Need help interpreting this tech. paper on Locomotive Fuel usage vs auto fuel consumption

[Anonymous]

Introduction
This paper, under the title "US Railroad Passenger Miles Per Gallon", originally researched in 1973 and first written in 1998, examines the fuel consumption characteristics in terms of passenger miles per gallon on US railroads between 1936 and 1963. The author describes the basis of the calculations and how the data must be modified to account for statistical errors to obtain realistic figures. This is Version 1.4, dated July, 2000 and edited. David has a website with further articles here

Contents
Introduction - Methodology - Example Calculation - Results and Discussion - Conclusion - Appendices.

Introduction
Between 1936 and 1963 the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) collected statistics from all class I railroads in the United States related to energy efficiency. From this information one may estimate the passenger-miles per gallon (pass-mi/gal) of fuel used on diesel-powered passenger trains. The key statistical publication which permits this is entitled "Fuel and Power ..." (see Appendix 1) which was first published in 1936 and ceased publication in 1963. To the authors knowledge, no one else has published such estimates. Obtaining these estimate was not straightforward. One difficulty is that the ICC did not publish a retrospective compilation covering several years. Furthermore, there are 3 different documents that one should check for each year between 1936 and 1963. But there are many more serious difficulties.

Methodology
One might think that it's simple to find pass-miles/gallon. Just divide pass-miles by the gallons used. This can't be done for two reasons:

1. A substantial percentage of passenger train fuel was used for the transport of "freight", mainly mail and express. In 1963 one may estimate that almost 40% of passenger train fuel was used to transport such "freight". There were many mail trains which carried only mail (or sometimes a small number of passengers as well).
2. Passenger-miles were not differentiated by fuel. In 1936, coal predominated as a fuel so one could not just divide passenger-miles on mostly coal-powered trains by gallons of diesel fuel. In addition, electric energy was used by some railroads in the NE U.S. as well as for several hundred miles in the West from Montana to the Pacific.

There is a way around this problem. Statistics were kept of both miles per gallon for rail passenger cars and passenger-miles per passenger-car-mile (the average number of passengers per car; see Appendix 2). Unfortunately the number of passenger per car was not differentiated by fuel. But these figures still may be used if one assumes the number of passengers per rail-car was roughly the same for steam-powered and diesel-powered trains. Since the ICC did publish gallons per car-mi all that (seemingly) is needed is to divide the average number of passengers per car by gallons per car-mi. The results is in units of passenger-miles per gallon. Note that since the passengers-per-car statistic only counted real passenger cars (with seats for revenue passengers), the problem regarding cars used for "freight" is seemingly solved. But such a calculation is also fatally flawed.

Why is this wrong, after all, the units come out correct in pass-mi/gal? One might at first guess that the error is because the energy content of diesel fuel is about 10% higher than that for gasoline. Since people may use the resulting pass-mi/gal figure to compare rail energy efficiency to the auto, a conversion to gasoline-equivalent gallons needs to be made.

But there still remains a very serious error. It is due to fact that the pass-mi per car-mi is only for strictly passenger cars and excludes the car-mi of club, lounge, dining, observation, and baggage cars. Most of the energy used to haul these types or rail cars should be allocated to the transportation of passengers. Fortunately, statistics were kept on the car-mi of such cars (see Appendix 3) except that baggage cars were included in "other cars". Baggage cars were often used for mail and freight in addition to the baggage of passengers. To estimate this I assumed that only 1/2 of a baggage car was used per train to transport the baggage of the passengers. This may be understating the fuel used for passengers but there is still another possible problem.

Does moving a mail or baggage car used for transporting freight use the same energy per car-mile as a passenger car? While such "freight" cars may be heavier and thus use more energy per mile, there are two reasons why they might not use as much fuel as expected.
1. Passenger trains expend a significant portion of their energy for heating and air-conditioning passenger cars.
2. The special passenger trains that carried "freight-only" may have made fewer stops.

Thus based on all the above discussion there is a way to estimate the passenger miles per gallon. Exactly how this is done will be illustrated by the following example.

Example Calculation
Based on the methodology described above the pass-mi/gal is obtained by multiplying together the following three statistics:
1. car-mi/gal
2. pass-mi/car-mi 3. factor F. F is to account for cars in the train which serve passengers but were not counted by pass-mi/car-mi (2 above). Statistics 1, 2, and 3 above come respectively from ICC statements listed in Appendices 1, 2, and 3.

F is about 0.8 but varies from year to year. Its calculated from the car-mi/train-mi statistics (see Appendix-3) for various types of passenger cars. Here's an example of calculating F for 1936: The ICC reports 2.08 car-mi/train-mi for passenger coach cars. This means that the typical train had 2.08 coaches in it. Here "typical" means what observers would observe if stationed along the track so that long distance trains would thus count for more than short distance ones.

