A downside to fuel efficiency?

Fuel efficiency hasn't changed that much over the past 10 years, and driving has increased, as has the amount spent on fuel. Remember, our love affair with SUVs is just starting to die out. Below is a chart from the Energy Information Administration of the DOE

Source: Household Vehicles Energy Use: Latest Data & Trends Energy Information Adminstration, US Department of Energy, November 2005. Accessed March 7 2007.

Note where "Energy use (billion gal)" has increased from 82.4 to 113.1 over the time period of the analysis.

Now it's possible that in the last six years, things have shifted dramatically, but its not likely. Its also possible that trucks account for a large fraction of fuel consumption and that they have either gotten much more efficient or overall truck transportation has fallen. However, I suspect that the other cause mentioned in the article - much higher highway building and maintenance expenses, are the dominant cause of the financial problem. In which case, the title is misleading at best.

I'd be interested to see some more recent data, anyone?

Well huh! I guess the subcontracted companies that maintain the roads (compiled of all those guys you see with orange vests that are sitting instead of working) are going to have to quit cheating the government by running their operations in predicted man hours and actually get paid by the amount of work they do. In addition to that they can stop cheating all of us by using material that cracks every winter therefore ensuring their job for next season. They can also help empty radial tire dumps by recycling the tires into road material that expands and contracts through the year. Therefore making it save on vehicle repairs and jarred backs. We should gather a force of fiery brooms and pitchforcks and march to washington!

Here in Europe there has been very little relationship found between the cost of fuel and the efficiency of cars and the mileages driven.

We have seen an ever rising mileage every year, of ever more, ever bigger cars, which more than covers the better fuel efficiency delivered by the manufacturers

Here in the good old state of PA, the joke is

Whats yellow and sleeps six?

A PenDot truck

Utterly ridiculous. Overall fleet mileage has changed little. Besides, they could just raise the tax a few cents if they really need more money for highways, and encourage energy conservation at the same time.

But the real culprits are sitting in congress:

"To be fair, federal officials say, it's not just energy-efficient autos that are sucking the fund dry. There are also higher construction costs, congressional overspending and an aging highway system."

Greg

In 2003 the US had 236,760,033 million highway vehicle registrations, of which 135,669,897 were passenger cars.

These 236 million vehicles used 169,624,000,000 gallons of fuel. For which the federal government collected 64.5 billion dollars in fuel taxes at the pump (2003). 44% of this fuel was from passenger cars.

There are 60 million new cars and 400,000 new class 2 through 8 trucks sold in the USA every year, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006.

In 2004, the average gasoline consumption for passenger cars was 550 gallons. This means that new car buyers increase consumption by 33 billion gallons per year ($12.5 billion in additional fuel tax above and the previous year.. Granted, many of the new cars are purchased with the return of a used car trade-in, but then the majority of the used cars are sold and put back on the road.

There were no statistics to identify the difference, but the point of all of the information here is "any claim that fuel taxes are decreasing the Federal Highway Trust Fund because engines are becoming more efficient is a bunch of CRAP". In the case of new truck engines with particulate traps, there is a 3% to 5% fuel penalty, for fuel that is required to burn off the exhaust in the new exhaust ceramic filters, so in newer engines, even though the engines are more efficient, the savings is eaten up in the usage in the particulate trap.

You can get all the information you need to verify this information and a lot more, at the Department of Transportation website. The information here is from the 2004 National Transportation Statistics book provided by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

One other item: Fuel is taxed a minimum of five times. The corporation that distills crude into fuel is taxed on their profits, and as you know these profits are huge (1). The distribution channels that get the fuel to the pumps get taxed on their profit (1), and they too achieve high profit ratios. The retailers (3) of fuel get taxed on their corporate profits and then the consumer is taxed at the pump – 38 cents a gallon (4). The last and most outrageous additional tax is the one you pay personally, in addition to the per gallon fuel taxes (local, city, state and federal). Every dollar you earn is taxed at an average rate of 25% to 30% (income tax, SS and employment taxes). This means that every dollar you spend on fuel has already been taxed at least 25% even before you have pumped one gallon into your car.

I bet you never knew that you were getting screwed (oops, I mean taxed) five times for every visit you make to the fuel pump.

At 40mpg (imperial gallons) the figures indicate an average annual mileage for a USA driver of about 18000.

Concerns start kicking in for a UK driver when the annual mileage exceeds 12000.

It isn't worth owning a car in the UK if annual mileage is below about 5000, as other transport options will prove more economical.

What can be learned?

Don't live in the UK, We want to be free!

The UK became free of one of its dominions in the reign of King George III.

In 1984, "Big Brother is watching you...".

In 2007, one is watching "Big Brother"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free

Sir,

I would like to proclaim that I DO NOT watch "Big Brother" !!

Why would any one with any sense of self respect or duty ever consider it acceptable to sit on their couch and watch total strangers sit on their couches and insult eachother.?

Quite.

Er, not sure what "Sir" means; any guess at gender results in only a 50% chance of being correct.

Dear Mr / Mrs / Ms / Ms / Slack,

Yes you are right, I made an assumption, and you can of course will know whether I was wrong.

However, since in the UK 95 % of engineers are male, and 70 % of internet users are male, and 75 % of people interested in cars are male. I think the sums show it was a reasonable assumption.

I think that makes you one of the 1.8% of this population who are female. - Sorry

Hugh Mattos

Chartered Engineer

We have long enjoyed very low cost energy in the US. The enormous economy of scale utilized in energy production and refining has benefited us greatly. However, it seems sources of new supply to replace those being consumed are more costly to find, product and refine--and are not enough to meet the demand. Hence, real prices to consumers will increase to cause moderation in demand and more production.

You have to love paying $2.50 to get on the Westpark tollway and go slower than the feeder for 40 minutes.

Keith, I would suggest that the comparitively low cost of fuel in the US has little to do with "economies of scale" and plenty to do with the low tax you pay on fuel.

Here in England we pay 90 pence per litre 1.80$ - but nearly 70 pence of that is in tax to the central government

It is a good way of ensuring that the drivers who drives further or in a thirsty vehicle pays the proper share of the damage they do.

Hugh Mattos Chartered Engineer

I would like to have more mass transit where I live. The town I live in has built an "expressway" with 15 stoplights on it and it is only about 10 miles long, everytime you get up to 50mph you have to hit the brakes for 'em. Truckers call Evansville, IN "stoplight city", what a stupid idea. Another bright idea of theirs is to close 2 of the 3 lanes in the hottest part of the summer and then have their designated INDOT Crew Member of the week work on it the following week until the end of summer, every year. I bet if google took pictures of this town in the summer, you'd see 50% of the roads with orange barrels, hah! It is very frustrating, I lost my temper and drove over some of the barrels one day because the workers weren't working but then decided to merge back into traffic before I made my day even worse, haha. If youv'e seen the movie "Falling Down" you know exactly what I'm talking about.

I went on vacation to Hong Kong in 2003 and it was really amazing to see the mass transit system they have there. Not too many people have cars because the government taxes them approx. 200% so that people use mass transit. Of course to make up for it there are more taxi's but you definately get places fast with it. The MTR over there (Mass Transit Railway) is a lot of fun to ride at times where there are not many people on it because all of the cars are open to eachother and there is a flexible gap filler between cars. Looking down through the cars, you see the MTR going up, down and around turns where you dont really notice it when you have seperate cars, and its the best place to cool down after being out in the humid air because the air flows through the whole train. It would be nice to just relax on the way home instead of having to keep my foot over the brake. I'd like to see more of them, but I'd never want to be without a car of my own.