Falls Church

News Press

ONLINE

The Peak Oil Crisis: Transiting to Transit

Written by Tom Whipple   

Thursday, 08 May 2008

 

With crude oil now above $120 a barrel and threatening to go higher, it is clear that our preferred and convenient means of going places, our car, the airplane and the rental car soon are going to be parked because they will be too expensive to operate.

 

Like it or not, most of us are going to be riding some form of mass transit or multiple passenger vehicle – trains, buses, trolleys, car pools, van pools etc.- while waiting for our cars to be replaced with electric or higher mileage vehicles. As there are currently about 220 million cars and light trucks registered in the U.S. and 700 million or so elsewhere, the replacement process is going to be lengthy one.

 

In America, our accustomed daily transportation needs are so diverse that it is difficult to foresee how new transportation methods and patterns will come about. For some simply accepting the inconvenience of taking public transit to work or joining a car pool will save enough gasoline each week that much higher prices, shortages and ultimately rationing can be accommodated without undue hardship.

 

For others whose livelihood depends on a large vehicle that moves frequently throughout the work day there is more of a problem for mass transit as currently configured is unlikely to be of much use. At some point driving around at 10 mpg to mow lawns will no longer be economically viable for customers will no longer be willing to pay the fuel surcharges. Someday there probably will be satisfactory electric or ultra high mileage vehicles, but it is likely to be a while before they filter down from better off organizations such UPS, FedEx and the grocery stores to local maintenance contractors.

 

One day soon, it will simply be too expensive for electricians, plumbers and a myriad of other household service providers to drive 50 or 60 miles in large, inefficient vehicles to perform some relatively minor maintenance task. The very nature of such services will have to change, be localized, and planned so that travel is minimized. Someday, your electrician may arrive on a city bus pulling his tools and parts behind.
 

The speed with which we have to transition from unlimited, cheap, personal travel to some form of public or at least multiple passenger transport will determine how transit works in the coming decades. If people are priced out of their cars relatively slowly over a period of many years then the transit industry and private entrepreneurs will have time to react. Bus schedules can be stepped up. More vehicles can be added to transit fleets and new routes can be added. Local governments might start or charter small local transit services that can move people and goods to and from their homes to longer-haul transit services.

 

There may be efficiencies in combining people transport and package delivery on the same vehicle. An empty bus winding around a subdivision all day long might be unaffordable, but if that vehicle were delivering the groceries as well as providing the last leg of package deliveries, the economics even with very high gasoline prices might make sense. The internet and cell phone are likely to be of great value in coordinating efficient use of local transport.

 

Five dollar gasoline may be enough to force some people to give up steady use of their personal cars and seek other solutions. For others, the quitting price may be ten or twenty dollars per gallon and for the very wealthy even $100 a gallon gasoline ($80 or $100 thousand a year) would be an acceptable price to pay for the convenience of the private car.
 

In the case of slowly increasing gasoline prices the problem is one of forming a critical mass that will make economic sense for greatly expanded mass transit. Such a critical mass is likely to come for long distance travel first, for as soon as discretionary air travel becomes unaffordable, the demand for better train and bus service will increase rapidly. Long distance automobile travel may fill some of this gap especially for moving multiple passengers or if cars become significantly more efficient, but for the lone traveler, a long distance car trip could become very expensive.

 

A totally different situation will exist if gasoline prices increase rapidly and permanent shortages develop leading to the imposition of rationing. Such an increase looks likely at the minute, demand simply getting so far ahead of the supply that the U.S. is no longer able to import its accustomed 12 million barrels per day. It would only take a five percent shortfall in supply to cause turmoil.

 

Large organizations should have the resources to look after their employees in a transportation emergency – be it assistance in forming carpools, company supplied vans, flexible hours, telecommuting or whatever works. It is the self-employed or employees of small firms that currently are dependent on motor vehicles for their living that will be in deep trouble almost immediately.

