“You never know what the future will bring,” says Steve Polzin, of the Florida Center for Urban Transportation Research. “If we are not careful, we could do some things that would make corn ethanol look like a wise investment.”
What things are those, Steve? For his answer, take a look at his July 11 article in the Urban Transportation Monitor. The recent Surface Transportation Policy Commission recommended investing in intercity rail, saying that trains “consume 17 percent less energy per passenger mile than air carriers and 21 percent less than automobiles.”
But, Polzin notes, the recently passed Energy Independence Act requires autos to become 40 percent more efficient in the next 20 years, and the next generation of airplanes is also likely to be at least 17 percent more efficient than the current one. So, Polzin asks, why should we “spend decades and billions for intercity rail”?
“Historical modal efficiencies are not particularly important,” he points out. “Future investment decisions should be based on expected future modal efficiencies.”
It offers effective treatment for male impotence, insomnia, depression, soft tab viagra anxiety and reduces the blood pressure. It mitigates vata dosha, increases kapha and pitta. order generic viagra pdxcommercial.com Some people think that “natural” means purchase cialis “hocus pocus,” but that is not the case at all. A practical focus limit switch and virtually non-existent spot flaring which makes it an extremely Going Here sildenafil 25mg excellent drug for impotence and is specifically brought into existence for treating erectile dysfunction. Polzin has arrived at some points that have also been made by the Antiplanner. For example, he observes that the recent increase in transit ridership “could only explain 1-2 percent of the decline in” driving.
But Polzin makes several more points that I’ve never considered. For example, he notes that automobiles and buses have short life cycles, so they “can enable relatively rapid integration of state-of-the-art technologies.” Planes and trains may last longer, but that’s a disadvantage when technology is changing. “Modes where the vehicle and guideways are integrated systems” — that is, rails — “may be far more difficult or expensive to upgrade to newer, more efficient technologies.”
The Antiplanner has noted that autos operate about one-third full (1.6 occupants in vehicles that average perhaps 5 seats), while buses and trains tend to be only about 10 percent full. But Polzin adds that “autos never have empty reverse commute trips or deadhead mileage back to the garage.” I guess I should be using total vehicle miles rather than just vehicle revenue miles when calculating transit vehicle occupancies.
Polzin also notes that increasing transit service to meet the demand caused by high energy prices may actually “result in lower overall operating efficiencies.” “We need to be judicious in determining how the public responds to planners’ visions of future travel options,” he concludes. High gas prices may “change behaviors, but we need to use caution in estimating how quickly travelers will trade off time and convenience for energy cost savings.”
While some people erroneously call the Antiplanner “anti-transit” (meaning, “if you don’t support our super-expensive form of transit, you must oppose all transit”), Polzin can hardly be accused of such a thing. He has worked for transit agencies in Chicago, Cleveland, and Dallas, and served on the board of directors of Tampa’s transit agency. But he is an engineer, which means he asks hard questions that many planners and virtually all passenger rail supporters would like to ignore. Let’s hope more people begin to ask such questions.
The railroads can be electrified much more quickly than the auto fleet can be converted to pluggable hybrids, a process than will probably require 30 years, assuming the battery technologies will be economic and grid upgrades can start in earnest within a few years. BIG ifs! Railroad and transit system electrification would use perhaps 2%-3% of existing capacity, while pluggable hybrids would require 20% or more.
Two or three defunct auto plants could be retooled to produce electric railcars very quickly. If more expertise is needed, drop restrictions on immigration for rail experts from Europe and Japan, and substantially raise their pay!
Sheesh! It is amazing how ignorant so many smart people can be, such as Dr. Polzin! The contortions some people want to go through to preserve automotive dominance are increasingly amazing.
msetty, Is the 2%-3% for current levels of service? With the relatively small differences in energy intensity for autos and buses it is difficult to see how existing auto commute substitution by either electric buses or PHEV’s could result in an order of magnitude difference in electricity consumption. I presume the intention is to convert diesel buses to trolley buses to keep within the USA’s capital resources and achieve the rapid implementation rate that peak oil will require.
