That one cannot ride an ICE train to rural towns in Austria or Slovenia is completely relevant to the environmental impact of trains. Whereas 90% of USA passenger miles are by car, a full 80% of EU passenger miles are by car. Of the 20% of common carrier passenger miles in the EU, these are about evenly divided between train, bus, airplane, and yes, boat. Of these four common carrier modes, the airplane shows the greatest growth and is increasing in market share, in environmentally conscious Europe no less.
I wonder if there is a bus forum with heated discussions that the EU is besting us in bus service? (Those sleek motorcoach buses you see in the US are largely European designs.) Are there sharp words exchanged on another forum that we don't have enough passenger boat service in the U.S.? (Ferry boats are an important common carrier mode in NYC and the San Francisco Bay area. Boats and ships preceded trains which preceded cars. Are people critical of planners that major cities in Texas were built remote from major waterways? Many of the major cities of Europe were built around major waterways.)
We are having this discussion because trains are kewl in the ways buses or boats are not. The mere suggestion that trains are not Positively Perfect in Every Way is provocative to people.
That train slice of European passenger miles, that 5 percent, requires government budget contributions on the scale of the entire U.S. Federal highway budget. My factual source for this? Start with the appendices to the Vision Report. When the consortium of state DOT people published that report, everyone in the advocacy community was dancing with glee, "Yay, someone in government supports spending 10 billion/year on intercity trains instead of the paltry 1 billion+ that underfunded unloved Amtrak gets." I don't think many people in the advocacy community actually read the thing or thought through the implications of the numbers.
With respect to DB claiming to power their electric trains 100% from renewable sources, I am simply not going to sit back and let such a claim go unchallenged. Just because it comes from a quasi-governmental agency of a G-8 country and a major industrial power doesn't make it automatically true. France is said to have 80% of their power from nuclear plants, and there are political, cultural, and historical reasons why France chooses to do this, but Germany famously is in the process of repudiating nuclear power.
I can imagine that a concern (I think the German word is Betriebwirschaft) in Germany can enter a contract to purchase "100 percent renewable power." Our local power company offers the same thing. It works something like this (the numbers are hypothetical for purpose of illustration). Suppose the power company generates, on average, 990 MWHr from conventional sources, 10 MWHr from wind and other sanctioned renewables. To recover the higher expense of the renewables, the power company offers a deal "Go Green! For a mere 5 cents/kWHr extra, you can get your power from non-polluting renewable sources!"
99 % of electric customers (by kWHr usage) don't care to do this, and one particular customer tells himself, "Why should I hand extra money to some big corporate power company, when I can save that money and purchase high efficiency appliances?" On the other hand, 1% of electric customers think the bragging rights of "100 percent renewable power" is worth the extra electric charge.
So the power company says to me, Paul Milenkovic, here, because you are a stick-in-the-mud about our windmills, all of your yearly kWHr, small that they may be owing to your fancy-schmantzy Energy Star appliances, you kWHrs' come from the pool of 990 mWHr from our belching coal plants. Tom Metcalfe, because you are paying the windmill surcharge, you get to tell your supermarket customers that all of the considerable kWHrs needed to run your freezer cases and cold storage comes from the 10 mWHr from our windmills.
This notion that Metcalfe Markets is 100% renewable powered is an accounting gimmick. It does not take into account that when the wind goes calm, Metcalfe Market still runs their freezers and DB still runs their scheduled trains, during which time they are drawing on polluting power, be it dirty coal or radioactive-waste-making nuclear, or fish-killing hydro.
Were Metcalfes, however, to use some local thermal storage system, maybe blocks of ice or something, to modulate their electric usage to electric demand, then I could give them their propers for doing something about the environment. As it is, it is one corporation paying another corporation for bragging rights, and not much more.
This is not just about linking to the DB Web site to show people the environmental benefits of trains; it is linking to DB to share some corporate hype about the environmental benefit of trains. To suggest that I am angry is perhaps to engage in what Phil McGraw might call projection. I am not angry about DB, but will admit to being annoyed with hype and spin, whether it comes from a money-grubbing corporation or a pure-spirited advocacy community.
Over at Steam and Preservation, one can have frank discussions about ejector nozzle efficiencies and whether steam locomotives reached their maximum practical performance or whether other things could be tried, were steam to have been kept longer or were steam to return if we run out of oil. Among the members of the passenger advocacy community, it frustrates me that similar discussions about the merits of passenger trains are denigrated as disloyal to The Cause and serving the dark purposes of train haters.
With respect to the efficacy and expediency of overstating the advantages of trains in the face of real problems with CO2 emissions and energy supply, Richard Feynman famously remarked about NASA's hype and spin on the merits of the Space Shuttle. NASA had facts and figures demonstrating the Shuttle to be safe, and even ex post facto a major accident, whom are you going to believe, NASA or some crank theoretical physicist dipping rubber into his water glass?
Feynman's remark "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." applies to other things as well.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
schlimm Nice selective reading! I guess it's easy to ignore a clear ,current statement on the DB site. The thread topic was about intercity express passenger trains, not locals, transit or freights and how DB makes available a calculator to show environmental impact for three modes of transport. Yet references are made to a commuter service in Dallas - Ft. Worth and to articles dealing with the entire DB plan as of last year. As to diesel cars, in Germany the VW Polo TDI gets close to 70 mpg, to name one popular model. You know, if you prefer driving or to not having first rate intercity trains on appropriate routes, that is your privilege. But anything that even hints of possible alternatives to what we currently have here really creates an uproar of potshots. The same is true on the current thread about the end of ATK and has been every time someone starts a thread about improving our pathetic passenger rail system. And the criticisms are predictable.
Nice selective reading! I guess it's easy to ignore a clear ,current statement on the DB site. The thread topic was about intercity express passenger trains, not locals, transit or freights and how DB makes available a calculator to show environmental impact for three modes of transport. Yet references are made to a commuter service in Dallas - Ft. Worth and to articles dealing with the entire DB plan as of last year. As to diesel cars, in Germany the VW Polo TDI gets close to 70 mpg, to name one popular model. You know, if you prefer driving or to not having first rate intercity trains on appropriate routes, that is your privilege. But anything that even hints of possible alternatives to what we currently have here really creates an uproar of potshots. The same is true on the current thread about the end of ATK and has been every time someone starts a thread about improving our pathetic passenger rail system. And the criticisms are predictable.
All reading is selective.
I was not comparing the TRE and Amtrak to the ICE or any other system. I was using the TRE example to help frame a question, which probably did not come across as well as it should have.
The operating environmental footprint of the TRE, as well as Amtrak, is different than the lab or research expected outcomes. Does the information regarding the ICE's environmental footprint have the same issue? That is the only point that I was trying to make.
