Death By Trainlessness
Randal Archibald writes for The New York Times about the recent fatal rail crash in LA: “Warning System Could Prevent Train Crashes.” And of course as a rail transit booster, I certainly favor efforts to improve train safety.
Still, it’s worth noting that there won’t be any headlines tomorrow about the car crashes that could have been avoided by building more and better rail networks. We had 37,248 fatal car crashes in 2007. That’s over 100 every day. And yet you don’t see “100 Die Nationwide in Car Crashes” on a daily basis in the headlines. We just take it for granted that most Americans will make almost all of their trips via the most dangerous possible way of getting around. One person dies for about every 415,000 vehicle miles traveled.
The considerable environmental benefits of shifting our transportation infrastructure so that a minority of people would drive radically less and most people would drive somewhat less are so large that the environmental case for such shifts has tended to crowd out other arguments. But in many ways the public health benefits are even more clear cut.
STRONG: Apologies — one fatality for every 415,000 vehicle miles traveled is a ridiculously low figure and implies something like universal death by car accident. There were about three trillion vehicle miles traveled in 2007. Three trillion divided by 37,248 is, unless I’m making another mistake, about 80 million.
119 Responses to “Death By Trainlessness”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 15th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Does that 350Z look not-at-all-fatal to anyone else? I’ve been involved in a couple of serious car accidents. In each case, the car came out looking worse than that Nissan, and I walked away fine.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
The McCain / Republican scumbags are at it again.
John McCain, 2008, Lying, Cowardly, Dishonorable Sleazebag. Still, I’m sure Obama & Biden will speak of this in reverent tones about how Jesus H. Moderate Maverick is so AWSUM and HONRABLE and surely not responsible for this.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Interesting point. I’m curious, do you know what the statistical risks per mile are for traveling by rail?
(And a minor point, but traveling by motorcycle has I believe something like a ten times greater risk of death per mile, so I don’t think cars are the most dangerous mode of transport.)
September 15th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
This sort of thing became a particular concern of mine once I had a son (given the statistics on childhood mortality and just recollections of what I did myself when driving as a teen). Indeed, I frequent a board basically about relocation, and there are quite a few people who are very concerned about finding a “safe” neighborhood for their family in the sense of violent crime, and yet they tend to overlook the implications of where they might live with respect to transportation risk. And yet the statistics suggest one should have the opposite priorities.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
bryan,
Here is the result of a quick googling:
http://www.airlines.org/economics/specialtopics/Airline+Safety.htm
Roughly speaking, it looks like cars have about 16 times the fatality rate as trains per passenger mile.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
After years of discussion and comment the FAA decided not to require safety restraint seats for children 2 and younger on commercial aircraft, because the placing of young children in seats would require purchase of a ticket, and the added cost would lead many families to choose to travel by car rather than by air (which is the safer mode of transportation). Thus, even though the young child is at increased risk when not in a seat contraint while flying, that risk is lower than the risk of death or injury if the child were being transported by car.
Some relevant links/analyses
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_2005_Sept_12/ai_n15403615/print?tag=artBody;col1
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/157/10/969.pdf
September 15th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
I made a very similar point to my wife yesterday. I hope that this negative publicity about trains doesn’t work against the gains made the last year or two in public transit ridership.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Ack! Innumeracy Alert!!
Car fatalities are about 1 fatality per 70 Million vehicle miles.
Where did you get 1 per 415,000 miles??
September 15th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
That number can’t possibly be right. It would mean that on average, all Americans die in car crashes. (at 12K miles/year, someone dies after 35 personyears of driving using that figure).
ty, he’s using a stock photo of a car wreck, since he doesn’t have the rights to the NYT’s photos.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
I’m with catclub on this. If I buy four cars and drive each of them 104,000 miles, I don’t think I’d expect to have had a fatal crash by then. Also — as much as I love riding my bike, it’s probably considerably more dangerous than driving on a per-mile basis.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Yes, but I’d rather trust my life to my own skills rather than depend upon a poorly-paid government employee who may or may not be all that skilled. If you are a skilled driver, don’t drive when drunk, drive a safe and well-maintained vehicle, etc. the chances of getting in a fatal crash go way down. I have been driving for 36 years, mostly 25-35K per year, in all weathers and all locations with 0 accidents. When driving your own vehicle your life is in your own hands. When riding the rails or flying your life is in someone else’s hands. I don’t find that reassuring.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Steve Sailer had a fascinating post about the train crash, which makes me wonder if this is more a management issue than a technology one—
“This should not happen in 2008.
“Preventing head-on train collisions was the fundamental problem that modern American business management evolved to handle. A head-on crash in 1843 led to a national debate: should all railroads be built with two lines, like almost all roads are built with lanes running in each direction, to prevent head-on collisions? To avoid the enormous expense of double lines while not killing passengers in head-on crashes either, the Pennsylvania Railroad invented many of the techniques of modern management…”
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/09/dozens-killed-as-trains-crash-head-on.html
What screws up any focus on automobile safety (versus dramatic but rare rail or plane crashes) is the whole risk homeostasis thing.
“The theory of risk homeostasis states that an individual has an inbuilt target level of acceptable risk which does not change. This level varies between individuals. When the level of acceptable risk in one part of the individual’s life changes; there will be a corresponding rise/drop in acceptable risk elsewhere. The same, argues Wilde, is true of larger human systems (e.g. a population of drivers).
“For example, in the famous Munich taxicab study, half of a fleet of cabs were equipped with antilock braking system (ABS) brakes, while the other half had older brake systems. The accident rate for both types of car (ABS and non-ABS) remained the same, because ABS-car drivers took more risks, assuming that ABS would take care of them. They raised their risk taking, assuming the ABS would then lower the real risks, leaving their “target level” of risk unchanged. The non-ABS drivers drove the same way, thinking that they had to be more careful, since ABS would not be there to help in case of a dangerous situation.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_homeostasis
September 15th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I had a friend who worked for a local news broadcast. She told me the official policy of that station was not to report car crashes unless there were two or more fatalities. If they adopted a similar policy regarding crime, for example, crime would be a smaller factor in individual calculations about safety probabilities. This train wreck will likely stick in people’s minds and cause them to overestimate the probability of future train wrecks. Lets just hope the story gets buried under a ton of crashing shadow market and campaign stories.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
catclub is right about auto fatality rate — 2007 rate was 1.37 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot11308.htm
September 15th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
catclub is right. According to the table Matt links to, we Americans travel about 3 trillion miles by car each year, and we have about 41,000 motor vehicle fatalities per year.
The astounding thing to me is that that number is as low as it is, both given the historical numbers, and the risks we experience in traffic every day. It’s a crazy system, and in our big cities, there’s just too damned many cars in too little space on the roads. Better public transit, and more dense development near transit stops to make more efficient use of that transit, is the way to go.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Yeah, the 1 per 415,000 miles statistic kinda scared the crap out of me. I mean, heck, that’s probably about the cumulative total of how far I’ve driven in my lifetime. It also works out to about one death per every three cars.
