Is the Madison-Milwaukee train green?
Bob Zubrin, the who once advocated a plan to travel to the planet Mars and back by synthesizing rocket fuel from local materials to make the return trip, has been big on alternative fuels, especially alcohol as a motor fuel. He has been pushing for a Federal requirement that cars be "triple fuel" -- capable of running either on gasoline, ethanol, or methanol, giving maximum capability of switching between fuels if there is a gas crisis. Many cars are already capable of switching to E-85 ethanol; methanol is a little harder because you have to use special plastic or stainless steel parts in the fuel pump and injectors on account of its corrosiveness.
In advocating for ethanol, he pointed out that the ethanol ecosystem currently requires a 50-cents/gallon subsidy. This subsidy is essentially a tax break on the 50-cents/gallon State and Federal gas tax. At the time he wrote his essay, 8 billion gallons of ethanol were produced in the US for use in motor fuel at a cost in tax breaks of 4 billion dollars, all per year. Zubrin claimed that this saved 20 billion dollars in the cost of imported oil.
I ran the numbers on Zubrin's claim of saving 20 billion dollars in oil imports in exchange for a 4 billion dollar tax subsidy. Allowing for 44 gallons in a barrel of oil, assuming 100% conversion of oil to fuels or other valuable byproducts, and allowing that ethanol has only about 3/4 the energy of gasoline, it seems that Zubrin was assuming an oil price at the peak that exceeded 140 dollars/barrel. At today's oil price, the saving may be only about 10 billion dollars per year, but that still exceeds the 4 billion/year in ethanol subsidy.
Let's consider the Madison-Milwaukee train. Make the assumption that the train saves 1500 BTU/passenger mile or roughly half the fuel of driving according to government figures -- this assumption is implicit in the Vision Report advocating expenditure of public money on trains, and especially trains with high seating density in intercity instead of long-distance service. Assume that there are 300,000 trips of about 86 miles per year between Madison and Milwaukee on the train. Assume 140,000 BTU in a gallon of #2 Diesel fuel. Assume an oil price of $75/barrel.
This puts the Madison-Milwaukee train service as saving about $470,000/year in imported oil. This figure needs to be compared against the required capital expenditure and operating subsidies. Is 5 million/year a reasonable increase in the State of Wisconsin portion of the operating subsidy required to add the Madison train? Hence the train at about 10:1 in subsidy input per saving in oil imports -- 10 dollars from the State of Wisconsin per 1 dollar in reduced imported oil -- whereas ethanol is at 1:2.5, requiring one dollar of subsidy per two and a half dollars of oil import savings. This is just considering the operating subsidy, not the 810 million in Federal capital expenditure.
I am open to correction of fact regarding ridership projects, subsidy of the train, and other factors. I am open to discussion of opinion of whether fuel savings is the driving reason behind the train or if the cost of the train is justified by other factors and the fuel savings are a side effect.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Interesting. If there is a value on "foreign oil independence", then, at least the train might be better than ethanol production.
A few thoughts:
- what happens if you factor in the capital, assuming something like 20 year life at 5%?
-what if the train is only 20 or 30% better at BTU/pass mile?
-what if 1/2 the train travel is induced rather than just a modal shift? Ethanol for gasoline substitution changes no travel patterns.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Assuming Green and reducing foreign oil dependence are worthwhile goals, how would electrification fit into the equation? Much higher initial infrastructure costs vs. zero foreign oil, less CO2 (debatable), better train performance, etc.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Paul,
Interesting points on Milwaukee-Madison rail service justified by energy cost savings with ethanol compared to #2 diesel. But it doesn't look like the net displacement of ethanol-fueled cars was considered in a next step.
I'm tired and don't want to get into check your assumptions today, usually well-founded, of BTU/Psgr; but much depends on the average load factor of the trains. Did you consider the Talgos as comparable to the Cascades or something else? That brings up the point that I haven't heard what will power the Wisconsin Talgos.
In answer to other questions, the impact of ridership on road congestion and driving cost could be taken into account; but that would seem to be negligible in this case. Other driving costs are for collision property damage, injuries, and death including insurance.
Beside energy consumption, health and environmental costs are ascribed to emissions that may add up to a few tons a year.