According the the VW Australian website, since I am in Australia, the Polo diesel gets the equivalent of a combined 51.65 miles per gallon.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Sam1 In February 10 the wind stop blowing in west Texas. It switched off quickly. And before the fossil fueled generators could be synchronized with the grid, which turned out to be a photo finish, we came very close to seeing the whole system fall over. If he state grid operator did not have any fossil fuel and nuclear plants to fall back on, it would have been Katy Bar the Door.
In February 10 the wind stop blowing in west Texas. It switched off quickly. And before the fossil fueled generators could be synchronized with the grid, which turned out to be a photo finish, we came very close to seeing the whole system fall over. If he state grid operator did not have any fossil fuel and nuclear plants to fall back on, it would have been Katy Bar the Door.
I've seen several proposal's for "smart grid" enabled electric car charger/inverter combinations, one of the earliest written by Alec Brooks for AC Propusion (N.B. I knew Alec from high school and UCB). The point was that the charger/inverters could help stabilize the grid during rapid changes in load or generation. Alec postulated that the savings from stabilizing the grid could offset much of the cost of the electric car. Unfortunately, electric trains don't have the same flexibility in electric power demand.
- Erik
n012944 schlimm: You also claimed that the DB statement of using electricity from 100% renewable sources was hype, again without any evidence that it is. They have plans on running 100% on renewable sources, however they are a long way off... "Germany has made many remarkable strides towards sustainability in the past few years – they were the first nation to announce the abolition of nuclear power, the entire country already runs on 20% renewable energy, and now Deutsche Bahn, Germany’s national railway operator, has announced plans to run all of its trains on 100% renewable energy by the year 2050" Read more: German Trains Will Run on 100% Renewable Energy by 2050! deutsche bahn renewable energy – Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/germanys-road-to-a-100-renewable-railway/8209 http://www.cooladelaide.org/articles/2011/08/trains-powered-by-sun-and-wind-all-aboard/
schlimm: You also claimed that the DB statement of using electricity from 100% renewable sources was hype, again without any evidence that it is.
You also claimed that the DB statement of using electricity from 100% renewable sources was hype, again without any evidence that it is.
They have plans on running 100% on renewable sources, however they are a long way off...
"Germany has made many remarkable strides towards sustainability in the past few years – they were the first nation to announce the abolition of nuclear power, the entire country already runs on 20% renewable energy, and now Deutsche Bahn, Germany’s national railway operator, has announced plans to run all of its trains on 100% renewable energy by the year 2050"
Read more: German Trains Will Run on 100% Renewable Energy by 2050! deutsche bahn renewable energy – Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/germanys-road-to-a-100-renewable-railway/8209
http://www.cooladelaide.org/articles/2011/08/trains-powered-by-sun-and-wind-all-aboard/
The articles are informative. Unfortunately, renewable electric energy is a long way from prime time. Whether the Germans or anyone can get there by 2050 is problematic. According to one of the articles, the German rail operator has signed a 15 year contract for renewable energy to meet eight per cent of its needs. Good! Where does the other 92 per cent come from?
Most if not every form of renewable energy requires fossil fuel or nuclear back-up for when the wind stops blowing, the cloud cover is too thick for solar, and the water stops flowing. Water stop flowing? Yep, in the case of severe droughts, hydro-plants have to shut down. In fact, given the drought in Texas, if we don't get at least half of our average rainfall by June, we will have to shut down some of our steam electric stations irrespective of their fuel source.
The operative word in electric energy is steam. No water; no steam. No steam; no force to turn the turbines. No turbines; no electricity. No electricity in Texas in the summer; no air conditioning. Not a pretty picture. Could it happen? You bet!
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the Toyota Prius base model gets 51 mpg in the city and 48 mpg on the highway for a combined average of 50 mpg. The only diesel in the U.S. that comes close to the Prius, according to the energy department, is the VW Passat, which is rate for 31 mpg in the city and 43 mpg on the highway for a combined average of 35 mpg. The Golf and Jetta come in at a close second with 30, 42, and 34. I don't know anything about the cars in Germany, but I presume that the Golf and Jetta are reasonably popular there.
"With Umwelt-Plus-Angeboten of Deutsche Bahn you travel already today with 100 percent renewable energy." from the DB Environmental Mobility Check. This is what the site says NOW in reference to the DB's intercity ICE electric service. The articles you refer to are talking about all trains. DB uses diesel power on some local trains and many freights.
schlimm You also claimed that the DB statement of using electricity from 100% renewable sources was hype, again without any evidence that it is.
"Germany has made many remarkable strides towards sustainability in the past few years – they were the first nation to announce the abolition of nuclear power, the entire country already runs on 20% renewable energy, and now Deutsche Bahn, Germany’s national railway operator, has announced plans to run all of its trains on 100% renewable energy by the year 2050"Read more: German Trains Will Run on 100% Renewable Energy by 2050! deutsche bahn renewable energy – Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building
An "expensive model collector"
I only posted the link because I thought it would be interesting for others to check out environmental impact of the primary modes of travel, albeit in another country, clearly and easily.
You also keep missing the obvious point about hybrids. They are no more energy efficient for interstate driving than a comparable gasoline or diesel vehicle (maybe less because of dead weight of batteries). The models that Dwight cited for CSX and DB are believed to be credible and show a ratio of 1:3 (or worse) for trains vs autos. You did not show us what was wrong with the model's assumptions. You also claimed that the DB statement of using electricity from 100% renewable sources was hype, again without any evidence that it is.
1. You were the one who said you drove Stuttgart-Hamburg. Don't get all worked upwith your anger, when you were the one who wrote it on page one: "I ran that kind of speed in a rental car (a kind of mini-SUV called a Renault Scenic) with the kind of engine and transmissions they have over there (1.6 litre, manual shift). I got consistently around 40 MPG (under 6 litre per 100 km). My poppa and I would have made the Hamburg-Stuttgart trip using 18 litres per person, not much different from the the train. I just stayed in the right-hand lane and let the hotshots in their Bayrische Wagens [note: BMW = Bayerische Motoren Werke] (bimmers) zoom by." I guess your statement was apparently only about a hypothetical trip, but your wording was a bit ambiguous.
2. I never said "Every time I have been on DB, the train is full." First, it's poor grammar. Second, the trains I have ridden over 40 years are often 75% full or better, but not always. The only thing I did say was about setting the parameters for the environmental mobility check: "train with maximum utilization (quite common)" which is hardly the same as what you claimed I said.
3. My statement was "Your justification about needing to drive to towns in Austria and Slovenia is irrelevant." I was referring to the fact that you couldn't ride an ICE, a German HSR train) to unnamed towns in other countries like Austria or Slovenia, which for all I know have no train service. So it was totally irrelevant to the thread, which was about a calculator for environmental impact traveling on trains in Germany.
