The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published “provisional” data for 2006, including transit ridership, passenger miles, operating costs, energy consumption, and similar numbers for almost every transit system and mode of transit in the country. The data tables are not exactly straightforward, so the Antiplanner has compiled a summary showing the most important numbers by agency and mode and totals by urban area. Don’t say I never did anything for you.
Earlier this year, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), the transit industry’s lobby group, was thrilled to report that 2006 transit ridership exceeded 10 billion trips for the first time in 49 years. As exciting as this sounds, it was only 2.9 percent more than in 2005, even though 2006 fuel prices were a lot higher than in 2005.
FTA counts only 9.4 billion trips, probably because some transit agencies that report to APTA were late in submitting the much more detailed reports required by the FTA. But other FTA numbers suggest that transit is not the solution to high fuel prices or global warming.
As the Antiplanner has previously noted, the average passenger car (cars only, not SUVs) uses about 3,500 BTUs per passenger mile. A hybrid like the Prius or Civic hybrid uses only about 2,000.
Source: Department of Energy.
Moreover, as the above chart shows, the average fuel-economy of American cars is rapidly increasing. Back when gas prices were high, it increased at 0.9 percent per year. When prices fell, it continued to increase at 0.7 percent per year. By comparison, bus transit’s energy efficiency has been flat since 1995 while rail transit improved since 1995 but only because it was so much worse then than a few years before.
Despite the increase in transit ridership, transit again failed to increase its energy efficiency in 2006. BTUs per passenger mile fell slightly for heavy rail and commuter rail, but increased for light rail and buses.
A person has r put some efforts when it comes over cialis on line his health or his relationship. Ashwagandha is considered powerful as viagra sales in australia and Kamagra. ED also relates sildenafil tablets to the proper functioning of the body. According to the recent surveys, approximately 50 percent men between the age group of 40 and 70 are very likely to suffer from impotence, making it all the more difficult for people to differentiate between the sin itself and viagra without prescription the sinner, especially if the sinner does it over and over again. The most efficient form of transit, by far, is van pools, which use only 55 percent as much energy per passenger mile as their nearest competitor (heavy rail). Van pools, of course, use automobiles. They are efficient because they carry an average of more than 6 people. The average bus carries less than 11 people, but consumes almost three times as much energy per passenger mile as a van pool.
Buses do poorly because transit agencies buy bigger buses than they really need. In a way, the agencies are no different from the average consumer. A family of four might buy a car big enough to carry six or seven people for the times when they might have guests. Similarly, transit agencies buy buses big enough to meet peak demand and then run those buses nearly empty much of the day.
But transit agencies are worse than private families because someone else — often the federal government but ultimately some groups of taxpayers or another — pays the cost. As long as transit agencies don’t have to cover the costs out of user fees, they have little incentive to buy the most efficient vehicles.
FTA’s vehicle inventory (which isn’t included in my summary) reveals that the average transit bus has room for 39 people sitting and another 20 standing. This means it typically operates less than one-quarter full. By comparison, the average van pool has 11 seats, so it typically operates more than half full.
Transit agency officials will be quick to point out that they can’t afford to buy one fleet of buses to run during peak hours and another fleet of smaller buses to run during off hours. So they end up running the big buses all day long — which is why transit (with the possible exception of van pools) will never be the solution to energy shortages.
Rail transit isn’t the solution even though it consumes a little less energy than buses. As the Antiplanner previously noted, rail transit must be supported by a feeder bus network that often receives little use.
On average, the transit systems in Philadelphia, Miami, Dallas, Houston, Seattle, St. Louis, Baltimore, Denver, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, San Jose, and Sacramento — all of which have rail transit — all consume more energy per passenger mile than passenger cars. All rail agencies use more energy per passenger mile than a Prius, while a few bus-only systems — most prominently, Riverside and Honolulu — use even less than a Prius.
Instead, the real solution is to continue making automobiles more energy efficient. If gas prices remain high, people will buy even more energy efficient cars and the energy efficiency of the auto fleet will grow even faster. At the rate things are going, even SUVs will soon be more efficient than transit.
In short, spending billions of rail transit will do less to save energy than doing nothing at all. If we want transit to really contribute to energy efficiency, we need to change the incentives faced by transit agencies.
thats a pretty good argument, I must say. Your making my choice of a masters degree difficult – I’m teetering between business or planning (planning had been my initial plan, but I’ve become disenchanted with the whole super-normative, utopianism, within just half a semester!).
Anyway, I was wondering what kind of economic incentives could be applied to transit agencies?
If I’m reading the chart correctly, I’m left with some confusion over the Antiplanner’s presentation.
