The Ramifications of Growing Global Gas Guzzlers

The release of the Department of Energy's Transportation Energy Data Book is a transportation stat geek's dream -- 300-plus pages of numbers detailing the way the country burns this or that moving people and freight from city to city.

Of course, not everyone gets a thrill from pouring through data tables for hours at a time, so for your convenience, here is the dime summary of the 2009 version of the publication: Americans still burn a lot of gas.

As of 2007, Americans used 19.4 million barrels of oil per day, or about one-quarter of global consumption. About 68 percent of petroleum consumption goes to transportation -- a number that has risen steadily for decades -- and about 84 percent of petroleum consumed by transportation is attributable to the use of American highways.

Our vehicles are getting more efficient, however. From 1970 to now, fuel efficiency for cars has increased from 13.5 miles per gallon to 22.5. For trucks, the number has risen from 10 mpg to 18.

The bad news is that from 1975 to the present, the SUV market share rose from 1.8 percent to 30.7 percent. And all of that driving has a significant cost in terms of carbon emissions.

Americans produce about 6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. Around a third of that -- 33.6 percent -- is from the transportation sector. Transportation's share of total emissions has been increasing in recent years.

Americans drive a lot, and they own a lot of vehicles. There were 844 vehicles per 1,000 people in America in 2007. That compares to 609 per 1,000 in Canada, and 587 per 1,000 in western Europe.

One reason we own so many cars and use them so much is that the gas tax remains low. In Canada, about 31 percent of the cost of gasoline is attributable to taxes, while in America that number is just 14 percent. In other developed nations, the share of tax in the retail cost of gas is higher still, and occasionally more than 50 percent.

Global car ownership to explode

Is it reasonable to think that our oil dependence can continue indefinitely? Well, consider this. Of the world's 645 million registered vehicles, about 235 million are in America. China has 13.7 million, by contrast, and India has 8.5 million.

But China and India have three to four times as many people as America, and Chinese automobile ownership has grown by 10 percent per year over the past decade while Indian ownership has increased at a 6.6 percent annual pace.

Within a decade, we will be talking about hundreds of millions of new vehicles in China and India, nearly all of which will be gasoline-powered. That will place enormous pressure on oil producers and oil prices and the environment. Cheap gas is a thing of the past.

Public transport

Happily, Americans have been using transit in increasing numbers. The latest data continue to show that energy intensity (measured in Btu per passenger mile) for light, heavy, commuter, and intercity rail alike is substantially lower than the intensity for cars and trucks.

Buses do not perform well, however, and the reason why has important implications for policy decisions: Load factor is key. A mostly empty bus is much worse for the environment than a personal vehicle. A full bus is much better.

As increasing ridership has pushed transit systems toward capacity, energy intensity numbers have improved, making transit systems ever greener. It's important, then, to design land-use policies to maximize transit usage. That improves the economics of transit systems as well as the environmental impact.

One final, and interesting item included in the government's latest energy data book is an analysis of individual transit systems by energy intensity.

The findings are stunning; for instance, Galveston's light rail system is more than 10 times as energy-hungry as Houston's, per passenger mile. A quick glance at the rankings suggests that load factor is a critical variable, which once more points toward proper system design and land use as crucial in generating environmental benefits from transit.

There are additional data points galore in the book itself. Those of you not already glassy-eyed can find the full publication here (PDF).

Comments

[A Barrel Full:]

.......The bad news is that from 1975 to the present, the SUV market share rose from 1.8 percent to 30.7 percent.......

The result of using CAFE, rather than gasoline taxes to improve efficiency. Of all government actions, I dislike regulations the most as they are the most stifling of choice.

Jul 22 07:25 AM

[Tim Plaehn:]

Looks like a good time to be selling cars in India and China!

I took a look at the data and I do hate slanted reporting, so I will slant back. Cars averaged 22.5 mpg, but light trucks (includes most SUVs) average 18.0. Not to bad for the trucks.

Heavy trucks drove 8% of the miles but used 25% of the fuel. Get out of those mass-transit buses and back into your 20 mpg SUV!

It is difficult to believe that anyone believes that Americans will give up their cars, pickups and SUVs in mass and take the bus. Let politicians massively raise gas taxes and see how many of them have jobs after the next election.

