1 -1
Gasohol by alcohol content:
Total, excluding floor stocks:
5.7 percent under 7.7 percent ..............…...................................................................... 223,109 107,114 68,917 81,873 25,934 297,763 406,578
7.7 percent under 10 percent ............................................................................................... 235,639 180,575 123,441 180,025 59,104 146,196 176,148
10 percent or more ............................................................................................................. 964,220 1,060,250 1,511,363 1,537,235 2,039,428 1,918,995 1,932,347
Floor stocks ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 -- -- -- -- -4 --
Aviation fuel (except gasoline), noncommercial use:
Total, excluding floor stocks...................................................................... 88,400 157,900 195,772 173,117 159,314 187,318 287,664
Floor stocks ............................................................................................................................................. 4,685 14,202 -472 58 1 -- --
Aviation fuel (except gasoline) for commercial
use (other than foreign trade)...................................................................... 541,140 566,860 609,750 649,900 667,647 620,044 509,944
Kerosene (effective July 1, 1998)...................................................................... N/A N/A N/A 77,726 79,591 90,331 62,857

 

Wolfman,

Thanks. Still can't pull it up on my own but your direct link works for me.

For all trying to sort out this mess; briefly looked at, facts that need to be remembered are that the IRS spread sheet numbers are in thousands of dollars as opposed to the GPO numbers which are in millions (i.e. move decimal point 3 places left in the IRS post to give the same perspective.) And the last number in each category posted of the IRS numbers are 2002 totals whereas, my GPO numbers start in 2003.

A kind of off the cuff look does tend to support the idea that the gas taxes do basically match the federal highway adminstration budget when adding together relevent categories. But haven't looked too hard at the numbers yet as they are too hard to look at (could have gotten tangled up in the number conversions)

I would continue to argue that, if the rail system were to be expanded, there would be up front costs but expanding the rail tax base would ultimately offset that. Same logic as the Federal Tax Cuts that Bush is so fond of... And would come with an environmental dividend!!! (One could also make sure the taxes are structured to do so.)

Thanks Wolfman,

Jon

 

There are two problems with any mass transit system in the US. One is urban sprawl. The thinner you spread out the population, the lower the ridership for any given line, and that means that the capital cost of construction per rider is greater.

The other is that we are spoiled. It will always be more convenient to have your car with you, because mass transit typically requires transfers from one line to another and a waiting time for each train/bus/whatever. Only by increasing the cost and decreasing the convenience of private cars will people decide to switch to mass transit.

Also, in low-population-density areas the bus or train will come less often, making for longer waiting times, and it is more expensive (per user) to build shelters. Given the choice of standing in inclement weather for 10 minutes or driving a car, most people will drive, if they can afford it. Unless you make it very expensive, or illegal, to drive a car, mass transit only works in high-density areas.

Here in North Dakota, we don't even have bus service to the small towns, meaning that if you live outside of one of our very few cities you need a car.

Of course, if gas prices go high enough, people will be forced to use mass transit, and there will be the political motivation to build it where it's economical, and people will be forced to move back to where population density makes it possible.

 

Perhaps the automakers did build the first roads but ultimately it amounted to a tiny fraction of the pavement in this country. The points about convienience, affordability, and the low population densities, however, are spot on.

What it doesn't explain is the size issue which is another component of the American psyche. The size and horsepower, that resides under most private vehicle hoods is overkill and rarely used or required. I have no problems with legitimate need, but so much of it seems to be solely an issue of testosterone.

About the issue of ridership, though admittedly in many areas, a bit of a fantasy, my earlier argument is that without availabilty one cannot generate ridership. Note, large dense metro area public transportation, as poor as it is still does have significant ridership.

 

User fees do NOT pay for highway, air or rail services. They are ALL subsidized above and beyond what is raised in fees. Air transit is the worst in terms of not paying for itself and highway, while it has the MUCH bigger number) is not far behind in not paying for itself.

For a complete yearly listing of all Federal gasoline tax revenues from date they were first collected until 1993, and then totals for years through 1998, see http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/E...ics/econ-16.cfm.

Fuel taxes contribute about 2/3 of the $34 billion the Federal government will spend on highways, this year and the $34 billion requsted for FY 2005. But the subsidies don't end there. the Federal Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), which provide estimates of "pure" subsidies to automobile and truck users in the USA ranging from as low as $300 billion to as high as $935 billion annually – nearly a trillion dollars a year (and that was in 1994)! The claim that car users pay their costs is overly simplistic and inaccurate. Actually, highway user taxes defray only part of the country's total highway transportation costs. Most car trips are subsidized. A vast amount of heavy, hidden private subsidies actually exceed the total combined government and private subsidies to all transporation modes combined. In general, most estimates are that car drivers pay about 60 percent of the total cost of their travel. The remaining 40 percent consists of costs of highway construction, maintenance and control (traditionally subsidized by all three levels of government), "free" parking (subsidized by employers, store owners, schools, federal tax laws, and so on), and various social and environmental costs absorbed by society.


Aviation gets simliar subsidies, and in the past even GREATER subsidies were gifted to them. Air passengers did not pay user fees between 1963 and 1971, ironically the year Amtrak began operation. "Airport and airway development costs incurred prior to the assessment of user charges in 1971 have been treated as sunk costs, none of which will have been or will be paid for by air carriers...these sunk costs total $15.8 billion." -Source: Study of Federal Aid to Rail Transportation, USDOT 1977
And then there were the billions in grants after 9-11, and the Federal bailouts of major airlines.

And one has to ask why there are such strong lobbies for federal subsidies from the construction companies, the auto industry, the tire industry and the oil industry... Amtrak boasts no lobby other than it's users, and typically they don't buy many votes. Amtrak pays to ride the rails of the private railroads their trains run on. Amtrak takes back seat quite often to the freight trains running on the same rails they run on. There aren't any Amtrak snow plows out there in the winter like we get on the highways, no Federally paid air traffic controllers, etc, etc. So, simply level the playing field. Fund rail on a par with highways and air and stop living under the illusion that user fees are paying for the highways and airways.

And, all of these "subsidies" pale into insignficance when we realize that we are squandering our "capital" (that's how we SHOULD be looking at petroleum. A corporation doesn't burn cash. It looks to the future and invests that husbanded capital to grow. You want it on the balance sheet at the end of the year, not as an expense item on the profit and loss statement. Our society has been burning through our energy "capital" at rate that will make the dot.com burn through look like chump change since the consequences are potentially so devastating. Essentially, oil has been a "subsidy" to our civilization - our agriculture, our industry and our day to day lifestyle and as oil production peaks and declines that lifestyle will be severely distressed to say the least. Taking our lifestyle as "non-negotiable" is not a position that promotes our survival, nor does it put us in a frame of mind to look ahead and think about what kinds of changes we should be making now.

Even petroleum based rail, in spite of its inherent energy efficiency as opposed to the auto or air will be impacted by the decline of oil, so it's just a stop gap, but at least it will allow some semblance of travel, assuming we haven't chucked it in the dust bin, preferring to pour all our dollars into highways that may or may not have cars to run on them.

One day, even my beloved Prii will simply be aerodynmic coffee tables or perhaps sleek lounge chairs.