I hope you could be more careful in your references in the future.
schlimm As to your apparent preference to drive, I draw that conclusion from this: 1. Your statement you drove to Hamburg from Stuttgart in a Renault at 110 kmh, rather than use the ICE train. Your justification about needing to drive to towns in Austria and Slovenia is irrelevant. If you prefer driving a car to trains (or buses), that is certainly your right. But you are rationalizing that choice as ecologically equivalent to using the train or bus when the published evidence does not support that view.
As to your apparent preference to drive, I draw that conclusion from this: 1. Your statement you drove to Hamburg from Stuttgart in a Renault at 110 kmh, rather than use the ICE train. Your justification about needing to drive to towns in Austria and Slovenia is irrelevant. If you prefer driving a car to trains (or buses), that is certainly your right. But you are rationalizing that choice as ecologically equivalent to using the train or bus when the published evidence does not support that view.
Where do I begin?
The "reference case" of DB's claims of environmental friendliness is a trip from Berlin to Stuttgart. I don't know where Hamburg, which is off in another direction, figures in. I made a claim that were my father and I to have rented a Renault SUV (equivalent to a Honda CRV in size) to drive from Berlin to Stuttgart at a recommended energy-conserving speed for German traffic, our per-passenger BTU consumption would have been roughly the same as the ICE train.
Am I being criticized for driving from Hamburg to Stuttgart, or is it Berlin to Stuttgart, instead of me and Dad taking the ICE train? I never ever drove between any or either of those towns because I never made that trip. That trip was a hypothetical for comparison to the DB case study.
Am I a traitor passenger rail advocacy for making trips from Munich to towns in Austria and Slovenia not served by an ICE train? My father and I were presenting co-authored conference papers in those towns to an international audience in our common profession. Those towns were off in a different from where the ICE trains goes as Hamburg is from Berlin. 80 percent of passenger miles are by automobile in the EU, for reasons such as ours and for the many other case histories of why people in the EU as well as the USA use their cars.
You keep saying my comparisons are not factual and I have not presented any data. My fuel consumption readings are from the trip computer in the Renault that squared with the tank fills. My train BTU values are what you reported from the DB Website.
You keep saying, "Every time I have been on DB, the train is full." That is a statistical sampling fallacy if there ever was one because there is a higher statistical likelihood of a person riding a full train because there are many fewer people riding the less-full train. It is like the F-105 jets that returned with bullet holes but never bullet holes in certain places. It is not that they never got shot there, it is if they got shot in those places, those jets didn't return and the pilots ended up as POWs or worse -- the Air Force now uses such statistical assessments, properly interpreted, to build planes with fewer vulnerable areas.
I don't extol hybrid cars and I don't dismiss the concerns of CO2 emission and energy depletion. It is because I have those concerns that I question the cost effectiveness of trains. My observation is that if Climate Change or energy depletion are overriding concerns, that the subsidy of hybrid cars takes the government dollar much farther than the Amtrak subsidy. Not only that, as a hybrid car model gains in popularity, it gets weaned from the government tax break (as with the Prius). The very idea that government expenditures on Amtrak should be seed money after which fares cover operating expenses appears to be poison to the advocacy community.
I am also of the opinion that trains are never going to solve the Climate Change or Peak Oil crisis on a one-for-one substitution of auto passenger miles. The only way for trains to address those concerns is to facilitate fewer passenger trips based on trains allowing people to live closer together. That is why I supported the Madison's Mayor Dave wanting the Downtown train station, and that is why I am openly criticizing those (in the passenger advocacy community) who fought this tooth and nail until the plug got pulled on the Madison train.
This thread is heading down a dangerous path, like someone checking with a lit match whether there is gas in the tank...
It is also turning , so let´s stay on the subject and civil.
schlimm The DRE is irrelevant to this thread. It was brought up by sam1 initially. Why, I have no idea, but it was something she had numbers for, although they have no relevance to discussing the DB environmental impact site. Comparing HSR intercity trains (ICE and IC) with a transit system in a city in a state whose culture is apparently alien to us is absurd. It's pure obfuscation.
The DRE is irrelevant to this thread. It was brought up by sam1 initially. Why, I have no idea, but it was something she had numbers for, although they have no relevance to discussing the DB environmental impact site. Comparing HSR intercity trains (ICE and IC) with a transit system in a city in a state whose culture is apparently alien to us is absurd. It's pure obfuscation.
I presume the reference is to the Trinity Railway Express (TRE), which is an intercity operation between Dallas and Fort Worth. It is primarily a commuter operation, although it serves two of the state's largest cities.
I used the TRE as an example of possible different outcomes between the laboratory results regarding the environmental footprint of trains and the operational outcomes.
There is that inflammatory word again. Absurd!
A few comments from a native German, still living in Germany.
I have my doubts, that anyone makes his decision whether to go by car or train on the basis of the figures stated in this page. I guess it is more a question of convenience and cost. German Autobahns are congested to a degree, where calculating travel time has become a gamble. Although there is still no general speed limit, going much faster than 70 - 80 mph is close to impossible, unless you travel through some of the less populated areas in eastern Germany.
Travel time to major cities is much shorter by train than by car, and, in a lot of instances, not longer than air travel, making those ICE trains the best choice of transport.
Commuting into our congested cities is a daily gamble. A trip from my place to downtown Hamburg (30 miles) can take anywhere from 45 minutes to 3 hours in the morning. Parking cost amount to as much as a season ticket would be and the train takes me in 35 minutes to where I want to go.
The Germans of my generation still spend fortunes on their cars. 30 years ago, the top selling car, a VW Golf had a 50 hp engine, now the basic engine has 105 hp. Other than those "shopping charts with a roof" - the Smart, there is hardly a car on the road, which cannot go in excess of 100 mph.
The younger generation shows a different attitude. More and more people stay in the cities, use public transport and do not own a car. There is a change coming up, albeit a slow one. At 45 M cars to a population of 82 M, we have reached the max, I guess.
At about $ 9 for a gallon of gas, it´s no wonder...
Sam1 What do you really know about Texas and DFW? When did you live in DFW and thereby gain some insight into our culture? What involvement have you had with public transport in DFW? What transit boards did you serve on? For someone outside of Texas to speak about our culture, especially someone who has never lived here, is akin to my opining about the culture in Florida. I never lived in Florida. I don't have a clue, and I would not dare offer an opinion about it.
What do you really know about Texas and DFW? When did you live in DFW and thereby gain some insight into our culture? What involvement have you had with public transport in DFW? What transit boards did you serve on?
For someone outside of Texas to speak about our culture, especially someone who has never lived here, is akin to my opining about the culture in Florida. I never lived in Florida. I don't have a clue, and I would not dare offer an opinion about it.
