The Oil Drum

Any comments or suggestions appreciated.

I am trying to focus on a major, but overlooked strategyto reduce oil consumption.

Best Hopes,

Alan

Note: Formating lost in cut & paste
==================
10%  Reduction  in  US  Oil  Use  in  Ten  to  Twelve  Years
An Overlooked, Practical and Affordable Approach using Mature Existing Technology
DRAFT 4

Step One - Electrify our Freight Rail Lines and Shift Freight to Rail

The Russians finished electrifying the Trans-Siberian Railroad, from Moscow to the Pacific, in 2002 and electrified to the Artic Ocean port of Murmansk a few months ago on Christmas Eve, 2005.  Almost all of Japan and continental EU have already electrified their railroads.  So there are no technical limitations.  Electric railroads are cheaper to operate and can carry more freight because they accelerate and brake faster (and can generate electricity while braking, saving energy).

The US used 19.8 million barrels/day in 2002 with 2/3 for transportation.  (Today, ~20.7 million b/day).  Railroads carried 27.8% of the ton-miles with 220,000 b/day whilst trucks carried 32.1% of the ton-miles with 2,070,000 b/day (2002 data).  Railroads are 8 times more energy efficient than heavy trucks, and also more labor efficient.  In the era of cheap oil and interstate highways, US railroads cut back capacity and ceded much cargo to trucking.  Today, intermodal shipments (local trucking, long distance rail via containers or roll on/roll off) are growing rapidly but this trend MUST be accelerated !  Electrifying railroads
and transferring half of the ton-miles of trucks to rail should save 6.3% of US oil consumption.

US railroads have pointed to property taxes as the reason that they did not electrify (no taxes on their diesel, property taxes on electrification).  Simply exempting any rail line that electrifies from property taxes under the Interstate Commerce clause will rapidly electrify many rail lines.  Expanding capacity (adding tracks) and more intermodal transfer points will be more economically attractive without the burden of property taxes.

Removing property taxes on railroads would take "the thumb off the scale" in the economic competition between rail and trucks.  Local jurisdictions that lost more than certain percentage in tax revenue could have the excess compensated by the Federal Government for 25 years, each year decreasing by 4%.

Step Two - Increase Urban Rail Federal Funding

In 1970, 4% of DC commuters used city buses to get to work.  Today about 40% do.  The difference is the 106 miles of Washington Metro.  It has been estimated that Washington Metro saves a half billion gallons of gasoline/year directly, with at least as much more from changes in development patterns.

Miami has passed a half cent sales tax to build a 103 mile system of elevated "Subway in the Sky" over 25 years.  The author has been told that 90% of the population will be within 3 miles of a station and over half within 2 miles.  A reasonable number will be within walking distance.

http://www.miamidade.gov/trafficrelief/RailMap.htm  (Note: dark brown lines are 2016+ plans)

But why will it take 25 years to build this system that will transform Miami as Washington and San Francisco have been transformed, saving billions of gallons of gasoline ?  Because FTA funding has declined from 80% for "New Starts" rail projects to 50%.  Restoring that funding to 80% (or better yet 85% or 90% for the best projects and 75% for marginal projects) will speed existing plans in Miami, Denver, Dallas, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, Northern California, Northern Virginia, Portland, New Orleans, New York City, Los Angeles and many other cities.  An explosion in Urban Rail, from streetcars in small cities to Light Rail in larger cities and Rapid Rail in the largest cities with commuter rail everywhere is certainly possible and probably likely with better federal funding.  Budget space could come from reductions in federal highway funding or as a supplement for the SPR.  Building the equivalent of twelve DC Metros would save 4% of US oil use.  The entire US economy would benefit more from this than additional highways.

Step Three - Promote Electric Trolley Buses

Electric trolley buses are cheaper, lighter, last much longer, pollution free, and are quiet, smooth (much less jerky) and more attractive to passengers than fossil fuel buses.  They obviously require an electrical infrastructure.  Four US cities currently operate electric trolley buses and a fifth will soon.

Hybrid buses, with minor engineering changes, can operate part-time as electric trolley buses and off-wire for part of their routes.  This mixed use would significantly reduce their diesel fuel consumption.