And then I just did the math; if one person dies per every 415,000 miles, and 37,248 out of 300 million Americans die every year, that means the average American drives 51 miles a year. I don’t think so.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
And whats more, even though bicycles, at about 1 fatality
per 5 million miles are twenty times as dangerous,
per mile than motor vehicles, 5 million miles still
works out to 70,000 miles a year for 70 years.
Motor vehicles are amazingly safe, trains are incredibly
safe, bicycles are very safe.
Heart disease and cancer are dangerous.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
low-tech cyclist points to one of the reasons traffic fatalities aren’t higher than they are: gridlock. Its pretty hard to get killed on your 20 mile commute if you spend most of it toodling along at 5-10 MPH. The sanctuary of inefficiency probably saves as many lives seat belts. I’m sure dense areas experience more crashes, but I wonder if anybody has ever empirically correlated the probability for fatal car crashes and the amount gridlock in a given area.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
From prior experience, the “I’m not in control” issue cited above is one of the major reasons some people insist on claiming that when THEY are driving they are safer than they would be in one of the alternative modes of transport, despite the statistics.
Of course, these people are deluding themselves. First, it is unlikely they are as radically more safe than other drivers as they are postulating. Second, of course most professional vehicle operators are actually much more experienced and better-trained than any private operator. Third, and most importantly, regardless of what a great driver you might be, that completely ignores the other half of the equation, namely all the other idiots on the road you can’t control.
But again, I think this is more a psychological issue than an actual argument–they FEEL safer when they are driving, and they are rationalizing in support of that feeling.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Yeah, I call bullshit on that 415,000 mile stat, too.
The average driver goes about 13,000 miles per year. So they’d hit 415,000 miles in 32 years. Which means, in essence, that everbody would be dead from a car accident.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
The considerable environmental benefits of shifting our transportation infrastructure so that a minority of people would drive radically less and most people would drive somewhat less are so large
No, they’re not. The environmental benefits from any remotely realistic shift in our transportation infrastructure would at best be small. There may be not be any net environmental benefit at all. The idea that public transportation is greener than car travel is largely a myth.
But in many ways the public health benefits are even more clear cut.
The accident costs of car travel are largely internalized through insurance. People are willing to accept a higher risk of injury or death in return for the speed, comfort and convenience of car travel. The risk is constantly declining through advances to road and vehicle safety. Future advances are likely to further reduce the risk dramatically. Volvo expects to have an injury-proof car by 2020.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
There is a lot of talk among those concerned about the planet about the Stern Report. I wonder if that analysis considered the side benefits to reducing CO2 emissions. Does it assume that cities will continue to favor driving the way they currently do or does it just measure the effects of an efficient Cap and Trade system on carbon. It strikes me if it doesn’t assume a broad range of policy changes at the local and national level, then it will vastly overestimate the costs of action.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
When I worked for Norfolk Southern, everyone in the cab was required to speak allowed the indication of each signal. Additionally, we had to broadcast our train number, signal location, and signal indication over the radio. I’m not sure if LA Metrolink has similar rules in place or not, but the NS procedure certainly made signals register in my head.
More thoughts at: http://lowtechtimes.com/2008/09/14/text-messaging-may-have-played-role-in-california-train-disaster/
September 15th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
That’s why its an average. You may never die of a car accident, but the 415,000 miles is made up for by the 18 year old kid that dies in a car accident.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Well, if you are going to look at in terms of “public health,” you have to do a full analysis of everything involved.
As noted (and often celebrated) effective transit requires (allows?) much denser living arrangements. Which has real public health consequences in terms of crime, fire and other things.
How do these shake out? Not sure. Maybe trains are still much safer. But I suspect a car driver in the exurbs of Toledo is safer, across the board, than a bus rider living in Compton.
Not that all bus riders live in ghettoes, or that all exurbs are leafy shangri las. Still, I think this is an important part of the analysis if you are going to talk in terms of public health. Because you can’t just get people “into trains.” Effectively, you have to get them out of their current homes first.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Au contraire DTW. Even if you are just an average driver you can lower your odds of being killed in an accident vastly by just not driving drunk, wearing a seat belt, not using a cell phone while driving, driving a safe car, etc. You have absolutely no control over most of those things on a train or bus, but you have total control over most of them if you are the driver.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
If you never leave your mom’s basement, you’re as safe as can be. Discounting Cheeto accidents.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Mixner says: The idea that public transportation is greener than car travel is largely a myth
There are good reasons to believe that public transportation would be greener. The basic assumption is that if you get into a two ton vehicle and drive around, it takes a lot of energy to move you. If on the other hand you carpool, ride mass transit, ride a bicycle etc. then the ratio of energy consumed to distance traveled has to be better. Using energy has significant environmental costs and huge economic externalities associated with it. Therefore if Mass Transit is used more than the ratio of environmental costs to moving around will be lower. If you want to refute this you better do better than just say ‘its a myth.’
September 15th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Matthew,
One person dies for about every 415,000 vehicle miles traveled.
As others have noted, this claim doesn’t even pass the laugh test. As reported by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. highway vehicle-miles in 2005 were a little less than 3 trillion. If one person died for every 415,000 vehicle-miles, the annual number of highway deaths would be almost 7 million. Even if we restrict the calculation to vehicle-miles by passenger cars and light trucks only (excluding buses, motorcycles and commercial trucks), the annual death toll under your claim would still be well over 6 million.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Yeah it was instantly apparent to me that 415K is wrong. It should have been obvious to you. Where’dja get that, Matt?
Reportorial innumeracy is rampant enough. Don’t exemplify and perpetuate it.
DTM’s link gives a much more reasonable number: .81 fatalities per 100 million passenger miles.
http://www.airlines.org/economics/specialtopics/Airline+Safety.htm
How many orders of magnitude is that?
September 15th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Some degree of car deaths are inevitable, but head-on train crashes simply should not happen. The technology is available to prevent that.
September 15th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
craig,
There are good reasons to believe that public transportation would be greener.
“Would be?” Not “is?” Under what circumstances “would” public transportation be greener?
The basic assumption is that if you get into a two ton vehicle and drive around, it takes a lot of energy to move you. If on the other hand you carpool, ride mass transit, ride a bicycle etc. then the ratio of energy consumed to distance traveled has to be better.
With respect to mass transit, your assumption is false. On average, mass transit uses about the same amount of energy per passenger-mile of transportation as cars and light trucks. One reason for this is that the average load factor of transit vehicles is low. Less than 20%. On average, 8 out of 10 seats on a transit vehicle are empty. They use a lot of energy to haul around empty seats.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
“universal death by car accident”
Speaking of which, is Death Race any good?