My point is not about culture as such, my whole point is that culture evolves, and attitudes change. I lived in Denver for 12 years, when I moved there (1992) light rail didn't exist at all, and the bus service was like having a root canal. And there were people saying that it was a reflection of culture of the place, which was BS. Those sorts of arguments put the cart ahead of the horse, they confuse cause with effect. OF COURSE people would tell you in public opinion surveys that they wanted better roads and not light rail, that is what they knew, that is what they had invested in (in the form of the purchase of a private automobile), and of course it was scapegoated by the right as an expensive boondoggle. And they associated public transportation with an agonizing experience, and frankly, with the poor, immigrants and homeless people who rode the bus to keep warm. And then light rail was introduced and took off, and we saw that individual attitudes were not the cause of the trasnportation system being what it was, they were the effect. My argument is not about the culture of this or that place, my argument is that such a transhistorical attitude does not exist no matter where you are. People's views are a reflection of the reality they inhabit, not formed one at a time, person by person, in isolation from the society they are part of.
DwightBranch Sam1: Approximately 4.8% of the people in the DFW metroplex use public transit. Let's see if this will paste: Top 10 commuter cities Where the most residents commute to work on buses, trains and light rail. City State Public transit users % of workers New York NY 1.87 million 54.6% Washington DC 94,260 37.7% San Francisco CA 124,738 32.7% Boston MA 80,141 31.7% Philadelphia PA 139,247 25.9% Chicago IL 293,703 25.3% Baltimore MD 48,252 18.9% Seattle WA 51,259 17.0% Oakland CA 27,114 16,5% Portland OR 34,195 13.3% Source:U.S. Census Bureau About 1.9 million, or 55 percent, of New York workers commuted by subway or bus in 2005, according to the U.S. Census What is the difference? Those cities with the highest ridership of public transportation (i.e. the top five on this list) have extensive public infrastructure in passenger rail transportation that has existed since long before anyone now alive was born. It becomes second nature that if you want to travel from home to work cheaply (i.e. without an investment on a $30k vehicle, the gas, insurance to use it, money for parking etc) the train is the best way. Those cities with systems that are just starting out are growing their ridership. In Denver the bus system was atrocious, a trip that in a car would take half an hour round trip took three hours unless you were staying on the same bus for the entire trip. Experiences like that leave a sour taste. Now, from what I know about the Dallas rail passenger system is that it is a relatively recent (80s for commuter as I recall, on an old Rock Island line with antique slow to accelerate RDCs initially, not a modern light rail system with new, very fast accelerating cars) and certainly is not as extensive (very little in economy of scale) nor as easy to use as those in New York and Chicago. As people get used to the fact that it is faster and less expensive when you count the cost of operating a car (if you include all the costs, not just gas) , and when they no longer have the $40,000 Z45 4WD pickup that they need to pay for and want roads to use it on you will see attitudes change.
Sam1: Approximately 4.8% of the people in the DFW metroplex use public transit. Let's see if this will paste:
Approximately 4.8% of the people in the DFW metroplex use public transit.
Let's see if this will paste:
About 1.9 million, or 55 percent, of New York workers commuted by subway or bus in 2005, according to the U.S. Census
What is the difference? Those cities with the highest ridership of public transportation (i.e. the top five on this list) have extensive public infrastructure in passenger rail transportation that has existed since long before anyone now alive was born. It becomes second nature that if you want to travel from home to work cheaply (i.e. without an investment on a $30k vehicle, the gas, insurance to use it, money for parking etc) the train is the best way. Those cities with systems that are just starting out are growing their ridership. In Denver the bus system was atrocious, a trip that in a car would take half an hour round trip took three hours unless you were staying on the same bus for the entire trip. Experiences like that leave a sour taste. Now, from what I know about the Dallas rail passenger system is that it is a relatively recent (80s for commuter as I recall, on an old Rock Island line with antique slow to accelerate RDCs initially, not a modern light rail system with new, very fast accelerating cars) and certainly is not as extensive (very little in economy of scale) nor as easy to use as those in New York and Chicago. As people get used to the fact that it is faster and less expensive when you count the cost of operating a car (if you include all the costs, not just gas) , and when they no longer have the $40,000 Z45 4WD pickup that they need to pay for and want roads to use it on you will see attitudes change.
Neat! I also lived in New York City for 8 years, and I am aware of the fact that people who live in that part of the the U.S. are more inclined to use public transport. In large part this stems from a history of doing so.
Your list is for cities. DFW is a SMSA. DART and the "T" serve Dallas and Fort Worth as well as many of the other 29 cities in DFW metroplex. The percentage of people in Dallas who use public transport is higher than the percentage for the metroplex as a whole. But all it most people in Dallas, as well as throughout the metroplex, commute by car.
Texas is not New York or Portland or San Francisco or any other place. What do you really know about Texas and DFW? When did you live in DFW and thereby gain some insight into our culture? What involvement have you had with public transport in DFW? What transit boards did you serve on?
I have ridden the TRE hundreds of times. It is not slow to accelerate, dropped the RDCs within a year of start-up, and is a state of the art commuter rail system. Having said that, most people in the DFW metroplex drive.
I make no claims about public transit or the attitudes toward it outside of DFW. My observations about public transit in north central Texas and central Texas stem from 36 years of personal involvement and a reasonable amount of data to support it. All I know at this point is that most Texans, when asked in surveys, have said that they want better highways. Very few of them have even mentioned passenger rail and transit. Whether that will change depends on numerous variables, i.e. price of gasoline, new highways, alternative fuel vehicles, highway technologies, etc.
Sam1 Approximately 4.8% of the people in the DFW metroplex use public transit.
schlimm However, TRE is not necessarily representative of mass transit outside the DFW area and certainly not comparable to under 500 mile corridor train services. The ATK trains you cite are examples only of the sort of trains that ATK should discontinue. Citing personal examples is far more relevant than an aggregate statistical sample from a population that is not comparable to the question at hand. In other words, if you cite a study looking at 1000 apples, even one example looking at an orange is far more valid if the subject is oranges. There will always be folks who stick to their autos, of course. But that does not eliminate the need for developing real services in a limited number of appropriate corridors (beyond the NEC) as a part of the overall mix.
However, TRE is not necessarily representative of mass transit outside the DFW area and certainly not comparable to under 500 mile corridor train services. The ATK trains you cite are examples only of the sort of trains that ATK should discontinue. Citing personal examples is far more relevant than an aggregate statistical sample from a population that is not comparable to the question at hand. In other words, if you cite a study looking at 1000 apples, even one example looking at an orange is far more valid if the subject is oranges. There will always be folks who stick to their autos, of course. But that does not eliminate the need for developing real services in a limited number of appropriate corridors (beyond the NEC) as a part of the overall mix.
The TRE was modeled on commuter rail routes in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, etc. It is a 32 mile commuter railroad. It is a push/pull operation. It uses GO cars.
I agree on the Eagle and Heartland Flyer. They should be discontinued.
A point that I was attempting to emphasize was the difference between lab results and the extent to which they are applicable on the ground.
