Gas After the Crash
Remember high gasoline prices? It all seems so six months ago. Then came the crash, the collapse of the economy, and with it down went the price of oil. But Ryan Avent observes that in some ways oil hasn’t gotten especially cheap, “It’s worth pointing out that the most significant collapse in global economic activity since World War II barely managed to push oil into the $30 per barrel range. Even now, as economic outlooks remain dim, prices have edged back up into the neighborhood of $50 per barrel.” Meanwhile, the crash has brought investment in new exploration and refining capacity to a grinding halt. And even in a crash year, we take a fair amount of oil out of the ground. All of which is to say that the demand curve for oil seems, at this point, to have a pretty steep slope. In other words, an economic recovery could cause prices to skyrocket.
In most of the world, and in some of the United States, that will lead people to resume their 2008 trend of less driving and more transit. But as is well known, many Americans live and/or work in places with no reasonable access to mass transit. Meanwhile, the market for—and therefore price of—oil is global. Which means that a global recovery could spark a rise in oil prices that hits America specifically very hard and in effect strangles our recovery in the crib. At that point it becomes an open question as to whether we drag the world down with us, in which case the cycle repeats, or if we just get left behind as continued global growth keeps pushing the price up and pinching American consumers harder-and-harder.
The answer, of course, is to take advantage of this period of “output gap” and low Treasury rates to invest in expanded mass transit capacities. But while the stimulus bill does do some good stuff for transit, it’s not even enough to make up for the rate at which state and local governments are curtailing transit services, much less to really leave Americans in a position to ride the bus to the new jobs we’re hoping to see created in 2010.
72 Responses to “Gas After the Crash”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 10th, 2009 at 11:04 am
What? Are you suggesting America should plan ahead for the future? That’s SOCIALISM!!!!! ZOMG WTF!!!!
March 10th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Mr. Yglesias’ war on the private automobile continues unabated.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Raivo Pommer
raimo1@hot.ee
Rumenien ja Lettlands geld
Die Reaktion fiel gelassen aus. Obgleich nach Ungarn und Lettland mit Rumänien nun der dritte osteuropäische EU-Mitgliedstaat die Europäische Kommission in Zahlungsschwierigkeiten geraten ist und um Hilfe gebeten hat, zeigen die Finanzmärkte nur verhaltene Reaktionen.
Die Landeswährung Leu wertet zwar um 0,8 Prozent auf 4,3077 Leu je Euro ab, doch ist sie damit immer noch unter dem Tief von Anfang Februar bei 4,3614 Leu. Die Kurse der rumänischen Staatsanleihen gaben immerhin leicht nach.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:22 am
It strikes me that a global economic recovery with a weak US recovery would be unlikely to be permanent. The fall in the US Dollar that would result from the low interest rates and money supply expansion that we would continue in such a situation would probably mean higher exports from the United States and something of a role reversal for the American economy in which we export to others. Of course the effect Matt identifies could make this desirable effect smaller. I don’t know exactly how to balance the two.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:25 am
I don’t know. It seems to me that as long as the answer always lies in the concept of “growth” we will always end up in disaster mode. Until we can find some means by which we can create sustainable, infinite growth in the economy, then we’re always playing with fire. Renewable energy is certainly one piece to this puzzle, but even then the world’s resources and space are simply limited. Perhaps the end to our woes lies in changing our views on growth. Ironically, however, should we choose to curb our many appetites, the economic recovery will be much slower. Should we experience a renewal of our values, our thrift, etc. we will likely experience a “lost” decade of our own. But what’s the long-term alternative? Oil prices are just one of countless factors that reveal how fragile our system is.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:27 am
I think it’s the supply curve that’s steeper if your analysis is to make sense, though I’m not sure it does. Let’s clean it up a little if we’re going to trot this one out to lend rhetorical support for spending on mass transit infrastructure.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:30 am
It also should be added that mass transit infrastructure does exist in some places but isn’t used intelligently. There are urban places where trains simply don’t run frequently enough to make giving up the car a real option. It’s not clear to me whether these sorts of places have more hope than other places; perhaps the sort of will it would take to run more trains is akin to that it would take to build more trains.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:33 am
It is hard to deny that oil prices are not efficient but if Matt is so certain of an unexpected long-term rise in prices then why doesn’t he put his money where his mouth is. The truth is high oil prices (like 2007/8 level) are not certain in the near future. Not only that but they are not expected.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Two points. The last time the US built a refinery was in 1976, so it seems to me like your logic is a little skewed on what has dropped investment in refining capacity increases. If you are talking a world-wide level India just opened a 600,000 BDP facility in December – refining capacity is increasing. Refineries are giant industrial complexes, they do not pop up overnight. If you define refining capacity as what the refineries could theoretically produce if the demand was there then refining capacity is actually increasing. What you meant to say is that refining output is decreasing because companies are temporarily shutting or throttling down plants when there is no demand for the gas/diesel and the crack spread went below $0.