September 15th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
On the risk homeostasis assertion: If that’s correct, why are fatality rates lower now than they were before seatbelts, airbags, ABS, etc.? I think that argument (usually advanced by those who oppose regulation) is just *ahem* fatalism.
On people feeling safer if they themselves are driving: those who are the most confident are seldom the most competent.
On speaking allowed the indications of signals: curiously, spoken aloud, this would sound just like spoken allowed. Written, not so much.
On 80% of the seats being empty in a public transit vehicle — look around you at the cars and trucks on the highway sometime.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
On average, mass transit uses about the same amount of energy per passenger-mile of transportation as cars and light trucks. One reason for this is that the average load factor of transit vehicles is low. Less than 20%.
But, the average load factor of cars is only around 30%. Getting transit to that level doesn’t seem that hard, at least once you get to 15 people/acre.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
If the load factor on mass transit is low that is a policy failure. I don’t think anyone is arguing for a bunch of empty buses driving around. We think that if you priced CO2 correctly people will want to use Mass Transit more and that we should make sure that public investments are increased to satisfy this demand. We also want government to stop encouraging/forcing people to live so far from the places where they work and play.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Nicholas Beaudrot,
But, the average load factor of cars is only around 30%. Getting transit to that level doesn’t seem that hard, at least once you get to 15 people/acre.
Average vehicle occupancy for cars and light trucks is around 1.6, for an average load factor of around 35% (a typical passenger car seats 4 or 5, a large SUV may seat 7 or 8, but small cars and trucks often seat only 2). But you can’t infer differences in per-passenger-mile energy use between cars and transit from differences in load factor, anyway. They’re related, but not directly comparable. Transit vehicles tend to be heavy, non-aerodynamic, have high profiles to allow standing, and must devote a lot of floor area to aisles and open space to facilitate access.
If you think you have some realistic policy proposals for increasing the average load factor of transit to 30%, please describe them.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
ZYXW,
I’ll take one shot at explaining your logical error, although from long experience I don’t have much hope.
Let’s take just one of your factors, drunk driving. As I recall, around 35% of traffic fatalities involve an alcohol-impaired driver or nonoccupant. Now that is a pretty big number, but let’s think this through. First, just because you don’t drive drunk doesn’t mean you are stopping other people from driving drunk, so you could still be killed by someone else driving drunk. Moreover, not all of those accidents would necessarily be avoided if the relevant person were not alcohol-impaired. And most importantly, even if you reduced your risk of a driving fatality by the full 35%, you would still be WAY above the risk of buses, trains, and airplanes.
The upshot is that even if you do everything you can, at most you will reduce your risk of a fatal car accident somewhat below average. But the idea that you will reduce it to the same tiny fraction as the risk you face in buses, trains, and airplanes is delusional, and again the basic problem is that you can’t control many of the factors (e.g., other drivers) contributing to the risk of driving cars.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Mixner: ” The idea that public transportation is greener than car travel is largely a myth.”
Bullshit. Show your work.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Mixner: “Volvo expects to have an injury-proof car by 2020.”
Ah, the “my mythical future technology is more powerful than your mythical future technology” argument.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Craig,
If the load factor on mass transit is low that is a policy failure.
What policy changes do you propose to increase mass transit load factor?
I don’t think anyone is arguing for a bunch of empty buses driving around.
There’s a fundamental tradeoff between efficiency and utility. If transit vehicles ran only on busy commuter routes during rush hours on weekdays, they’d be much more efficient, because the load factor would be much higher. But in order to make transit even minimally viable as a general substitute for car travel, you need to provide fairly frequent service on lots of routes at all times of the day. And preferably at night and on weekends too. Hence the low average load factor.
We think that if you priced CO2 correctly people will want to use Mass Transit more and that we should make sure that public investments are increased to satisfy this demand.
“We?” Speak for yourself. A carbon tax might increase the cost of transit more than it increases the cost of driving. Most buses run on diesel, which is not a very clean fuel. Electric trains powered by electricity generated from nuclear or renewable sources would do better, but trains powered by coal-fired power stations would not.
We also want government to stop encouraging/forcing people to live so far from the places where they work and play.
Government isn’t forcing people to do that, and any “encouragement” is minor.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Mixner: “If you think you have some realistic policy proposals for increasing the average load factor of transit to 30%, please describe them.”
Easy, rip out 34 out of 100 seats and then the bus’s “magic load factor” will hit 30%.
I still can’t believe you’re confusing “magic load factor” for “efficiency.”
September 15th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Jer,
Bullshit. Show your work.
We’ve been over all this before. Here’s a good, comprehensive discussion of the issue.
Ah, the “my mythical future technology is more powerful than your mythical future technology” argument.
There nothing mythical about it.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Dodgy stats aside, the interesting thing to me is the dynamic of how the press covers such things.
Airline disasters, train crashes, US servicemen killed, College student knifed:
= Front page news
Fatal car crashes, bicycle accidents, Afghan civilians killed, young black man shot in Baltimore:
= Dog bites man.
The latter, though they cause far more casualties, just are too common to make the headlines.
http://theembarrassment.blogspot.com/2006/09/war-on-bicycle-accidents.html
September 15th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Mixner: “If transit vehicles ran only on busy commuter routes during rush hours on weekdays, they’d be much more efficient, because the load factor would be much higher.”
Or, they could run trains with fewer cars at the same frequency and then raise their “magic load factor”. In fact, they do just that.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Jer,
Easy, rip out 34 out of 100 seats and then the bus’s “magic load factor” will hit 30%.
Brilliant. Then the transit vehicle will be wasting fuel by hauling around empty floor space instead of empty seats, and passengers who use the vehicle at busy periods when the load factor is higher will be pissed off because more of them will have to stand.
I still can’t believe you’re confusing “magic load factor” for “efficiency.”
I’m not. I still can’t believe your reading comprehension is so bad.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Mixner: “We’ve been over all this before. Here’s a good, comprehensive discussion of the issue.”
Wow, from your link:
Do you even read the things you cite?
September 15th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Jer,
Or, they could run trains with fewer cars at the same frequency and then raise their “magic load factor”. In fact, they do just that.
So they “do just that,” yet the average load factor is still less than 20%.
September 15th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Mixner: “Brilliant. Then the transit vehicle will be wasting fuel by hauling around empty floor space instead of empty seats, and passengers who use the vehicle at busy periods when the load factor is higher will be pissed off because more of them will have to stand.”
Aha! So you admit that your “magic load factor” is a useless measure of overall efficiency!
September 15th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Jer,
Do you even read the things you cite?
Do you even think before you write anything? Yes, the incremental cost of one more passenger on a transit vehicle that is already running is less than the incremental cost of an additional car on the road. And your point is….?