For 1936 per the ICC there were also 2.30 sleeping and parlor cars in the "typical train". This gives 4.38 (2.08 + 2.30) cars on which the car-mi (in the pass-mi/car-mi statistic) is based on. But the number of cars/train used by passengers is larger than 4.38 since there were total of 0.62 club, lounge, dining, and observation cars in the "typical train". There is also assumed to be 0.5 baggage cars resulting in a grand total of 5.55 ( = 4.38 + 0.62 +0.5) cars which are earmarked for passenger use. Now we would like to convert the pass-mi/car-mi figure to include the car-mi of club, lounge, dining, observation and baggage cars. How do we do this? Well, we multiply the car-mi for 1936 (used in the pass-mi/car-mi statistic) by 5.55/4.38, or what amounts to the same thing, we multiply pass-mi/car-mi by the inverse of this: 4.38/5.55. This is the just the factor F mentioned above. For 1936 it was 0.789.

Thus for 1936 we multiply 0.789 by 13.33 pass-mi/car-mi to get 10.5 pass-mi/car-mi and then divide by 0.19 gal/car-mi to get 55.4 passenger-miles/gallon (diesel).

Results and Discussion
Now for some results. Today (1998) the automobile in intercity use gets about 25 mi/gal and has 2.0 people in it resulting in about 50 pass-mi/gal (gasoline). Amtrak does about the same (See Appendix A). Trains of 1936 thru 1963 did somewhat worse except during the war years of World War II, where they got about 80 pass-mi/gal due to high usage.

Passenger-mile/gallon (gasoline equivalent):

Year Pass-mile/gall
1936
50

1945
83

1955
40

1963
40

1940
39

1950
41

1960
41


Note that the ICC figures for gal/car-mi were only given to 2 significant figures such as .19 gal/car-mi in 1936. A project for a future version of this document is to obtain these estimates for all the years 1936-1963 and to redo the ICC derivations to get more significant figures.

Why did energy-efficiency (pass-mi/gallon) drop from 50 to 39 from 1936 to 1940? It's not due to fewer passengers per car but due to an increase in gal/car-mi from 0.19 in 1936 to 0.25 in 1940. The reasons seem to include the introduction of air-conditioning and the introduction of diesel service to trains that made more stops. As time went on the gal/car-mi continued to increase, reaching 0.35 by 1963. This was partly due to the discontinuance of long distance trains which made few stops resulting in greater significance of suburban trains which wasted energy making many stops. However this lead to a relative decline in sleeping car travel resulting in more passengers per car. This compensated for the worse fuel economy per car-mile.

During World War II the average number of passengers per car more than doubled from about 14 during the 1930's to over 30 during the war. At the same time, due to longer trains there were fewer dining cars, etc. per passenger car. With gasoline rationing, people flocked to the railroads and many were turned back for lack of space. People are unlikely to tolerate such train crowding in peacetime. The wartime record does show that under conditions of long trains full of passengers, rail transportation can be energy-efficient (provided it doesn't go too fast since aerodynamic drag increases with the square of the velocity).

The train appears to have been somewhat more energy efficient than the automobile of that era, assuming 15 miles/gallon and 2.2 passengers per auto (33 pass-mi/gal). Automobiles today get better mileage and are somewhat more energy efficient that the trains were then. There are no satisfactory estimates of the average automobile occupancy (assumed to be 2.2) for 1936-1963 (for trips similar to rail trips). Data in the "Nationwide Personal Transportation Study" for 1970 was in error due to double counting and thus can't be used.

Another consideration is that the car-mi of sleeping cars was roughly equal to the car-mi of coaches during the 1930s. Thus, one could argue that some of the energy for "hotel services" on the train should not be counted, since if a person were traveling via automobile and stayed in a hotel (or motel), "hotel service" energy would be used for the overnight stop (which is not counted by the pass-mi per gal by auto).

Conclusion
In conclusion, between 1936 to 1963, it seems that overall, railroad transportation in diesel powered trains was about 20% to 50% more energy-efficient than the automobile in peacetime. In wartime with gasoline rationing, it was roughly twice as efficient due to very high load factors (percentage of seats filled). Due to energy-efficiency improvements in automobile since then, the passenger train today seems to have roughly the same energy efficiency as the automobile. (See Appendix A)

Appendices
Note, Appendices 1-3:

These appendices list Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) "statistics" used. These ICC publications changed names between 1936 and 1963. In 1936 they were issued by the ICC's "Bureau of Statistics". In 1963 it was "Bureau of Transport Economics and Statistics". In all cases, "Switching and Terminal Companies Not Included" appears after the title (in smaller print). Here is given the starting name in 1936 and the ending name in 1963. For 1936 a _36 suffix is used. 1963 uses a _63 suffix.