Second point OPEC is a cartel, and they are trying to manipulate prices up. They have agreed to cut on the order of 2-5 million barrels per day of output. That is not a reaction by individual market players to the oil being unprofitable to produce, but rather a monopolistic action to artificially reduce output to force prices up. If worldwide economic conditions improve and oil hits a good price point for OPEC, around $80/bbl, they could throttle production up to get more $$ by producing more bbls. OPEC wants the price of oil to be high, but sustainable.
OPEC wants to keep prices at the $70,$80,$90/bbl level so they can make a shit ton of $$ AND still be cheaper than alternative sources of fuel (Nat Gas, EtOH, Electric Cars, Coal-to-Liquid, etc.). IF the price of oil gets too high that will spur investment in alternative sources of energy and create a viable alternative to OPEC. OPEC does NOT want that, so when oil prices rise significantly they will ramp production back up.
Again the capacity for more oil production and refining is there, it is just the output that is decreasing.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:45 am
There’s no need to write about a “return” to the trend of greater transit usage; transit ridership has continued to grow throughout the recession.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:46 am
“Meanwhile, the crash has brought investment in new exploration and refining capacity to a grinding halt.”
Is this actually true? The rig count is down, but by a percent, not to zero. Rig count is an indicator of how much new drilling is taking place. Baker Hughes has the rig count worldwide in February at 2753. A year ago, when oil had jumped over $100/barrel with a bullet, it was 3417. (http://investor.shareholder.com/bhi/rig_counts/rc_index.cfm). That’s a big drop to be sure, but it also means that 2753 rigs are out there drilling new oil and gas wells, bringing new production online.
The price for oil and natural gas is pretty good (from the producers’ POV) compared to what it has been historically (I think everyone in the biz sees 2008 as an anomaly.) Some producers were producing very expensive fields–fields that aren’t economical unless the price of oil and gas is astronomically high (as it was in 2008). But these are a minority of the fields in the world. More common are producers hit with the credit crunch–producers that were highly leveraged. They are the ones being forced to reduce their rig counts. And of course, some producers are just being cautious–not drilling as much until the economic picture settles.
Those disused rigs, however, are just sitting there, ready to be called back into action very quickly. In that respect, there is excess unused capacity in the oil and natural gas business. Outside of any trading shenanigans (which we saw last spring and summer), it seems very unlikely that we will see prices jump up above $100/bbl even as the economy recovers.
Any serious change in America’s energy policy will therefore need a different motivating factor. I’m not saying that oil will never be expensive again–it’s finite, so price increases are guaranteed. But I don’t think fear of short-term spikes should be the reason to change our energy policy. Those changes must be for longer-term strategic reasons, like global warming and energy security.
March 10th, 2009 at 11:47 am
As Gordon said, if you really believe oil is due to spike you could put your $ where your mouth is:
http://www.ipathetn.com/OIL-overview.jsp if you don’t want to leverage.
Or if you have some balls http://www.google.com/finance?q=LOIL
March 10th, 2009 at 11:57 am
It’s certainly time to invest in expanded mass transit, as well as high-speed rail for longer distance travel. While major changes in mass transit and high-speed rail may not be accomplished before the next spike in energy prices, it’s time to get moving.
It’s also time for the federal government to pass a steadily increasing and revenue-neutral carbon tax that will provide the economic signal that will increase the need for and use of public transportation. For details on carbon taxes, see the Carbon Tax Center web site.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Obama’s ongoing aversion to higher gas taxes makes his “green” agenda sound hollow. Our reliance on cars (and its corollary – our disinterest in mass transit) is a direct result of gas prices far lower than prices in Europe, Japan, etc.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
A major political/structural problem is that there are so many rural, low-population states controlling the Senate that see little to no need for mass transportation.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
In fact, that has already happened: at around $48/barrel we are back to Spring 2005 levels in real terms.
Which we were close to the week of Jan 23 2009 as well. Since the price dropped below 40 bucks, its oscillated between mid thirties and mid forties. There is and will continue to be a lot of volatility. My swag is that it will continue to stay in the 40-50 range as long as overall deflationary pressures continue, the dollar continues to trade in it’s current band, and world wide growth remains flat.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
And lots of need for farm subsidies.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
DTM,
No one is saying that oil price won’t rise. It is just that they shouldn’t rise above some risk-weighted interest rate. If you think, as Matt does, that the future expected price is too low there are ways to exploit this (as Jimboslice linked above).
But if your goal is to hedge against oil price volatility there are other ways to do this then invest in public transit. For one the US government could buy this “cheap oil” and stockpile it. Or businesses, consumers, and the government could create some futures or option contract regarding the price of oil.
March 10th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
How the hell does one invest in public transit?
Stock up on tokens, in expectation of a fare hike, then sell them on the black market?
March 10th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
http://www.google.com/finance?q=EPA%3AALO
or
http://www.google.com/finance?q=TSE%3ABBD.B
Although Bombadier’s aircraft division will probably weigh heavily on their short term earnings potential.
March 10th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
“The truth is high oil prices (like 2007/8 level) are not certain in the near future. Not only that but they are not expected.”
Au contraire. The oil companies definitely expect and want the price to go over 60 per barrel. In the NYT Business section yesterday, there was a story about this in the breaking news section, which, irritatingly, is impossible to cut and paste. Here’s the link: http://www.breakingviews.com/2009/03/05/Oil%20costs.aspx?sg=nytimes According to Maharg-Bravo (I’m not making up that name!), oil companies are not responding to the fall of prices as they did in the nineties. That doesn’t mean they are right, but it is a huge cue that they think that oil prices are going to go up.