1. The most obvious and straightforward story to be gleaned from the chart is that rail transit is more energy efficient than buses, which are more energy efficient than passenger cars. The AP glosses over this point.
2. The AP focuses instead upon the rate of change in energy efficiency for each transportation mode over time. He tells us that the energy efficiency of cars has generally increased each year at 0.7 to 0.9 percent per year, from roughly 1975 to 2005. He labels this rate of change “rapid.†But when he tells us that transit ridership increased 2.9 percent from 2005 to 2006, he labels this “only 2.9 percentâ€Â. Why is a 0.7-0.9 percent annual increase “rapidâ€Â, but a 2.9 percent annual increase “onlyâ€Â…?
3. Why isn’t the vanpool mode included in the chart? This seems an obvious omission, given that the whole point of the post is to pimp vanpools.
4. The AP says “…the average van pool has 11 seats, so it typically operates more than half full.†This is strange logic. Wouldn’t we need to know the typical number of riders in order to conclude whether the van typically operates more than half full?
5. Does the passenger cars in the chart include SUVs? I’m assuming it does. If he has the data, it would be nice to see SUVs separated from non-SUVs in the chart, if only to show how bad SUVs really are. Seems to me they must be at least 7,500 BTU, and are probably much higher.
6. The AP is wont to rail (intention of pun unspecified) against light rail, buses, and other forms of transit. Yet the chart suggests that transit is more energy efficient than non-hybrid cars and SUVs. Why doesn’t the AP rail against the worst offenders (i.e. non-hybrid SUVs and passenger cars)? Why rail against the energy efficient forms of transportation? And why does the AP support road construction when the vast majority of road users are the worst offenders?
The greatest benefit of carpools and vanpools is the excuse to avoid overtime work. The greatest cost of carpools and vanpools is increased trip time for picking up and dropping off passengers and waiting time, just as with other forms of fixed schedule transit, but not as bad as buses and trains.
If you want to compare efficient transport modes you should not neglect battery-powered motorcycles and mopeds and personal automated transport.
I’m teetering between business or planning (planning had been my initial plan, but I’ve become disenchanted with the whole super-normative, utopianism, within just half a semester!
Those master’s choices are on the opposite end of the spectrum. If you know whether you are self-regarding vs other-regarding and you lean toward self-, you think you know enough about planning in 1/2 a semester to decide, and you somehow believe that planning can be both super-normative and utopian, don’t waste your and our time in planning school and just do B school.
HTH,
DS
Three comments on buses.
Firstly, there is a considerable variation between different types of buses. The Federal Transit Administration (http://www.fta.dot.gov/) do a lot of research on transit technology, of which Antiplanner’s data is only a small part. Here is another research paper:
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/WVU_FTA_LCC_Final_Report_07-23-2007.pdf
The main thrust is on pages 11 and 20. It can be seen that the diesel-electric hybrid has much better fuel economy than diesel and CNG, but the economics get sunk by the need to replace the batteries. If you want the better fuel economy then someone is going to have to pay for it. Ditto, I would suspect, with trolleybuses. In the deregulated UK market, we end up with mouldy old diesel buses, that all too often look and go like they’ve been dragged out of a transport museum. But we Brits get quite used to it – and think just how much money I’ve saved on the entry price to the museum!
Secondly, there is a way of ramping up and down the number of buses on the roads. a) The routes are franchised to bus companies. b) The buses are provided free to the public (cost/passenger/year multiplied by fraction of population using it is peanuts) c) The town council uses its own staff to cover the morning and evening rush hours. This gets round the difficulty of finding anyone prepared to work only 2 hours a day.
Thirdly, I agree with the idea that you can get better fuel economy from a full car than from a bus or train. Alas, most cars run empty but for the driver. And of course, a bus is an automobile. When the first cars were introduced into the UK, they were so expensive that even wealthy people couldn’t afford them. After a lot of whining to The Times newspaper, they decided to build bigger cars that lots of people could travel in together, sharing the costs. Being over-educated in the classics, they called the new car ‘omnibus’ – we all travel together. Aaaah….
Planner, despite what Dan says all people are self-regarding, some just pretend it is not so.
Ayn writes:
“[A]ltruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting manâ€â€a man who supports his own life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others … it permits no concept of benevolent co-existence among men … it permits no concept of justice”
Theplanner asks “what kind of economic incentives could be applied to transit agencies?” Here are a few ideas.
First, federal grants should be given to each urban area based on the number of transit riders in that area. A region that spends its money on something that does little to increase ridership will end up getting less grants in the future. Regions that spend their money on things that really boost ridership will get most of the money.