Appendix 1:

1_36. "Fuel and Power for Locomotives and Rail Motor Cars of Class I Steam Railways in the United States" (Statement M-230)
1_63. "Fuel and Power Statistics of Class I Railroads in the United States" (Statement Q-230)
Statistic Used: "9. Fuel and power consumed per passenger-train car-mile --road passenger service: 9-03. Gallons of diesel fuel (diesel locomotives)"

Appendix 2:

2_36. "Revenue Traffic Statistics of Class I Steam Railways in the United States" (Statement M-220)
2_63. "Revenue Traffic Statistics of Class I Line-haul Railroads in the United States" (Statement Q-220)
Statistic Used: Passenger-miles per car-mile

Appendix 3:

3_36. "Passenger Train Performance of Class I Steam Railways in the United States" (Statement M-213)
3_63. "Passenger Train Performance of Class I Railroads in the United States" (Statement Q-213)
Statistics Used: "10. Car-miles per train-mile in locomotive-propelled trains: 10-01. Passenger coaches, 10-02. Sleeping and parlor cars, 10-03. Club, lounge, dining, and observation cars, 10-04. Other passenger-train cars"

Appendix A:

For the energy efficiencies see: "Amtrak and Energy Conservation in Intercity Passenger Transportation" by Stephen J. Thompson (Congressional Research Service, Report to Congress) Sept. 3, 1996. (http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/energy/eng-11.cfm)

See also "Transportation Energy Data Book" Edition 18 Table 2.15: Energy Intensities of Passenger Modes, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1998. (http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb18/Ed18Chapter2.pdf). This shows the energy of Amtrak to be about 50% better than the automobile. But the automobile figure is for both city and intercity driving. To fairly compare it to Amtrak, one must correct the auto figure so it reflects intercity use. For intercity, there are about 2 persons/auto as compared to 1.6 overall and the auto gets more miles/gallon (about 26 as compared to 22 overall). After making this correction, Amtrak appears to be no more energy efficient that the auto.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the Top of this Page or the Home Page
This page upgraded 14 April 2005 © Copyright Railway Technical Web Pages 1998 - 2005.
For comments, questions or to submit articles, contact us.

[Anonymous]

Here are the results along with more recent data reported for Amtrak (includes electric trains). PM = Passenger-miles. gal = gallons of gasoline equivalent. The energy-efficiency is shown as PM/gal (Passenger-Miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent) while the energy-intensity is shown as BTU/PM (Briti***hermal Units per Passenger-Mile).

Diesel locomotive trains| Amtrak, both diesel and electric trains
per David Lawyer | per Transportation Energy Data Book
PM/gal BTU/PM | PM/gal BTU/PM
1936: 51 2,440 | 1975: 34 3,677
1940: 41 3,080 | 1980: 39 3,176
1945: 85 1,480 | 1985: 45 2,800
1950: 42 2,950 | 1990: 48 2,609
1955: 41 3,010 | 1995: 48 2,590
1960: 41 3,0l0 | 2000: 37 3,356
1963: 40 3,160 | 2001: 30 4,137
| 2002: 26 4,830

Regarding Amtrak data see Amtrak vs. Auto. The high value of 85 pass-mi/gal during the last year of World War II (1945) is due mainly to gasoline rationing but also is due in part to the curtailment of automobile manufacturing during the war. Even for the non-war years prior to 1963, rail was significantly more energy efficient than the automobile. The "Highway Statistics" books (by the US Federal Highway Administration) estimates that autos got about 15 miles/gallon back then. So even with 2 person per auto (30 pass-mi per gallon) the railroads did somewhat better.

But today (2000) the automobile is a lot more energy efficient than it used to be. In intercity use it gets about 25 mi/gal and has about 2 people in it, resulting in about 50 pass-mi/gal (gasoline). Thus today's autos are more energy-efficient than diesel trains of the mid 20th century (except for World War II years). Amtrak's energy-efficiency today is significantly worse than the auto. See Amtrak vs. Auto. The reason for Amtrak's sharp drop in energy-efficiency after 2000 is in part due to the introduction of heavy and overpowered electric trains and possibly due in part to accounting errors

[kenneo]

Part of this research is an Apples-Oranges situation. You state in your last paragraph above that AMTK figures include electrified service. To make a comparison directly to auto gasoline consumption might not be comparable.

To make this study really good you need to compare
1) Petroleum Fuel use per passenger mile (Coach - Long Distance and Suburban)
2) Petroleum Fuel use per seat mile (Coach - Long Distance and Suburban)
3) BTU per passenger mile (Petroleum and Electric) (Coach - LD and Sub)
4) BTU per seat mile (Petroleum and Electric) (Coach - LD and Sub)
5) Fuel use for Hotel Services per passenger mile (petroleum and electric)
6) BTU use for Hotel Services per seat (or bed) mile (petroleum and electric)

The above should not be considered to be a complete or definitive list by any means, but the research needs to compare things that can be realistically compared. That means that you need to determine how many distinct and discrete divisions of the data are needed. I have suggested at least 12 in 6 catagories.

