The future of CAFE

Messages
5,722
Location
Atlanta,GA
Doubt it. The government wants EV and hybrid front and center. Emissions requirements are going to kill off diesels in cars/light trucks. ULSG is on the horizon as well. That'll help with NOX because better catalysts and lean burn can be used. Also the ethanol mandate is currently under review.
 
Messages
1,855
Location
Southwest
For the life of me, I don't know why we pay (in my area) a combined 36 cents per gallon gas tax, subsidize road repair by another 36 cents, out of general revenues, then mandate cafe standards. Why don't we quit subsidizing gas consumption first? If you don't like the idea of a tax increase, double the child tax credit and it's a wash to the overall economy.
 
Messages
36,528
Location
ME
Originally Posted By: jimbrewer
For the life of me, I don't know why we pay (in my area) a combined 36 cents per gallon gas tax, subsidize road repair by another 36 cents, out of general revenues, then mandate cafe standards. Why don't we quit subsidizing gas consumption first? If you don't like the idea of a tax increase, double the child tax credit and it's a wash to the overall economy.
While we're at it why not double the gas tax but let you apply for a refund of the first seven gallons you use per week? Naturally you'd need a valid license, insurance, address... This'd reclaim some tax revenue from pimps, drug dealers, and other dodgers.
 
CAFE is about carbon trading. It has nothing to do with oil dependence or saving the environment, although it is peddled that way. It's about generating money, through the carbon credit exchange. That is why CAFE will be just fine, all they have to do is issue a higher mpg standard every once in a while.
 
Messages
3,561
Location
Central Iowa
Well, since I go thru roughly 21,000 gallons of diesel a year, go ahead and increase the fuel tax. No problem, I won't pay it... the consumer of the products I move will. And there are 2.5 million commercial heavy trucks in the country that are in a similar situation as me. Rates will go up to cover the additional fuel cost, and so will the costs for everything being made or sold. There is always some unintended consequences when folks feel the government solution is the best. If the government would quit wasting fuel tax money on beautification projects and studying why monkeys have excreta fights in the zoo, we might actually have pretty good roads on the fuel taxes we pay now.
 
Messages
1,855
Location
Southwest
Sure, but that's the point; make the people buying the product pay the cost of shipping without a subsidy from the people who don't. Perhaps it would be better to ship more stuff by rail and less by truck.
 
Messages
3,566
Location
Somewhere
Originally Posted By: jimbrewer
Sure, but that's the point; make the people buying the product pay the cost of shipping without a subsidy from the people who don't. Perhaps it would be better to ship more stuff by rail and less by truck.
It still has to get from the rail yard to the store somehow. And the most efficient means is... A truck. Unless we want to extend rail lines to every store and mall...
 
Messages
3,561
Location
Central Iowa
Originally Posted By: jimbrewer
Sure, but that's the point; make the people buying the product pay the cost of shipping without a subsidy from the people who don't. Perhaps it would be better to ship more stuff by rail and less by truck.
I have no problem with that. But keep in mind, there is a lot of government money that is thrown at the rail system. And the government has no money except that which they take from the people. And it still really doesn't solve anything. Not too many railroads, that I have seen, have a short hub to the back end of most grocery stores, walmarts, shopping malls, auto parts stores, etc, etc. It has to go from the rail to the customer by, you guessed it, a truck. And most times, many end users only get fractions of an entire truck load. Of course, that full truck load could be broken down into 6 more smaller trucks and delivered. More congestion, more fuel, substantially added cost to the consumer, etc. After almost 40 years in the transportation field, I have learned one thing about the general public... they have very little clue about logistics and how things get to where they are. A lot of folks want more rail. No problem. Even more waits for trains to get thru rail crossings, delays of product and goods almost 4 times more than via truckload. You can forget about overnight, next day, or even 3rd day delivery of something. Anyone who thinks air freight mostly moves by air is living in a fantasy land. The vast majority of next day and air freight is moved by truck, airport to airport. Don't believe it, give FedEx, Forward Air, Towne Air, UPS, and host of other carriers a call. They can fill you in. Most grocery warehouses have only a 48 hr, or at most, a 72 hr turnover of regular grocery stuff. If all of that was taken over by rail, there would be mass shortages in quick order. Gets a little complicated, but it is what it is to keep a country moving. Trucking moves 75% of what gets moved around this country. It is not going away, and will never be taken over by rail. Just not a logistical possibility. Those that want more regulations on trucks, taxing them more, etc are just inflating their cost to buy even the most basic essentials. The trucks will get the job done one way or another, and the cost will be passed on to the consumer. Be careful what you wish for. Rail is already almost at full capacity. There just isn't more trains to shift much freight off of trucks to. Even though rail services auto assembly plants, the critical time frames that the assembly lines operate require a 30 minute window of good to arrive. There is no facilities to store weeks of parts and components. Trucks are the only thing that can keep the massive cost of warehousing auto production parts down, meet the assembly line time frames, are quick to facilitate freight changes in component parts changes due to OEM spot changes in design, By shifting most of the parts to assembly plants to rail, you can count on finished vehicle prices to inflate an easy 25% over what they are now. Your call. Your dollar.
 
Messages
1,855
Location
Southwest
Well, returning to the original issue, we should not be heavily subsidizing petroleum use on the one hand, then trying to make up for that through command and control cafe standards on the other. As to trains vs.trucks,I merely suggest that there is likely to be some distortion at the margin: certain long hauls of heavy objects are being made by truck instead of rail because the subsidy make it possible.
 
Messages
3,379
Location
BC, Canada
When there is a time factor, the trucks have the advantage depending on the length of the haul. Double-stack container trains are over 12,000 feet long. Potash, coal and sulfur trains weigh 25,000 tons, wheat 18,000 tons. Those are large hauls that would be impossible to move by truck. There are also piggy-back and roll-on/roll-off truck by train. The railroads want to make trucking inefficient by limiting their weight, claiming that the trucks are ruining the highway infrastructure in the USA. Is that the railroads' business to worry about the condition of the highways? In Canada the trucks are pulling 53 foot triples and 30 wheel super b-trains. To limit length and weight so the trucking industry is inefficient, is a poor way for the railroads to grab business. People get up every mourning to find the supermarket shelves filled. Like TiredTrucker, I'm convinced that 80% of the population have no idea what goes on between 10pm and 7am.
 
Messages
3,517
Location
Austin, TX MSA
Originally Posted By: TiredTrucker
If the government would quit wasting fuel tax money on beautification projects and studying why monkeys have excreta fights in the zoo, we might actually have pretty good roads on the fuel taxes we pay now.
Good point about the road beautification projects. However, the salient point is, we are subsidizing roads from other funding sources than the fuel tax. So you pay the piper either way, whether it be in your tax dollars or higher product prices due to higher fuel tax costs.. Down here in Texas they've decided the answer is user fees, I.e., toll roads. So that's an additional factor.
 
Top