X Factor: Fuel Efficency Per Passenger Mile

[wallyworld]

Interesting figures from Oak Ridge comparing passenger rail to planes, cars et al courtesy of NARP. I am unaware of these statistics being cited when the comparitive costs of these modes of transport are discussed in terms of the "big picture" of transportation, national security and energy policy. I am also unaware of anyone citing where these two intersect in evaluating funding levels. Odd. Then again, in the more cynical frame of political realities, perhaps not.

http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/resources/more/oak_ridge_fuel/

[oltmannd]

A posting on the Yahoo Amtrak group has a different approach to the issue.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amtrak/message/11223

Another thing to think about is the efficiency of an LD train vs. short haul.  Lumping them together may not tell the whole story.  1 P42 + 5 Amfleet with 200 passengers <> 2 P42 +baggage+dorm+2 sleepers+lounge+diner+4 coaches with 200 passengers.

[Datafever]

I would not expect that railroads and airlines are truly competing with each other for passenger travel due to the rather large differences in travel time.  I suppose that they do compete on a regional level, but I think that Amtrak loses because of a poor reputation.  Most people that think of travelling from San Francisco to Los Angeles never even think of Amtrak.  Their choice (as they see it) is to fly or to drive.  Heck, does Amtrak even have service from San Francisco (Emerado) to Los Angeles?

Personal automobile is in a different category entirely.  There is a lot of freedom in being able to drive upon reaching one's destination.  If car rental is added to the cost of airline/railroad fare, then out-of-pocket cost may be the determining issue for most non-business travellers.

[Paul Milenkovic]

That's NARP for you -- Amtrak was 18 percent more fuel efficient than aircraft after a revision of the ORNL data that made a better account of electric-fuel equivalent.  NARP is bragging about something that is a disgrace -- 18 percent.

I guess I am the Dr. Evil of energy efficiency where Mike Meyers castigates Dana Carvey for "not being evil enough."  "You are semi-evil, quasi-evil, you are the 1-calorie Diet Coke of evil."

Amtrak is semi-energy efficient, it is quasi-energy efficient, Amtrak is the ethanol-in-gasoline of energy efficiency.  Amtrak could be some multiple more energy efficient than air travel (see Colorado Railcars website on comparison of DMU to locomotive-hauled passenger train), but it is not a priority with Amtrak, with Congress, with the passenger-rail advocacy community. 

If Amtrak realized the potential for rail fuel efficiency, a case could be made for ramping up Amtrak subsidies on the grounds of reducing oil imports.  As it stands, a billion plus is subsidy to save 18 percent of 1 percent of the oil spent on air travel doesn't work.  Does that mean if we subsidize Amtrak at 1/2 trillion per year, we could replace all air travel and save on the oil imported for air travel?