Vincent wrote:from David Benton I would think the price of oil dropping would genrally favour the incumbent party , as would any good economic news
Well then, we should be seeing a landslide for Obama and the Democrats! Other than the price of gas, all the economic news seems to be bad these days. Personally, I'm fairly confident that Obama/Biden will be elected (although it might be close) and that their administration will be dealing with the greatest economic mess since the 1930s. Energy costs and transportation are going to be central to the recovery of the US economy, let's hope that intelligent minds are put to the task.
In most countries rail passenger demand is rising. This leads to calls for more capacity. In Britain overcrowding is a serious problem on some lines, especially commuter routes. Most towns of any size have rail connections, though a few are lacking. Corby is the latest to be about to regain connection.
I am sure that in the US there is demand that isn't satisfied. This can be seen by the way many trains are fully booked. Some of that demand could be satisfied by running more vehicles. Many towns have no service and would probably reveal demand if service were to be provided. But the demand that is is most unsatisfied
is high speed rail.
France and Spain have proved that high speed trains take away passengers from air. That is, given the choice many people who previously used air are satisfied with a replacement high speed rail journey. Eurostar has certainly proved this.
If a new administration in the US takes climate change seriously, and is no longer wedded to "free market" dogmatism, then a high speed network may begin there and eat into both the air travel market and the the long distance driving in private cars.
I don't believe it is useful to tax oil more highly until there are alternatives. But there has to be continual influence on people to use less oil. The French do it by planning high speed electric trains and electric transport in every city (trams and trolleybuses, as well as some heavy rail Metros, as in Lille). Can we expect the US to try this? Perhaps the lack of appropriate government structures may make it impossible. (The New York-New Jersey transport area would benefit from a single agency covering the whole built up area, running trains from New Jersey through to New Haven, for example. Only government complications would prevent it, but trains run from Copehagen to Malmo in two different countries through the tunnel and bridge.)
Countries like New Zealand could move towards an electricity system running without oil or coal input. I would hope to see them move, like Iceland, to a hydrogen economy, with universally electrified rail. Iceland will probably show the way. Swiss rail used to run on hydro power (now partly nuclear); Italian rail ran on geothermal power.
Iceland is planning a rail link to the airport, but otherwise has no rail system.
Low density suburbs may prove to be unviable in a post-oil economy. I expect to see people move to more densely built areas, suitable for public transport. Perhaps some of the disfiguring suburbs I have seen in Florida may be pulled down and replaced by orange groves.