September 15th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Just a casual reminder:
The energy-intensity of transit buses on a passenger mile basis improved significantly from 2000 to 2005. See here:
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_20.html
Note this was a period of increasing fuel prices, and that the energy-intensity of passenger cars also increased in this period–just not by nearly as much.
Incidentally, back when Mixner had only seen the 2000 version of this chart, he used to argue that transit buses were fundamentally LESS energy-efficient than passenger cars, and nothing could be done about it. Since we found the 2005 version, he has shifted to arguing transit buses are about the same as passenger cars, and nothing can be done about it (using pretty much the same arguments as before).
Personally, I doubt that Mixner-2005 is any more right than Mixner-2000. Rather, I think the reasonable expectation is that in response to fuel prices having increased much more since 2005, in future versions of this chart we will again seen energy-intensity improvements among both passenger cars and transit buses, but greater improvements among transit buses such that they fall even farther below passenger cars.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Jer,
Aha! So you admit that your “magic load factor” is a useless measure of overall efficiency!
Your demonstrate yet again your inability to understand even basic English. I wrote that low average load factor is “one reason” why the efficiency of transit is low. What part of this don’t you understand?
September 15th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Believe it or not, I actually like buses, trains, and planes, it’s just that statistics won’t save you if your train engineer ignores a signal and your train has a head on collision. More than 40% of vehicle accidents are single car. Also, there are many ways to protect yourself from other drivers. Don’t tailgate, drive the speed limit, constantly scan everything around you, use your mirrors constantly, have a quick reaction time, don’t let yourself get distracted, choose a safe route, drive at a safe time of day, etc. There are many factors under your control. Your life is in your own hands, not someone else’s. Also, as someone pointed out, in order to be able to commute by train you probably have to live in or near a large city, which is more likely to kill you via crime, pollution, or stress. We tend to worry about the wrong things anyway.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
DTM,
Since we found the 2005 version, he has shifted to arguing transit buses are about the same as passenger cars
No, the latest data indicates that transit buses are significantly less energy-efficient per passenger-mile than cars. Even light trucks are more efficient than buses.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
By the way, Mixner wrote above:
“On average, mass transit uses about the same amount of energy per passenger-mile of transportation as cars and light trucks.”
This is actually false. As noted, as of 2005, transit buses and passenger CARS were about the same. However, Amtrak uses less energy than passenger cars, and light trucks are significantly higher than passenger cars–a nontrivial fact since light trucks contribute something around 40% of the total private passenger vehicle miles.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Oh, and the other thing Mixner did when confronted with the 2005 version of the 2000 chart he used to cite was start citing instead a chart of cherry-picked data from Cato.
And that is my last word on Mixner in this thread–he really isn’t worth the time.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
No, the latest data indicates that transit buses are significantly less energy-efficient per passenger-mile than cars. Even light trucks are more efficient than buses.
2006 Data. As in data compiled and presented in 2006. Thus, old data. Its worth noting that buses were not designed to be energy efficient. When oil was $15/ barrel it didn’t matter very much. Most bus systems still employ old, inefficient buses. So even with a significant ridership bump factored into this older data, there might still be a greater disparity in per passenger mile models favorable to cars and light trucks because people are buying more and more efficient models. Hence the call for investment into cleaner, more efficient buses. As the study you offer repeats again and again, the data it is using is based on averages and and “there is a great deal of variability even within a mode.”
September 15th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
ZYXW has a good point. I get more nervous before a flight or a roller coaster ride vs driving to the store. I feel more unease as a passenger on a motorcycle than when at the controls.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Mixner: “Your demonstrate yet again your inability to understand even basic English. I wrote that low average load factor is “one reason” why the efficiency of transit is low. What part of this don’t you understand?”
Bullshit. Coming from someone who so vehemently railed against the practice of using figures with different units to compare traffic and transit rates, it’s especially egregious bullshit.
You cannot substitute “magic load factor” for “efficiency” in any reasonable sense of the word, unless you’re attempting to measure the efficiency of seat manufacturing.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
DTM,
2006 Data. As in data compiled and presented in 2006. Thus, old data.
Is 2006 more recent than 2005, or less recent, DTM? Even you should be able to figure that out.
From the Department of Energy’s Transportation Energy Data Book, 2008 Edition:
Table 2.12, Passenger Travel and Energy Use, 2006
BTUs per passenger-mile:
Cars: 3,512
Personal Trucks: 3,944
Transit Buses: 4,235
Is 4,235 BTUs more BTUs than 3,512 BTUs, or less, DTM?
Most bus systems still employ old, inefficient buses.
Then most cars are still “old, inefficient” cars. New auto technology will greatly improve the fuel efficiency of cars. Smaller, more fuel-efficient conventional cars, and also hybrid cars, are already flying off dealer lots in response to the recent increase in gas prices. At best, buses will be able to achieve comparable increases in fuel efficiency through the same technology. More likely, cars will become increasingly more fuel-efficient than buses.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
The fatalities were 41,059; as you originally state, 37,248 was the number of fatal crashes.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
DTM,
However, Amtrak uses less energy than passenger cars
On average, Amtrak uses less operational energy per passenger-mile than passenger cars. That obviously doesn’t mean it uses less total energy per passenger-mile, when the energy costs of building vehicles and infrastructure are included. And Amtrak is too expensive, slow, inconvenient and uncomfortable to substitute for more than a small fraction of even intercity car travel, anyway.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Mixner: “Yes, the incremental cost of one more passenger on a transit vehicle that is already running is less than the incremental cost of an additional car on the road.”
Two points actually:
Each trip by car replaced by one by transit completely removes the carbon and energy footprint of that automobile trip, and additionally adds little to no carbon and energy footprint and return.
Subsequently, increasing the overall efficiency of the transit system simply requires increasing ridership slightly, without relying on promises of “magic future technology.”
Oh, and three:
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that your “magic load factor” numbers for public transit are correct, at 20%, that leaves much more room for improvement than does, say, carpooling. Especially considering that, during peak hours, public transit can reach “magic load factors” of over 100%, while the same for automobiles will always be impossible.
Therefore, one completely reasonable and effective way to both internalize the cost of energy and its negative effects on the environment, while at the same time increasing the overall efficiency of the public transit system as a whole, would be to institute a reasonable tax on carbon.
September 15th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Mixner: “On average, Amtrak uses less operational energy per passenger-mile than passenger cars. That obviously doesn’t mean it uses less total energy per passenger-mile, when the energy costs of building vehicles and infrastructure are included.”
Besides the point. Your automobile data doesn’t include the energy costs of building vehicles and automotive infrastructure either.
“And Amtrak is too expensive, slow, inconvenient and uncomfortable to substitute for more than a small fraction of even intercity car travel, anyway.”
Non sequitur. We’re talking about efficiency.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Mixner: “At best, buses will be able to achieve comparable increases in fuel efficiency through the same technology.”
