According to government figures, autos use 92% of the energy per passenger mile of transit buses. And autos are continuing to become MORE energy efficient while transit buses aren
ft. Current figures are available at the following site:

http://www.bts.gov/btsprod/nts/chp4/tbl4x23.html

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 13, 1999

Answers

I beg to differ. the avg. car emits 3 times more co per passenger mile than a bus,

1 yr. of parking your car and riding the bus = 78 lbs.less pollutants in the atmosphere,

1 bus with 7 passengers = 1 auto 1 full bus = 6 autos 1 full light rail = 16.5 autos http://www.trimet.org/fresh.htm

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.com), November 13, 1999.

This is energy, not pollutants. And the other depends on the type of pollutants you are talking about. Diesel's are high NOx emitters. Pierce County's propane burners are much less. But the citation above was for ENERGY, and that is the federal figures.

By the way, the TriMet site that you give is a supposed teaching plan for elementary school teachers. This is some of the enviro-babble that was recently in the news. What is particularly laughable, is where they ascribe the historically increasing air quality in Portland to TRI-MET. What really caused it was better emission controls on vehicles. portland air got better DESPITE greatly increased vehicle miles by SOVs. It is correct about the relative pollution of two cycle engines and lawnmowers and boats, which dwarfs the pollution of cars, though. (Operating a 2-cycle outboard motor boat engine for one hour is like driving a car from Portland to New York, or London to Rome (2,500 miles). ) But you'd do better to use the federal sites, TRIMET has always been fast and lose with their figures. On this one, they assume that electricity is non-polluting, which of course depends on the source. Since we don't like nuclear power in this country, we burn a lot of coal, and there is nothing non-polluting about burning coal.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 13, 1999.

This is energy, not pollutants. And the other depends on the type of pollutants you are talking about. Diesel's are high NOx emitters. Pierce County's propane burners are much less. NOx in most places is a far greater problem than CO. But the citation above was for ENERGY, and that is the federal figures.

By the way, the TriMet site that you give is a supposed teaching plan for elementary school teachers. This is some of the enviro-babble that was recently in the news. What is particularly laughable, is where they ascribe the historically increasing air quality in Portland to TRI-MET. What really caused it was better emission controls on vehicles. portland air got better DESPITE greatly increased vehicle miles by SOVs. It is correct about the relative pollution of two cycle engines and lawnmowers and boats, which dwarfs the pollution of cars, though. (Operating a 2-cycle outboard motor boat engine for one hour is like driving a car from Portland to New York, or London to Rome (2,500 miles). ) But you'd do better to use the federal sites, TRIMET has always been fast and lose with their figures. On this one, they assume that electricity is non-polluting, which of course depends on the source. Since we don't like nuclear power in this country, we burn a lot of coal, and there is nothing non-polluting about burning coal.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 13, 1999.

That's an interesting table, although it would have been helpful if it did compare the BTU's for elecrified rail (commuter or light rail), along with the others. It only showed AMTRAK on the bottom, interestingly enough, at about 1/2 the amounts of the other modes, except motorcycles.

-- Jim Cusick (jccusick@att.net), November 13, 1999.

Electrified rail is difficult because of line losses.

Note: The following conversion rates were used: Jet Fuel = 135,000 Btu/gal. Aviation Gasoline = 120,200 Btu/gal. Automotive Gasoline = 125,000 Btu/gal. Diesel Motor Fuel = 138,700 Btu/gal. Compressed Natural Gas = 138,700 Btu/gal. Distillate Fuel = 138,700 Btu/gal. Residual Fuel = 149,700 Btu/gal. Natural Gas = 1,031 Btu/ft3 Electricity 1kWhr = 3,412 Btu , negating electrical system loses. To include electrical system losses, multiply this conversion factor by approximately three. http://www.bts.gov/btsprod/nts/chp4/tbl4x10.html

Amtrak (and other longer haul rail modes) are reasonably efficient from an energy standpoint. Buses and light rail suffer from frequent start/stop accelerate/decelerate cycles. This really drags them down, compared to what they could do at steady state. Also KILLS their speed. Buses only average 13 mph. Light rail, not MUCH better at 14mph.

Since you mention AMTRAK, if you look at other bts products, you'll find it's dying on the vine. They are now using what were supposed to be capital improvement funds for operations. This is putting them in a death spiral from which recovery is unlikely. The northeastern corridor is potentially viable, if someone coud privatize it. I continue to be utterly amazed that our own WSDOT still wants to try to drop millions in state funds into local AMTRAK.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 14, 1999.

craig, You keep siting these government studies. you do know that statistics can be skewed to say what ever you want. And in the case of the bts studies you are quoting, you are putting your trust in the federal govt., the biggest beurocracy of them all. the feds do have something to gain by keeping us auto dependent.

as far as saying that autos use less fuel/ passenger mile, mass transit is a big waste of money etc, etc. What are you suggesting? Do you suggest that we get rid of all mass transit, because it is not cost effective? Are you just looking at the dollar cost without looking at the cost of time, pollution, health, roads etc? You have to take into account all costs.