Some paraphrases: BP claims that it will lose money unless oil prices go up to past 60 per barrel. “Most analysts” – a dummy phrase – expect oil prices to rise that far in the next two years.
I’m not sure the costs of gas at the pump are correctly surveyed by asking questions of the consumers of oil, who are sublimely ignorant of its costs.
March 10th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
First off, Matthew does put his money where his mouth is by not ownig a car himself.
Second, while it’s true that the big gas spike of a year or so ago was an anomaly, gas prices are still roughly twice what they were a few years ago. So even with them falling back to a “normal” level, the overall trend is that they’ve been rising faster than the rest of inflation.
And furthermore, regardless of any specific data indicating a future spike in prices, people have now become accustomed to the idea that gas prices are going to jerk around wildly due to forces beyond our control. Prices may be relatively low right now, but it’d be foolish to think “Whew, the days of high gas prices are safely in the past. I’ll never have to worry about that again!”
March 10th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Most transit is buses. Transit buses are no more energy-efficient than cars. And most transit buses run on imported oil, just like most cars. There is virtually no realistic potential to substantially reduce our dependence on foreign oil or our vulnerability to energy price increases through the expansion of mass transit. The only realistic way of achieving substantial reductions in transportation energy consumption is through more energy-efficient cars.
March 10th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
The endless drumbeat of warnings or threats and even urgings to bomb Iran and potentially start a war has to be considered in part motivated by the self interest of those wanting higher oil prices. An easy enough list to start, including every oil man and corporation in America and the Saudis and even the Russians. Any scenario of the aftermath of a bomb attack on Iran has to include a sharp cut off in their oil exports for at least a brief period. I can absolutely guarantee that the day Iran gets bombed oil will explode to the upside. Even if it is just a brief spike huge profits will be made.
Far be it from me to say what the oil price should be but the supply demand situation isn’t very bullish right now. The very stability of Saudi Arabia is contingent on an oil price that is higher than let us say $40/bbl. Or so I have seen said and it sure sounds plausible.
All just things to keep in mind when discussing oil.
March 10th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Roger,
A lot of oil majors overextended themselves in the last couple of years, levering up to invest in projects that would only be viable with oil prices above where they are now. One exception is ExxonMobil (arguably, the best-run company in the world), as yesterday’s Financial Times noted, “ExxonMobil reaps benefit of taking long-term view”). Excerpt:
March 10th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Somebody apparently said “Mixner” three times.
Apparently, Trixie is done putting on her makeup.
Anyway, here is the relevant chart:
The chart in question indicates that transit buses were less energy efficient than passenger cars in most years since the mid 1970s.
As Table 2.12 in the Department of Energy’s latest Transportation Energy Data Book shows, transit buses are significantly less energy efficient than both passenger cars and light trucks.
March 10th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Most transit is buses. Transit buses are no more energy-efficient than cars. And most transit buses run on imported oil, just like most cars. There is virtually no realistic potential to substantially reduce our dependence on foreign oil or our vulnerability to energy price increases through the expansion of mass transit. The only realistic way of achieving substantial reductions in transportation energy consumption is through more energy-efficient cars.
This is like something out of a logic textbook, from the chapter illustrating logical fallacies.
Most transit (currently) is buses. Buses are no more efficient than cars (bullshit). Therefore, any expansion of transit must be more buses. Therefore, expanding transit cannot bring gains in energy efficiency.
Umwhat?
March 10th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
The chart in question indicates that transit buses were less energy efficient than passenger cars in most years since the mid 1970s.
Do you think anybody is dumb enough to fall for that? Do you think people can’t read a chart? Or maybe that they don’t know what year this is?
The table DTM provides understates the efficiency gains of transit, since it is in “passenger miles.” By allowing greater density of development, building transit results in people taking shorter trips – picture someone with a 1 mile trip on a subway vs. a 10 mile driving commute. On top of this, add in the fact that denser development allows the creation of walkable communities, in which some % of trips which would otherwise be vehicle trips can now be done on foot, lowering overall fuel consumption even further.
March 10th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
NuMixner:
And most transit buses run on imported oil, just like most cars.
Who says they have to? In Los Angeles, where I live, more than 90% of the buses run on compressed natural gas. “Metro’s buses are 97% cleaner than the diesel buses they replaced. They reduce cancer-causing particulate matter by 98%, carbon monoxide by over 80% and greenhouse gases by over 20%.”
http://www.metro.net/about_us/govtrela/images/govrel_cng_facts_2.pdf
Also, they smell a lot better.
March 10th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
The thing that really gets to me about the ‘busses aren’t efficient’ argument is that the numbers are including all busses. This doesn’t show that all busses are inefficient when compared to cars, it means that some bus routes and systems are less efficient than using passenger cars. Last time I looked at the detailed numbers, I remember one of the systems was Lexington, KY. Horribly ineffictive (energy wise) when compared to cars. Whether this is due to bad routes, bad busses, or just nobody using the thing I couldn’t tell you. The NYC system OTOH was, as would be expected, very efficient on the per-passenger mile thing.
