Posted on 12/18/2005 4:23:14 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
One is by rail; two is by sea
The United States must prepare for the inevitable day when fuel oil supplies run short. If the White House won't lead, the states should.
The Roanoke Times
Gov.-elect Tim Kaine's transportation listening tour has brought out the rail enthusiasts along the congested Interstate 81 corridor.
The need for massive improvements, including dedicated truck lanes and expensive tolls, could be avoided if only truck traffic were diverted off the highways and onto the railroads, chants the rising chorus of rail enthusiasts.
They have a point. But making the case on congestion alone won't sway the argument.
Running short on fuel oil should. The world, according to energy experts, has either reached or is nearing peak oil supply. That isn't to say that we've pumped oil reserves dry, but that much of it will remain inaccessible to today's technology that would consume as much energy extracting the oil as it would produce.
"Oil peaking represents a liquid fuels problem, not an 'energy crisis' in the sense that term has often been used," said Dr. Robert L. Hirsch, energy consultant and former chairman of the Board on Energy and Environmental Systems at the National Academies, while testifying Dec. 7 before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality. "Motor vehicles, aircraft, trains and ships simply have no ready alternative to liquid fuels."
Matthew Simmons, investment banker and author of "Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy" warns, "The idea that this (energy crunch ) is just another spike is the greatest myth of all time."
One of Simmons' suggestions to keep the economy from collapsing once fuel oil becomes scarce is to move freight off the highways and ship goods by the more energy-efficient means of rails and barges.
But it is difficult to entice industry and the government to begin thinking that way when fuel remains relatively inexpensive, the state of "our railroads would make Bulgaria embarrassed" and the time to move goods is extended.
Simmons said that shipping freight from San Diego to Portland, Maine, takes 4.5 days by truck, 12.5 days by barge and 25 days by train. With abundant, cheap fuel, the incentive to move off road is nonexistent.
The challenge for leaders is to project the future, energy-efficient modes of transportation and to persuade the public and industry of the need and means to arrive there. That type of leadership is absent from the White House. The Bush administration's Energy Policy Act ignores the impending liquid fuels crunch, and continues pushing Alaska's limited oil reserves as the saving fuel.
The United States cannot afford to wait three more years to get started, which leaves the initiative to the states.
But Virginia, even with Kaine's favorable view of rail improvements, can't rebuild transcontinental lines. The new governor can spur his counterparts in the I-81 corridor to make ready the way for when fuel oil runs short.
Precedents already exist for such alliances, as when states joined together to address greenhouse gas emissions while the administration foolishly pretended global warming was a myth.
Impending fuel shortages are just as real.
PING!
Won't people just find alternatives to black gold when that becomes rare?
Let the market work it all out.
Of course they will find alternatives. The technology to get more oil is here already, it just varies as to the price at which it is economically feasible. There is a new microwave leaching technique that is enviro friendly and economically feasible at today's prices for removing high quality gas and oil from shale. There are plenty of wells that will become profitable as oil prices increase. As far as alternatives, people will just adjust to the higher prices. Car pooling, moving closer to work, working from home....riding a bike for crying out loud. Bottom line is: If the price is right, Shell and Co can find as much oil as we need. If it all dried up tomorrow, we could simply put a convertor on our cars and run biofuels made from corn. The Middle East happens to be a source of high quality, fairly reasonable crude. Their leaders are willing to sell every last drop. We are willing to pay a premium of sorts in the short term...ie put up with the OPEC cartel in order to preserve our national reserves. If oil dries up in the Middle East, their leaders will all take their fat bank accounts and move to Europe and their people will go back to their Bedouin nomadic lifestyles, roaming the desert and eating dirt sandwiches.
Unless there is a typo, these time estimates tell the real problem with our current rail operators. Rail should take about as long as truck (from terminal to terminal), possibly less for truly long distance trips. I have been told that the biggest problem with shipping things by rail for many companies is that they find rail to be unreliable, i.e. freight car is not a designated delivery point at the time designated.