Actually, at best, busses will achieve the same engine efficiency gains as cars, and top it with a higher passenger / gross weight ratio, thereby resulting in busses which are tens of times more efficient than cars could ever be.
“More likely, cars will become increasingly more fuel-efficient than buses.”
Pure hypothetical, atop a misguided conjecture.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Evidently getting people to stop driving their cars in Beijing and take the train during the Olympics to cut down on pollution was just the Chinese being misguided. By the way, where does all that smog in LA, Denver and Beijing come from? And how come similar size European cities don’t have as much smog that have good mass transportation?
September 15th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Is 4,235 BTUs more BTUs than 3,512 BTUs, or less, DTM?
DTM and I are not the same person. I suspect we live in cities with a strong football rivalry that share an interconnected interest in regional development. He has a son and lives in a streetcar suburb. I live in a city and had a vasectomy.
Anyways.
Table 2.12 takes data from all over the place, mostly, for cars, from DOT, FHWA, Highway Statistics, 2006. The DOT, FHWA, Highway Statistics, 2006, derives much of its data from a 2002 survey of vehicle types that I can’t find on the Internet right now. Bus data, on the other hand, comes from a 2007 report that uses data from 2000. Including ridership figures.
You are correct in making the assertion that old cars will slowly give way to more efficient models, but you assumption about buses only being able to keep pace is way off the mark.
At best, buses will be able to achieve comparable increases in fuel efficiency through the same technology.
Did you grab that with your teeth while you were pulling your head out? ‘Cause that’s where it came from. Transit systems and transit vehicles have only started looking at fuel efficiency in the last few years. There is a lot of room there for dramatic improvements.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Jer,
Each trip by car replaced by one by transit completely removes the carbon and energy footprint of that automobile trip, and additionally adds little to no carbon and energy footprint and return.
Since the per-passenger mile carbon and energy footprints of car trips and transit trips are approximately equal, the environmental impact of substituting transit trips for car trips is small and may be negative.
Subsequently, increasing the overall efficiency of the transit system simply requires increasing ridership slightly,
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Efficiency is not determined by ridership. Simply increasing the total number of riders would not necessarily increase the efficiency of transportation per rider, and may decrease it.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that your “magic load factor” numbers for public transit are correct, at 20%, that leaves much more room for improvement than does, say, carpooling.
Brilliant. Yes, a lower-load-factor transportation mode has more “room for improvement” in load factor, mathematically at least, than a higher-load-factor one. That obviously doesn’t mean the load factor actually will improve, or even that it is remotely plausible that it will improve.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Just one last time for anyone new to this discussion (and I am only doing this since we moved hosts):
Mixner at one point cited the 2000 version of the chart I linked himself, making a big deal out of the numbers in the 2000 version. But when we found the 2005 version of the very same chart showing greatly improved energy intensity for passenger buses, he hunted around for a different data source.
I think that says pretty much all you need to know about Mixner’s intellectual dishonesty.
By the way, not that it matters, but his cherry-picked new source actually isn’t more recent, and is methodologically suspect. You have to go through a series of references in the Appendices to find this out, but for transit buses they actually had no fuel use numbers for 2006, so just assumed they equalled the 2005 numbers, which themselves were labeled “preliminary” and exactly matched the 2004 fuel use numbers (see Table A.3). So much for more recent data.
But again, none of this really matters–we already know that Mixner will cite one source when he thinks it says what he wants, then drop it when it is updated and refutes his out-of-sample predictions. That shows you how much his opinions and research are worth.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
“Do you even think before you write anything? Yes, the incremental cost of one more passenger on a transit vehicle that is already running is less than the incremental cost of an additional car on the road. And your point is….?”
That for any individual, taking mass transit instead of driving is good for the environment, and therefore policies that incentivize individuals to take mass transit are good for the environment, contrary to everything you write on this subject, you fucking idiot.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Mixner: “Wrong, wrong, wrong. Efficiency is not determined by ridership. Simply increasing the total number of riders would not necessarily increase the efficiency of transportation per rider, and may decrease it.”
Your “good, comprehensive discussion of the issue” says the opposite. Who am I to believe? You, who are pulling assertions out of thin air, or that page you sited, which includes such nice “facts” and “graphs”?
“Brilliant. Yes, a lower-load-factor transportation mode has more “room for improvement” in load factor, mathematically at least, than a higher-load-factor one. That obviously doesn’t mean the load factor actually will improve, or even that it is remotely plausible that it will improve.”
Ah, now we’ve moved on to “proof by incredulity”. Well, that’s your prerogative, I guess. I don’t expect that it’s very convincing, though.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
ghost,
Table 2.12 takes data from all over the place, mostly, for cars, from DOT, FHWA, Highway Statistics, 2006. The DOT, FHWA, Highway Statistics, 2006, derives much of its data from a 2002 survey of vehicle types that I can’t find on the Internet right now. Bus data, on the other hand, comes from a 2007 report that uses data from 2000. Including ridership figures.
All energy comparisons use data from a variety of sources. If you think you have better data than the most recent (2008) edition of the DOE Transportation Energy Data Book, then present it, and explain why you think it’s better.
If you think there just isn’t good enough data at all to make a meaningful comparison between different transportation modes, then there’s no basis for the assertion that transit is greener than cars.
Transit systems and transit vehicles have only started looking at fuel efficiency in the last few years. There is a lot of room there for dramatic improvements.
Huh? Do please describe the ways in which you think the fuel efficiency of transit could plausibly be improved dramatically, or even just at the same rate as auto fuel efficiency. I see no game-changing new technologies on the horizon to dramatically improve the efficiency of rail transit. Buses may benefit from some or all of the new auto technologies, but at best the improvement will simply match that of cars, so buses will be no better off compared to cars than they are today.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Oh, I forgot about this piece of hilarity:
Mixner: “Since the per-passenger mile carbon and energy footprints of car trips and transit trips are approximately equal, the environmental impact of substituting transit trips for car trips is small and may be negative.”
Actually, no. Quite the opposite. For every passenger who replaces a transit trip with an automotive one, he adds one trip’s worth of carbon and energy usage without removing the cost of the transit trip. After all, the bus is still running its scheduled route, right?
So therefore, the environmental impact of substituting transit trips for car trips is large and hugely positive. (In the direction of worse environmental impact, of course.)
September 15th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
“Katherine”,
That for any individual, taking mass transit instead of driving is good for the environment, and therefore policies that incentivize individuals to take mass transit are good for the environment, contrary to everything you write on this subject, you fucking idiot.
You clearly have no understanding of the difference between a marginal impact and a systemic impact, you fucking moron.