An increase in auto efficiency will lower the cost of driving, which in turn (according to economic theory) will result in an increase in driving, which in terms of overall energy usage will probably offset the initial gains in efficiency.
I’m leery of any notions that the current rail infrastructure could be easily converted to a passenger rail system, especially through electrification. With projected increases in freight volumes most of the rail lines in the U.S. will be at capacity in the next 20 years without any additions to the existing capital infrastructure. Passenger rail, especially intercity, long-distance passenger rail will probably need to be completely removed from the freight rail network, and a separate and expensive series of high-speed rail lines developed to handle any passenger demand. Unfortunately, there aren’t that many acres of land for the government to give away for high-speed rail lines to be built in the East and the issues with Western lands would be tied up in courts for years with EIS requirements.
Germane to yesterday’s discussion:
Since 1956, federal, state and local governments have invested nine times more capital funding in highway subsidies than in transit. In 2004, state governments spent nearly 13 times more public funds on highways than on transit. On top of all that, the process for securing funding for new transit lines is far more onerous and less certain than for highway projects, with the federal government generally picking up a smaller share of the tab for new transit lines than for new highway projects.
And this:
Of course you can’t bring this subject up without legions of people informing you that the gas tax pays for the highways. This simply isn’t true. All the funds raised by the gas tax are spent on highways, and then a bunch of additional money is also spent on highways.
http://tinyurl.com/socialisminamerica
Gee, what do buses travel on? Do they glide down separate bus paths . . . or do they actually drive on roads? Just curious.
Has there been any research that has controlled for the benefit/subsidy share to transit from the roads built and maintained primarily for cars?
“‘Modes where the vehicle and guideways are integrated systems† that is, rails  ‘may be far more difficult or expensive to upgrade to newer, more efficient technologies.'”
Perhaps, but keep in mind that both individuals and governments don’t always WANT to upgrade. Polzin’s observation makes me think of all the jokes people use to make about computer upgrades–sure, there was a new model available as soon as you turned on your new computer for the first time, but people didn’t necessarily want to incur the costs of a new model. If you have something that still works, there’s no need to automatically trade it in for something more efficient because the cost-savings of those new efficiencies will not immediately be realized because you just spent a large amount of capital to obtain those efficiencies. The availability of a new model is not what likely motivates an individual or government to upgrade their technology–the actor is more likely to be motivated by a more urgent (or desperate) need, like the sudden realization that the car doesn’t run at all (as opposed to not running “efficiently”).
Therefore if a government plans to upgrade its buses as often as its trains, it may be better to have the train, which will be running better than the bus so many years later. The train may also be running more efficiently than the bus currently in use despite the availability of a more efficient bus technology.
And while I agree with D4P’s observation that increased auto efficiency would lead to greater auto usage according to economic theory, the actual situation is different. Since efficiency is increasing in response to high energy costs, I think the two effects will more likely balance each other out.
D4P: “An increase in auto efficiency will lower the cost of driving, which in turn (according to economic theory) will result in an increase in driving, which in terms of overall energy usage will probably offset the initial gains in efficiency.”
Why would people wish to spend any more time than necessary in their vehicles?
The most expensive cost of driving by far is the value of one’s time, a factor which will not change when vehicles become more efficient. It seems unlikely that increased vehicle efficiency will alter greatly the number of miles driven in the U.S. Although vehicle miles driven has exhibited small short-term adjustments to total fuel cost changes, the long term trend has been fairly consistent.
D4P –> Good point. We’ve seen that happen over the last 20 years with cars and their engines becoming more efficient only to offset those gains by driving more miles or driving heavier vehicles.
