Energista - Transportation - Comments

Veto override

shadoweyes — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 19:43:54 -0500

MPR covered this story also - I would add this passage to your story:

"Right now with this bill, we don't have enough votes to override a veto. But we can massage things so that we can get enough votes to override a veto," Murphy said.

Rural/Urban Equity

darrell — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:48:56 -0600

One of the big concerns for me about the gas tax is the rural/urban equity issue. A gas tax is a valid vehicle to increase the cost of single occupancy vehicle use and transfer it to alternatives. The key, though, is that there must be alternatives. Public transit is a great alternative that should be expanded. It does not work for everyone everywhere, though. Public transit is most effective when there is a concentration of riders and destinations. In the urban areas it is easy to design a good transit network to provide an effective transportation alternative.....it just takes the will power and money.

In rural and even exurban areas it's much more difficult. In some cases you have some clear employment destinations transit can be organized around. Say a remotely located large factory or industrial node. In my hometown there are a number of large employers located along the road south of town (from 10 - 30 miles) and in neighboring towns to the east (20 to 50 miles). Car pooling has been popular for years and some public transit is now being provided. A large number of the trips in the area, though, are from widely dispersed starting points to widely dispersed destinations. Public transit in this case is not an option. Another common concern are the small business owners and contractors that are limited in their ability to reduce trips and the availability of cost competitive fuel efficient vehicles to meet their needs.

To me, the many concerns about the gas tax can be resolved if you look at it from the viewpoint of pushing people to effective alternatives, and providing those alternatives, while not disproportionately harming those who don't have alternatives. Push people to use public transit instead of driving, purchasing more efficient vehicles, driving only when necessary and trip chaining, moving closer to destinations, etc. But then use a portion of the taxes to offset the impact on those who do not have the alternatives.

It's pretty clear, though, that a gas price increase from a slowly phased in gas tax is much more preferable than one due to market forces. Not only does it put money in hands that can help smooth out the equity issues it also allows for public investment in the alternatives important for it to work. As Christopher said, it also gives a signal to the market to allow prepatory changes rather than having to absorb the increased cost due to short-term inelasticity. Last, it removes some ability to control prices from OPEC who try to keep them artificially low in order disincentivise innovation and development of alternatives.

Studies have shown...

Joe — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:38:34 -0600

I remember reading in E's class that at least to date, the rebound effect you are talking about has been negligible. So I think we would still see net gasoline consumption per capita go down. Another problem with higher standards though is that people only buy new cars so often, so the gains we get with higher standards take a long time to be realized. People might even be reluctant to give up their gas guzzlers so would wait even longer.

One way to make a gas tax more politically palatable would be to lower income taxes at the same time. Al Gore has taken this to the extreme, calling for eliminating all income taxes in favor of a carbon tax. Of course, this begs the question of how regressive a gas tax would be. A gas tax would also help Detroit become profitable on sales of their smaller cars. Word has it GM supports a gas tax, probably in lieu of mileage standards, though I can't find any statements on their website.

Gas Tax

christopher — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:40:46 -0600

I think it is a really bad idea to raise CAFE without a concurrent raise of the gas tax. We don't want people to drive more frequently because it becomes cheaper.

I think a policy of slowly increasing the gas tax makes a lot of sense. Start it in a few years, so the market can respond, but send a clear signal to the market that fossil fuel prices are going up.

They are also quieter

darrell — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 14:48:09 -0600

I'm on the Project Steering Committee for the City of Minneapolis' 10-Year Transportation Action Plan (Access Minneapolis) that has been looking at the multi-modal transportation future of Minneapolis.

A major focus of the project has been redoing the transportation system of Downtown. There are many parts to this, and they are still being worked out, but one is to have MetroTransit increase the use of hybrid buses on Nicollet Mall. The marriage of transit and pedestrians has been rocky along that corridor with many complaints about the noise and fumes of the buses and the slow ride through the area. Hybrid buses not only produce fewer pollutants but they are also quieter. Therefore, Metro Transit has in the past, and promises to continue in the future, to concentrate deployment of the new hybrid buses on routes servicing Nicollet Mall until all buses along that corridor are hybrid.

There are also plans in the works to modify the routes downtown in addition to the equipment changes. In order to increase the speed of service, the current plans call for Nicollet Mall to become a one-way route allowing buses to operation in a skip-jump fashion rather than stacking up behind each other like they do now (using two lanes in the same direction instead of one). This will not only improve service to riders but it will also decrease noise and fumes due to less idled time and acceleration.

More information on the project can be found at http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/public-works/trans-plan/

How Tepid of him!

christopher — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 08:08:51 -0600

Reducing energy intensity is a nice way of saying, don't stop business as usual technological development. Energy intensity and water intensity has been going down naturally along those lines naturally for decades.

Non-petroleum based transportation reductions? Awesome! We need to switch our oil importation with natural gas importation.

Given the gravity of the looming energy situation, I think the past 6 years will be known as the do-minimum President and do-nothing Congress. I hope this new Congress changes that.

MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R11

nobody — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:49:41 -0600

MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R11

This comment has been removed.

Comments such as this, which are barely on topic and basically spammed across energy sites will not be tolerated on Energista.

We strive for organic discussion - not comment spam.

--shadoweyes, energista overlord

Prius Also

christopher — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:13:36 -0600

My mom has a Prius and has also found the mileage to be close to what the sticker suggests. When I read conservative diatribes against hybrid cars, they often claim that the stickers way overestimate the actual mileage - I don't know where they are getting that information.

prius

perrence — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:13:40 -0600

the mileage shown on the new sticker shown is actually quite close to what the car gets, in my experience, so i approve of that. It's realistic and will hopefully decrease some disillusionment that people feel when the figure out their mileage is quite a bit less than they hoped. In this and other cars.

I think fuel economy is gaining strength as a decision maker/breaker, but it certainly has a long way to go.

Isn't ethanol our savior?

nobody — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:30:40 -0600

An op-ed in the AgriNews echos some of your points, though for a different end. Despite being a farmer's paper, it even points out that ethanol doesn't get us as far as other methods:

"Inflating car tires to their proper pressure today will have more impact on U.S. energy independence now than using 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol in 2012."

Newspaper article.

Oversight

shadoweyes — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:57:15 -0600

I think it was not so much an oversight, but an example in how not to contract a vendor. The Go-To technology was supposed to be much further along than it is now, but my understanding is that it was all held up by some company that Metro Transit was paying to develop it and they didn't really do it.

SuperSavers

Joe — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:01:44 -0600

Metro Transit needs to offer a SuperSaver option with the Go-To technology. SuperSaver cards can be used on buses or light rail, but there is no reader for SuperSaver cards at the train stations. For instance, my wife's company subsidizes SuperSaver cards, but she can only use it on the train if she's lucky and a bus is there so she can stamp it (assuming she drove or biked to the train station). This was a major oversight by Metro Transit, in my opinion.

Fuel wasting?

Thu, 09 Nov 2006 15:48:20 -0600

Or have a Prius which isn't using its gas engine while in traffic ;)

Who pays?

shadoweyes — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 15:46:04 -0600

Well, it would be economic for most depending on the time saved. If it saves you 20 minutes on your commute and you get paid more than $24 per hour, it makes sense to pay it ... unless you got an iPod adapter and don't care about wasting fuel while crawling in traffic...

I'm in that toll lane

Thu, 09 Nov 2006 15:37:43 -0600

I'm in that toll lane everyday in my bus, and it's interesting to see the differences in pricing each day - sometimes it goes up to $8.00, and I really wonder who pays that.