Independent truckers are already complaining mightily about diesel prices and many have been forced out of business. Their used trucks, by the way, are being sold to the Russians in increasing numbers. The Russians will still have cheap diesel for a while and they love the reliability and comfort of big American 18 wheelers that are being sold off at bargain prices.

 

Local governments are going to have to deal with the transportation problem or be faced with massive social issues as people become isolated from places of employment. A large decline in personal mobility is likely to result in considerable economic hardship and job losses as much discretionary travel will simply stop due to excessive costs or the inconvenience of other arrangements.

 


logoprinter.gif

May 10, 2008

Gas Prices Prompt Mass Transit Surge

DENVER — With the price of gas approaching $4 a gallon, more commuters are abandoning their cars and taking the train or bus instead.

Mass transit systems around the country are seeing standing-room-only crowds on bus lines where seats were once easy to come by. Parking lots at many bus and light rail stations are suddenly overflowing, with commuters in some towns risking a ticket or tow by parking on nearby grassy areas and in vacant lots.

“In almost every transit system I talk to, we’re seeing very high rates of growth the last few months,” said William W. Millar, president of the American Public Transportation Association.

“It’s very clear that a significant portion of the increase in transit use is directly caused by people who are looking for alternatives to paying $3.50 a gallon for gas.”

Some cities with long-established public transit systems, like New York and Boston, have seen increases in ridership of 5 percent or more so far this year. But the biggest surges — of 10 to 15 percent or more over last year — are occurring in many metropolitan areas in the South and West where the driving culture is strongest and bus and rail lines are more limited.

Here in Denver, for example, ridership was up 8 percent in the first three months of the year compared with last year, despite a fare increase in January and a slowing economy, which usually means fewer commuters. Several routes on the system have reached capacity, particularly at rush hour, for the first time.

“We are at a tipping point,” said Clarence W. Marsella, chief executive of the Denver Regional Transportation District, referring to gasoline prices.

Transit systems in metropolitan areas like Minneapolis, Seattle, Dallas-Fort Worth and San Francisco reported similar jumps. In cities like Houston, Nashville, Salt Lake City, and Charlotte, N.C., commuters in growing numbers are taking advantage of new bus and train lines built or expanded in the last few years. The American Public Transportation Association reports that localities with fewer than 100,000 people have also experienced large increases in bus ridership.

In New York, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority reports that ridership was up the first three months of the year by more than 5 percent on the Long Island Rail Road and the Metro-North Railroad, while M.T.A. bus ridership was up 10.9 percent. New York City subway use was up 6.8 percent for January and February. Ridership on New Jersey Transit trains was up more than 5 percent for the first three months of the year.

The increase in transit use coincides with other signs that American motorists are beginning to change their driving habits, including buying smaller vehicles. The Energy Department recently predicted that Americans would consume slightly less gasoline this year than last — for the first yearly decline since 1991.

Oil prices broke yet another record on Friday, climbing $2.27, to $125.96 a barrel. The national average for regular unleaded gasoline reached $3.67 a gallon, up from $3.04 a year ago, according to AAA.

But meeting the greater demand for mass transit is proving difficult. The cost of fuel and power for public transportation is about three times that of four years ago, and the slowing economy means local sales tax receipts are down, so there is less money available for transit services. Higher steel prices are making planned expansions more expensive.

Typically, mass transit systems rely on fares to cover about a third of their costs, so they depend on sales taxes and other government funding. Few states use gas tax revenue for mass transit.

In Denver, transportation officials expected to pay $2.62 a gallon for diesel this year, but they are now paying $3.20. Every penny increase costs the Denver Regional Transportation District an extra $100,000 a year. And it is bracing for a $19 million shortfall in sales taxes this year from original projections.

“I’d like to put more buses on the street,” Mr. Marsella said. “I can’t expand service as much as I’d like to.”

Average annual growth from sales tax revenue for the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, a rail service that connects San Francisco with Oakland, has been 4.5 percent over the last 15 years. It expects that to fall to 2 percent this year, and electricity costs are rising.