The fact that there are going to be so many variables and unknowns makes this type of project very difficult to show accurate and comparable figures. One simple situation, the length of a trip requiring one or more meals to be eated "on the road" would require cost figures for a dinner and comparable resturants to be included. "Pullman" service would also require comparable hotel/motel costs.

Although your study is a comparason based on fuel usage, it would also be illuminative to see what the real true costs would be - fuel, insurance, repairs, and so on - since the true effecient use of resources is not limited to fuel use.

[daveklepper]

Some transportation managers who's names must be confidential told me the Fesd "cook the books,"

On one public transit system, ALL electric power usage, including lights and machinary in the bus garages, were charged to the one light rail route.

Power losses in electric transmission from the power house to the rail vehicle were figured in for energy use but NOT the fuel consumed by delivery trucks and other transmission of diesel fuel from refinary to bus garage.

So who knows what they are doing on comparing autos with trains? Similar skulduggary, I suspect.

But keep in mind that electric transportation only very rarely uses imported oil with its high degree of probability that it is aiding terrorism.

[DSchmitt]

The traveler does not care about the fuel efficiency of the transportation mode. The traveler does not care about the comparitive "efficiency" of a system at transporting 1000 people in a train, 50 people in a bus, 200 people in an airplane or 1 person in an auto either.

The traveler wants to move himself and his posessions between two locations. These locations are not the bus stop or train station. Efficiency to the traveler is how well his personal transportation needs are served. Individual trip efficiency which includes: overall cost of the entire trip, departure and arrival times and overall travel time, ease of transporting possessions, personal preferences.

With any transportation system (including the auto on the highway), there is a lot of talk about providing service to the traveler, but ultimately where the choice of efficient use of system resources conflicts with efficient service to the traveler the system "efficiency" usually wins. As the the system provides poorer service those who can quit using it, will.
Mass transit is a "one size fits all" solution and more subject to this than the automobile which generally providess more flexability for the traveler.

As pointed out, it is difficult to compare the "fuel efficiency" of transportation modes.

But David Lawyer http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/ makes a very good point which is usually overlooked in comparisons of the various transportation modes. The tremendous increase in oil consumption, is not due to the "inefficiency" of the automobile on the highway. It is due to the efficiency of the autombile at serving peoples transportation DESIRES. More people are traveling more often and longer distances than in the pre-automobile days.



Many peoples trip choices are limited to the automobile, because of where they live and work. Others are limited primairly to public transit. For people with a choice public transit will work for some trips, but not for others.

Mass transit is not a solution to every transpotration need and their actual costs to society (energy use, pollution, lost time in travel, etc) are greater advocates acknowledge since they do not account for the transportation infrastructure needed to get the riders to their system.

The fundamental question is: Does the government have the authority to control where people live and how, when and how far they travel? Perhaps the answer to "wasteful" oil consumption is trip permits and check points on the highways.

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Some transportation managers who's names must be confidential told me the Fesd "cook the books,"

So who knows what they are doing on comparing autos with trains? Similar skulduggary, I suspect.

OH NO, Dave, not another ENRON!!!!!!! (Cover your eyes, Maud. These guys are running around neked.)

[kenneo]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

The traveler does not care about the fuel efficiency of the transportation mode.

The traveler wants to move himself and his posessions between two locations.

As pointed out, it is difficult to compare the "fuel efficiency" of transportation modes.

Many peoples trip choices are limited to the automobile, because of where they live and work.

... ...their actual costs to society (energy use, pollution, lost time in travel, etc) are greater advocates acknowledge since they do not account for the transportation infrastructure needed to get the riders to their system.

What has not yet been said, and I probably should have said it earlier, is that this "economic masterpiece" was the opening salvo in "W and Company's" current attempt to "rid this country of that Amtrak mess."

Dave Klepper, in a message just above, has completely uncovered for our view AMTK's version of the "WMD Proof" used elsewhere in "W's" Foreign Policy. Of interest, is that this "report" was researched in 1973, about the time that AMTK was supposed to be exceuted and to be used as evidence for the prosecution. So much for honesty in government.

D. Schmitt's observations in his post above demonstrate the falsity of the original report and the more recent efforts to promote it again.

The original question by Peterson 6868 was a plee for help. You can not understand this report except as a determined effort to present a point of view with dummied up documentation and annalysis. It is a fraudulent attempt to discredit AMTK and it contains just enough truth to get you to think it is genuine.

[andrewjonathon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

The traveler does not care about the fuel efficiency of the transportation mode. The traveler does not care about the comparitive "efficiency" of a system at transporting 1000 people in a train, 50 people in a bus, 200 people in an airplane or 1 person in an auto either.