What the numbers show isn’t that busses are ‘teh sux’, what they show is that you can’t just throw a shitton of bus technology at any old urban area and figure that it’ll be an improvement as far as energy usage goes.
March 10th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
DTM,
I guess my problem with Matt’s judgment is this:
In other words, an economic recovery could cause prices to skyrocket.
And this somehow means more investment in public transport? His argument about oil’s price skyrocketing and more public transport as a response implies the price of oil is incorrectly priced.
If that is true then a better way to protect consumers from a price rise (or just volatility in general) would be to stockpile oil (like China is doing) rather than gamble on public transport spending (which if public transport spending was already properly priced wouldn;t be cost effective).
March 10th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Raivo Pommer
raimo1@hot.ee
Rumenien ja Lettlands geld
Die Reaktion fiel gelassen aus. Obgleich nach Ungarn und Lettland mit Rumänien nun der dritte osteuropäische EU-Mitgliedstaat die Europäische Kommission in Zahlungsschwierigkeiten geraten ist und um Hilfe gebeten hat, zeigen die Finanzmärkte nur verhaltene Reaktionen.
Die Landeswährung Leu wertet zwar um 0,8 Prozent auf 4,3077 Leu je Euro ab, doch ist sie damit immer noch unter dem Tief von Anfang Februar bei 4,3614 Leu. Die Kurse der rumänischen Staatsanleihen gaben immerhin leicht nach.
March 10th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Do you think anybody is dumb enough to fall for that? Do you think people can’t read a chart? Or maybe that they don’t know what year this is?
Do you think asking stupid questions demonstrates anything about the energy efficiency of different modes of transportation?
The table DTM provides understates the efficiency gains of transit, since it is in “passenger miles.” By allowing greater density of development, building transit results in people taking shorter trips
No, it doesn’t understate the efficiency of transit. Energy consumption per passenger-mile by mode obviously reflects any differences between modes in average trip length.
March 10th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
[XOM](arguably, the best-run company in the world),
I would argue against that. There the Electronic Arts / ClearChannel of the oil industry.
March 10th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
‘They’re’ of course.
Sure they made record profits last year. What was underreported is that they consistently missed expectations.
March 10th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Re Rapier
The endless drumbeat of warnings or threats and even urgings to bomb Iran and potentially start a war has to be considered in part motivated by the self interest of those wanting higher oil prices. An easy enough list to start, including every oil man and corporation in America and the Saudis and even the Russians.
Mr. Rapier is going to get himself banned from this blog for making such a statement! Doesn’t he know that only Israel is calling for bombing Iran. What will Mr. Don Williams, Mr. El Cid, Mr. Ed Marshall, Mr. jimboslice, Mr. pseudonymous in nc, etc. say about this departure from political correctness? Tsk, tsk.
March 10th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Who says they have to?
No one has said that. Neither cars nor buses “have to” run on imported oil. But as a factual matter, most of them do.
The thing that really gets to me about the ‘busses aren’t efficient’ argument is that the numbers are including all busses. This doesn’t show that all busses are inefficient when compared to cars, it means that some bus routes and systems are less efficient than using passenger cars.
On average, buses are less efficient than cars. Are you proposing to eliminate inefficient bus services to increase the average efficiency of buses?
March 10th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Neither cars nor buses “have to” run on imported oil. But as a factual matter, most of them do.
Your point was that relying on buses to free us from oil dependency would not work. My point was that bus systems could switch over to non-oil-based fleets relatively painlessly.
March 10th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Do you think asking stupid questions demonstrates anything about the energy efficiency of different modes of transportation?
I don’t NEED to demonstrate anything about energy efficiency in different modes of transportation; the chart you tried to spin away does that for me. Everybody can click on the link, look at the numbers for buses and passenger cars, and see that 1) passenger cars are now less efficient than buses and have been for years, and 2) the trend that allowed buses to overtake passenger cars is ongoing, which strongly suggests that their existing superiority is only going to become larger.
No, it doesn’t understate the efficiency of transit. Energy consumption per passenger-mile by mode obviously reflects any differences between modes in average trip length. It does, for the reason I explained already, which took into account the differences in trip lengths, and incorporated it into an analysis which demonstrates that this difference, itself, is a reason why transit can bring greater energy efficiency to transportation needs.
You think that some deflection about what things used to be like, but which no longer apply, is going to fool anyone?
March 10th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Transit buses are no more energy-efficient than cars.
I’m not so sure this is true, but even assuming arguendo it is, while one transit bus may be no more energy-efficient than one car, I’m not sure that one transit bus carrying, say, 50 passengers isn’t more efficient than 50 cars carrying 50 drivers — and it certainly has other bonuses, such as reducing overall congestion.
March 10th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
I don’t NEED to demonstrate anything about energy efficiency in different modes of transportation; the chart you tried to spin away does that for me.
As I have already pointed out, the chart in question indicates that transit buses were less energy efficient than passenger cars in most years since the mid 1970s.
