The Department of Energy has just published the 28th edition of the Transportation Energy Data Book, including data for 2007. Since this was the source of some of the Antiplanner’s data used to compare energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of cars vs. rail transit, it is worth taking a look to see what has changed.
Two of the most important pages contain tables 2.13 and 2.14, physical pages 64 and 65. These list the energy consumption per passenger mile of various forms of transportation between 1970 and 2007.
The tables indicate that, between 2006 and 2007, energy consumption per passenger mile of cars increased by 0.1 percent. For light trucks, it decreased by 0.9 percent, but for transit buses it increased by 1.3 percent. Airlines reduced energy consumption per passenger mile by 3.0 percent; Amtrak by 5.1 percent; and light/heavy rail transit by 4.8 percent. However, commuter rail energy consumption per passenger mile increased by 4.4 percent.
We have good data on the number of passenger miles and number of vehicle miles for Amtrak and various forms of transit, so we know that Amtrak and light/heavy rail became more energy efficient by increasing the percentage of seats they filled. This increase, in turn, resulted from high gas prices that led a small number of people to start taking public transportation.
We don’t have good data on occupancy rates for automobiles — the authors of the data base assume they have been fixed at 1.57 people per car and 1.72 people per light truck since 2001, when the last National Household Transportation Survey was done. In reality, it is more than likely that families responded to high gas prices by increasing auto occupancies. If car occupancies increased from 1.57 to just 1.60, then cars became 1.8% more energy efficient, not 0.1 percent less.
While the Energy Data Book combines light and heavy rail, the National Transit Database (which is the ultimate source of the transit data in the Energy book) indicates that heavy rail became 6.1 percent more energy efficient, while light rail became 5.2 percent less energy efficient in 2007. It isn’t clear from the data why commuter and light rail lost energy efficiency in 2007, except that some major systems, such as New Jersey Transit and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, reported larger increases in electricity consumption than ridership.
Normal costs for drugs at Canadian pharmacies vary, but for the most part all offer much lower seanamic.com viagra no prescription prices than American companies. Opt for order cialis seanamic.com best doctors for joint replacement in Navi Mumbai. It s a kind of sexual concern found hitting mostly an old free samples viagra age people. It’s indeed the time to be amazed and live fully. cheap levitra
Why did light and commuter rail decline? The National Transit Data Base only reports energy data for transit lines that are directly operated by transit agencies, and most of the new commuter rail lines are contracted out to companies such as Veolia. So we only have commuter rail data for New York City, New Jersey Transit, Boston, Philadelphia, and Chicago.
The numbers show that New Jersey Transit increased its energy consumption by 70 percent in 2007, partly because it took over some commuter lines that it had previously contracted out. Passenger miles grew by only 8 percent, so New Jersey Transit’s energy efficiencies declined by 58 percent. This change swamped all of the other changes in commuter rail energy efficiencies.
In the case of light rail, no single culprit is responsible for declining energy efficiencies. The nation’s two largest light-rail carriers, Boston and Los Angeles, both reported declines in light-rail ridership. Minneapolis reported a huge increase in energy consumption with a negligible increase in ridership. Energy efficiencies also declined significantly in Baltimore, Cleveland, New Jersey, and San Francisco light-rail systems.
I am not sure why the energy book says transit buses lost energy efficiency in 2007, as the transit data base says bus energy efficiencies grew by 2.9 percent. Trolley bus energy efficiencies declined slightly, but they are such a small share of the total that they shouldn’t make a different. Paratransit bus energy efficiencies also declined, but they aren’t included in the Energy Data Book.
For the first time, the 28th edition of the Energy Data Book has charts showing the 2007 energy efficiencies of individual light-, heavy-, and commuter-rail lines (see physical pages 66 and 67). These are similar to charts on pages 10 and 11 of my analysis of rail energy efficiencies. The Energy Data Book charts, however, are misleading in one important way: they include a bar showing the average for “all light rail (or heavy rail or commuter rail) systems.” But this is the simple average of the various systems, not an average weighted by the actual ridership on each system.
The Energy Data Book reports that the average for light rail, for example, is 7,605 BTUs per passenger mile. In fact, the average BTUs per passenger mile of all light-rail lines in 2007 was only 3,642. Unlike the Federal Transit Administration, the Antiplanner also distinguishes, where possible, between light rail and streetcars. The streetcar lines in Memphis, Tampa, Kenosha, Galveston, Little Rock, and New Orleans consumed an average of nearly 10,700 BTUs per passenger mile.