I asked my wife on the drive to work this morning, "What do you think of the Madison train? Do you agree with the critics that it is a waste of money?"
Her response, which needs to be video recorded and put up on You Tube someplace was that yes, for the cost of this thing and the traffic they are expecting, it is indeed a waste of money. But given the continued growth of Madison and surrounds, one has to take the long view and put it in now before the right-of-ways get sold and developed and one can never put in a train.
What prompted this exercise is that the local advocacy group is spitting pins that there should be any critics of the train -- trains have such intrinsic goodness that the critics must be misinformed or ignorant.
The thing is, that the shoe is on the other foot, that the talking points for this train (the official, bulleted WisDOT talking points, that are supposed to make the critics cringe and wither in their hapless ignorance, as a vampire exposed to sunlight) -- reduced trip time, reduced congestion, and reduced fuel usage -- are all nonsense, or at least in terms of the train achieving these points in a cost-effective manner, and the critics are indeed correct. Reduced congestion? Dispatching 400 seats of passenger capacity every two hours at best replaces one tenth of a highway lane in each direction. When you compare the capacity of this system to the New Tokaido Line or even to a Metra commuter line, this is inconsequential.
What I am also saying is that the advocacy community would do well to actually study the claims and assertions made by critics instead of being dismissive of critics as being concrete-clinging kooks. Trains indeed have limitations as well as advantages, and we need to understand the limitations rather than wishing them away to make progress on getting passenger trains.
Paul Milenkovic I asked my wife on the drive to work this morning, "What do you think of the Madison train? Do you agree with the critics that it is a waste of money?" Her response, which needs to be video recorded and put up on You Tube someplace was that yes, for the cost of this thing and the traffic they are expecting, it is indeed a waste of money. But given the continued growth of Madison and surrounds, one has to take the long view and put it in now before the right-of-ways get sold and developed and one can never put in a train. What prompted this exercise is that the local advocacy group is spitting pins that there should be any critics of the train -- trains have such intrinsic goodness that the critics must be misinformed or ignorant. The thing is, that the shoe is on the other foot, that the talking points for this train (the official, bulleted WisDOT talking points, that are supposed to make the critics cringe and wither in their hapless ignorance, as a vampire exposed to sunlight) -- reduced trip time, reduced congestion, and reduced fuel usage -- are all nonsense, or at least in terms of the train achieving these points in a cost-effective manner, and the critics are indeed correct. Reduced congestion? Dispatching 400 seats of passenger capacity every two hours at best replaces one tenth of a highway lane in each direction. When you compare the capacity of this system to the New Tokaido Line or even to a Metra commuter line, this is inconsequential. What I am also saying is that the advocacy community would do well to actually study the claims and assertions made by critics instead of being dismissive of critics as being concrete-clinging kooks. Trains indeed have limitations as well as advantages, and we need to understand the limitations rather than wishing them away to make progress on getting passenger trains.
For $10 or $20 billion, you can do a half dozen radial commuter rail lines out of Atlanta and subsidize their operation forever. That would have considerably more impact on congestion, air quality, fuel consumption, etc, I think. Similar amounts for places like Altanta (Dallas, Houston, Phoenix) should yield similar results.
Don: that is what is planned. The section from Milwaukee to Chicago will be 110 mph ( FRA Class 6 ), while, at first, the Milwaukee - Madison segment will be 79 mph.
An that's $800M? Phew!
Why should Madison-Milwaukee be green? UW-Madison is grey & red colors. Green/Yellow s/b Packer colors for the future line to Green Bay. For the cheese farmers in Green county the train s/b black/white. The farmers can grow a lot of grain still used as dairy cow & beef cattle feed.
Wdlgln005 Why should Madison-Milwaukee be green? UW-Madison is grey & red colors.
Why should Madison-Milwaukee be green? UW-Madison is grey & red colors.
The Badger's colors are cardinal red and white, not grey.
