So which is more energy efficient in actual practice, a car or a bus?

The latest available figures-

Energy use of cars:  3657 BTUs per passenger mile. 



http://www.bts.gov/ntda/nts/NTS99/data/Chapter4/4-22.html



Energy use of transit buses:   3835 BTUs per passenger mile. 



http://www.bts.gov/ntda/nts/NTS99/data/Chapter4/4-24.html

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 26, 2000

Answers

Craig:

I don't mean to argue with you, but that data carries the assumption that the bus contains more than the driver. :^)

Don't always see that.

Gregor

-- Gregor (Gregor10001@yahoo.com), May 27, 2000.

Actually, that's the AVERAGE transit bus nation wide. As we have pushed "transportation choices" farther and farther outside of their cost-effective niche in the Puget Sound area, we have gottent to the point where you are right, we increasingly see a driver and a handful of people in a 30 ton bus, and at these load factors, transit is considerably less energy efficient per passenger mile than what is presented here.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 28, 2000.

The data indicate that buses average 4 miles per gallon (mpg). Pretty sad, actually. The data show "passenger cars" getting over 20 mpg, which is credible. But, there is also a category of "other two- axle vehicles". Presumably these are SUVs, and the "other" category averages 17 mpg.

But, based on the data presented, the only rational solution is to advocate vanpooling, which appears to be almost three times as fuel efficient as buses, plus there's no labor cost for a driver.

But, in reality, if the bus is full, then your point is a weak one, since the data presented seems based on an average occupancy of ten people. If a bus has forty or more people, then buses would be 4 times more productive than the numbers you suggest.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 29, 2000.

"But, in reality, if the bus is full, then your point is a weak one"

A Laconic Answer

Long ago the people of Greece were not united. Instead there were several cities and states, each with its own leader. King Philip of Macedon, a land in the northern part of Greece, wanted to bring all of Greece together under his rule. So he raised a great army and made war upon the other states, until nearly all were forced to call him their king. Sparta, however, resisted.

The Spartans lived in the southern part of Greece, an area called laconia, and so they were sometimes called Lacons. They were noted for their simple habits and their bravery. They were also known as people who used few words and chose them carefully; even today a short answer is often described as being "laconic."

Philip knew he must subdue the Spartans if all of Greece was to be his. So he brought his great army to the borders of Laconia, and sent a message to the Spartans.
"If you do not submit at once," he threatened them, "I will invade your company. And if I invade, I will pillage and burn everything you hold dear. If I march into Laconia, I will level your great city to the ground."

In a few days, Philip received an answer. When he opened the letter, he found only one word written there.
That word was "IF." (William J. Bennett, The Book of Virtues)

The point, dear Matt, is that these numbers are averages for all transit. The marginal transit run is nowhere near as good as the average. The run in the heart of the city is much better.

But the statistics are not good now, and the farther outside of the niche of cost-effectiveness you push transit, the poorer the job it does. the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 29, 2000.

to Craig: I suppose you're right. The longer bus routes are less efficient. But, at least the data you've cited reflect favorably on vanpooling.

Vanpooling reduces our dependence on foreign oil; reduces the amount of pollution from cars and; contributes to the mitigation of congestion in a timely and incremental manner.

Road-building has two main negatives, as I see it. First, it is not timely, so there is no short-term mitigation of congestion. Two, the decisions are made by the state rather than a regional government. There ought to be a PSDOT - Puget Sound Department of Transportation.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 30, 2000.

"Vanpooling reduces our dependence on foreign oil; reduces the amount of pollution from cars and; "

I'd acknowledge the first (reduces our dependence on foreign oil), but state that it may not be as great as you think for several reasons. One is that it requires an additional vehicle to be constructed that would not otherwise need to be constructed. And contributes to the mitigation of congestion in a timely and incremental manner. while you are amortizing this over (what?) 10-15 years and ten people, it still represents a not insignificant energy cost, given that a relatively small amount of the average person's 14,000 VMT is back and forth to work. But I'd concede some savings.

As to the second assertion (reduces the amount of pollution from cars ), the extent to which this is true is fairly dependent on the way that the van-pool is constituted. If the driver picks each up from their domicile and drops each off at their domicile, it truly does help overall air pollution. If the riders are required to drive their own vehicles to an assembly area, the savings (if any) are much less, since the majority of the air pollution caused by modern internal combustion engines occurs during the "cold-start" when piston rings and catalytic converters are not yet warmed up to operating temperatures. For some vehicles, 80% of their air pollution for a trip comes from the cold start.

(contributes to the mitigation of congestion in a timely and incremental manner. ) "Contributes" is one of those words it's hard to take issue with, since it can mean almost anything, but it's certainly not a negative, so I'll concede you that point. "Timely" is also kind of hard to define, but relative to major public works projects, you are certainly correct. I could probably go down to my Ford dealer and order an Econoline van for delivery in a few months. Can't do that with a new floating bridge. I think where you and I may have differences of opinion is on the "incremental," since I believe that van-pooling, like transit (and for that matter, rail, air, auto, and monorail) has a niche where it is cost effective, and can be incrementally expanded reasonably only within that niche. I'm not sure that you have ever accepted this limitation, since all your models proposed essentially no limits to expansion potential, while at the same time you have (on occasion) explained at great length how marginally beneficial van-pooling was to you, and how little it would take (loss of the HOV on-ramp at Bridgeport) for it to not really be worth the effort anymore. In the latter case you certainly seem to acknowledge that acceptability of van-pooling for most people is very conditional and in some cases very marginal.
the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 30, 2000.

to Craig: If the carpool entrance to the Narrows Bridge were opened to all, I wouldn't abandon vanpooling. I merely would have no need to join (OR START) a vanpool in Gig Harbor, as I could drive to Tacoma and join a vanpool, there.