And Table 2.12 in the Department of Energy’s latest Transportation Energy Data Book shows that transit buses are significantly less energy efficient than both passenger cars and light trucks.
It does, for the reason I explained already, which took into account the differences in trip lengths
No, it doesn’t. Any differences in average trip length are already reflected in the data on energy consumption per passenger-mile. If you really don’t understand this elementary point, you’re even more clueless than I thought.
March 10th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I’m not sure that one transit bus carrying, say, 50 passengers isn’t more efficient than 50 cars carrying 50 drivers — and it certainly has other bonuses, such as reducing overall congestion.
A fully-loaded transit bus would almost certainly be more energy efficient per passenger-mile than a fleet of single-occupant cars providing the same total passenger-miles of transportation. But transit buses are rarely fully-loaded, and cars average about 1.5 occupants. On average, buses are less energy efficient than cars.
As for congestion, the congestion-relief benefits of transit are limited to routes and times where road congestion would actually be present and transit is able to attract enough people who would otherwise drive to make a difference.
March 10th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Your point was that relying on buses to free us from oil dependency would not work. My point was that bus systems could switch over to non-oil-based fleets relatively painlessly.
Generally speaking, any alternate fuel that can be used to power buses can also be used to power cars. And one of the most important near-term automobile technologies for improving energy-efficiency and substituting alternate fuels for oil-based ones is plug-in hybrid technology. This technology would be more difficult to implement in transit buses than cars.
March 10th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
As outlined on The Newshour last night on PBS, the Stimulus only funds new asset-based transit, so we are rapidly moving towards a Kafkaesque moment in which we’ll have tons of shiny new buses and trains, but no money to run them.
Meanwhile people who abandon transit ’service’ with hourly departures and no service atfer 9 pm will be screaming about traffic — until we run out of cheap gas, at which time buses and airplanes will be too expensive to fuel up.
All coming to a cineplex near you. Or, really, your actual neighborhood.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Mixner needs to play dumb to avoid addressing my points.
As I have already pointed out, the chart in question indicates that transit buses were less energy efficient than passenger cars in most years since the mid 1970s.
And the comparative efficiency of the two modes in 1992 is relevant because…? Oh, right – because the current data blows your point out of the water.
Any differences in average trip length are already reflected in the data on energy consumption per passenger-mile. If you really don’t understand this elementary point, you’re even more clueless than I thought. This is what Mixner does when cornered: he ignored the point he can’t answer, restates the original point that was rebutted, and mumbles something about my not being able to understand it.
Hey, Mixner, is there some reason why you won’t address what I wrote here, which rebuts your point: The table DTM provides understates the efficiency gains of transit, since it is in “passenger miles.” By allowing greater density of development, building transit results in people taking shorter trips – picture someone with a 1 mile trip on a subway vs. a 10 mile driving commute. On top of this, add in the fact that denser development allows the creation of walkable communities, in which some % of trips which would otherwise be vehicle trips can now be done on foot, lowering overall fuel consumption even further.
Hello? Anything?
March 10th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
On average, buses are less energy efficient than cars.
If by “are” you mean “were,” yeah, sure. But not if you mean “are.”
You keep repeating this: “the chart in question indicates that transit buses were less energy efficient than passenger cars in most years since the mid 1970s,” as if it’s meaningful, but any of us can read the table and tell that the trend is for buses to become more energy-efficient. While your statement may be literally true, your repetition of it is used to hide the truth, which is that buses are more efficient than private automobiles, not less.
Furthermore, it’s not as if the environmental characteristics of buses and cars are set in stone. Through operational changes or changes in equipment (like L.A.’s Metro going CNG), buses can be made more efficient. Changes in buses, since they are under their direct control, can be more directly effected by government policies than changes in the efficiencies of private autos.
Generally speaking, any alternate fuel that can be used to power buses can also be used to power cars.
True, but see my point above about implementation. Making changes to a large fleet like LA Metro’s also brought with it economies of scale in infrastructure changes, like the installation of CNG refueling stations.
And one of the most important near-term automobile technologies for improving energy-efficiency and substituting alternate fuels for oil-based ones is plug-in hybrid technology. This technology would be more difficult to implement in transit buses than cars.
I’m not sure why that would be, especially considering that the problems involving the limited range of plug-in hybrids could be taken into account along with the limited nature of bus routes when designing both the buses themselves and a recharging infrastructure. But even taking your word for it, there’s no reason why private autos wouldn’t be able to go one route while buses went green in another way.
March 10th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
cars average about 1.5 occupants
Overall. During peak commuting hours, cars average 1.1 passengers or less, since most passengers in car trips are children, and most people don’t bring their kids to the office.
This is relevant, because the most important transit routes are those that mimic commutes – bringing people into an urban core from its nearby suburbs and back out. There are very few transit routes intended to run between middle schools and dance class.
March 10th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Mixner needs to play dumb to avoid addressing my points.
Josephine is getting her panties in a twist again.
And the comparative efficiency of the two modes in 1992 is relevant because…?