One individual switching from a car to a train that is already running would have a negligible impact on train emissions and energy use. Ten million people switching from cars to trains would have a huge impact on train emissions and energy use, because it would require more trains and/or more routes.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
DTM,
By the way, not that it matters, but his cherry-picked new source actually isn’t more recent, and is methodologically suspect. You have to go through a series of references in the Appendices to find this out, but for transit buses they actually had no fuel use numbers for 2006, so just assumed they equalled the 2005 numbers, which themselves were labeled “preliminary” and exactly matched the 2004 fuel use numbers (see Table A.3). So much for more recent data.
If you think you have better data than the most recent (2008) edition of the DOE Transportation Energy Data Book, then present it, and explain why you think it’s better. Make sure you read all those appendices.
If you think there just isn’t good enough data at all to make a meaningful comparison between different transportation modes, then there’s no basis for the assertion that transit is greener than cars.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Gillian: Ten million people switching from cars to trains would have a huge impact on train emissions and energy use, because it would require more trains and/or more routes.
First of all, I love the scare quotes around “Katherine”; that is the mark of a rapier wit.
Ten million people switching to a 20% “magic load factor” system would easily be served by a larger, 40% “magic load factor” system which would get twice the passenger-per-mile energy efficiency.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Mixner, DTM, jer thread argument:
Quick way to end your argumemt. Check out the fares for air, rail, & bus travel as opposed to gas cost to drive. My most recent trip of about 1600 miles round trip by Greyhound cost me $118, total. Estimated cost for gas would have been about $200 at the time. Since Greyhound fares are not subsidized, sounds like overwhelming real world proof of which mode is more energy efficient, or greener.
However, I will be the first to admit that the entire trip sucked, big time.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Jer,
Your “good, comprehensive discussion of the issue” says the opposite.
No it doesn’t.
Ah, now we’ve moved on to “proof by incredulity”.
Your capacity is making false claims is matched only by your capacity for nonsequitur. If you think you have evidence that a “dramatic improvement” in the efficiency of transit is plausible, then produce it.
For every passenger who replaces a transit trip with an automotive one, he adds one trip’s worth of carbon and energy usage without removing the cost of the transit trip.
Nonsense. He adds the costs for the auto trip and removes the costs for the transit trip. Like “Katherine,” you don’t seem to understand the difference between marginal effects and systemic effects.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
@bob in fla
Not that I disagree, but the Greyhound trip cost internalizes other costs, like insurance and maintenance. The AAA says maintenance alone costs 4.57c per mile for an additional $73.12 in costs for your trip. Add that to your gas costs, and you’re up to double before even accounting for insurance.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Jer,
Ten million people switching to a 20% “magic load factor” system would easily be served by a larger, 40% “magic load factor” system which would get twice the passenger-per-mile energy efficiency.
You’re just hopelessly confused, as always. Do please show us how you have determined that ten million people constitutes 20% of current transit capacity. Then show us how you have determined that the increased transit demand from the ten million switchers would be conveniently distributed such that it would be completely satisfied through higher occupancy of existing transit vehicles, rather than requiring additional vehicles.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Mixner,
The simple fact is that YOU originally favored the exact same source I cited above–the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
But when we found an updated chart from YOUR original source that didn’t say what you had predicted, you went hunting for a new data source.
So I’m not going to discuss this with you further, because there is no point having a conversation with someone as intellectually dishonest as you.
September 15th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Mixner: “Your capacity is making false claims is matched only by your capacity for nonsequitur. If you think you have evidence that a “dramatic improvement” in the efficiency of transit is plausible, then produce it.”
Ahh, the “prove it” dodge. Actually, you’re the one stating that a “dramatic improvement” is implausible, and I’m calling you on it. The burden of proof is on you. Nice try though.
“Nonsense. He adds the costs for the auto trip and removes the costs for the transit trip. Like “Katherine,” you don’t seem to understand the difference between marginal effects and systemic effects.”
More scare quotes! Truly you are a man without peer, so ably do you skewer your opponents!
As you so aptly pointed out, the transit system must run on schedule whether or not it is being used. Hence the 20% average “magic load factor” which you claim is evidence of transit’s inferiority. If a passenger switches from transit to an automobile, the transit trip takes place without them. The reverse is not true.
On a larger, systemic, scale, it looks even worse for your argument. The only thing keeping transit from far outclassing automobiles in terms of energy efficiency is ridership. (20% vs. 35% “magic load factor”, remember that?) It’s not as if adding riders to the transit system is going to magically empty rather than fill seats.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Here is the thing if a group of people want to go from point A to point B at the same time it is much more efficient for them to be in the same vehicle than for them to be is separate vehicles. Unfortunately this hypothetical situation doesn’t ever exist. Some people want to go sooner than other people and people are going to different locations. That said there are circumstances in which mass transit makes sense. If fuel costs are increased then obviously the situations in which mass transit makes sense will be more common. This is what is interesting to me because it means if we estimate the costs of a Cap and Trade system assuming that transportation policy won’t change then we are making a mistake.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Mixner: “You’re just hopelessly confused, as always. Do please show us how you have determined that ten million people constitutes 20% of current transit capacity.”
You misunderstand me. Ten million people switching to transit is not 20% of current transit capacity, but rather those ten million people would be switching to a system where, on average, 80% of the seats go unfilled. (Your 20% magic load factor.) The transit system self-evidently has the capacity to absorb a great number of new passengers by your very favorite magic metric.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
recent OECD analysis of high speed rail investment, fyi
http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/DiscussionPapers/DP200816.pdf
September 15th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Check out the fares for air, rail, & bus travel as opposed to gas cost to drive. My most recent trip of about 1600 miles round trip by Greyhound cost me $118, total. Estimated cost for gas would have been about $200 at the time. Since Greyhound fares are not subsidized, sounds like overwhelming real world proof of which mode is more energy efficient, or greener.
To the contrary, it’s meaningless. You can’t derive per passenger-mile energy use and emissions for each mode from those costs.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Mixner: “…rather than requiring additional vehicles.”
I missed this the first time around. Of course adding 10 million new passengers would result in requiring new vehicles. But only after the “magic load factor” rises. Ignoring that the new vehicles would be, well, new vehicles and thus more efficient than the average fleet vehicle, by the very virtue of increasing their “magic load factor”, the per-passenger-mile energy use would mathematically decrease.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
DTM,
The simple fact is that YOU originally favored the exact same source I cited above–the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
The simple fact is that you are ignoring a more recent and primary source than the BTS table to which you are slavishly devoted, because that new source contradicts what you want to believe is true. You simply ignore any evidence that contradicts your predetermined belief. You are completely dishonest.
Again, if you think you have better data than the most recent (2008) edition of the DOE Transportation Energy Data Book, then present it, and explain why you think it’s better.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Mixner: “To the contrary, it’s meaningless.”
To the contrary, it’s a useful approximation.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Jer,
Actually, you’re the one stating that a “dramatic improvement” is implausible, and I’m calling you on it. The burden of proof is on you.