“This is a year of abundant caution and concern,” said Dorothy W. Dugger, BART’s general manager, even though ridership on the line was up nearly 5 percent in the first quarter of the year.

Nevertheless, Ms. Dugger is happy that mass transit is winning over converts. “The future of mass transit in this country has never been brighter,” she said.

Other factors may be driving people to mass transit, too. Wireless computers turn travel time into productive work time, and more companies are offering workers subsidies to take buses or trains. Traffic congestion is getting worse in many cities, and parking more expensive.

Michael Brewer, an accountant who had always driven the 36-mile trip to downtown Houston from the suburb of West Belford, said he had been thinking about switching to the bus for the last two years. The final straw came when he put $100 of gas into his Pontiac over four days a couple of weeks ago.

“Finally I was ready to trade my independence for the savings,” he said while waiting for a bus.

Brayden Portillo, a freshman at the University of Colorado Denver, drove from his home in the northern suburbs to the downtown campus in his Jeep Cherokee the entire first semester of the school year, enjoying the rap and disco music blasting from his CD player.

He switched to the bus this semester because he was spending $40 a week on gas — half his salary as a part-time store clerk. “Finally, I thought this is stupid,” he said, and he is using the savings to pay down a credit card debt.

The sudden jump in ridership comes after several years of steady, gradual growth. Americans took 10.3 billion trips on public transportation last year, up 2.1 percent from 2006. Transit managers are predicting growth of 5 percent or more this year, the largest increase in at least a decade.

“If we are in a recession or economic downturn, we should be seeing a stagnation or decrease in ridership, but we are not,” said Daniel Grabauskas, general manager of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, which serves the Boston area. “Fuel prices are without question the single most important factor that is driving people to public transportation.”

Some cities are seeing spectacular gains. The Charlotte Area Transit System, which has a new light rail line, reported that it logged more than two million trips in February, up more than 34 percent from February 2007.

Caltrain, the commuter rail line that serves the San Francisco Peninsula and the Santa Clara Valley, set a record for average weekday ridership in February of 36,993, a 9.3 increase from 2007, according to its most recent public calculation.

The South Florida Regional Transportation Authority, which operates a commuter rail system from Miami to Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, posted a rise of more than 20 percent in rider numbers this March and April as monthly ridership climbed to 350,000.

“Nobody believed that people would actually give up their cars to ride public transportation,” said Joseph J. Giulietti, executive director of the authority. “But in the last year, and last several months in particular, we have seen exactly that.”


logoprinter.gif

April 30, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist

Dumb as We Wanna Be

The McCain-Clinton gas holiday proposal is a perfect example of what energy expert Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: “Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.”

It is great to see that we finally have some national unity on energy policy. Unfortunately, the unifying idea is so ridiculous, so unworthy of the people aspiring to lead our nation, it takes your breath away. Hillary Clinton has decided to line up with John McCain in pushing to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for this summer’s travel season. This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country.

When the summer is over, we will have increased our debt to China, increased our transfer of wealth to Saudi Arabia and increased our contribution to global warming for our kids to inherit.

No, no, no, we’ll just get the money by taxing Big Oil, says Mrs. Clinton. Even if you could do that, what a terrible way to spend precious tax dollars — burning it up on the way to the beach rather than on innovation?

The McCain-Clinton gas holiday proposal is a perfect example of what energy expert Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: “Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.”

Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering.

But here’s what’s scary: our problem is so much worse than you think. We have no energy strategy. If you are going to use tax policy to shape energy strategy then you want to raise taxes on the things you want to discourage — gasoline consumption and gas-guzzling cars — and you want to lower taxes on the things you want to encourage — new, renewable energy technologies. We are doing just the opposite.

Are you sitting down?

Few Americans know it, but for almost a year now, Congress has been bickering over whether and how to renew the investment tax credit to stimulate investment in solar energy and the production tax credit to encourage investment in wind energy. The bickering has been so poisonous that when Congress passed the 2007 energy bill last December, it failed to extend any stimulus for wind and solar energy production. Oil and gas kept all their credits, but those for wind and solar have been left to expire this December. I am not making this up. At a time when we should be throwing everything into clean power innovation, we are squabbling over pennies.

