Americans Still Use a Lot of Gas

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 poring 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.

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.

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).

  • I’m pretty glassy-eyed. Where is the trend headed? Anyone?

  • mixner

    The numbers in the Transportation Energy Data Book clearly show that there is virtually no potential for achieving meaningful reductions in energy consumption through a shift from driving to using mass transit.

    Item 1: Cars and light trucks provide the vast majority of motorized surface transportation in the United States. Mass transit provides only a small fraction of transportation. So even if transit were much more energy-efficient than driving (it isn’t), it would take an enormous shift from driving to using mass transit to achieve even a small reduction in transportation energy use.

    Item 2: Most transit is buses, and transit buses use MORE energy per passenger-mile than cars. As cars continue to become more energy-efficient in response to rising gas prices and environmental concerns, they are likely to remain more energy-efficient than transit buses.

    Item 3: Light rail provides only a small fraction of transportation by transit, and only an infinitesimal fraction of total motorized surface transportation. So even if light rail were much more energy-efficient than driving (it isn’t), it would still offer virtually no potential for meaningful reductions in transportation energy use.

    Item 4: Heavy rail is hugely expensive to build and maintain, even more expensive than light rail, and as such is feasible in only a few very dense urban cores and travel corridors. In fact, heavy rail in the United States is overwhlemingly dominated by just a single system: the New York Subway. Unless we remake our other cities at the density of lower Manhattan and the denser parts of Brooklyn and Queens, which isn’t remotely plausible, heavy rail has virtually no role to play in reducing transportation energy consumption.

  • Lee

    “Most transit is buses, and transit buses use MORE energy per passenger-mile than cars”

    Yes. But No. But Yes. But definetely no.

    Buses are less efficient per passenger mile, as was pointed out in the original blog post, because they are usually nearly empty. A full bus is significantly more fuel efficient than a car – the passenger miles aren’t there to achieve the fuel efficiency because the passengers aren’t riding the buses. A bus with a 30+ person capacity just doesn’t cut it for driving 2 or 3 people per hour.

    Anyway, none of this would be an issue if all the streetcar systems that used to exist in every major (and many minor) american cities hadn’t been replaced with buses. For some reason, rail systems are much less of a turn off to potential passengers than bus systems.

    I live in Williamsburg, VA – a small tourist and college town. Because of the college students and the tourists and the incredibly high land prices in the city, we have a great bus system. The reason that last factor is pertinent is that there are a tremendous number of people who are bused in from the surrounding county/country side to the city to work low paying hospitality jobs.

    Interestingly, American tourists only seem to ride the buses that are operated in the historic district by the Colonial Williamsburg foundation. But I also see large numbers of foreign/multi-national tourists and guest workers on the buses that serve shopping centers and tourist attractions that the American tourists usually drive to. I have seem the same group of American tourists use the bus to get around the historic district drive to the local outlet malls and restaurants. Basically, it seems Americans are only willing to take the bus if they think it’s part of the airport/theme park/tour package/overpriced bullshit. The arrogance displayed and the traffic congestion generated by these obnoxious fanny pack toting interlopers from pennsylvania and new jersey and whereever else they come from is infuriating.

    I think if we had a light rail system they would think it was adorable and probably would be much more willing to use it.

    Sorry for the rant.


How Cutting Back on Driving Helps the Economy

Cross-posted from City Observatory As Americans drive less and spend less on fuel, they have about $150 billion annually to spend in other ways. There are two kinds of economics: macroeconomics, which deals in big national and global quantities, like gross domestic product, and microeconomics, which focuses on a smaller scale, like how the prices […]

NRDC Gives Gas Consumption Maps a Helpful Revision

The overwhelming sentiment that greeted our story on the gas consumption maps the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club put out last week went something like this: These are almost useful. Just about everyone agreed that looking at total fuel consumption per county wasn’t very informative without weighing that number against population. There […]

The End of Peak Driving?

Cross-posted from City Observatory.  A little over a year ago, a gallon of regular gasoline cost $3.70. Since then, that price has plummeted, and remains more than a dollar cheaper than it was through most of 2014. Over the same period, there’s been a small but noticeable uptick in driving in the US. After nearly […]

Census: American Bike Commuting Up Nine Percent in 2012

Congratulations, America. We’re biking to work more than ever before. We’ve known for a while that Americans are driving less than they used to, even as the economy grows. And just about every quarter, the American Public Transportation Association delivers more stats about increasing transit ridership. Now the Census brings another measure of Americans’ shifting transportation […]