Because the cost of moving corn,lumber,Iron Ore and mining it would go up.
What I am proposing is that it seems that we have moved from the Gold standerd to the OIL standard. If Oil goes up in price so will all commidities including wages so it wont really matter because prices will go up across te board.Rember you have to burn Oil To mine Coal to fuel the tractors.
In theory it should but it seems like airline tickets are cheaper now than they were 10 years ago. I having looking for flights to from Seattle to Orlando and were asking less than $200! Ten years ago, if I could find a special for under $400 I would grab it because it was the exception. These cheap flights have got to make it difficult for Amtrak.
Not necessarily so, unless manufacturers just tack on that increase to the buyer or they can try and save money (isn’t that a strange concept?) I had an old tank 1991 buick with 1" gas lines and got 9 mpg, I now drive a 2003 and get 38 mpg even though I pay 80 cents a litre . I can drive 3 times as far for less money than my old dinosaur. With new oil reserves being found, and there are lots, as soon as the mid east crap is over and the dollars start to flow (the oil crisis ONLY a money crisis), notice the advance of fuel efficient aircraft and locomotives, thats where the cost of commodities are being held down, and train shipping is still pretty cheap.
European Aluminium smelters may have to shut down if they must pay 40% more for electricity as the expect. China’s demand for raw materials is driving up the price of alumina and iron ore forcing higher prices of Aluminium and Steel.
This article in The Asia Times explains China’s need for oil will drive it into confrontation with its neighbors and the US.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GC02Ad07.html
I hope you are not correct that things will just going back to normal. Although, new oil reserves are being found, oil is still a non-renewable resource that will eventually run out. I hope that each “oil crisis” gives more momentum to finding alternative fuels in the long run. According to my latest BMW Magazine, BMW says they will soon market the world’s first gasoline/hydrogen hybrid. The good thing about hydrogen is that performance doesn’t suffer. According to BMW their pure hydrogen test cars have set world records for hydrogen powered cars with a top speeds of over 187 miles/hour. I think longterm hydrogen has great potential. The Green Goat even shows there are possibilities in the locomotive market.
Prices will eventually go up for consumer goods unless the feds lift the limits on trucks GVW and LCV. If truckers are allowed to carry more cargo per driver, the savings can offset the increase in diesel fuel prices. Remember, trucks are the one vital link between the wholesale transportation sector and the retail sector, regardless of how fuel prices affect the railroads.
Unfortunately, one of New Jersey’s moronic senators is proposing new limits on truck GVW and LCV. If his bill ever became law, you would see consumer prices jump dramatically. Of course, the kneejerk reaction of the railroad industry is to always support any action that puts new limits on how much truckers can haul, but they are in a state of truce with the ATA.
One word! PRICE GOUGING!
BNSFrailfan.
Unfortunately, raising the weight limits for trucks increases road maintenance exponentially. There are safety issues as well.
Most likely higher oil prices are here to stay. While more oil fields have been found, the rate of new discoveries has declined and has not kept up with the increases in consumption. Also, some of the new fields are not as accessible and cost more to extract oil. The immediate effect is a number of airlines going into bankruptcy and gas prices rising. Longer term is higher prices everywhere as plastics and energy costs go up. I would expect to see more train-truck combined shipping.
Enjoy
Paul
IMHO the simple analogy is your electric bill will rise so to maintain your profit magain as your fixed costs have risen you will have to raise prices to maintain your profit levels. If you are willing to accept a lower profit margain then you will not raise prices on your product. Oil now is over $53.00 per BRL & the whiz bangs on CNBC said the spike will be another $0.25 to $0.50. People with non efficent autos better get ready to break open their piggybanks. [:)]
OPEC and GM are worse then the Crack dealers on my block. If they see us getting clean by using mass transit and alternitive fuel cars because fuel is too expensive they will temporaly lower there prices in order for us to make those programs impractical . Thus in effect shutting them down. Once alternitive transportation and fuel programs are elimanted and defunded. Its back up to high oil prices.
Its like my ex-girlfreind who got out of rehab. The people who she borrowed money from came knocking our door with guns and trying to tempt her to fall off the wagon with cheap crack cocaine.
Yes! Oil by-products are used in anything we buy, right from detergents to plastics, paints, lubricants, insulation around wiring in your new TV, new computer, telephone, and so on. Sears has warned us that their applicances are going sharply up because of both production cost increases and for the costs of getting them into the stores (shipping).