The FTA currently funds 80% of bus replacement costs on a twelve year cycle.  Many experts feel that 15 years would be more appropriate.  Perhaps FTA could fund fossil fuel replacement buses on a 13.5 year cycle at 75% and trolley buses (with their infrastructure) at 90%.  Again, cuts in federal highway aid could easily pay for this.

Step Four - Promote More Transportation Bicycling

Simple steps, such as more bike racks in city downtowns, perhaps replacing car parking spaces or in unusable spaces, would make bicycle commuting easier.  Streets with excess capacity could have one traffic lane converted to two bike lanes.  This is a city by city effort, with differences in every locale.  So a national program is less effective other than making it patriotic to bicycle to work, school and shopping and promoting secure bike racks at Urban Rail stops or allowing carry-ons.

Step Five - Create a Strategic Rail Reserve to Extend the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

Suppose, as one of several possible examples, that the Islamic Republic of Arabia replaces Saudi Arabia and the new Islamic Republic exports only enough oil (at elevated prices) to buy food and other essentials (no longer having to support 6,000 Princes in ultra luxury).  The United State would face a severe and prolonged oil supply interruption.

The US would immediately institute a variety of oil conservation measures; 50 mph speed limit, 4 day work week, limited sports events, restricted air travel, etc. We would immediately start draining the SPR.  Demand for electrified Urban Rail would swamp the capacity of every system in the country.  Freight railroads and Amtrak would also likely be overwhelmed.  Once the SPR is over half drained, perhaps in 3 months, even more severe oil demand restrictions would be required, such as rationing.

Every Urban Rail system, and almost every line, can handle more passengers if they had more rolling stock.  Their capacity is limited in other ways as well (platform length, Park & Ride lots, bicycle racks, etc.) but rolling stock is almost always the first limiting factor.  Likewise, certain types of rail cars would be the first limiting factor on our freight railroads.  So a Strategic Rail Reserve would allow existing Urban Rail to carry more passengers and more railcars would allow more freight to be shifted from trucks, thus reducing US oil demand in another dimension and allowing the SPR to last a few days longer.  Once the SPR is exhausted, the SRR (and all the steps above) would still be benefiting the nation.

Buying more railcars would be cheaper and better than buying more oil for the SPR.  Rail cars are made in the USA, their benefit will last MUCH longer than extra barrels of oil, they can be used and not disappear in even minor oil supply interruptions and they are cheaper, per barrel saved, than $75 oil.

Every Urban Rail system should estimate their likely demand in the case of an oil supply interruption and what would be required to handle this demand at 60% of crush load.  In some cases, soon to be retired cars could be mothballed, but new cars will be required for the SRR in most cases.
This policy summary is not an exhaustive list of all that can be done, nor does it cover all the policy implications of the proposed steps, but it is all that can fit on two pages !

These proposed steps will complement the widely discussed steps of more fuel efficient cars, ethanol et al.  They are complementary and not mutually exclusive.  And the steps outlined above can be started immediately, require no new technology and will have a significant impact in the medium term.

It should be noted that taking these steps will affect US oil supplies faster than drilling in ANWAR, produce at least twice as much oil as ANWAR and never deplete (Prudhoe Bay, Alaska is producing at ~20% of it's peak, Washington Metro hits a new peak in oil saved every year).

It is also worth noting that four American cities; Washington DC, New Orleans, Oakland and East St. Louis could benefit from more Urban Rail, mainly streetcars and Light Rail, but cannot afford even 10% matching funds.  Two of these cities, Washington DC and New Orleans, are of national significance and international stature.

DC DOT has a plan for 40 miles of streetcars in the District and the author helped develop a 35 mile plan for streetcars in New Orleans.  It would benefit the nation as a whole (in reduced gasoline use, international exposure and as a learning tool for other cities) to fully fund streetcar systems in these cities.  One goal of such a program, which the author has worked extensively on, is reducing the cost of building streetcar lines.

The author has also written a supplement to the DoE /Hirsch Report on Planning for Peak Oil that covers a vital point that his group overlooked.  It is available at:

http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2005-02.htm

Sometimes good public policy is good politics.  Reducing US oil consumption, reducing greenhouse gases, improving the US economy, reducing congestion, providing transportation alternatives and reducing the number of 18 wheel trucks on the highways should be both good public policy and good politics !

Best Hopes,

Alan Drake
Alan_Drake@Juno.com
1320 St. Andrew
New Orleans, LA 70130