“The railroads can be electrified much more quickly than the auto fleet can be converted to pluggable hybrids, a process than will probably require 30 years, assuming the battery technologies will be economic and grid upgrades can start in earnest within a few years.” —msetty
Why would you think this? IIRC it’s costing $60 million to electrify 12.1 miles on the West Corridor for Denver’s Fastracks. That project isn’t going to be done for another 4-5 years. And that’s on a project that involves light rail. For existing freight you would have to electrify hundreds of miles of track before being able to use electric engines (that is, one with overhead wires and not the current models that use diesel and convert it to electricity for traction). Tens of thousands of miles of track would need to be converted before making much of a difference. And at that there would still be a need for a large energy production increase to power those locomotives plus build thousands of new locomotives.
Or were you referring to just building new LRT to replace commuting in cars? If that’s the case we would need to raise hundreds of billions and build thousands of miles of new light rail. That would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. This too doesn’t seem like a process that would occur very quickly. For example, Fastracks was passed in 2004 with a 10 year build out plan. That is the single largest transit project in the country. Could we even do this in 20 years if we implemented a Fastracks, 119 miles of new transit on 9 corridors (BRT and heavy rail on the Denver – Boulder corridor) in Tampa, Houston, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, San Diego, Detroit, Atlanta, etc?
Close Observer: “Has there been any research that has controlled for the benefit/subsidy share to transit from the roads built and maintained primarily for cars?”
Not sure about that, but mass transit does receive billions every year from the federal fuel taxes paid by drivers of those cars.
Good point. We’ve seen that happen over the last 20 years with cars and their engines becoming more efficient only to offset those gains by driving more miles or driving heavier vehicles.
Yeah, I forgot the heavier vehicles issue. It’s an important one.
“While some people erroneously call the Antiplanner “anti-transit†(meaning, “if you don’t support our super-expensive form of transit, you must oppose all transitâ€Â),”
It is frustrating. In fact, I don’t mind some LRT on select corridors. The problem is most of the routes are chosen by politics so they go into areas already developed and serve downtowns that even despite a recent renaissance are projected to have very little of overall metro job growth and population growth.
An example of this is the Central Corridor in Minneapolis / St. Paul. It will connect the 2 downtowns and the 3rd largest transit destination in the state, the University of Minnesota. A study down a few years ago on the corridor showed that Bus Rapids Transit with stations, it’s own right-of-way and a tunnel at the UoM would have carried 25% passengers would have cost 1/3 less to build. That is for the same amount of money to build and operate the Central Corridor as BRT, they could’ve built and operated a 2nd similar BRT corridor (for example, if that corridor had similar passenger loads you’d be carrying 1 1/2 times as many passengers for the cost) . Yet the politicians went with the billion dollar solution, light rail. The other things to note is that this route is already heavily served by bus. There are express buses that operate on I-94, just 1/2 to mile to south, to connect the 2 downtowns. University Avenue, the Central Corridor, already operates even more buses both as local and limited stop buses. The lion share of riders for either choice would not be new transit riders but existing riders. Yet, if you didn’t support the LRT option as opposed to BRT or even the status quo (very well served already), you were “against transit”.
95% of us drive cars, so if the majority of our transportation money is spent on roads. So what!
Buses need roads too.
So excluding rail, 99% of our transportation money is spent on nearly everyone.
Lets move on and cut all subsidies to transit and roads.
Roads can be paid for out of user fees and transit can be self supporting by way of the fair box.
Roads can be paid for out of user fees and transit can be self supporting by way of the fair box
But what about people who can’t afford a car or transit? The Antiplanner purports to care about low-income folks in the context of housing…
From D4P’s link in 4 above:
Hmmm.
If true, then 24MBD * 55gal/bbl *.45 * 365 = Big ‘ol subsidy per year.
DS
D4P, I thought the argument was that people who can’t afford cars need transit, but you seem to be asking what about people who can’t afford either? (Is that your point?) If they can’t afford bus fare, then they sure as heck can’t afford light rail (and neither can the communities that foot the bill).
craig is close to the mark. Shouldn’t transit be divided into money for dedicated rail corridors and weighed against usage? The fact is money to roads (whether direct subsidy or user fee) facilitates transit ridership, correct? Buses utilize arterials that are usually paid by state/fed govts as well as collectors paid locally/regionally. Some buses get on highways (fed dollars).