While the majority of people may not care about the fuel efficiency, I think there is an increasing number of people who do care about fuel efficiency. Especially in recent times with the increasing awareness that we do not control most sources of for oil which serves as a reminder that oil is a non-renewable resource that will one day run out.

[Paul Milenkovic]

As I had stated earlier, in a laissez-faire free-market world, the true cost of energy would be incorporated into the price, including the costs of military expeditions or defense budgets to keep shipping lanes open and oil flowing, and all of the hidden comparisons as to whether the energy used to run an overnight hotel stay for one mode vs a sleeping car for another mode would all work itself out in the price, and the market would seek a proper balance between saving energy and other objectives.

Given that we are not in a laissez-faire free-market world, with a large defense budget and foreign wars, highway, airline, and rail subsidies, we have to do the best we can figuring out ''social costs or benefits'' of the different modes of transportation, and energy usage is certainly one of the social effects. If we are in the business of subsidizing transport, accounting for whether that subsidy makes for good energy and environmental policy is not the only consideration, but it is an important consideration.

As was posted on another thread, an F59 can pull a string of 10 coaches at a constant 60 MPH on level track at 1.2 gallons per mile, and figuring on a high-density seating configuration, 50 percent load factor, that works out to 400 passenger-miles per gallon, which simply blows away any other mode by about a factor of 10. You can argue all you want about whether the auto mileage is figured with the windows rolled down all you want -- a factor of 10 is a big deal that will withstand a lot of finagling the numbers and still come out ahead.

But present-day Amtrak is not single F59's pulling strings of 10 high-density coaches at high passenger load factors on level track at a constant 60 MPH. For whatever reason -- HEP, dining cars, head end cars, low-density high-comfort coach seating, sleeping cars, mountain grades, 79 MPH operation, frequent stops, lots of locomotive idling, whatever, Amtrak has gone from about a factor 8 worse than this theoretical optimum to about a factor of 16 worse. The real-world Amtrak has gone from about par with a fuel-efficient car to about a factor of 2 worse than a car.

What is particularly a mystery, Amtrak fuel efficiency has taken a nose dive from about 50 PMPG to about 25 PMPG, and much of the decline has taken place in the past few years. This Web site used to have all kinds of cool discussion about steam vs Diesel, GE vs GM -- does anyone with technical knowledge care to contribute or even speculate on what is going on? One speculation is that the numbers are spurious and made up to make Amtrak look bad -- does anyone have any alternate information to tell us the real Amtrak numbers if this is the case?

David Lawyer speculates on his Web site that the Acela train is the culprit and the kilowatt guzzler because Diesel fuel usage on Amtrak has been constant while electric usage has increase greatly. It would stand to reason that the Acela is electric-power intensive. The whole idea behind Acela was to speed up travel on the existing NEC tracks (electric wires added New Haven to Boston) by 1) using an active tilting mechanism (has that gone by the wayside on account of loading-gauge problems?) and 2) using a lot of power and powerful brakes so the train can quickly slow down and regain speed from the miriad of speed restrictions owing to curves, terminals, and tracks through urban areas. The idea is for the Acela to take market share from the airplane, not a particularly energy-efficient mode for a NY-DC hop let alone NY-Phily.

Also, the Acela uses electric power, which theoretically could be generated by a wind mill but is more likely generated by a coal plant (a major environmental concern), a nuclear plant (yet other concerns), or natural gas (it is expensive and in short supply the way oil is). I am not sure if an electric for gasoline subsitution without some added increase in energy efficieny is of value (for example, electric cars are supposed to be more efficient than gas by a factor of 2 owing to part load operation on the gas engine, regen braking on the electric, and other factors).

The easiest thing in the world is to say the numbers are cooked, and this is all a government conspiracy to kill Amtrak. Those who believe that have made their point. I, for one, would really like to know the breakdown in energy use on Amtrak on different services and make my own inferences.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by andrewjonathon

QUOTE: Originally posted by DSchmitt

The traveler does not care about the fuel efficiency of the transportation mode. The traveler does not care about the comparitive "efficiency" of a system at transporting 1000 people in a train, 50 people in a bus, 200 people in an airplane or 1 person in an auto either.

While the majority of people may not care about the fuel efficiency, I think there is an increasing number of people who do care about fuel efficiency. Especially in recent times with the increasing awareness that we do not control most sources of for oil which serves as a reminder that oil is a non-renewable resource that will one day run out.

A transportation mode capable of carrying 1000 passengers fuel efficently is less efficent carrying 150 passengers than 100 automobiles would be.