Years ago, when there was still significant passenger rail service, the now-defunct Interstate Commerce Commission established uniform accounting rules for the railroads. Certain costs were incorrectly allocated to passenger service. On paper, the railroads couldn't make money on passenger service, so they slowly abandoned it. However, with the demise of passenger service, the costs didn't go away, since they weren't related to passenger service in the first place. As a result, the railroads are still losing money because of incorrect allocation of costs.
Ironically, the ICC was originally established at the behest of the railroads, who wanted to form a cartel but couldn't do so because they had no way of enforcing their "agreed" prices. Individual railroads would agree on specific tariffs for specific goods, but then "cheat" by offering "rebates" to big customers. Finally the railroads got the ICC to enforce their cartel. What they didn't realize was that the ICC, a political body, would pay more attention to the larger number of railroad users than it would to the railroads themselves. The railroads got their cartel, but the ICC set rates at money-losing levels.
One more illustration that you should be careful what you wish for. You might get it.
Mass transit, huh? Substitute "collective" for "mass" and you've got it. Mass transit is for sheep and cattle. With mass transit you leave from a point of the government's choosing, at a time of the government's choosing, to a destination of its choosing. With the private car you leave from a point of your choosing, to a destination of your choosing, at a time of your choosing. No wonder the collectivists hate the private car so much and fawn over boondoggles like the "big dig" in Boston.
--Boris
Norfolk Southern seems to be making money.
The need for massive improvements, including dedicated truck lanes and expensive tolls, could be avoided if only truck traffic were diverted off the highways and onto the railroads, chants the rising chorus of rail enthusiasts.
Of course the Rail enthusiasts will go for this. They want the additional revenues from increased business. I would like to hear their explanations of how a train is going to stop at the local mall to offload its goods. Trucks will still be needed on the roads.
As far as tolls are concerned, I'd like to know what is becoming of the billions in fuel taxes which were supposed to be slated for roadways.
The Big Pig (yes, that's a deliberate slur) is a highway tunnel project. It has nothing (as far as I know) to do with mass transit.
You've STILL got to have trucks for the distance from the rail terminal to company warehouse, and from company warehouse to final destination. Trucks are NOT gonna go away.
This is just another red-herring from the "choo-choo train" lovers.
Freight rail may be good for long-distance transport, but it will never replace trucks for more local distances.
Some of the revenues have probably been wasted on pork. Another portion gets spent on mass transit. Other portions are diverted for other purposes. For example, in your state, Texas, a Constitutional amendment was approved which diverts 1/4 of your gasoline taxes to education.
Even if all fuel tax revenues and licensing and registration fees were diverted to roads, however, I'm not sure that would solve the present crisis. Road-building seems to be getting mighty expensive, in part, I conclude, because of trade restrictions and/or tariffs on Mexican cement, foreign steel, and Canadian lumber (the last can be used for guardrail posts and signposts).
IMHO all long haul freight ( long haul defined as more than 250 miles) should be by railroad.
For example, in your state, Texas, a Constitutional amendment was approved which diverts 1/4 of your gasoline taxes to education.
This is another sore point, especially with all the property taxes in this state going towards education- I believe the last estimate was $30B. That's a lot of education. Of course, a few school districts here are coming under scrutiny for their missappropriation of those funds.
Even if all fuel tax revenues and licensing and registration fees were diverted to roads, however, I'm not sure that would solve the present crisis. Road-building seems to be getting mighty expensive, in part, I conclude, because of trade restrictions and/or tariffs on Mexican cement, foreign steel, and Canadian lumber (the last can be used for guardrail posts and signposts).
I disagree with this comment to a point. If the roadways were properly designed initially, with future development in mind, we wouldn't have these problems. I am referring to the present toll plans (double taxation) for US 281 and FM 1604 in San Antonio, where the proper design of the interchanges would alleviate congestion and obviate the need for tolls in this area.
The issues of tariffs are another sticking point. NAFTA was supposed to open the borders for free trade and lowered tariffs, yet we still suffer from the same old tariffs because we can't compete with the cheap labor and materials from down south. As for Canadian lumber, I was at Lowes today and it seems that the majority of their bulk lumber was from Canada.
Back to the point of the article, rail is OK for bulk shipping, but it can't replace trucks when moving goods from the depot to the store.
PING!
Ethanol and soybean oil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.