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.com), November 14, 1999.

Here's an interesting question to go with the idea of privatization: How do you feel when the oil companies raise the price of gas, either in summertime, or what seems like immediately after some oil related calamity (refinery accident, ship sinking, etc.)?

It is the free market at work, after all. I hate paying the price, but I also hate hearing all the whiners on the news. If the price is too high (for whatever type of vehicle you drive), then you should vote with your pocketbook, and not buy the gas.

-- Jim Cusick (jccusick@att.net), November 14, 1999.

Craig, I have already told you and sited myself that your info on wsdot and amtrak funding was 3 years outdated. you can be utterly amazed if you want, but it is a waste of your time. wsdot has given up on amtrak on the east side of the state.

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.com), November 15, 1999.

"Craig, I have already told you and sited myself that your info on wsdot and amtrak funding was 3 years outdated. you can be utterly amazed if you want, but it is a waste of your time. wsdot has given up on amtrak on the east side of the state. " So they need to change what they are asking for in their long term plans. Now tell us how much they propose to spend on increasing AMTRAK passenger service on the west side of the state, and why that is a good idea.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 15, 1999.

"craig, You keep siting these government studies. you do know that statistics can be skewed to say what ever you want. And in the case of the bts studies you are quoting, you are putting your trust in the federal govt., the biggest beurocracy of them all. the feds do have something to gain by keeping us auto dependent." I
fll bite. What?

"as far as saying that autos use less fuel/ passenger mile, mass transit is a big waste of money etc, etc. What are you suggesting? Do you suggest that we get rid of all mass transit, because it is not cost effective? Are you just looking at the dollar cost without looking at the cost of time, pollution, health, roads etc? You have to take into account all costs." No. I have repeatedly said that we need to keep a scaled back mass transit in those urban areas where it is reasonably cost effective, as a safety net for the transit dependent. If you are looking at the cost of time, it takes, on the average, longer to commute by transit than by auto. If you look at pollution, the pollution per vehicle mile for passenger cars is well below that for buses, and continuing to improve. Transit buses are not improving much, not surprising since they only build about 5000 per year, spread among 4-5 manufacturers. That is hardly enough volume to pay off R&D for the transit bus manufacturers. A few years ago the feds mandated tougher standards, and succeeded only in driving several manufacturers out of the business. In terms of health, I am unaware of transit being significantly healthier than autos. Transit also takes roads, the same as autos, and an 18 ton bus beats them up a lot more than a passenger car does. But regardless of all the supposed advantages that you cite, none of that works if people don
ft USE transit, and increasingly they DO NOT use transit. Transit continues to lose market share worldwide, and in many areas actually has declining real numbers. We
fve tried build it and they will come, and they didn
ft come. All of the routes that MetroKC is threatening to cut, almost a third of their total hours of service, serve less than nine passengers per hour!! We have given people free passes, made their employers charge them for parking, threatened their employers, and the public has abndoned transit in droves, due to very reasonable demographic issues. What are you going to do, put a gun to their heads??

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 15, 1999.

Recopied from another thread:

From the Brookings Institute:

http://www.brook.edu/views/articles/winston/19990826.htm

THE POLITICS OF URBAN TRANSPORTATION It's no secret why government can't cope with transit inefficiencies: Policy makers (appropriately) respond more to political forces rather than market forces. Although government subsidies largely accrue to transit managers and suppliers of transit labor and capital in the form of higher wages, profits and interest payments, a portion does go to the popular causes of keeping fares below cost and expanding service beyond the level that could be supported without subsidies. Probably more important, these public benefits are enjoyed by groups with influence disproportionate to their numbers - high-income commuters, business developers and so on. Shirley and I estimate that more than 80 percent of the waste from sub-optimal urban transit fares and frequencies can be attributed to these political influences. Transit inefficiencies might be more easily overlooked if they redistributed income from the well-to-do to the poor, but this is not the case. Everyone gets something from the grab bag: transit managers and workers get higher wages, while lower- and middle-income bus riders get more frequent service. Upper middle- income rail riders cash-in through more frequent service and greater route coverage. With the average annual household income of bus commuters approaching $40,000 and the average annual household income of rail commuters exceeding $50,000, the poor are hardly transit's greatest beneficiaries. Indeed, since the tax burden created by transit subsidies takes a larger portion of income from the poor than from the rich, it is clear that public transit is increasing - not decreasing - inequality.

Additional inefficiencies in the public sector arise because rail and bus companies do not minimize the cost of producing a given level of service - as the high proportion of empty transit seats attests. During the mid-1990's rail filled roughly 18 percent of its seats with paying customers, while bus filled roughly 14 percent. In contrast, about one-third of auto's carrying capacity is typically filled. These differences in capacity utilization have clear implications for mass transit's cost competitiveness with autos. While transit's average operating costs per seat mile are lower than auto's, this potential cost advantage is never realized in practice because empty seats drive its operating costs per passenger mile much higher than auto's.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 16, 1999.

Found an updated source for this subject. Take a look: http://www.gt-wa.com/RTA/rtaenerg.htm

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 30, 1999.