A couple of years ago a Noble prize winning economist claimed that 21 per cent of America's manufacturing capacity was idle. Where did he get that number I asked? Well, he got it from the BEA, which is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Part of that idle capacity would be the percentage of generation capability not being used by the nation's electric utilities. What would it take to make that determination? One would have to know the generating capacity of every generator in the country. There are thousands of them. That information could be gotten off the builder's plate and, in fact, it is submitted periodically to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Operating data is fed to the FERC monthly. Ah, not a problem. Match up the operating data with potential output data. Whoops, not so easy. Older generators cannot attain their state operating output. And some brand new generators can be run above rated capacity for short periods of time. Factoring all that information into the model would be a daunting challenge.
Those who calculate the environmental impact of various modes of transport are faced with a challenge similar to the one described above. What is the difference between the theory and the results on the ground?
DwightBranch Sam1: At the end of the day, however, whether trains are more environmentally benign than cars, planes, buses or horses is irrelevant. People in this part of the world want to travel by car. You offer this assertion as a statement of fact, as though Americans are somehow a different species. This kind of statement presupposes the "why" and ignores the question entirely. Wants are not determined in a vacuum, when you examine why individual people are doing things it often turns out that they are doing things because... everyone else is doing the same thing. When the choices one faces are constrained to only one way of doing things that becomes what people do. In order to understand how the choices became confined to car transportation we would need to discuss the entire history of transportation in the US, including trivial facts like how Gen. Dwight Eisenhower liked to transport his tanks and troops down the German autobahn. But the reality is that the "wants" of people here are in no way self-created, they are a result of the experiences of people and their interaction with others. Had Eisenhower transported his troops on the ICE we might have people today saying that Americans are congenitally disinclined to drive cars. Had he decided that only horses were appropriate transportation, someone would be telling us that Americans are congenitally disinclined to use machinery. Quackery! And empirically, over and over the predictions of (especially conservative) commentators that Americans will not ride mass transit because they are "individualists" (and cars somehow, in some always asserted but unproven way, reflect this individualism) falls short. I recall when Denver built the first leg of their light rail system conservative commentator Jon Caldera arguing that no one in Denver would ride trains because they were individuals, the initial ridership projections were ten times too low. The same thing with the T-Rex line to Parker Road, once people discovered that they could get from say the Parker development to downtown Denver in half the time during rush hour, not be forced to pay for parking, etc. the line by far exceeded ridership projections.. In sum, the sort of behavior you see by people in a static setting is not indicative of how they would behave if given other options in a dynamic setting, no matter what the question you are considering, and so arguing that Americans are one way or the other is misleading.
Sam1: At the end of the day, however, whether trains are more environmentally benign than cars, planes, buses or horses is irrelevant. People in this part of the world want to travel by car.
At the end of the day, however, whether trains are more environmentally benign than cars, planes, buses or horses is irrelevant. People in this part of the world want to travel by car.
You offer this assertion as a statement of fact, as though Americans are somehow a different species. This kind of statement presupposes the "why" and ignores the question entirely. Wants are not determined in a vacuum, when you examine why individual people are doing things it often turns out that they are doing things because... everyone else is doing the same thing. When the choices one faces are constrained to only one way of doing things that becomes what people do. In order to understand how the choices became confined to car transportation we would need to discuss the entire history of transportation in the US, including trivial facts like how Gen. Dwight Eisenhower liked to transport his tanks and troops down the German autobahn. But the reality is that the "wants" of people here are in no way self-created, they are a result of the experiences of people and their interaction with others. Had Eisenhower transported his troops on the ICE we might have people today saying that Americans are congenitally disinclined to drive cars. Had he decided that only horses were appropriate transportation, someone would be telling us that Americans are congenitally disinclined to use machinery. Quackery! And empirically, over and over the predictions of (especially conservative) commentators that Americans will not ride mass transit because they are "individualists" (and cars somehow, in some always asserted but unproven way, reflect this individualism) falls short. I recall when Denver built the first leg of their light rail system conservative commentator Jon Caldera arguing that no one in Denver would ride trains because they were individuals, the initial ridership projections were ten times too low. The same thing with the T-Rex line to Parker Road, once people discovered that they could get from say the Parker development to downtown Denver in half the time during rush hour, not be forced to pay for parking, etc. the line by far exceeded ridership projections.. In sum, the sort of behavior you see by people in a static setting is not indicative of how they would behave if given other options in a dynamic setting, no matter what the question you are considering, and so arguing that Americans are one way or the other is misleading.
By this part of the world I mean Texas. To be more specific, I mean DFW and central Texas, since these are the ares of the Lone Star State where I have lived for 36 years.
I offered the view as an opinion. I did not state it as a fact, although as noted below I am familiar with several studies performed in north central and central Texas that appear to support the view that most people in Texas prefer cars over public transit. No, I am not going to dig them out.
I worked in Dallas for a very large company for 31 years. We had approximately 18,000 employees. And approximately 700 executives and managers. Of the 700 managers, I was one of six in DFW who rode public transit to work. The other managers, all of whom could afford to drive, did so. In fact, they thought that I was a bit odd in my preference for public transit.
Clearly, opportunities shape behavior. That was a major driver supporting the decision to build the Dallas light rail system and the Trinity Railway Express. If we build it people will come was the argument.
I was a member of the Dallas Transit System Citizen's Advisory Board and played an active roll, thanks to the support of my employer, in getting the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) initiative passed, which ultimately led to the building of the light rail system and HOV lanes. Area taxpayers have paid billions in sales tax dollars to build the most extensive light rail system in the Southwest. And one of the most extensive light rail systems in the United State.
The number of people using the system has exceeded budgeted expectations, in large part because the number of estimated riders was low balled. It is a trick that budget folks use all the time. As a senior manager in a Fortune 250 corporation I understand the importance of effective budgeting techniques. So what has been the outcome?
Approximately 4.8% of the people in the DFW metroplex use public transit. To attract even this percentage of riders requires a system average subsidy of $2.98 per passenger trip and $4.87 per passenger trip on the light rail system. Many of the riders on the light rail trains are fed in my bus routes that were switched to load up the trains.
According to an article in the Dallas Morning News, ridership on the light rail system has been declining for a variety of reasons. Moreover, numerous surveys have shown that a majority of Texans don't want public transit. They want better highways.
My analysis of the data furnished to me by DART produced a number of surprises. For one, I was somewhat surprised to learn that approximately 45 per cent of the bus riders in Dallas ride the bus because it is their only option. And approximately 22 per cent of the people on the light rail trains have no alternative transport. One seemingly appropriate conclusion from this finding may be that those who have access to a car, as long as they can afford to drive it, will opt for the car.
An excellent history of the development of the federal highway system in the United States can be found in The Big Roads by Earl Swift. He puts to rest, at least in my mind, many of the myths and misinformation regarding the development of federal highways, including the roll played by President Eisenhower.