These credits are critical because they ensure that if oil prices slip back down again — which often happens — investments in wind and solar would still be profitable. That’s how you launch a new energy technology and help it achieve scale, so it can compete without subsidies.

The Democrats wanted the wind and solar credits to be paid for by taking away tax credits from the oil industry. President Bush said he would veto that. Neither side would back down, and Mr. Bush — showing not one iota of leadership — refused to get all the adults together in a room and work out a compromise. Stalemate. Meanwhile, Germany has a 20-year solar incentive program; Japan 12 years. Ours, at best, run two years.

“It’s a disaster,” says Michael Polsky, founder of Invenergy, one of the biggest wind-power developers in America. “Wind is a very capital-intensive industry, and financial institutions are not ready to take ‘Congressional risk.’ They say if you don’t get the [production tax credit] we will not lend you the money to buy more turbines and build projects.”

It is also alarming, says Rhone Resch, the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, that the U.S. has reached a point “where the priorities of Congress could become so distorted by politics” that it would turn its back on the next great global industry — clean power — “but that’s exactly what is happening.” If the wind and solar credits expire, said Resch, the impact in just 2009 would be more than 100,000 jobs either lost or not created in these industries, and $20 billion worth of investments that won’t be made.

While all the presidential candidates were railing about lost manufacturing jobs in Ohio, no one noticed that America’s premier solar company, First Solar, from Toledo, Ohio, was opening its newest factory in the former East Germany — 540 high-paying engineering jobs — because Germany has created a booming solar market and America has not.

In 1997, said Resch, America was the leader in solar energy technology, with 40 percent of global solar production. “Last year, we were less than 8 percent, and even most of that was manufacturing for overseas markets.”

The McCain-Clinton proposal is a reminder to me that the biggest energy crisis we have in our country today is the energy to be serious — the energy to do big things in a sustained, focused and intelligent way. We are in the midst of a national political brownout.


logoprinter.gif 
 
April 20, 2008
Barreling Along

The Big Thirst

Oil prices rose above $116 a barrel last week, setting another record for the world’s most indispensable energy commodity. What was striking about this latest milestone was what didn’t happen: there was no shortage of oil, no sudden embargo, no exporter turning off its spigot.

The weak dollar, worries about terrorism and speculation on commodity markets certainly played a role. But, of course, so did demand. Producers are struggling to pump as much as they can to quench the thirst not only of the developed world, but fast-growing developing nations like China and India, the two most populous countries. To many experts, the steadily rising price underscored longer-term fears about the future of a system that has supplied cheap oil for more than a century.

“This is the market signaling there is a problem,” said Jan Stuart, global oil economist at UBS, “that there is a growing difficulty to meet demand with new supplies.”

Today’s tensions are only likely to get worse in coming years. Consider a few numbers: The planet’s population is expected to grow by 50 percent to nine billion by sometime in the middle of the century. The number of cars and trucks is projected to double in 30 years— to more than two billion — as developing nations rapidly modernize. And twice as many passenger jetliners, more than 36,000, will in all likelihood be crisscrossing the skies in 20 years.

All of that will require a lot more oil — enough that global oil consumption will jump by some 35 percent by the year 2030, according to the International Energy Agency, a leading global energy forecaster for the United States and other developed nations. For producers it will mean somehow finding and pumping an additional 11 billion barrels of oil every year.

And that’s only 22 years away, a heartbeat for the petroleum industry, where the pace of finding and tapping new supplies is measured in decades.

The pursuit of oil will be just part of the energy challenge. The world’s total energy demand — including oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear power, as well as renewable energy sources like wind, solar and hydro power — is set to rise by 65 percent over the next two decades, according to the I.E.A.

But petroleum, the dominant fuel of the 20th century, will remain the top energy source. It accounts for more than a third of the world’s total energy needs, ahead of coal and natural gas. Refined into gasoline, kerosene or diesel fuel, oil has no viable substitute as a transportation fuel, and that is not likely to change much in the next 30 years.