Sorry, you’re the one who suggested that a “dramatic” improvement in the energy efficiency of transit is plausible. Unless you can produce evidence to support that assertion, it’s just wishful thinking on your part.
As you so aptly pointed out, the transit system must run on schedule whether or not it is being used.
I said no such thing.
Hence the 20% average “magic load factor” which you claim is evidence of transit’s inferiority. If a passenger switches from transit to an automobile, the transit trip takes place without them. The reverse is not true.
More nonsense. Your posts are just an endless series of false claims and nonsequiturs. I’m not sure whether by “transit trip” you mean “transit vehicle trip” or “passenger trip by transit,” but your claim is false either way. Are you seriously under the impression that all cars can only hold one person?
On a larger, systemic, scale, it looks even worse for your argument. The only thing keeping transit from far outclassing automobiles in terms of energy efficiency is ridership.
Yet another falsehood. There are several reasons why transit is less energy efficient than automobiles, but “ridership” isn’t one of them. The efficiency of transit could remain the same, or even decline, under increased “ridership.” More riders does not mean more passengers per vehicle.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Further, from Greyhound.com:
September 15th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
I think the Greyhound example raises another question. Why don’t we all ride the Greyhound rather than drive from city to city? My guess is that we think we will need a car when we get to where we are going and that being in a car allows us to not be near people we don’t know. The second reason is legit, but the first is problematic. If we could make our transit system work better for people without cars then on the margin more people would take the Greyhound. This would save money and save energy. Moreover if we increase fuel costs then more people will take the Greyhound which would increase the number of people who were on vacation in another city without their own vehicle. Just one more reason that a Cap and Trade system on CO2 will require a change in transportation policy.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Mixner: “Sorry, you’re the one who suggested that a “dramatic” improvement in the energy efficiency of transit is plausible. Unless you can produce evidence to support that assertion, it’s just wishful thinking on your part.”
Actually, you said the “best case scenario” was one thing, and I said it was different. Temporally, the burden is on you. Logically, the burden is on you. And once again, you are being intellectually dishonest.
“I said no such thing.”
You, today:
“The efficiency of transit could remain the same, or even decline, under increased “ridership.”
No, you’re wrong. From your own cited source, adding a rider to an existing line adds no appreciable carbon or energy costs. Adding a rider without adding energy costs increases the passenger-mile-per-energy.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Jer,
Ten million people switching to transit is not 20% of current transit capacity, but rather those ten million people would be switching to a system where, on average, 80% of the seats go unfilled.
Now you’re contradicting yourself. You wrote: “Ten million people switching to a 20% “magic load factor” system would easily be served by a larger, 40% “magic load factor” system.” The only way it would become a “40% load factor system” is if the addditional ten million people constituted 20% of capacity. Like I said, you’re just hopelessly confused.
Still waiting for you substantiate this claim, and also your claim that an increase in demand of ten million passengers could be accommodated without any increase in the number of transit vehicles. Apparently, you think you somehow know–magically–that none of those ten million new passengers would need to travel on busy routes at rush hour where transit vehicles are already full and have no spare capacity.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Mixner: “The only way it would become a “40% load factor system” is if the addditional ten million people constituted 20% of capacity.”
I picked an arbitrary larger number.
“Apparently, you think you somehow know–magically–that none of those ten million new passengers would need to travel on busy routes at rush hour where transit vehicles are already full and have no spare capacity.”
You seem to assume that the transit system in question would respond to additional rush hour traffic by adding more vehicles at 10pm on Sunday.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Jer,
You, today:
Yes. I made a completely different statement than you one you just claimed I made. Thanks for clearing that up.
No, you’re wrong. From your own cited source, adding a rider to an existing line adds no appreciable carbon or energy costs. Adding a rider without adding energy costs increases the passenger-mile-per-energy.
You’re still utterly confused. “Increased ridership” does not mean “Adding just one more rider to an existing line.” If an increase in ridership causes average load factor to fall, efficiency will decline.
Of course adding 10 million new passengers would result in requiring new vehicles. But only after the “magic load factor” rises.
Yet again, you are utterly, completely wrong. The effect of 10 million new passengers on the average load factor of the transit system would depend crucially on the distribution of the new demand. If it consisted disproportionately of commuters seeking to travel at rush hour times when transit vehicles are already likely to be close to capacity, it would probably reduce the average load factor, and therefore reduce average energy efficiency.
I think I’m about done with you. You’re really just too stupid and ignorant to bother with.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Mixner, I’m completely confident that any reasonable reader of these comments will have made up their mind about the subject by now, and I’m entirely happy with what I believe their conclusions will be.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
If you think there just isn’t good enough data at all to make a meaningful comparison between different transportation modes, then there’s no basis for the assertion that transit is greener than cars.
I don’t think the data exists yet. The dynamics of the current situation are too… dynamic. There are several key factors missing. For only once instance: Ridership is up due to high gas prices but nobody really has concatenated figures yet to compare to establish a reliable per passenger mile BTU variable. Using data from 2002 is not helpful. Might as well grab figures from 1953 for all the good it does here.
To the contrary, it’s meaningless. You can’t derive per passenger-mile energy use and emissions for each mode from those costs.
For once, I agree with you. Greyhound buys futures and I haven’t the foggiest idea what they are paying for gas. Intercity buses tend to operate more efficiently than other modes by nature, but ticket-cost analysis isn’t very enlightening here. If Greyhound paid market prices it would be. bob in fla’s next trip would probably garner him some more useful data.
I see no game-changing new technologies on the horizon to dramatically improve the efficiency of rail transit. Buses may benefit from some or all of the new auto technologies, but at best the improvement will simply match that of cars, so buses will be no better off compared to cars than they are today.
Game changing technologies are one way of planning for the future, I suppose. Maybe somebody will invent a way to turn blog poster outrage into energy. We could hook you up to a generator, suggest you might have to spend 15 minutes sitting next to a scary stranger on the bus, and power New York for a decade.
Technological progress is driven by discovery and demand. Light Rail hasn’t had to become more efficient, so it hasn’t. Demand for that will induce research.
And technology is only part of the puzzle here. Transit systems can improve. In 2006 Allegheny county in Pennsylvania, a pretty transit heavy area, introduced dramatic measures to improve the efficiency of the system. It worked. Next year an even more dramatic system will be rolled out to manage existing technologies more efficiently.
September 15th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
There is one point that Mixner is making that I agree with. The transit system is not nor can it be a general substitute for vehicles. Sometimes it will make sense to drive. But what I am saying is that if we put that utopia aside there is still a place for mass transit. We could have a transit system that provides more service during peak hours and less during non peak hours. Its true that you will inevitably have some buses with not enough passengers on them. There may be good reasons to do this, such as to help low income people get to work, but protecting the environment is not one of them.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Re: Does that 350Z look not-at-all-fatal to anyone else?
I agree with you. In fact you can even tell that the front seat occupant(s) were firmly beted in because the windshield shows no sign of head impacts.