Single-year comparisons are not a reliable indicator of patterns or trends over time.
he ignored the point he can’t answer
No, I have answered your “point” repeatedly. Your claim that the chart understates the efficiency of transit, on the grounds that transit trips tend to be shorter distance than auto trips, is complete and utter nonsense because data on energy consumption per passenger-mile by mode already reflects any differences between modes in average trip distance. Again, if you really can’t understand this simple point, you’re even more clueless than I thought.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
If by “are” you mean “were,” yeah, sure. But not if you mean “are.”
No, I meant “are.” Hence the word “are.”
You keep repeating this: “the chart in question indicates that transit buses were less energy efficient than passenger cars in most years since the mid 1970s,” as if it’s meaningful
It is meaningful.
, but any of us can read the table and tell that the trend is for buses to become more energy-efficient.
No it isn’t. The chart shows no clear trend in the energy-efficiency of buses. According to the chart, transit buses in 2006 were less energy efficient than transit buses in 1980.
buses are more efficient than private automobiles, not less.
No, buses are less efficient than private automobiles.
Furthermore, it’s not as if the environmental characteristics of buses and cars are set in stone. Through operational changes or changes in equipment (like L.A.’s Metro going CNG), buses can be made more efficient. Changes in buses, since they are under their direct control, can be more directly effected by government policies than changes in the efficiencies of private autos.
That doesn’t follow at all. There are obviously all sorts of government policies that have a very direct effect on changes in cars, from laws mandating the inclusion of air bags to CAFE standards. And even if changes in buses could be “more directly affected” by government policies than changes autos that wouldn’t mean government policies promoting energy efficiency would have a greater impact on buses than on autos, or that influences other than government policies, such as the price of oil, wouldn’t have a greater effect on energy efficiency.
True, but see my point above about implementation. Making changes to a large fleet like LA Metro’s also brought with it economies of scale in infrastructure changes, like the installation of CNG refueling stations.
Again, economies of scale apply to both buses and cars. Since cars provide so much more of our transportation than buses the potential benefits of economies of scale are much greater for cars than for buses. A technological advance that improves energy efficiency would yield much greater total savings in energy when applied to cars than to buses, because we do so much more of our traveling by car than by bus.
I’m not sure why that would be,
Transit buses have to operate more or less continuously for many hours a day and could not be taken out of service for battery recharging without incurring substantial additional costs. Cars, in contrast, spend most of their time parked. And most daily car commutes are relatively short (less than 40 miles round trip). So cars are much more conducive to energy savings from plug-in hybrid technology than transit buses.
March 10th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Overall. During peak commuting hours, cars average 1.1 passengers or less,
The energy efficiency of cars, buses and any other type of vehicle is not determined by the average number of passengers during peak commuting hours, but by the average number of passengers over the entire period of operation. Are you proposing to eliminate all off-peak transit services to improve the energy efficiency of transit?
March 10th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
If anyone is wondering how the BTS and DOE are getting such different numbers about recent trends, it is because the DOE is using older numbers
No it isn’t. Or, rather, the source of the difference is not clear from the information provided.
March 10th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Right at the top of the report it says quite clearly…
Looking at the time chart (2.13) I’m puzzled. It shows bus gas/mile rising steadily from 1970-2000, and then dropping back down. That seems odd. I wonder what it represents. For what it’s worth, BTU/mile for buses in 1970 is pretty much unbeatable.
Currently, all it takes is bumping average ridership on a average bus occupancy from 9 to 11 to bring the BTU per passenger mile to lower then cars. Of course the caveat warns us against doing so.
It does suggest this is primarily an issue of planning/usage rather then some technical limitation on buses.
Continuing where warned not to, light rail reports substantially better BTU/passenger mile….
March 10th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Wow, I’m really getting you hot under the collar, aren’t I, Mixner? You’re getting sloppy.
Single-year comparisons are not a reliable indicator of patterns or trends over time.
Since the claim you made wasn’t about patterns or trends over time, but about the current state, this is a dodge. And it’s a particularly sad one, since the trend evident in the year-to-year numbers demonstrates that buses surpassed cars years ago, and continue to widen their lead, in energy efficiency.
No, I have answered your “point” repeatedly. No, you didn’t, and once again, you won’t, I see.
You claim that the chart understates the efficiency of transit, on the grounds that transit trips tend to be shorter distance than auto trips, is complete and utter nonsense because data on energy consumption per passenger-mile by mode already reflects any differences between modes in average trip distance. And my point is about building transit leading to people having shorter trips, because of the more efficient development patterns it fosters. THIS is the point you won’t answer. THIS is the point you can’t answer, so you just play dumb, strike and obnoxious post like so Again, if you really can’t understand this simple point, you’re even more clueless than I thought. and hope nobody notices.
Pathetic.
I’ll just take your repeated whiffing on this point as your particularly undignified concession.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:40 pm
The energy efficiency of cars, buses and any other type of vehicle is not determined by the average number of passengers during peak commuting hours, but by the average number of passengers over the entire period of operation. The energy efficiency of vehicles per passenger-mile or per passenger-trip most certainly does depend on the number of passengers per vehicle – quite obviously so.
Are you proposing to eliminate all off-peak transit services to improve the energy efficiency of transit? Why don’t you go back to the comment in question, and see if I’ve written about transit following peak hours, or following certain commuting routes, then see if you can answer that question yourself.