Based on what I've learned from you, buses are effective when the distance is relatively short and the users pay a hefty fare. So, a successful bus route might be Bellevue/Seattle and Seattle/Bellevue. Which is why the HOV lane on Hwy 520 is probably so effective. It actually can significantly mitigate congestion

Whereas vanpooling's niche is in the intermediate to long commutes, since if the commute is short enough, one could easily drive oneself. Or, one might be motivated to partner with a fellow commuter, without having to start a vanpool, which is a greater challenge.

So, vanpooling might only really workout if you can identify a lot of people from a community all traveling to a similar target (i.e., Microsoft, Boeing, etc.), and the destination is say more than 15 miles away. I suppose with all those constraints, it is unlikely that vanpooling will make a helluva difference. But, in the case of Hwy 520 or Hwy 16, it probably has its best opportunity to shine.

I'm with you, though. Bus routes should be fairly full or they should be eliminated, and middle-class users should pay a greater share of the actual operating costs.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 30, 2000.

"So, vanpooling might only really workout if you can identify a lot of people from a community all traveling to a similar target (i.e., Microsoft, Boeing, etc.), and the destination is say more than 15 miles away. I suppose with all those constraints, it is unlikely that vanpooling will make a helluva difference. " Within it's niche, either van pooling or transit is reasonably effective. The fact that the actual energy costs of the average transit bus per passenger mile is NOT any better than a passenger car is simply an indication that we have pushed this mode out of its reasonable niche. It is not an indictment of either transit or any other mode.

But the point I've always been trying to make is that the niches for true mass transit are much more limited in practice than they are in theory.
the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.niche), May 30, 2000.

to Craig: You write: "But the point I've always been trying to make is that the niches for true mass transit are much more limited in practice than they are in theory."

I think a couple of niches would be the Hwy 520 bridge and the Narrows Bridge. Building new capacity is sooo expensive.

In the case of the Narrows bridge, the growth in traffic is so modest, it's hard (for me, anyway) to justify building a new bridge. If the number of commuters were to increase by 1000 every year, for the next 20 years, then perhaps the community could handle the increase thru ridesharing. This approach will not alleviate the existing level of congestion, but it will facilitate the communities' expansion in terms of population.

Therefore, the affected communities could invest, say $500,000 - $1,000,000 ever year to purchase buses and vanpool vans. Let's also assume the cost goes up by $500,000 every five years, as worn out equipment is replaced. So, for a cost of $40,000,000, the communities on the Peninsula can accommodate the modest increases in commuting over a 20 year period.

Compare $40,000,000 to over a billion dollars, which is what the communities would pay in tolls.

I'm with you, Craig, when the roads cost $50,000,000 per mile. But in the case of bridges, the cost appears to be $500,000,000 per mile!!!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 31, 2000.

"I'm with you, Craig, when the roads cost $50,000,000 per mile. But in the case of bridges, the cost appears to be $500,000,000 per mile!!! "

If you keep this up, you're going to get me on the subject of "prevailing wage," P*** poor project management, the revolving door between being on transportation committees and being lobbyists for the construction industry, and a number of other unpleasant topics.

Suffice it to say that if Walt Disney were building a major construction project, be it Cinderella's castle, a railroad, or whatever, they'd do it for 30% of what it'd take DOT to do it, and customers would happily stand in line to pay tolls to use it.

Like the military procurement budget, the WA Transportation budget is so arcane it isn't really even auditable.

IMHO, the legislature ought to withdraw all it's funding, and start over. the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 31, 2000.

I have read all of this. I don't live in Seattle but I spend a lot of time there. I know and live with the situation for a part of the year. As a died-in-the-wool liberal, I must agree with Craig.

I just spent a few days in central Iowa [I drove]. Lots of tornadoes. Very exciting. Coming home [on a course to avoid the remaining twisters], I drove throught Des Moines and Kansas City. The road construction is impressive. They have some traffic, but nothing like Seattle. When they are finished. Traffic will be acceptible. Seems that they have accepted the fact that you need roads to serve a population in a non-centralized city.

No amount of ideoligy will overcome that one fact. In a non-centralized urban area, even van pooling will have little effect. I see no way around the problem. Hell, I now fly into Bellingham and drive south to avoid Seattle. I am sure that others will learn this trick.

Best wish

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 31, 2000.

to Z1X4Y7: I don't commute thru Seattle or across Lake Washington. So, I'm not really sure how bad the congestion is compared to other communities.

But, I moved here from New Orleans, and the congestion there is pretty bad. And there are no HOV lanes, and the suburbs have little mass transit to downtown New Orleans, even though everyone is driving by themselves to go to work in downtown New Orleans.

So, from my perspective, the congestion in Puget Sound is not necessarily significantly worse than the greater New Orleans area. It just that the Puget Sound is a larger area with a greater population. Therefore, the numbers of people affected by congestion is larger, so you hear more people moaning about it, here, than say in New Orleans.

I think vanpooling and express buses have made a difference on Hwy 16 and on I-5 in South King County. Is it more cost-effective than building roads? Well, it's certainly more timely.

As Craig says, everything has its niche. When a bridge is beyond its capacity, what are you going to do? At what point would you agree that building a new bridge is too expensive? And, if you decide that building a new bridge is too expensive, then what else could you do besides vanpooling and express buses?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), June 01, 2000.