I think in some ways, we are our own worst enemies here in N. America. We scream when fuel costs ‘too much’, whatever that means, and we choose to keep our collective heads in the sand about what using oil really costs, especially in deferred terms. Remember that the Europeans have endured a closer approximation of oil reality than we have for nearly 20 years. They bit the bullet and have paid a truer cost for many years. It’ about time we did the same.
Actually, increasing the GVW would tend to reduce road maintenance costs, since you are allowing each cab unit to haul more cargo, e.g. increasing the load factor. Consider the following: You have 1,000 tons that need to be trucked. If the GVW limits the cargo lading to 40 tons per truck, it will take 25 truckloads. If the GVW limit is raised to allow 60 tons per truck, it will only take 17 truckloads. SInce you have to included the tare of the cab unit at roughly 19,000 lbs, the 8 extra trips for the 40 ton cargo max will result in an extra 76 tons plying the roads for the same amout of aggregate tonnage. There will be some adjustment for higher tare resulting from increased capacity trailers, but you still come out ahead on the total amount of tonnage over the roads. The key of course is to spread the extra weight over more axles to keep the damage exerted per wheel the same. That’s why a single 160,000 lb GVW riding on 10 axles and 36 wheels doesn’t cause any more road damage than two 80,000 lb trucks riding on 5 axles and 18 wheels, and in terms of road damage per ton of revenue cargo, the 160,000 lb truck has a greater load factor so road damage per revenue ton is less.
As for safety issues, having less trucks hauling more cargo each is safer than having more trucks hauling less cargo. If the equipment meets mechanical specs, the safety issue is then more correlated to the per capita of trucks on the highways.
That’s the trucking industry argument. Unfortunately weight and safety problems are not straight line with respect to weight. They increase faster than the weight increases. Doubling the number of axles does not make the 160,000lb truck equivalent to two 80,00
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by IRONROOSTER
That’s the trucking industry argument. Unfortunately weight and safety problems are not straight line with respect to weight. They increase faster than the weight increases. Doubling the number
Interesting idea about the 50% increase in tare tonnage allowed in trucks. I assume that the rear wheels will be steerable so a rig with a 75 foot trailer can navigate the street corners that now almost to tight for a 50 footer. I suppose either that or wider lanes or lower radius on the corners would cover the problem. Sounds real cost effective to me.
For the record, tare is the non-cargo weight of a loaded rig e.g. the cab, the trailer, and additional supporting axles, so you can have a 50% increase in revenue tonnage with only a nominal increase in tare. The only real tare increase would come from the added wheelsets.
You also don’t have to drive LCV’s around tight street corners. Most LCV’s are limited to the highways and truck stops, wherein the consists are broken up and the trailers delivered locally in one or two units per rig. Right now it would be rather easy to allow trailer combos of 4 or 5 trailers on the Interstates for the sake of increased efficiency, while still limiting street running to one or two trailers.
So yes, it is much more cost effective, and not in the way you ostensibly envision.
OPEC loves Hemi’s, SUVs, Sports Cars, Trucks and anyone who drives without any passengers (I’m guilty of that one). The more big cars we buy the worse this will get. Trains and trucks are effected too, but there aren’t 150 million of them that pump gas!!!
If you want to save $$$ and not use so much oil, you could use synthetic oil, carpool, convert your car to hydrogen (for some $$$$), use public transportation, walk, OR YOU COULD RIDE A TRAIN!
The people who own those type vehicles mentioned in your post probably do not even realize they are going broke slowly. 6 /8 months ago gas was here 146.9 now it is just around $2.00 poised to go higher. So if the owners were to do some math & take a guess of how many miles they drove in that period of time & then figure out how many miles per gal their vehicle gets then figure ehat it was 6 months ago they will see how much more they are now paying for the gas guzzler. My cars are in the mid 20s MPG & I wish it was even higher[:o)]
The biggest hole in your argument is bridges. Your hypothetical 160,000 GVW trucks would put considerably more concentrated dynamic loads on the structural members of bridges resulting in accellerated wear . Not to mention that many bridges would have to be replaced before such trucks could safely cross them at all…
Many of the people who drive SUV’s or trucks have need of them part of the time. It would not be efficient to them, to society, or good for the environment for them to own an additional vehicle just to be politically correct.
Public transportation (buses and trains), outside of specific corridoors in areas of high population density, is less efficient than the automobile. They cannot provide adequate service and the service they do provide in fact costs more and uses more resources than autos do. Public owned transportation appears cheaper to the users because of high subsidies from highway user fees.