The problem is that no one can say for sure where all this oil is going to come from.

That might not sound like such a bad thing for those concerned about carbon emissions and climate change. High prices might end up forcing people to conserve and encourage the development of alternatives. But the energy crunch might also result in a global scramble for resources, energy wars, and much higher energy prices.

Some oil executives are sounding the alarm bell. At a recent energy conference, John Hess, the chief executive of Hess Corporation, the international oil company, warned that an oil crisis was looming if the world didn’t deal with runaway demand and strained supplies. The chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell, Jeroen van der Veer, said recently, with some understatement, that, “the energy outlook does not look rosy.”

For one thing, the world’s oil supplies are already stretched. Countries outside of the OPEC cartel — which have been the main source of new oil discoveries and production since the 1970s — have said they expect little to no growth this year in oil production.

The North Sea and Alaska are slowly running out of oil and producers there are struggling to keep production from falling. Russia’s phenomenal oil surge is coming to an end; a top executive of Lukoil, the country’s second-largest oil group, said last week that the country’s production was unlikely to grow much. Nigeria is battling a violent militancy. And Mexico, the third-most-important supplier of crude to the United States, has been stuck in a crippling political debate over keeping out foreign investors while witnessing a dramatic drop in production that some analysts say may be irreversible.

What about OPEC? The 13 members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries account for three-quarters of the world’s proven oil reserves. But for various reasons, most of those countries are making it harder, if not impossible, for foreign oil companies to invest within their borders. With energy prices rising, OPEC producers are seeing record revenues, which have reduced the incentive to dip into their supplies by boosting production.

At the same time, major oil companies like Exxon Mobil, BP and Chevron are finding it harder to compete worldwide, as national oil companies erode their once-dominant positions. Fourteen of the world’s Top 20 oil companies are state-owned giants, like Saudi Aramco and Russia’s Gazprom. That leaves Western oil companies in control of less than 10 percent of the world’s oil and gas reserves.

Facing higher costs, those companies are also having greater difficulty locating new oil deposits. Despite spending over $100 billion on exploration last year, the five largest international oil companies found less oil last year than they pumped out of the ground.

A small band of skeptics view today’s record prices as evidence that oil supplies have peaked — that half the globe’s oil supply has already been used up. But most experts believe that there are still enough oil reserves, both discovered and undiscovered, to last at least through the middle of the century.

The problem is that in many corners of the world, geopolitics, more than geology, has removed much of those reserves from the reach of independent oil companies.

“There are plenty of resources in the globe,” Rex Tillerson, the chairman of Exxon, recently told an investor conference. The difficulty, he said, was “just continuing to have access to all of the opportunities.”

Over the past century, the world burned through a trillion barrels of oil. Another 1.2 trillion barrels of known conventional oil reserves wait to tapped, according to BP, one of the world’s biggest oil companies. It sounds like a lot. But given the current rate of growth in demand, a trillion of those barrels will be used up in less than 30 years.

What then? Many analysts estimate another trillion barrels of yet-to-be-found oil remains, but in remote places like the Arctic Ocean where it will be expensive to extract, or in countries that might restrict access.

The big oil companies have been in a global dash to find and pump more oil. But it takes time, sometimes a decade, before the first barrels from a newly discovered oil field are pumped and sold.

What of the alternatives?

Corn ethanol, which was sold as a quick fix to the nation’s dependency on oil imports, is an imperfect substitute. It is now blamed for driving up food prices while emitting more carbon dioxide and providing a third less energy per gallon than gasoline.

It is no panacea either. Even if oil companies can meet the federal requirement to use 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022, which many say will be impossible, it would only amount to 10 percent of the country’s current oil demand.

Likewise, the rush to develop heavy oil, tar sands and shale oil reserves, and investments to turn coal into liquid fuels, like diesel, will yield only small amounts of fuel. But their cost to the environment will be much higher than the exploitation of conventional oil.