Jul 22 09:14 AM

[Gassed in A...:]

The reason Americans have so many cars is that there is little in the way of mass transportation. We live in Atlanta and I can tell you that mass transportation is badly needed here, but we keep hearing how much people 'love their cars'. If the mass transport was available, on time and with sufficient points across the city, there'd be fewer cars on the road. Instead, MARTA is a joke - there is no printable schedule nor are the buses on time. It's basically used by people who can't afford a car. PAthetic and a sign of Graft at its WOrst

Jul 22 12:26 PM

[Alan Young:]

Thanks for featuring this issue. The salient point is the load factor on the bus. We have to improve bus service (or raise barriers against private driving) to the point where people find it acceptable. I would cheerfully ride the bus, for example, if this suburb had a small jitney every 15 minutes instead of a big bus every 2 hours.

It would work better, though, if more people lived in concntrated, transit-friendly urban settings, instead of transit-unfriendly suburbs--which have been intentionally designed, since the 1950's, to encourage more use of private cars. Now that GM is no longer dictating national economic policy, perhaps we can start investing more in transit and associated urban infrastructure, rather than roads and exurbs.

Jul 22 01:48 PM

[Snitzer:]

Not solutions, but thoughts:
America is big, real big, and European transportation solutions will not always work here.
For mass transit to work all POV operations must be banned in the cities, and mass transit must be clean, comfortable and above all, secure. Think big cities ringed with massive parking garages and buses/trains with private compartments.
America has her interstates, Germany her Autobahn, but do India and China have the infrastructure to handle all the millions of new vehicles? I've never actually researched the transportation systems of these countries, but if they don't have the square miles of concrete and asphalt then gridlock may become the new way of life.
I am thankful for my modest residence a half block from my office, I haven't been on an interstate in months.

Jul 22 03:51 PM

[Henry Buttal:]

Ryan,
Thanks for posting this. However, you only got the derived information from the report on public transport partly right. Irrespective of the public transportation system location or method, RIDERSHIP is the key in determing whether BTU intensity is better or worse than cars or freeways.

While politicians and Greenpeace don't like to admit it, knowledgeable transportation planners will tell you that light, heavy, commuter, and intercity rail are not silver bullets in U.S. metropolitan geography. I love rail; I ran a company that made rail safety products. But when the economics of new rail infrastucture requiring new right-of-ways are realistically assessed, and the BTUs impact of the build out itself are factored in, new rail is too often both uneconomical and more BTU intensive than other forms of transportation.

It is better to create a regional transit authority with a fleet of highly fuel efficient or NGL powered buses. As annual, demographic and traffic patterns change, this allows reallocation of transporation resources not possible with fixed route rightofway systems like rail.

Snitzer - The answer to your question regarding India and China infrastructure is no on almost all fronts. India, for example, has extensive rail, but it is a hodge podge of different technologies (diesel and electric, catenary provided and independently powered). The build out requirements are huge, with China being better able to address it than India, even if the scaling is greater. I suspect you will see some kind of artificial barrier to car ownership created in those two countries so resources can be allocated to other infrastructure projects other than roads for 500 million cars

Jul 23 12:26 AM

[derryl:]

Alan Young wrote, "It would work better, though, if more people lived in concntrated, transit-friendly urban settings, instead of transit-unfriendly suburbs--which have been intentionally designed, since the 1950's, to encourage more use of private cars. Now that GM is no longer dictating national economic policy, perhaps we can start investing more in transit and associated urban infrastructure, rather than roads and exurbs."

This is the problem with trying to convert to mass transit. It's putting the cart before the horse. Until America's cities are rebuilt for high density and the suburbs are abandoned, most mass transit will suffer low load factors. The world we have built is one where anybody goes from any point A to any point B whenever they want or need to. To convert to a world where people adjust their travel to the bus schedule would require a remaking of American culture and a physical remaking of America.

I'm not convinced mass transit is the solution. I think if/when gas prices soar again Americans might convert to small fuel efficient or electric cars rather than take the bus. Besides, who wants to ride public transit with every panhandler and drug addled shitheel sitting beside you, and listening to Ms Blabbermouth shouting into her cellphone?

Jul 23 12:38 AM

[bigmoney:]

high density housing / public transportation sounds good on paper, but when given a choice, people tend to avoid high density housing, most likely to avoid the noise blight. Try living a year in a bottom floor apartment, where the neighbors upstairs are unemployed obese insomniacs, who run their TV through a 12" 300 watt subwoofer that drones through the ceiling much of the day (and night). And they like to play fetch upstairs with their 80 pound dog. And if you ask them to be quiet, they get indignant and deny making any noise and accuse you of being overly "sensitive".

So to get away from apartment hell, they buy a house in the suburbs, and commute far. High density housing works best in a culture of discipline, and being polite and respectful. Too many people are not that.

Jul 24 05:08 PM