I have ridden public transit all but two of the more than 40 years that I worked for corporate America. I was a strong supporter of the light rail system. Looking back, however, I believe that we were partially mistaken in putting too many eggs in the light rail system. It proved to be far more costly to build and operate than was anticipated by the planners. In retrospect, we would probably have been better off developing commuter rail along a number of the existing heavy rail lines, i.e. Trinity Railway Express that had been the Rock Island line between Fort Worth and Dallas, and relying more heavily on buses, especially on the rapid bus technologies that were emerging at the time. But that is behind us now. So we have what we have.
Unless the price of gasoline soars and no alternative vehicles emerge, people in this part of the world are not likely to flock to public transport for decades to come.
Sam1 At the end of the day, however, whether trains are more environmentally benign than cars, planes, buses or horses is irrelevant. People in this part of the world want to travel by car.
Amtrak offers comparative figures regarding fuel burns and emissions. It too shows that the train creates a lighter environmental footprint than cars and airplanes, although it is silent on intercity buses. The intercity bus industry claims that it creates the lightest footprint. All of the claimants, if I remember correctly, cite a variety of studies to support their claim.
Under ideal conditions, it makes sense that a passenger train, especially if it is powered by electric energy generated by nuclear, hydro, or wind, would be more fuel efficient and, therefore, create less pollution than a car, airplane or bus powered by fossil fuel.
All studies have to make model assumptions, i.e. fuel consumption, load factor, emissions, types of vehicles, etc. Moreover, in most instances they are static. They consider the here and now. I have not seen many of them that consider changing technologies. For example, new airplanes going into service in this country, as well as around the world, are considerably more fuel efficient and environmentally benign than the airplanes that they are replacing. So if the researcher uses American's current fleet of airplanes for comparative purposes, he or she will get a significantly different result than what can be expected a year or two from now when the MD80s are replaced.
The difference between what the lab based studies show and what actually happens on the ground can be different. Lets take the Trinity Railway Express (TRE). It is a commuter operation between Dallas and Fort Worth. Upon request Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) gave me the data for every TRE train. I even got it on spreadsheets. Amongst other things I was interested in the load factors on the trains. The results were as expected. During the morning and evening rush hours the trains had an average load factor of 80 to 85 per cent. However, during the early morning hours and late evening hours the average load factor was as low as 10 per cent. Overall, the average load factor was 30 to 35 per cent. Accordingly, the load factor used by the modelers to determine the environmental footprint of various modes of transport is critical to the outcome. Is it the arithmetic average, geometric average, harmonic average, median, etc.?
Operationally the TRE runs as many as four cars per train during the morning and evening rush hours. During the day the trains typically have two to three cars. More importantly, however, the trains have a 25 minute dwell time in Fort Worth and Dallas at the end of each run. Whilst standing the engines pump out a considerable amount of pollution before heading back to the other end point. Is this taken into consideration by a researcher, especially one that is thousands of miles from DFW and may not have even heard of TRE?
Amtrak has a similar problem. Each Eagle spends more than an hour in Fort Worth being serviced. Whilst there the engines continue to pump out emissions. Even worse is the Heartland Flyer. It arrives in Fort Worth at 12:39 p.m. The engines idle until the 5:25 p.m. departure for Oklahoma City. Do the researchers take this into consideration when constructing their models?
At the end of the day, however, whether trains are more environmentally benign than cars, planes, buses or horses is irrelevant. People in this part of the world want to travel by car. Their cars are getting cleaner each year. Many folks in the passenger advocacy group seem to think that the competing technologies will stand still whilst rail technology gets more efficient. I would not count on it.
Twenty five years from now we may see more passenger trains in Texas. If we do it will be because of congestion along the I-35 and I-45 corridors. It will not be because trains are cleaner than cars. By then, according to many of the studies that I have read, cars will be much cleaner. There is a high probability that many of them will be electric or electric hybrids re-charged overnight with energy generated by Texas' growing nuclear energy capability.
Several posters to this thread have cited personal experiences to support their argument. They project that experience onto the population as a whole. Technically speaking, if one wants to project the results of a sample (one or many) to the population as a whole, he needs to take a valid statistical sample. One's personal experience does not constitute in most instances a valid statistical sample. My analysis of the TRE was based on the whole population. It was not a sample.
Paul: You extoll the virtues of hybrid electrics, such as the Prius, and plug ins. While they certainly are eco-friendly for city driving, they are worse than a comparable pure gasoline or diesel auto on an interstate or Autobahn (in the case of the Prius, because of the dead weight of the batteries), or "not applicable" in the case of a pure electric. This is what the the inter-city DB comparison is about: traveling from one urban center to another, not urban driving. You have not presented any basis to challenge the credibility of the assumptions in the calculations of DB (and CSX) as Dwight Branch points out.
Paul Milenkovic DwightBranch: most Germans don't drive BMWs that can go 110mph without sliding off a curve Whom am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes reading a trip computer showing 40 MPG (6 litre/100 km) on a rented Renault compact SUV? I was driving 110 km/hr, the speed recommended on the highway billboard, not 110 MPH. 110 km is about 69 MPH. I am not quite sure that the speed on the German Autobahn is unlimited anymore, but folks go a lot faster than that anyway. I once took a rented Renault (a fastback sedan) on another trip up to 160 km -- that is an even 100 MPH to experience what it is like -- there was once this proposal called the Century Expressway to have legal and safe auto travel at the "Century" mark around the time that the original HSR proposals were considered. I didn't drive that speed for long, but the ride was smooth and there were not handling problems of the car, and tires and suspensions must be rated for those speeds "over there" as people routinely drive that fast, judging by how I didn't seem to be passing anybody. C'mon, people, the "slow lane" speed in Germany is 110 km, not 110 MPH because folks in Europe use the metric system. 110 MPH (about 175 km) is a bit fast and maybe not legal in Germany, but they have an entirely different set of traffic enforcement priorities and running a yellow light in the city which is not big deal in the U.S. seems to be a major offense in Germany whereas they are not so uptight about Autobahn speed. The Autobahn is engineered to much higher standards -- lengths and markings of acceleration lanes, absence of potholes, lane markings and signage, speed limit reductions in bad weather, horizontal curves, so yes, one could easily go 110 MPH on those roads without losing control on a curve.
DwightBranch: most Germans don't drive BMWs that can go 110mph without sliding off a curve
most Germans don't drive BMWs that can go 110mph without sliding off a curve
Whom am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes reading a trip computer showing 40 MPG (6 litre/100 km) on a rented Renault compact SUV?
I was driving 110 km/hr, the speed recommended on the highway billboard, not 110 MPH. 110 km is about 69 MPH.