People who care about fuel efficiency need to consider the whole trip. For a real trip the fuel use of getting to the departure station and from the arrival station to the destination must also be considered. They must also consider how the transit system operates. The efficiency of a full load in the commute direction may be offset by a nearly empty load in the off-commute direction. For commuter trips in densly populated areas the bus or train is often the best choice. But it is not the best choice for everyone or necessairly the most fuel efficent for every real trip even in these areas.

In addition a lot of people don't live and/or work in places where mass transit is more efficient than the automobile.

I live and work in a small town that is near, but not (at least not yet) a suburb of a city. Medium size buses run hourly clockwise and counterclockwise on basically circular local routes so that buses at each stop are 1/2 hour apart but in opposite directions on the route. Because of the routing, for some trips it does not matter which bus one takes, but for other trips it makes a big difference in travel time. The overall fuel efficency for the local bus system is less than for the auto because the buses run nearly empty most of the time. Far more people walk than take the bus. I used to walk to work sometimes (about 20 minutes) or more often ride bicycle (less than 10 minutes), but because of health problems these are no longer options. I can drive to work in five minutes, the bus trip takes more than 3/4 hour on the bus, incliding time to walk (if I could) to the bus stop. Dial-A- Ride is available, but very undependable.

There is good morning and evening commuter bus service to downtown in the city, which runs near capacity to the city in the morning and from the city in the evening. (their actual load factor is not much lower than their capacity since each bus makes at least one trip nearly empty in the off -commute direction) This is supplemented by mid-day bus service, using smaller buses, that runs overall at about 1/4 capacity both ways. However if ones city destination is not downtown the best choice is usually go by auto, since it is often not possible to get to your destination in the city, have time to do anything, and return home in one day using public transit.

Because of housing development about 20 miles out of town, toward the city, there will be a market for commuter service from there to the city. But there will be no market for better service to/from my home town.

It is doubtful that providing better service would increase ridership enough to pay for the extra costs, equipment, personnel and fuel to run buses at far under their capacity.

The automoble is not evil, It works far better and more efficiently for us in the small towns and in the countryside, than any bus or train can.

I've lived in Seatle, San Francisco and Los Angeles and in all of them I used public transit for some trips, but the automoblile for other trips. When I worked in downtow LA I took the bus. When I was temporairly assigned to an office in Eagle Rock , I drove. The trip to Eagle Rock, less than 15 min by car took well over an hour on the bus. When I worked on a night job in the City of Commerce, I drove. The bus schedules did not provide service at the times I needed to travel and if they had travel time would have been a factor. The LA transit system, or any transit system, could provide better services than they do, but it is not certain that the services would be overall more fuel efficent than the auto and the taxpayer would probably revolt at the subsidies necessary to make the fares low enough to attract riders.

As for Amtrak, there are many places in this country not on Amtrak route and for which economical, efficient Amtrak route cannot be devised, even using buses. My home town is poorly served by Amtrak bus. However, the two bus departures a day do provide better service than the actual trains (one NB and one SB). The trains no longer stop here because of lack of ridership which may be due in part to the fact that the SB was scheduled for 2:00 AM and usually came through at 7:00 AM. Many communities are 100's of miles from any possible Amtrak route.

A small portion of the Federal Highway Trust Fund (highway user fees) already goes to non-highway transportation. The persentage is small, but it is still a siginificent sum of money.

Some "enlightened" States, for instance California, are also allocationg highway tax money to non-highway transportation purposes with the justification that better non-highway transportation will reduce the need for highways. States project highway fee revenue not keeping up with there needs (in part do to more efficent autos and also in anticipation of more hybrid,alternate fuel, and electric vehicles), so there is talk of imposing mileage fees in addition to the current fuel taxes and other user fees.

These possible short falls in revenue and subsequent increased taxes on autos may cause increases in transit ridership, making some marginal systems more economical, but also may make it more difficult to subsidize transit with highway money. Increased transit demand could also result in the need to expand the transit systems. However there is no guarentee that these expansions would really be more economical or fuel efficent than the auto.

Reduced use of the automoble would have far reaching effects on our economy that are difficult to determine. Not just on the obvious businesses, gas stations, auto parts stores, motels and restaurants along highways. I wonder how long the three hobby shops I go to reguarly would stay in business if the customers only way to get to them was public transit. I am not willing to make an overnight trip to go to the hobby shop even if there were overnight accomodations conviently located near them, which there are not. A person who can drive to the store in 15 minutes might not be willing to ride an hour or more on the bus to get there and the same time to get back to a bus stop 3 blocks from home with an LGB locomotice and three Bauchman G scale freight cars on his lap.

[Leon Silverman]

The so-called "enlightened" states like California have come to realize that a law of diminishing returns applies to highway construction. Expanding existing highways or building new ones is cost prohibitive in densely populated areas. Building or reestablishing commutor rail systems is simply a more cost effective solution than highway expansion. Instead of usurping more land to expand a highway system, the new commutor lines are frequently established along existing or about to be (or already ) abandoned railroad routes. This eliminates the objections of people who lose their homes in the name of "progress".