Anti-auto types like Dan and d4p pretend only auto drivers benefit from roads. But how effective would transit be without roads? Pretend the subsidies numbers were where you prefer, or better yet pretend there were no autos: Wouldn’t roads be built to facilitate the movement of buses? Or do you seriously think it would all be rail transit?
Anti-auto types like Dan and d4p pretend only auto drivers benefit from roads
Wrong. We are only responding to the implicit claims from the Antiplanner that transit is subsidized and that auto-travel isn’t. Both are subsidized, but the Antiplanner chooses to focus on transit subsidies, thus giving the impression that roads pay for themselves.
We all need roads to get to work, play, get our products to market, buses and autos, bikes and walking.
So what!
We all need the roads even rail users need roads once they hop off rail transit.
So if everyone benefits from roads,, there is no subsidy to any special interest unless everyone is counted as a special interest.
Roads can be paid for out of user fees and transit can be self supporting by way of the fair box.
Anti-auto types like Dan and d4p pretend only auto drivers benefit from roads.
The rhetorically challenged should be advised by someone to stop speaking for me.
They don’t know WTF they are talking about when they construct weak arguments that depend on claiming to know what I think or what I stand for.
DS
Well this is an “energy crisis” that has it’s roots in bad transport policy. If people were charged even at only a nominal amount of $1 for every mile that they drove. This “energy crisis” would disappear instantly.
msetty said:
“Railroad and transit system electrification would use perhaps 2%-3% of existing capacity, while pluggable hybrids would require 20% or more.”
There’s a good reason why many countries do not have electrified railway systems – it’s too expensive for the economic returns. Even in the UK, with high fuel prices, many railway lines are not electrified for this reason.
prk166 said:
“Yet the politicians went with the billion dollar solution, light rail. The other things to note is that this route is already heavily served by bus. There are express buses that operate on I-94, just 1/2 to mile to south, to connect the 2 downtowns. University Avenue, the Central Corridor, already operates even more buses both as local and limited stop buses. The lion share of riders for either choice would not be new transit riders but existing riders. Yet, if you didn’t support the LRT option as opposed to BRT or even the status quo (very well served already), you were “against transitâ€Â.”
Partly that’s because LRT is capital intensive, and most grants are only for capital projects, so in one sense, it cost them nothing to go for the more expensive option. Partly, it could be because the LRT is cheaper in the long run. The LRT capital is paid back at a few percent per year, whereas all of the running costs (higher with buses) are paid back in full.
Well in the UK Dr.Beeching did hatchet to your rail system starting in the 1950’s, this was Crown property(just as roads are) and should have been accounted as such.
I’ve talked to people that are very hostile to automobiles and even they understand the utility of roads. Roads have been around for thousands of years before automobiles were even invented. Though automobiles, buses and trucks add extra costs to roads.
Righto! I’d be interested in the subsidy to specific travel mode (cars, buses, rail, bicycles, etc.) and not the travel means (roads). It seems that Dan and d4p irresponsibly compares modes to means, which is an apple to an orange.
craig said: “there is no subsidy to any special interest unless everyone is counted as a special interest.”
Well, my mom always said I’m special, and a few people have called me interesting. So there you go! Where’s my subsidy!
“Well, my mom always said I’m special, and a few people have called me interesting. So there you go! Where’s my subsidy!”
There are several government subsidies for “special” people. ADA, special transit service, special education etc. 😉
It seems that Dan … irresponsibly [compare] modes to means, which is an apple to an orange.
B.S.
DS
the highwayman said:
“Well in the UK Dr.Beeching did hatchet to your rail system starting in the 1950’s, this was Crown property(just as roads are) and should have been accounted as such.”