Some experts are not quite so worried. They argue that the oil industry is a cyclical one in which higher prices eventually push down demand. “We’re in a bubble right now,” said Robert Mabro, a well-known oil expert at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. “Prices are rising because everyone expects them to do so. We’ve seen the same thing in the real estate market.”

Still, the growth in oil consumption almost certainly will need to slow in coming years. But it seems unlikely that developing nations will cut their consumption first. China, India and the Middle East are in the midst of exceptional economic booms and need cheap energy, which is largely subsidized by their governments, to keep growing and modernizing.

Oil now accounts for just 19 percent of China’s energy needs. But China’s oil demand is expected to more than double by 2030 to over 16 million barrels a day, according to the International Energy Agency, as more people rise from poverty, move out of villages and buy more cars.

Just as in the United States, much of the increase in China’s oil demand has come from that country’s love affair with cars. The number of vehicles in China rose sevenfold between 1990 and 2006, to 37 million. China has now surpassed both Germany and Japan to become the second-largest car market in the world, and is set to overtake the United States by around 2015. China could have as many as 300 million vehicles by 2030.

William Chandler, an energy expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, estimates that if the Chinese were using energy like Americans, global energy use would double overnight and five more Saudi Arabias would be needed just to meet oil demand. India isn’t far behind. By 2030, the two counties will import as much oil as the United States and Japan do today.

What about the United States? The country has shown little willingness to address its energy needs in a rational way. James Schlesinger, the nation’s first energy secretary in the 1970s, once said the United States was capable of only two approaches to its energy policy: “complacency or crisis.”

The United States is the only major industrialized nation to see its oil consumption surge since the oil shocks of the 1970s and 1980s. This can partly be explained by the fact that the United States has some of the lowest gasoline prices in the world, the least fuel-efficient cars on the roads, the lowest energy taxes, and the longest daily commutes of any industrialized nation. The result: about a quarter of the world’s oil goes to the United States every day, and of that, more than half goes to its cars and trucks.

Rising prices and fears about the security of future supplies finally persuaded Congress last year to approve the first increase in fuel efficiency standards in 30 years, raising the average fleet-wide standards by 40 percent to 35 miles a gallon by 2020. The push, which was resisted by American carmakers for years, is underwhelming. The same goal could be reached overnight if everyone drove a Honda: the Japanese carmaker’s fleet already averages 35 miles a gallon.

“The country has been living beyond its means,” said Vaclav Smil, a prominent energy expert at the University of Manitoba. “The situation is dire. We need to do relative sacrifices. But people don’t realize how dire the situation is.”


washingtonpost.com
 

A Switch on the Tracks: Railroads Roar Ahead   

Global Trade, Fuel Costs Add Up To Expansion for Once-Dying Industry

By Frank Ahrens

Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 21, 2008; Page A01

RADFORD, Va. -- When Bob Billingsley hired on with Norfolk Southern railway 31 years ago, he was a rookie on work crews that were closing unused lines as the nation's economy turned its back on the railroads.

Now he's in charge of raising the roof of a Norfolk Southern tunnel in southwestern Virginia to clear headroom for the double-stacked container cars that have become the symbol of the industry's sudden surge thanks to a confluence of powerful global factors.

"For years, we were looking for ways to cut costs to increase profits," said Billingsley, as a train rumbled by. "Now, we're building business to increase profits."

The freight railway industry is enjoying its biggest building boom in nearly a century, a turnaround as abrupt as it is ambitious. It is largely fueled by growing global trade and rising fuel costs for 18-wheelers. In 2002, the major railroads laid off 4,700 workers; in 2006, they hired more than 5,000. Profit has doubled industry-wide since 2003, and stock prices have soared. The value of the largest railroad, the Union Pacific, has tripled since 2001.

This year alone, the railroads will spend nearly $10 billion to add track, build switchyards and terminals, and open tunnels to handle the coming flood of traffic. Freight rail tonnage will rise nearly 90 percent by 2035, according to the Transportation Department.