I am not quite sure that the speed on the German Autobahn is unlimited anymore, but folks go a lot faster than that anyway. I once took a rented Renault (a fastback sedan) on another trip up to 160 km -- that is an even 100 MPH to experience what it is like -- there was once this proposal called the Century Expressway to have legal and safe auto travel at the "Century" mark around the time that the original HSR proposals were considered. I didn't drive that speed for long, but the ride was smooth and there were not handling problems of the car, and tires and suspensions must be rated for those speeds "over there" as people routinely drive that fast, judging by how I didn't seem to be passing anybody.
C'mon, people, the "slow lane" speed in Germany is 110 km, not 110 MPH because folks in Europe use the metric system. 110 MPH (about 175 km) is a bit fast and maybe not legal in Germany, but they have an entirely different set of traffic enforcement priorities and running a yellow light in the city which is not big deal in the U.S. seems to be a major offense in Germany whereas they are not so uptight about Autobahn speed. The Autobahn is engineered to much higher standards -- lengths and markings of acceleration lanes, absence of potholes, lane markings and signage, speed limit reductions in bad weather, horizontal curves, so yes, one could easily go 110 MPH on those roads without losing control on a curve.
I lived there for three months several years ago, near AAlen southeast of Stuttgart, I know what Germans drive, and mostly it is the equivalent of the old GEO Metro (which my friend had previously but was forced to stop driving because of tough inspections all cars must go through, another trait of Germany, almost no 20 year old cars on the road like here). But the point is, if you have any problems with the actual methodology DB it using (itself developed by the EU environmental agency) you should show us specifically the problem based on the data, not just Germans drive faster or that the trains can't be as full as they say. On the latter, I rode DB and local trains repeatedly and the only ones that weren't close to capacity or over was a local I was on once between Stuttgart and AAlen at 4AM . Overall, I find the assumptions DB uses credible, as do I the similar chart CSX uses http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/customers/tools/carbon-calculator-v2/. And the conclusion is that rail passenger transportation uses a third of the fuel as a car for the same trip and produces only one-third as much CO2 gas.
One last point: right now greenhouse gas emissions are what economists term an "externality": they do not cost the person doing the polluting anything because there is no ownership assigned to the atmosphere, but that is likely to change soon. One of the primary ways to assign ownership and get around the "tragedy of the commons" considered at Kyoto and later is by assigning ownership based on population: if you are 5% of the world's population (as we are) then you get 5% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions (that is, what the atmosphere can handle and dispose of by plants taking in CO2 etc), anything more will need to be paid for. One way being considered is through TEPs (transferable emissions permits), which again would be assigned based on population, if you are under your limit (as underdeveloped countries like Haiti and many in Africa and South America are) you can sell them to countries that are over that are required to buy them, a profit for the developing countries and a loss for us intended to encourage efficiency. And we are by far the furthest over, we are 5% of the worlds population but around 25-30 of greenhouse gas emissions. And that will cost us. Once that is true, it seems more likely than it is even now that the initial cost building rail lines will be worth it when compared to the cost of one person per car transportation. And if we refuse to comply the Europeans, who have grown tired of our stalling tactics, seem likely at some point to simply level eco-tariffs on our exports roughly equal to the cost of TEPs.
DwightBranch most Germans don't drive BMWs that can go 110mph without sliding off a curve
schlimm Paul M: 1. You seem to have ignored my second post utilizing more typical parameters. 2. If DB says they are 100% renewable energy, you can't just dismiss that statement without facts. 3. I also am surprised that someone interested in passenger rail service, as well as an [acoustics, digital signal processing] engineer, would not take the easy opportunity to ride an ICE while in Germany so that you would have some first-hand experience with excellent rail service..
Paul M: 1. You seem to have ignored my second post utilizing more typical parameters. 2. If DB says they are 100% renewable energy, you can't just dismiss that statement without facts. 3. I also am surprised that someone interested in passenger rail service, as well as an [acoustics, digital signal processing] engineer, would not take the easy opportunity to ride an ICE while in Germany so that you would have some first-hand experience with excellent rail service..
1. To assume a full train and a single-person occupied auto will always make the train come out on top. If you are talking about mitigation of CO2, you are talking about averages, which means average train occupancy and average car occupancy. One's personal experience of finding the train full everytime you are on it is not a valid measure -- it is the times the train is running near empty that there are fewer people around to document the experience. Those of us who commute on standing-room only buses may be shocked to find that the average transit bus load is somewhere in the 7-10 passenger range, but there are statistics on bus systems collected by an oversight agency to promote mass transit, and there are technical reasons for this.
OK, I gave a personal experience where two people were sharing a car. A modest increase in ride sharing is one adaptation to rising fuel costs that will save much more fuel than any rail plan less than multiple trillion dollars, which, according to the Vision Report, would be the cost of matching the European passenger rail market share.
2. If DB says their electrics are 100% renewable energy, I can too dismiss that statement as hype, along with the Metcalf Brothers claiming the same with their local supermarket where I live.
Yes, you can pay some fee to the power company and they will certify that you are getting 100% renewable power. The thing is that renewables are intermittent and variable. Wind has something called a capacity factor where you are getting the windmill to turn vigorously, on average, maybe 20-30% of the time. Solar -- well, Germany gets pretty cloudy. Maybe there is some wind/solar synergy, but in an honest comparison and not an accounting exercise, there is no way you are not drawing power from a pool that is a mix of renewable and non-renewable power. If you are claiming to be 100% on renewable power, I would like to see the Metcalfs turn their freezer cases off and DB stop the trains when the wind stops blowing.
This is not an idle comparison. One of the potential benefits of the plug-in hybrid electric car, which I have reasoned is a better value for the government subsidy dollar in mitigating oil dependency and CO2, is that you can have a Smart Meter system where car owners charge their batteries only when the alternative sources are online. This would allow you to subsitute much more alternative for fossil power than you can with the electric trains and the supermarket freezer cases that need their power now.
3. I rented an automobile in Germany for the same reason that 90% of passenger miles is by auto in the U.S. and a full 80% is by auto in the EU. I was going from Munich (where the plane let me off) to destinations in rural Austria at a Federal Adult Education Center and on another occasion to a sea coast destination in Slovenia because that is where the conferences where I had business were being held. The train simply doesn't run to those places in Europe, much as getting trains to all the places you want to go is a difficult proposition in the U.S. The two societies that had much higher train market share, I believe, are the narrow coastal island population centers of Japan and continental Russia because they are so automobile-poor.
The question is whether one is serious about saving fuel and reducing CO2 or whether the train is an end in itself as a solution looking for a problem to solve. If one is serious about Peak Oil and Climate Change and all of the other environmental issues, the train cannot be simply a park-n-ride subsitution for a car or plane trip but has to be integrated into denser housing patterns.
That is why I thought that Madison's Mayor Dave was right about bringing the Talgo Train into the Madison Downtown, and the local passenger rail advocacy group was so very wrong, holding their Tea Party-esque meeting to dress down the Wisconsin DOT rep about not having the station at Dane County Regional Airport.