Second, transit agencies should be funded mostly out of user fees instead of tax dollars. Tax support for transit riders should be given directly to the riders in the form of vouchers that they can apply to any form of public transportation, from taxicabs to airlines. Transit agencies will have to compete for user fees and vouchers, thus encouraging them to improve their service and make it cost effective.
Third, existing monopolies on transit should be repealed. In most cities, no one is allowed to operate public transit except taxi drivers, airport shuttles, and the government transit agency. Increasing competition would lead all transit providers to improve service.
D4P evidently missed the previous lengthy discussion of greenhouse gases, otherwise he would not be confused today. See, for example, http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=219
In that discussion, I point out that rail transit does not operate by itself. Instead, it is invariably supported by feeder buses. It also cannibalizes the best bus routes. Thus, you can’t count rail by itself, you have to look at the effects on the entire transit system. In most cities that have recently built rail transit, the overall transit systems ended up consuming more energy per passenger mile after the rail lines opened than before they began construction.
D4P’s reading skills are revealed when he asks, “The AP says “…the average van pool has 11 seats, so it typically operates more than half full.†This is strange logic. Wouldn’t we need to know the typical number of riders in order to conclude whether the van typically operates more than half full?” As I clearly state in the story, the average van pool has more than 6 riders. Also, I clearly state that the passenger car numbers do not include SUVs.
D4P hits closer to home when he criticizes me for saying transit ridership grew by “only” 2.9 percent. Yes, 2.9 percent is actually quite a large year-to-year change.
But he goes off base again when he asks why the Antiplanner does not criticize gas-guzzling vehicles. The answer is that Americans are taking advantage of technological change and responding to market signals by driving more fuel-efficient cars. There is no need for intrusive government action or expensive transit projects that don’t really save any energy at all.
Pingback: » The Antiplanner
So we see gas prices do what during the last few years? increase by 60% double? And what sort of increases have we seen in transit ridership on transit lines that have existed the entire time?
Dan said “those masters choices are on the opposite end of the spectrum” whats your point? I already new that, I’m currently doing a double major in geography/planning and economics. It was not a question of my personality, it was a question of who’s right. Economic and business analyses tend to focus on positive issues (quantitative analyses) vs planners who have a more normative focus, i.e. things ought to be this way or that way. I dont see how this cant go with utopianism by which i was referring to the obsession with “sustainable living” and so-called place and community building advocated by planners (how is this different than ebenezer howard or urba renewal advocates)…not to mention a pure hatered of the automobile by many planners.
“don’t waste your and our time in planning school and just do B school” a bureaucrat telling me not to waste peoples time. I’ve been involved with planning groups and planning field studies so if i learnt how to waste time it was from planners. I was exagerrating about the half semester crap, its more like three years, but im sorry if i cant just take one side of the argument and spin with it for the rest of my life regardless of whether im right or wrong.
theplanner
oh yeah, thanks for the transit incentive ideas antiplanner
[P]lanners who have a more normative focus, i.e. things ought to be this way or that way. I dont see how this cant go with utopianism by …“don’t waste your and our time in planning school and just do B school†a bureaucrat telling me not to waste peoples time.
Lad, I’m the last one on any list to be called a bureaucrat. Your blanket statements tell me you don’t get the big picture, which is why I recommended B school. BTW, normative in social science (not philosophy) has a specific meaning, which doesn’t go with your ‘utopianism’ [incorrect premise].
HTH,
DS
Took the bus to the train to the subway — a round-trip to the city = 6 passenger trips in FTA world.
D4P has fallen into Ye Olde Percentage Trick Trap! Percent changes in tiny numbers are still tiny. Compared to 10.1 billion transit trips, highways carry ~ 500 billion. Thus 2.9% increase in transit trips for example is only ~290 million, or 0.06 % of highway trips for equal growth in actual numbers of trips. APTA never makes that kind of comparison. APTA also boasts in about 10 years transit increased 30% while highways (only!) 24%. In actual trips highways increased ~99 billion, and transit ~2.3 billion, 42 TIMES higher.
Regarding two sizes of buses to reduce off peak energy use. Correct they still need same number drivers, but each bus only travels roughly half the distance daily and thus lasts twice as many years. Thus somewhat less instead of twice capital investment. Maybe the transit monopoly is more interested in getting shiny new buses frequently rather than saving energy and costs?
How about a regional incentive like passenger-miles per BTU divided by travel time to destination? Transportation is not an end in itself. It’s an important element in a region’s economic and social functions. Thus give credit to time savings as well as energy.