Paul Milenkovic Is the Madison-Milwaukee train green? ... This puts the Madison-Milwaukee train service as saving about $470,000/year in imported oil. This figure needs to be compared against the required capital expenditure and operating subsidies. Is 5 million/year a reasonable increase in the State of Wisconsin portion of the operating subsidy required to add the Madison train? Hence the train at about 10:1 in subsidy input per saving in oil imports -- 10 dollars from the State of Wisconsin per 1 dollar in reduced imported oil -- whereas ethanol is at 1:2.5, requiring one dollar of subsidy per two and a half dollars of oil import savings. This is just considering the operating subsidy, not the 810 million in Federal capital expenditure. I am open to correction of fact regarding ridership projects, subsidy of the train, and other factors. I am open to discussion of opinion of whether fuel savings is the driving reason behind the train or if the cost of the train is justified by other factors and the fuel savings are a side effect.
...
In a letter to (WIsconsin) Gov. Doyle last week, DOT secretary Frank Busalacchi presented the five top-ranked (highway) projects in the state, evaluated for their ability to achieve Major Highway Program goals of enhancing the state economy, improving highway service, improving highway safety, minimizing environmental impacts and serving community objectives.Read more: http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20109220663#ixzz10JzaI8Bh
9-22-2010
Wouldn't DOT be looking at the rail route extension in the light of similar program goals?
(Personally, I see no "Steve Jobs" type of wise vision in this rail project. It's more a use-the-money-or-lose-it deal).
jclass Paul, In a letter to (WIsconsin) Gov. Doyle last week, DOT secretary Frank Busalacchi presented the five top-ranked (highway) projects in the state, evaluated for their ability to achieve Major Highway Program goals of enhancing the state economy, improving highway service, improving highway safety, minimizing environmental impacts and serving community objectives.Read more: http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20109220663#ixzz10JzaI8Bh 9-22-2010 Wouldn't DOT be looking at the rail route extension in the light of similar program goals? (Personally, I see no "Steve Jobs" type of wise vision in this rail project. It's more a use-the-money-or-lose-it deal).
The rail route is not presented that way.
Rail is presented as offering congestion relief, but if you are dispatching 400 train seats every 2 hours, you are at most providing 1/10 of a roadway lane in each direction of capacity.
Rail is presented as addressing the concerns of oil usage and CO2 emissions, but there are programs (ethanol, hybrid vehicles) that are multiples more cost effective
Bruce Speight over at WisPIRG is touting the jobs of the people working on the rail route, but if you hire people to do work that is not cost effective in terms of a broader economic benefit, you lose the multiplier effect of government stimulus spending.
WisDOT and others are advocating the train as an environmental program, when it needs to be evaluated on the merits as a transportation program having minor environmental benefits.
Paul Milenkovic Bruce Speight over at WisPIRG is touting the jobs of the people working on the rail route, but if you hire people to do work that is not cost effective in terms of a broader economic benefit, you lose the multiplier effect of government stimulus spending.
Selling anything on the jobs it will create always makes me wince. Jobs can never be the goal. They are an artifact of doing something worthwhile. Don't we always want to get the most we can with the least effort?
oltmannd Paul Milenkovic: Bruce Speight over at WisPIRG is touting the jobs of the people working on the rail route, but if you hire people to do work that is not cost effective in terms of a broader economic benefit, you lose the multiplier effect of government stimulus spending. Selling anything on the jobs it will create always makes me wince. Jobs can never be the goal. They are an artifact of doing something worthwhile. Don't we always want to get the most we can with the least effort?
Paul Milenkovic: Bruce Speight over at WisPIRG is touting the jobs of the people working on the rail route, but if you hire people to do work that is not cost effective in terms of a broader economic benefit, you lose the multiplier effect of government stimulus spending.
Johnny
Paul Milenkovic Wouldn't DOT be looking at the rail route extension in the light of similar program goals? The rail route is not presented that way. Rail is presented as offering congestion relief... Rail is presented as addressing the concerns of oil usage and CO2 emissions... Bruce Speight over at WisPIRG is touting the jobs of the people working on the rail route... WisDOT and others are advocating the train as an environmental program...
Rail is presented as offering congestion relief...
Rail is presented as addressing the concerns of oil usage and CO2 emissions...
Bruce Speight over at WisPIRG is touting the jobs of the people working on the rail route...
WisDOT and others are advocating the train as an environmental program...
Our taxes at work?!! So, what are the chances that any of this money will improve Milwaukee-Chicago service?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.