In the 1970s, tight federal regulation, cheap truck fuel and a wide-open interstate highway system conspired to cripple the railroad industry, driving many lines into bankruptcy. The nation's 300,000 miles of rails became a web of slow-moving, poorly maintained lines, so dilapidated in spots that tracks would give way under standing trains.

The Staggers Rail Act of 1980 largely deregulated the industry, leading to a wave of consolidation. More than 40 major lines condensed into the seven that remain, running on 162,000 miles of track.

But the changing global market has fueled prosperity -- and the need to add track for the first time in 80 years. Soaring diesel prices and a driver shortage have pushed freight from 18-wheelers back onto the rails. At the same time, China's unquenchable appetite for coal and the escalating U.S. demand for Chinese goods, means more U.S. rail traffic is heading to ports in the Northwest, on its way to and from the Far East.

Coal still accounts for the most tonnage hauled by U.S. railroads, but it is the ocean-crossing shipping container -- carrying autos, toys, furniture and nearly every product a consumer will buy -- that has lit a rocket under the railroad industry. Passenger rail traffic is also increasing; 2007 was Amtrak's fifth consecutive year of increased ridership, up 6 percent from 2006.

The zeitgeist has even dropped a "green" gift in the industry's lap. A train can haul a ton of freight 423 miles on one gallon of diesel fuel, about a 3-to-1 fuel efficiency advantage over 18-wheelers, and the railroad industry is increasingly touting itself as an eco-friendly alternative. Trucking firms also use the rail lines; UPS is the railroad industry's biggest customer.

Rail traffic, revenue and profit began to soar in 2002-03 and seem largely immune to the economic downturn. Last Tuesday, for instance, CSX reported a record first-quarter profit. On Friday, the stock price of Western rail giant Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) hit an all-time high. At the industry's nadir in the 1970s, the average annual rate of return on investment for a railroad company was 1.2 percent. By 2006, that number was 10.2 percent.

And even though the economic slump has reduced key traffic about 4 percent this year compared with last, it has not slowed the railroads' urgent tracklaying. Capital expenditures this year are up, as the railroads think the downturn is temporary, said the industry's trade group, the Association of American Railroads.

Seven railways control nearly all of the freight shipped in the United States. In the West, they are, from largest to smallest by track mileage, Union Pacific, BNSF, Canadian Pacific/Soo Line and Kansas City Southern. In the East, they are Norfolk Southern, CSX and the Canadian National/Grand Trunk lines. Most of them have extensive expansions planned or underway.

The companies are attracting the attention of big-money investors, such as Berkshire Hathaway Chairman Warren E. Buffett, who sees a future in the Industrial Age behemoths. Buffett, a Washington Post Co. director, began loading up on shares of BNSF last year and is now its largest shareholder, with more than 18 percent of its outstanding stock.

The industry estimates it will take $148 billion in expansion to carry the amount of traffic anticipated by 2035. Of that, the railroad companies will contribute $96 billion, said the industry's trade group. The rest would have to come from the federal government and the states.

The railroads argue that more trains mean fewer trucks on the road and less air pollution, public benefits that the public should help pay for. Further, the railroads could not achieve the profits they say Wall Street demands without government subsidies. The railroads seek a tax credit, backed by Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), that would help them expand further.

Meanwhile, the railroad industry's long-standing antitrust exemption has attracted the attention of lawmakers. They seek to eliminate the exemption and closely examine the rates railroads charge to haul freight, which the industry says would cripple its expansion at a critical time.

The railroads' rate structure has also drawn the ire of some of their customers: Nearly 30 antitrust lawsuits have been filed against major railroads in recent months, including one by agri-giant Archer Daniels Midland last month, alleging collusion and price-fixing.

For some lawmakers and advocacy groups, today's rail industry recalls that of the late 1800s, when the only ceiling on rates was the limit of a rail baron's avarice. The railroads say today's rates are reasonable and reflect something the industry has not had in decades: pricing power.

"Customers had gotten used to rates going down all those years, and all of the sudden, they're not anymore," Norfolk Southern vice president James A. Hixon said in an interview. "They don't like it."