It appears safe to say that the energy efficiencies of all forms of passenger travel except light rail, commuter rail, and paratransit increased in 2007. It remains to be seen what modes can sustain these improvements in the long run.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKoB0MHVBvM
That clip has no relevance whatsoever. Highman rarely does. Although, I haven’t read here for over a month.
Mr. O’Toole, please stop that guy from posting. This is suppose to be for serious (humor & sarcasm okay) discussion about issues related to urban issues & the intro thread.
Or, highman, please try to stay on topic.
I was easily reminded why I stopped visiting this site. Being around those who are ridiculous, ignorant, nonsensical & discombobulated is not enjoyable, unless one is drunk in familiar surroundings.
I agree with Scott.
Knock it off highwayman.
We’re lucky the Antiplanner believes in freedom, but highwayman is pushing it with off-topic posts, non sequiturs, ad hominems, and even some comments that borderline on libel.
Perhaps Mr. O’Toole can find a way to give his readers the ability to push a button to ignore comments from abusive commenters and spammers.
Ah, I see that the highwayman could find nothing to criticize in this post. The Antiplanner, as ever, links to primary sources and lets us read the data that he’s arguing from, always reasonable.
Let me understand this: Did NJT before get to count passengers on the contracted services but not energy? Or is it really that the contracted out lines were that inefficient, using that much energy but having few passengers? If the former, then the energy efficiency data before didn’t make any sense, counting some passengers but not the energy used to transport them.
If so, how can we trust the data at all?
Good catch on the simple average versus weighted average.
The Antiplanner:
“The Energy Data Book reports that the average for light rail, for example, is 7,605 BTUs per passenger mile. In fact, the average BTUs per passenger mile of all light-rail lines in 2007 was only 3,642. Unlike the Federal Transit Administration, the Antiplanner also distinguishes, where possible, between light rail and streetcars. The streetcar lines in Memphis, Tampa, Kenosha, Galveston, Little Rock, and New Orleans consumed an average of nearly 10,700 BTUs per passenger mile.”
The differences in the NJ Transit report is explained by the fact that the National Transit Database (NTD) records energy consumption for agencies that directly operate transit or rail service, but not for “purchased transportation.” I know this because I filled out NTD reports for many years when I worked for a transit operator.
Hear, hear, Mr. Thacker. If the authors of the Energy Data Book can’t they can’t distinguish something as simple as a regular vs. weighted average as Randal points out, why should this source be taken seriously at all?
Frank said: We’re lucky the Antiplanner believes in freedom.
THWM: Your reaction was priceless.
He’s doesn’t believe in freedom, that’s why it’s always bash, bash, bash, bash, bash transit.
He has an objective, not objectivity.
THWM: Your reaction was priceless.
He’s doesn’t believe in freedom, that’s why it’s always bash, bash, bash, bash, bash transit.
JK: How much did you get paid for that piece of drivel?
The website name is “The Antiplanner.” We can all start from the obvious assumption that posts are from a stated bias critical of government planning. I don’t think anyone would disagree with that (including The Antiplanner), right? Can we get past that and have intelligent discussions in the comments, with that assumption as a given?
Facts are great, informed opinions are interesting, questions are invigorating, but ad hominem criticism is boring and ignored by most.
JK: How much did you get paid for that piece of drivel?
THWM: This coming from some that ran for office?
Karlock, you won’t even be on honest that you’re doing things for a political agenda!
Borealis said: Ad hominem criticism is boring and ignored by most.
THWM: So how about O’Toole’s(or Cox’s) ad hominem criticism of transit?
What are the sort of things that would cause a huge increase in energy consumption? For example, what could Minneapolis’s single light rail line that has been open for a couple of years, didn’t add any new stations nor, IIRC, increase frequency of service, do that would cause it to use more energy that it did last year? Shouldn’t it’s energy consumption be more or less the same as last year?
highwayman said: This coming from some that ran for office?
JK: How is that relevant to this discussion?
Thanks
JK
The Highwayman said: This coming from some that ran for office?
JK: How is that relevant to this discussion?
THWM: That you wanted to politician.
A.K.A. a planner, that’s very relevant.
The discussion here (as is often the case here) is in how trustworthy “experts” are. Experts don’t have to rely solely on one piece of data, since they innately or however just can do a good job at making sense of the whole picture. They are experts are others aren’t. I concur that some people have such abilities. On the importanceto society of specialists, I see the Highwayman’s point. I do think that data can lie and be misunderstood. Still, data trumps “expertism” when the data becomes overwhelming, as it does in this posts topic of energy consumption per passenger mile.