March 10th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Currently, all it takes is bumping average ridership on a average bus occupancy from 9 to 11 to bring the BTU per passenger mile to lower then cars.
In other words, about a 22% increase in ridership without any increase in capacity. How do you propose to achieve this? And to maintain it over the long term in the face of constant advances in automobile energy efficiency?
Of course, even if transit buses could become as energy-efficient as cars, even if buses could become more energy-efficient than cars, and maintain that advantage over the long term, it probably wouldn’t have any significant effect on modal shares. Many light rail systems are already more energy-efficient than cars, at least in terms of operating energy efficiency, but still only attract a tiny share of the market. Under no remotely plausible scenario could mode-switching from cars to transit achieve anything more than trivial savings in total U.S. energy consumption or total pollution.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Wow, I’m really getting you hot under the collar, aren’t I, Mixner?
Josephine, you really need to disentangle your panties.
Since the claim you made wasn’t about patterns or trends over time, but about the current state
Both the current state and the long-standing pattern is that cars are more energy-efficient than transit buses.
No, you didn’t, and once again, you won’t, I see.
Yes, I did. The fact that you can’t understand the explanation is your problem.
And my point is about building transit leading to people having shorter trips, because of the more efficient development patterns it fosters. THIS is the point you won’t answer.
I’ve answered it three times now. You’re just too dumb to understand the answer. Any difference in average trip distance between auto trips and car trips, regardless of the source of that difference, is already reflected in the data on energy-efficiency per passenger-mile. There’s no additional energy efficiency for buses that somehow hasn’t been counted in this data.
The energy efficiency of vehicles per passenger-mile or per passenger-trip most certainly does depend on the number of passengers per vehicle – quite obviously so.
You do so love your nonsequiturs, don’t you? I said: “The energy efficiency of cars, buses and any other type of vehicle is not determined by the average number of passengers during peak commuting hours, but by the average number of passengers over the entire period of operation.”
Why don’t you go back to the comment in question, and see if I’ve written about transit following peak hours, or following certain commuting routes, then see if you can answer that question yourself.
Well, make up your mind. If you’re not proposing to eliminate off-peak transit services, then it makes no sense for you to keep ignoring such services and discussing ridership and energy efficiency in terms of peak commuting hours only. The energy efficiency of a transportation system is determined by the average ridership across all hours of operation, not just by ridership during peak usage periods. This is another elementary point to which you seem utterly oblivious.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Of course light rail has long term advantages in many applications
I doubt you could find even a single route where light rail is clearly superior to buses in terms of totals costs and benefits. Even after more than 20 years of expansion, light rail still provides less than 4% of total passenger-miles of transportation by transit in the United States.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
my comment
Charles (I suspect Mixners) response
What on earth does this metric offer, other then creating an artifical sense of difficulty about gaining an average of 2 more riders.
Equally problematic metrics, just for comparison
* 4% Perctage seat occupancy increase that 2 people represents
* 227% percentage increase that same 2 people represent in car ridership.
Come now, it’s well within the bounds of reason to increase average ridership by two people. This is easy to demonstrate empirically, a little manipulation of the historical tables in 2.13 show that average ridership for buses was 15.
By the way, that average ridership of 15 produces btu/pass-mile usage of 2400, 70% of cars.
I’m not sure what all is represented here, but it’s pretty clear that the last 50 years have produced ever greater use of cars. Some of this is clearly attributable to policy.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
What on earth does this metric offer,
A clearer indication of the magnitude of the increase you referred to. Using your stated numbers, an increase in average bus occupancy of “only” 2 riders would in fact be a ridership increase of over 22%. Again, how do you propose to achieve this? Even if you could achieve it, it would have a negligible impact on total energy consumption.
March 10th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Ridership in the 70 for bus was 15. So why is 11 all of a sudden unachievable.
For what it’s worth, that ridership of 15, which was achieved, so is clearly practical, represents a 66% increase over current ridership. Trying to portray 22% as huge is cherry picking a metric to make it suggest what you want it too.
I gave you two alternative metrics, and you’ve not suggested any problems with them. You’ve given me no reason to accept your metric. I have give you unimpeachable evidence that the goal of 11 is a very minor accomplishment, as we’ve had well in excess of that before. That’s a lot more meaningful then manufacturing a percentage and setting up an arbitrary threshold (is 33% huge? is 10% huge? is 66% huge).
Looking a bit at the historical table, I notice that all ridership is declining, cars included. Load average for cars in the 70s was 1.9. Thats over a 30% drop. I’m not sure what that means, but it’s interesting.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:43 am
Ridership in the 70 for bus was 15. So why is 11 all of a sudden unachievable.
I ask again: How do you propose to achieve a 22% increase in ridership without any increase in capacity? As I already pointed out, even if you could achieve that increase in ridership, it would have virtually no effect on total energy consumption. Transit buses account for such a small fraction of total passenger-miles of transportation that even a doubling or tripling of the average energy efficiency of buses would have only a tiny effect on total consumption of energy.
And by the way, where are you getting your numbers from? You refer to “the historical table.” What historical table? Identify your data sources clearly. Provide links.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:03 am
There are very few transit routes intended to run between middle schools and dance class.