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Leon Silverman

The so-called "enlightened" states like California have come to realize that a law of diminishing returns applies to highway construction. Expanding existing highways or building new ones is cost prohibitive in densely populated areas. Building or reestablishing commutor rail systems is simply a more cost effective solution than highway expansion. Instead of usurping more land to expand a highway system, the new commutor lines are frequently established along existing or about to be (or already ) abandoned railroad routes. This eliminates the objections of people who lose their homes in the name of "progress".

[#ditto]

[daveklepper]

Again, I must stress that although Bush may still think that the Saudis are our allies and that their capture of one terrorist is great stuff, the fact is that Hamas gets lots of support from Saudi millionaires and most of the terrorists our troops face in Iraq happen to be from the Gulf States and not Iraqi natives, and my reading of the news is that half these Gulf State terrorists are Saudis. Just as all but one of the 11.09.01 perpertrators were Saudis.

So fuel efficiency may not be important. But USA dependence on imported oil is important.

I have nothing against the use of automobiles. But to me it is a crime that any have been sold in America in the last two years that are not Hybrids.

And there are people, disabled veterans among them, who should not be made into 2nd class citizens by a lack of comfortable intercity ground transportation.

So much for automobiles.

Al this discussion again, I seem to be the only one bringing up LAND USE as the major subsidy for highway transportation. In addition to minor cooking the books as I described, DOT gives no allowance for LAND USE.

Two billion a year for Amtrak will save US taxpayers money by making unnecessary massive highway expansion and airport starts and expansion needed if Amtrak is either shut down or doesn't get enough money to keep equipment and infrastructure in good repair.

And if Bush did have a decent and not a fake (fuel-cell-Hydrogen=fake) energy program, he could simply say to the Saudis, Look you tell Hamas that all terror that they support must stop now or we will simply not let you export any oil. He may not have that power now, because of the energy and transportation situation in the USA, but he can have the power if people like you and start trying to really understand the situation.
Again, if you want a full report on energy and fuel cells contact me at

[e-mail]

and I will send the report as an attachment to the reply.

It is not my report. It is by people who have the credentials to do the analysis.

My energy program? Two years for all car, bus, and truck sales of new vehicles to be Hybrids or equal (flywheels are practical also, possibly other approaches).

America has tax-supported National Public Radio. OK, National Public Transportation,
The N-P-T-system. Amtrak would be part of it. No town in the USA would be more than an hour's drive from a station or terminal of the national network that would have at least daily service to connect with the rest of the network.

Good transportation planners would then take a look at the national Amtrak network and decide what should continue to be rail, what would be better as bus, what bus would be better as rail, what mode should be used for the required new lines, Amtrak rail, bus, short line private operator rail. In some cases it may be more economical to have an existing tourist operation provide public transit with a subsidy than start a new bus service. The first year would probably require an operating subsidy of 2-1/2 billion plus a like amount of capital investment,, and the 2 billiion a year would be the operating subsidy.

Then if there were some kind of embargo or an air traffic emergency, the USA would be prepared, and the Iraq conflict would wind down pretty quickly.

[jchnhtfd]

Part of my current occupation involves the computation and assessment of statistical measures of various things -- including such exercises as are cited above (but not, thank goodness, that particular set).

There are two cardinal statements concering statistics. One is attributable to, I believe, Mark Twain: 'There are lies, ***ed lies, and then there are statistics'.

The other is: what do you want proved? I'll be happy to juggle the math to prove it!

Bottom line? A good, but well paid, statistician can prove anything you want proved from any set of figures you want to give him (or her). Be Very VERY careful how you handle -- and interpret -- statistical information.

[Paul Milenkovic]

QUOTE:
Bottom line? A good, but well paid, statistician can prove anything you want proved from any set of figures you want to give him (or her). Be Very VERY careful how you handle -- and interpret -- statistical information.

There are two kinds of statistical information, and no, I don't mean Mark Twain's lies and ***ed lies.

One kind is the tally of small numbers of low probability events and making inferences. Assigning cancer deaths to a source of toxic pollution is one example. Figuring out the relative safety of car models is another.

For example, anti light rail people are making a big deal about how light rail is unsafe. The people inside the streetcar are very safe, but streetcars seem to gobble up pedestrians. There is a values issue -- should we assign the stupidity of people who walk in front of tracked vehicles as a safety problem of the streetcar? Given that streetcars are new once again, can we reasonably expect that people know the hazards of tracked vehicles that can't swerve around them? There is also a statistics issue -- the number of pedestrians struck by streetcars is small -- what reliability can we place in extrapolating a small number of accidents to making sweeping statements about light rail safety?