To me, the energy consumption of public transit is actually under reported since public rail or bus or plane are seldom point-to-point trips and frequently require additional energy to get from the actual starting point to the actual destination. An expert can see things in the operation of any system that go outside of the data and make “facts” insignificant, but I don’t see that in the scope of the data discussed above.
So, an expert may see the much greater energy use of rail as a fixed sum that wil be greatly reduced by a large increase in ridership. Fine. However, ridership is free to shift right now and doesn’t, so I would have to see the kinds of incentives that are planned to increase the rail ridership before agreeing that this particular piece of data was somehow “insignificant since it is only temporary.” It seems quite permanent to me.
the highwayman said:
The Highwayman said: This coming from some that ran for office?
JK: How is that relevant to this discussion?
THWM: That you wanted to politician.
A.K.A. a planner, that’s very relevant.
JK: You again in show your lack of logic.
Not all politicians are part of the zealous planner movement. Some actually believe in shutting down most government planning and an end to shoving high density, mass transit, light rail and Al’s religion down people’s throats.
Unfortunately you appear to be paid to blog in favor of these things.
Thanks
JK
JK: Some actually believe in shutting down most government planning and an end to shoving high density, mass transit, light rail and Al’s religion down people’s throats.
THWM: Then that’s your plan.
Just so you know, I don’t favor bad planning/regulation and the shoving of auto dependencey down people’s throats.
the highwayman said:
Just so you know, I don’t favor bad planning/regulation and the shoving of auto dependencey down people’s throats.
JK: Nobody forced auto “dependancy” on anyone.
You on the other hand, appear to get paid to try to force auto users to finance transit’s cost for the freeloaders that don’t want to pay their own cost.
Thanks
JK
JK: Nobody forced auto “dependancy†on anyone.
THWM: You can’t be that blind to the built world around you.
Freeways that lack bridges or underpasses can act like a Berlin Wall to pedestrians.
JK: You on the other hand, appear to get paid to try to force auto users to finance transit’s cost for the freeloaders that don’t want to pay their own cost.
THWM: Now that’s a “Catch 22”.
Transit is not a person. You can’t have an “ad hominem” criticism of a concept or an inanimate object. As far as I can tell, what you mean is that Randall’s criticisms of transit is because he is personally biased against it; your argument itself is an example of an ad hominem. It’s also a poor example of tu quoque while we’re at it.
The Antiplanner argues with facts, and provides links to primary and secondary sources, including the freely available reports of the US Government and other governments. THWM responds with unsupported assertions (he has never as I far as I can remember linked a primary source) and logical fallacies, primarily ad hominem. THWM also continues to fling phrases about with no understand for what they mean. It’s simply not convincing argumentation.
Of course, to a large degree this is always the case with “opposition” commenters on blogs.
Highwayman, Anything substantial to say?
Elaboration:
What are you advocating?
What should gas (& similar or other) taxes pay for, as for infrastructure?
Who should pay for public transit?
Who should pay for roads/highways? (Basic gov, such as protection & ~education is primary & secondary, & irrelevant to points here)
You want transit, pay for it!
I could go on. You don’t have substance.
As far as what you supposedly disagree with, there are many contradictions, double standards & “not exist without this that I’m opposed”.
Disagreeing to something is fine, but that needs content.
Hman, discuss the issue.
I get the idea that your are either in a mental hospital or working in a government do-nothing facility, or maybe some perpetual low-level worker (& a NASCAR fan).
Why should people that don’t drive be treated 2nd class citizens?
If the authors of the Energy Data Book can’t they can’t distinguish something as simple as a regular vs. weighted average as Randal points out, why should this source be taken seriously at all
Because nearly every figure and chart in the entire book has a caveat related to the quality of the data being used. There is also an appendix at the end of the book that explains the data collection process and the basis of the calculations used in the book.
To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing else in the current edition that is grossly objectionable or has not been explained. They are assuming that their readers can exercise a certain amount of critical judgment.
For example, what could Minneapolis’s single light rail line that has been open for a couple of years, didn’t add any new stations nor, IIRC, increase frequency of service, do that would cause it to use more energy that it did last year?
Increases in energy consumption for non-operational purposes (e.g. vehicle and non-vehicle maintenance).
For example, what could Minneapolis’s single light rail line that has been open for a couple of years, didn’t add any new stations nor, IIRC, increase frequency of service, do that would cause it to use more energy that it did last year?
JK:
Change reporting method.
Fix errors in reporting.
Quit/start lying.
Change from “transit math” to ordinary math.
Start using the heaters/air conditioning.
Thanks
JK