Paul Milenkovic OK, let's stipulate the CO2 equivalent of 4 gallons for the 360 mile trip or about 90 passenger miles per gallon. My Camry (not the latest generation car that is coming out) can do that trip on 10 gallons, and assuming an average load factor of 1.5, that works out to 54 passenger miles per gallon. Hence I would score the train about a factor of 2 improvement over the train, which is what the Vision Report claims for a Diesel train in medium-speed service on an all-coach seat train with 40 percent load factor. The other thing is that folks drive a lot faster in Germany than here, and The Authorities are trying to get motorists to slow down with these billboards saying "110km -- Die Richtige Geschwindigkeit" meaning "The Correct (as in politically correct) Speed." I ran that kind of speed in a rental car (a kind of mini-SUV called a Renault Scenic) with the kind of engine and transmissions they have over there (1.6 litre, manual shift). I got consistently around 40 MPG (under 6 litre per 100 km). My poppa and I would have made the Hamburg-Stuttgart trip using 18 litres per person, not much different from the the train. I just stayed in the right-hand lane and let the hotshots in their Bayrische Wagens (bimmers) zoom by. With respect to the train using "all renewable sources of electricity", then the electric train would not produce any CO2, and I think that is one of the claims that the CHSR is making that is a bit of a stretch, and that is one of the things that I "had issues" with the California High Speed Rail Authority with their little video of the windmills spinning and the train going by. Electric railroads are famously a need-the-power-now, not when the wind blows or when the sun shines. Plug-in hybrid electric cars, however, could benefit from variable and intermittent sources of energy as they have that battery and many motorists may have flexibility as to when they recharge. But being partly of Ausland German heritage (I can't follow what anyone is saying in Germany, but I suddenly understand what people are saying when they speak it in Slovenia), I feel I have standing to generalize that the Germans are very earnest about taking many measures in pursuit of CO2 reduction. There was a critique of their solar initiative, where Germany is a cloudy, northern country (been there, can attest to that) as not being a cost-effective way of meeting carbon targets compared to alternatives. One of my critiques of the Vision Report is that fuel savings for trains is not cost effective either compared to alternatives, owing to the high subsidy rate required for trains and the large capital inputs required for expanding Amtrak. Maybe we need to work the advocacy angle of trains as being an accomodation and an alternative to flying and driving, with fuel economy that exceeds the best automobiles or planes have to offer. But we are not going to solve the energy crisis or the CO2 crisis with trains without dramatic improvements in the cost of providing them. The efficiency of fuel-efficient cars is not that dramatically different that we can claim that high gas prices will drive motorists into train travel, that is, unless trains have operating subsidy that disguises the fact that their operating cost goes up just as the cost of driving.
OK, let's stipulate the CO2 equivalent of 4 gallons for the 360 mile trip or about 90 passenger miles per gallon. My Camry (not the latest generation car that is coming out) can do that trip on 10 gallons, and assuming an average load factor of 1.5, that works out to 54 passenger miles per gallon. Hence I would score the train about a factor of 2 improvement over the train, which is what the Vision Report claims for a Diesel train in medium-speed service on an all-coach seat train with 40 percent load factor.
The other thing is that folks drive a lot faster in Germany than here, and The Authorities are trying to get motorists to slow down with these billboards saying "110km -- Die Richtige Geschwindigkeit" meaning "The Correct (as in politically correct) Speed." I ran that kind of speed in a rental car (a kind of mini-SUV called a Renault Scenic) with the kind of engine and transmissions they have over there (1.6 litre, manual shift). I got consistently around 40 MPG (under 6 litre per 100 km). My poppa and I would have made the Hamburg-Stuttgart trip using 18 litres per person, not much different from the the train. I just stayed in the right-hand lane and let the hotshots in their Bayrische Wagens (bimmers) zoom by.
With respect to the train using "all renewable sources of electricity", then the electric train would not produce any CO2, and I think that is one of the claims that the CHSR is making that is a bit of a stretch, and that is one of the things that I "had issues" with the California High Speed Rail Authority with their little video of the windmills spinning and the train going by. Electric railroads are famously a need-the-power-now, not when the wind blows or when the sun shines. Plug-in hybrid electric cars, however, could benefit from variable and intermittent sources of energy as they have that battery and many motorists may have flexibility as to when they recharge.
But being partly of Ausland German heritage (I can't follow what anyone is saying in Germany, but I suddenly understand what people are saying when they speak it in Slovenia), I feel I have standing to generalize that the Germans are very earnest about taking many measures in pursuit of CO2 reduction. There was a critique of their solar initiative, where Germany is a cloudy, northern country (been there, can attest to that) as not being a cost-effective way of meeting carbon targets compared to alternatives. One of my critiques of the Vision Report is that fuel savings for trains is not cost effective either compared to alternatives, owing to the high subsidy rate required for trains and the large capital inputs required for expanding Amtrak.
Maybe we need to work the advocacy angle of trains as being an accomodation and an alternative to flying and driving, with fuel economy that exceeds the best automobiles or planes have to offer. But we are not going to solve the energy crisis or the CO2 crisis with trains without dramatic improvements in the cost of providing them. The efficiency of fuel-efficient cars is not that dramatically different that we can claim that high gas prices will drive motorists into train travel, that is, unless trains have operating subsidy that disguises the fact that their operating cost goes up just as the cost of driving.
I don't think your assumptions are accurate Paul. First off, the car they are using in the comparison is "middle class; PC Diesel EURO 4", a medium-sized diesel like a Passat, which is the cheapest to operate/ best mileage once you buy it. At any rate, not that it matters in this discussion since they stipulated what car they are using, but most Germans don't drive BMWs that can go 110mph without sliding off a curve, more typical is the Opel version of a Suzuki (both GM companies) that I traveled with a friend in that has a max speed of around 90 (people drive that fast here in Orlando), virtually no SUVs or pick-up trucks (much less hummers or F-150s) and many very small mini cars not sold in the US (I recall a VW car called a Lobo all over the place, roughly the size of the Smart mini car). And even if you have a car capable of 200KPH the autobahn cannot really take that anymore because of congestion, outside of the relatively sparsely populated far north. But if you look at the website it will give you the assumptions, in short, about a three to one advantage of train travel over cars in both fuel usage and greenhouse gas emissions. Here are some of the places to find their documentation:
http://www.dbecoprogram.com/index.php?lang=en
Here is one quote: "An average train trip produces only one third of the greenhouse gases generated by a car.."
The chart also mentions that the "Energy resource consumption / primary energy converted into liter petrol per person traveling" "includes losses due to production of fuel or electrical power," which may explain the discrepancies. I suppose it is safe to assume that it takes more than one gallon of gasoline to drive 30 or 40 miles, because additional fuel was used in the refining and transportation of that gallon.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.