Now the other kind of statistics is the tallying of of large numbers of events around the central tendencies. The laws of thermodynamics are essentially statistical, but the numbers of molecules flying around is so large that engineers assign a certain efficiency to a kind of engine and they don't bother reporting confidence intervals.

The energy efficiency of Amtrak is of the second kind. Amtrak uses a certain amount of fuel and reports carrying a certain number of passengers. If we report that Amtrak is getting 25 passenger MPG, the amount of fuel they use and the passengers they carry is sufficiently large that we don't really need to put error bars around that number.

Now anyone can fudge efficiency numbers -- playing games with the fuel equivalent of the kwHr's of the electric trains, kwHr delivered to the pantograph vs kwHr delivered by the power plant, not allowing for energy consumption of trucking gasoline on the car side of the equation, and so on. One time-tested engineering approach to such systematic uncertainties is the margin of safety. If you calculate that a bridge needs to hold 1000 tons, you design the bridge for 5000 tons to provide some cushion for some guesswork in the numbers.

Now if a train got 800 seat miles per gallon and a car got 120 seat miles per gallon, the advantage of the train is quite insensitive to juggling the numbers. But if the car gets 120 seat miles per gallon and the train only gets 100 seat miles per gallon (not unreasonable for something like the Acela train and consistent with reports on British high speed trains), then you are playing games on whether a single-driver car gets 30 PMPG while a full train gets 100 PMPG while two people in a car are getting 60 PMPG and the train 1/3 full is getting about 30 PMPG.

The problem is that when people think trains, they are thinking the single F59 pulling 10 coaches in high density seating with the train full, and they are thinking 800 MPG. The reality may be closer to an Acela train running at 30 percent load factor to provide enough seats for peak times and enough frequency of service with a lot of accelerating and braking to meet the scheduled times on tracks that don't allow a constant 150 MPH start to finish which may be running 20-30 MPH. What the Acela or any other train is really doing in that regard is anyone's guess because unlike any other transportation company, Amtrak does not report passenger miles, load factors, and energy usage by route segment.

QUOTE:
The other is: what do you want proved? I'll be happy to juggle the math to prove it!

Two persons riding in a fuel-efficient car can get at least 60 passenger miles per gallon. I have a stack of mileage and fuel numbers showing that a 5 year old Toyota Camry can average 35.1 MPG over 8500 miles of intercity driving.

Show me that there is an Amtrak service, anywhere on the system, that gets better than 60 passenger miles per gallon gasoline equivalent (66 PMPG on Diesel) -- actual passenger-mile, car-mile, load factor, and fuel usage data please.

[daveklepper]

Another reminder that Acela or any train operating electrically does not use imported fuel and thus does not help support international terrorism.

Your fuel efficient automobile with the unlikely event of two people riding in it, (OK a long distance trip with the whole family) does likely support international terrorism.

Hamas and Hezbola are both legal charities in Saudi Arabia

And the Wahabee religion still has a statement:

"He who kills an infidel gets into Heaven."

[Anonymous]

IMO a major flaw in these types of studies is not differentiating between commuting, business travel, and long distance discretionary travel. The characteristics and usage of each are quite different and trying to justify LD trains based on commuting confuses the issues.

Commuting is driven largely by cost, frequency, and time. People get there when the boss says they do and they need a way home when overtime and late meetings are common. A Honda Civic gets nowhere near the EPA estimates stuck in traffic while rail has near empty backhauls, lots of stops, etc. Fuel economy is only an issue as it relates to total cost. If a commuter is spending $100/week to fill the tank and a cheaper alternative is available that meets his needs, he's more likely to use it. I'd also guess that the vast majority of our gasoline usage is the result of going to work every day, i.e. non-discretionary travel. 'Real' flextime, telecommuting, and regional office centers could do a lot to reduce fuel usage. Neither Bush or McCain is saying we should kill off commuter rail lines.

The business traveler isn't paying the bill, doesn't need the frequency commuters do, but does need reliable service. Outside of corridors that are competitive with airlines, the business traveler is going to fly because time is more valuable than fuel efiiciency.

I don't know if it's true or what the source is, but I heard one Congressman claim that each passenger on some Amtrak LD trains is receiving a federal subsidy of $400 per trip. That would just about cover a private limo or small plane for shorter trips, and is much higher than most airfares booked in advanced for these types of trips.

[Anonymous]

OK here I have heard the evedence against Amtrak and Commuter Train efficancys...
The Amtrak train I was on last night had 150 people on it and 5 cars.....
But other then the enron stuff I have not heard much in favor of Amtrak....
Now railroad acording to the report I read were more efficiant when they carried Mail and Passengers. The Fuel usage was spread out between the Passengers and the Freight.
The Railroads wanted passengers even though they claimed it lost money because Passengers paid cash...ca***hat was needed to buy fuel and pay wages...The Freight was on 30 days credit..