Re: low-tech cyclist points to one of the reasons traffic fatalities aren’t higher than they are: gridlock.
We’ve also made both cars and roadways much safer than they were a generation ago. Seat belt use is way up. And we’re less tolerant of drunk driving.
Driving safety has been steadily improving, and the fatality rate, often even in absolute numbers not just fatalies per mile driven, has gone steadily down.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
ghost,
I don’t think the data exists yet.
Then, as I said, there’s no serious case for more transit and less driving on environmental grounds. At least, not with respect to energy consumption and carbon emissions.
Technological progress is driven by discovery and demand. Light Rail hasn’t had to become more efficient, so it hasn’t. Demand for that will induce research.
What demand? There’s obviously much greater demand for more energy-efficient cars than for more energy-efficient rail, so cars are where the vast majority of the research money and efforts will be directed. Hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and all-electric technologies will likely dramatically improve the energy efficiency of cars in coming years. Increased automation will likely improve it even more. What technologies do you see on the horizon for achieving comparable improvements in the energy efficiency of light rail?
And technology is only part of the puzzle here. Transit systems can improve. In 2006 Allegheny county in Pennsylvania, a pretty transit heavy area, introduced dramatic measures to improve the efficiency of the system. It worked. Next year an even more dramatic system will be rolled out to manage existing technologies more efficiently.
Really? What, exactly, were those measures, and how much did they improve efficiency? Your link takes me to a page that describes a “plan” for improving a bus service, but I don’t see anything about energy efficiency or pollution.
I think it’s plausible that there will be a modest improvement in transit efficiency, as long as load factors can be maintained, through better scheduling and management of vehicles and routes. And maybe for transit buses to reap some or all of the efficiency improvements of new auto technologies. But there’s nothing on the horizon for rail transit to match the efficiency gains for cars from new automobile engine, fuel and automation technologies. If you think otherwise, I’d like to see your evidence.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Craig,
But what I am saying is that if we put that utopia aside there is still a place for mass transit.
I agree that there’s a place for it (in the near-term future, at least). But I don’t think there’s a remotely persuasive case for a large-scale expansion of mass transit from its current levels. And even if there were such a case I don’t think large-scale expansion is remotely plausible as a matter of political reality. Just small-scale expansions in particular areas in response to population growth and new development.
We could have a transit system that provides more service during peak hours and less during non peak hours. Its true that you will inevitably have some buses with not enough passengers on them. There may be good reasons to do this, such as to help low income people get to work, but protecting the environment is not one of them.
The more you limit transit service during off-peak hours and on marginal routes, the less viable it is as a general alternative to driving, and the fewer people are likely to use it. A person who is willing to use transit for most of his travelling as long as he can count on it being available and reasonably frequent during off-peak daytime hours and at night and on weekends may simply give up on it and drive instead if service is too limited. But providing frequent transit service on lots of routes and at all times of day is expensive and reduces efficiency.
By mid-century, I think it’s quite likely that most existing large-vehicle, fixed-route, fixed-schedule transit services will have disappeared and been replaced by some form of automated taxi or car-sharing system using high-efficiency, ultraclean electric vehicles. Brad Templeton has a good discussion of that idea here.
September 15th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Mixner says:
The more you limit transit service during off-peak hours and on marginal routes, the less viable it is as a general alternative to driving, and the fewer people are likely to use it.
I agree. However there are many people who drive under certain circumstances and ride transit under other circumstances. Its true that a large part of the transportation costs of driving is just owning the vehicle in the first place, therefore if you have to own a vehicle you will drive more. Still there is a basic undeniable reality that as fuel costs increase and CO2 is priced in more people will want to use transit, bike, or carpool. I could be wrong about that but we haven’t priced CO2 into our activities yet.
I would also like to point out that by mid-century we will all be plugged directly into the internet so physically moving will be obsolete.
September 15th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Still there is a basic undeniable reality that as fuel costs increase and CO2 is priced in more people will want to use transit, bike, or carpool.
The effect on actual behavior would depend on the magnitude of the change in cost and who pays it. The data indicates that transit overall is at best only modestly cleaner than driving. If the cost of carbon emissions were passed on to consumers I wouldn’t expect it to induce much, if any, mode-switching between driving and transit. It might have a significant effect on rates of carpooling and telecommuting. I doubt it would have much effect on rates of bike riding.
The biggest effect of a carbon tax on transportation would probably be to accelerate the transition to cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles for all modes of motorized transportation, most especially automobiles, rather than to induce mode switching.
September 15th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Craig,
That is where carsharing potentially comes into the equation. Basically, by distributing the cost of ownership more efficiently, carsharing can allow people to use cars only when they really are the most efficient mode of transport, thereby allowing carsharers to recoup more of the benefits of public transit being available for those trips where it is the most efficient solution. So, for example, you might use public transit for commuting, but carsharing for shopping and entertainment.
And this is a case where technology really is making a huge difference, specifically wireless technology, which makes it possible for carsharing services to disperse their vehicles to convenient locations. Additionally, because of the way in which the economics of carsharing works, the services can also be early adopters of technologies which improve operating efficiency at the expense of relatively high vehicle costs (e.g., carsharing services have already been early adopters of hybrid vehicles).
September 15th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Carsharing allows people who don’t have their own cars easier and cheaper access to the benefits of car travel, period. The cheaper and easier carsharing becomes, the more it is likely to displace transit. It’s not a matter of “efficiency” but of the overall attractiveness of each alternative, taking into consideration speed, convenience, comfort, cost, flexibility, carrying capacity and so on. For people who don’t own cars, carsharing moves that calculation in favor of car travel. It provides a cheaper and/or more convenient alternative to taxis and conventional rental cars. The big disadvantages of carsharing at the moment are the need to reserve the car ahead of time and to travel to and from the pickup/dropoff location. It’s also still quite expensive. But it will probably become cheaper and more convenient in the future.
January 15th, 2009 at 1:12 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
February 8th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
laptop battery
March 11th, 2009 at 4:40 am
Incredible site!
March 12th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:22 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:15 am
tramadol
I want to say – thank you for this!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:20 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:10 am
thanks !! very helpful post! viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Vigorous writing is concise.
united healthcare of florida
April 16th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Hello everyone. When we lose one we love, our bitterest tears are called forth by the memory of hours when we loved not enough.
I am from Austria and learning to read in English, give true I wrote the following sentence: “Cheap airline tickets,discount airfares,cheap flights search for the lowest fares online.”
Thanks for the help :p, Desiree.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
So what about Noam Chomsky and his assertions in this sound byte? Chomsky suggests in his video, amonth other things, that there has never been any medical evidence for criminalizing marijuana.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:12 am
Idk whether to laugh or cry…
April 20th, 2009 at 2:39 am
Idk whether to laugh or cry…