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), whose state depends on trains carrying coal, introduced a bill last year that the railroad industry derides as the "Reregulation Act."

The legislation, which has not been scheduled for a floor vote, would allow shippers to easily challenge railroad rates at the Surface Transportation Board, which regulates the rail industry. Now, some shippers say, they have almost no recourse if they think the railroads are gouging them.

"It's a byzantine system, and it's rigged against the shippers," said Robert Szabo, executive director of Consumers United for Rail Equity, a coalition of shippers who say that the railroads' monopoly pricing structure raises the cost of consumer goods.

The railroads "have been in a seller's market since 2004," said Szabo, whose group backs Rockefeller's legislation.

Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) introduced a bill last year that would remove the railroads' antitrust exemption. Unlike other industries, the Department of Justice cannot block a merger between rail companies, and the STB has been criticized for siding too often with the industry.

"Competition has virtually gone away," Kohl said in an interview. His bill has not been scheduled for a floor vote. "They have carved up the country, and each [railroad] controls its vast area."

Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), a co-sponsor of both bills, cites an example: The railroads charge four times as much to ship a carload of grain from Bismarck, N.D., to Minneapolis as they do to ship it from Minneapolis to Chicago, although the distances are about equal. The reason: Shippers have only one choice of railroad out of Bismarck.

The railroad industry calls it "differential pricing," and "it occurs every day in the airline industry," said Edward R. Hamberger, president of the railroad trade group.


1.png

8.png

3.png

7.png

6.png

2.png

56.png

57.png

59.png

61.png

58.png

5.png

9.png

10.png

11.png

12.png

13.png

14.png

15.png

16.png

17.png

18.png

19.png

20.png

21.png

22.png

23.png

24.png

25.png

26.png

27.png

28.png

29.png

30.png

31.png

32.png

33.png

34.png

35.png

36.png

37.png

38.png

39.png

40.png

41.png

42.png

43.png

44.png

45.png

46.png

47.png

48.png

49.png

50.png

51.png

52.png

53.png

54.png

55.png

Trains Not Lanes
SITE MENU

HOME/Introduction

Ski Industry Comments to the I-70 Draft PEIS

RMRA Presentation to the I-70 Collaborative Effort

What to Look for in a 2008 Presidential Candidate

ASPO 2007 Houston Conference
MUST SEE!   
Peak Oil Slide Show

Peak Oil Slide Show part-2 (America Running Out of Gas)

US Energy Security (Slide Show)

Hydrogen Hoax

Check out the Driver Factor

Old Home

I-70 Highway Expansion Fatal Flaws

Just Say NO to Highway Expansion

US Transportation Policy Road to Ruin

I-70 Rail Option Available TODAY

American Maglev Technology

Front Range Population Growth

Transit News

I-70 Related Document Library

Contact

General Atomics Inductrack

Congestion Reduction Strategies

How you can Help bring Rail to the I-70 Corridor

The Truth

Power of Green

Learn About Complete Streets

 
 
 
 
Wake Up! (Slide Show)
 
Bush & Big Oil  (Slide Show)

Draft PEIS Presentation Part 2 (Slide Show)

Draft PEIS Presentation Part 3 (Slide Show)

 

SPRAWL

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I-70 EXPANSION PROBLEMS

CDOT Vision

CDOT 2006 Transportation Survey

Climate Change

I-70 Highway Expansion Fatal Flaws

I-70 Highway Capacity

I-70 Highway Congestion

I-70 Highway Travel Times

I-70 Highway Construction
 

I-70 Highway Construction Economic Impacts

I-70 Highway Construction Impact due to Peak Spreading

I-70 Highway Expansion & Water Quality Impacts

I-70 Highway Expansion Impact & Mountain Sprawl

I-70 Highway Expansion & Air Quality Impacts

I-70 Highway Expansion & Health Impacts

I-70 Highway Expansion & Greenhouse Gas Emissions

I-70 Highway Expansion & Global Warming