We don’t do it anymore but it’s was done all the time in the neighborhoods we now call trolley suburbs.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:48 am
Charles, my ideas about increasing bus ridership are not particularly relevant. You laid the discussion groundwork earlier.
This is clearly wrong.
I’ll repeat, this is clearly wrong.
My source material is the same as yours. The “historical table” which I did reference explicitly above is table 2-13. It’s some simple math to get the ridership numbers.
The policy debate is interesting, but essentially a distraction in the context of your assertion above. If such numbers were achieved in the 70s, they are achievable now without significant hardship. How they might be achieved is possibly interesting, but irrelevant to disproving your assertion that buses are less efficient.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Both the current state and the long-standing pattern is that cars are more energy-efficient than transit buses.
Everybody can click the link DTM provided – this one here – and see that you are wrong. Why would you do this – make an assertion that you know to be false, and that is easily proven false, and that has already been proven false earlier in the thread? Oh, right – because you’re flailing.
BTW, this is the fourth time you have demonstrated that your argument cannot account for the efficiency gains transit generates by allowing for different development patterns. It’s already screamingly obvious from the fact that you’ve written four comments without addressing the matter, but I just thought I’d point out again that, no matter how many times you dress up your dodge with “I guess you’re just not smart enough to understand,” it still sticks out like a sore thumb that you have a giant hole in the middle of your argument.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Even after more than 20 years of expansion, light rail still provides less than 4% of total passenger-miles of transportation by transit in the United States.
Mixner hides behind passenger-miles because his thinking can’t account for the shorter distances of trips in transit-friendly communities.
He does this consistently, and relies upon distractions and rude statements about other people’s intelligence when called on it.
Because he has no answer.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Also, of course I support having more transit service during peak hours than during other times. So does every transit system manager in the world.
What an odd question.
March 11th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
This is clearly wrong. I’ll repeat, this is clearly wrong.
No, you’re clearly wrong. I’ll repeat, you’re clearly wrong. From Table 2.13, Energy Intensities of Highway Passenger Modes, 1970–2006:
BTU per passenger-mile, 2006:
Transit buses: 4,235
Cars: 3,512
Which number is higher, Joe, 4,235 or 3,512?
Thank you for drawing my attention to this table. It clearly contradicts DTM’s claim about the energy-efficiency trend. The energy efficiency of cars has been steadily increasing since 1970. The energy efficiency of transit buses has been steadily decreasing since 1970.
March 11th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Charles, you cannot possibly be unable to follow the simple reasoning.
You claim that buses are inherently less efficient that cars by quoting the btu/pass-mile stats.
I see that the load-average is just shy of 9, for a bus, a number which is clearly much lower then designed capacity. I try the calculations with load-average of 11, and the BTU/pass-mile then comes out lower then a car.
Your question to me
is entirely irrelevant.
I’ll grant you that buses may not be as efficiently used as they were 30 years ago. But they easily could be. In which case they are substantially more efficient then cars.
Now, why am I wrong again?
March 12th, 2009 at 8:00 am
the simple fact is that most oil exports to the USA are in rapid decline, actually headed towards exporters becoming net-importers, because producers have been taught the American land-use patterns that increase their own dependence on oil. It was only a matter of time before it happened. The USA soon will have to rely on more more limited energy quotas because producers will be using most of their own oil & gas.
This will happen in the market as decline in supply leads to price spikes followed by demand destruction, and each revival of the economy resulting in more price spikes leading to more demand destruction. Further decline in supply leads to more price spikes. Low prices mean less exploration for resources, meaning the supply will be shorter next time around the cycle, hence the price spike will be more extreme, leading to even greater demand destruction.
There will not be enough domestic energy to maintain any kind of interstate highway system for private automobiles. Hence, the suburban developments that depend on the highways will die with them. The only suburban developments that can be saved are those that will not be dependent on highways. Good land-use patterns will be key to success. Transit and ride-sharing, when available, will be the best option for those outside of walkable/bikeable communities.
March 12th, 2009 at 8:11 am
Lets be clear that a failure to bail out the dying automobile, road, and sprawl industry is not a war on the car. The sprawl/car building industry is dying a slow and painful but natural death here all on it’s own and can not be saved. Scooter sales are way up. Old 3-speed bicycles from the basement are getting dusted off. Rehabbed urban rowhouses are making a comeback in popularity. I see no reason why Detroit can’t start building us rail stock and bicycles rather than cars. It’s not a sin to build compact walkable cities surrounded by lush green farmland, linked by utilitarian networks of rail and bike. You will not be less happy person if you spend 15 minutes walking or riding a bicycle to work rather than sitting in a car in traffic.
March 12th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
@77
But Lee, that would be SOCIALIST and UN-AMERICAN!
If we don’t keep building cars, roads, and tract houses can the Killing Fields and Great Leap Forward be far behind?
April 16th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Greeting. Lawyers spend a great deal of their time shoveling smoke.
I am from Niger and too bad know English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “Are there any set rules and truths when it comes to buying a ticket, changing a ticket or getting the best airfare available? Because not all airlines.”
Thanks for the help
, Eitan.