Dr. Beeching was a high-flying management consultant, working in ICI, the chemicals company. He was hand-picked to sort the railways out, which were losing money hand over fist, due to competition from the roads (cars and lorries). He pruned out the loss-making parts of the network.
His scheme didn’t entirely work for several reasons. The loss-making lines were feeding passengers to the profitable lines, and so the profitable lines got hit as well. The running costs of the closed rural branch lines were less than calculated and so the reduction in losses didn’t meet expectations.
Finally, most of the profitability problems were the result of the government policy – e.g. allowing lorry companies to undercut the railways, by not allowing the railways to charge different rates to different customers in the way that lorry companies could – e.g. by declaring that empty returns packaging could go free by railway, if the product on the way out was fully paid for; so that unscrupulous businesses could get the product delivered by lorry, and then send the packaging back by train.
Subsequently, further reductions in the railways were proposed. The recommendation crossed the desk of a certain M. Thatcher, who realised that it was a vote loser. Good news. The railways are now becoming more popular, and there is talk of reopening lines that were closed by Dr. Beeching.
Only ‘Transport Watch’ is still banging on about closing railway lines, and converting them to roads (the tail end of the Railway Conversion League). The fact that it won’t work doesn’t seem to deter the gentleman running the web site.
Am I the only one who finds mandatory participation in an “Energy Independence Program†absurd? In other words, “When it comes to energy independence you are not independent to choose. You shall participate! [through subsidies and mandates]â€Â
By the way, was Henry David Thoreau really against government transit projects with such specific zeal as this website? Why are you so hung up on transportation projects when there are so many other examples of big, intrusive government. At least wtih highway projects, we get something we can tangibly use for our tax money, unlike a $200 billion bail out of idiot banks. By the way, I did the math. $200 billion is $667 dollars for every man, woman, and child in this US. I write about what the US should do about the energy situation on libertyalert.blogspot.com.
But what about people who can’t afford a car or transit? The Antiplanner purports to care about low-income folks in the context of housing…
It would still be much cheaper to give the poor coupons to buy cars and/or bus tickets rather than building them light rail transit.
While I find socialism a dumb idea, using Light Rail as a wealth redistribution scheme, I find even dumber (i.e. take $4 form the rich for every $1 in transportation benefits to the poor). Better write them an outright transportation check, or even better an outright wealth redistribution check – and let them enjoy the freedom to use it as they prefer.
AP quoting Steve Polzin:
“Historical modal efficiencies are not particularly important,†he points out. “Future investment decisions should be based on expected future modal efficiencies.â€Â
Apparently Sen. John Kerry didn’t get the memo. Last week he announced that he would introduce a bill to spend $1 billion (I love those round numbers) for route improvements for the Acela, Amtrak’s northeast corridor luxury liner. He must have got stuck at the Thames River Bridge on the way to his office. Oddly, Amtrak didn’t ask for the money and there’s no analysis indicating what that billion dollars will buy in terms of average speed improvement. I’m sure Metro North and Conrail can’t wait to see the plans.
Mr. King, what Beeching did was a disaster that people in the UK are still paying for today. Changing operations is one thing, though what he did was trash your infrastructure out right.
Then using that same flawed logic the street in front of your house ought to closed since it might not carry a lot of traffic.
“Ettinger wrote: While I find socialism a dumb idea, using Light Rail as a wealth redistribution scheme, I find even dumber (i.e. take $4 form the rich for every $1 in transportation benefits to the poor). Better write them an outright transportation check, or even better an outright wealth redistribution check – and let them enjoy the freedom to use it as they prefer.”
Well the highway system it self, is an act of socialism as well as social engineering for that matter.
Highwayman, That actually isn’t flswed logic when it is applied to maintaining the roadway. The dramatic increase in the federal gas tax provided a huge amount of money for county road improvements as well as for building the interstates. Fifty years is about as long as the sub-base can be expected to provide an acceptable level of service. Hence in the coming decades America is going to have to decide whether it can afford to reconstruct all of thse county and farm roads or just let them revert to gravel or dirt roads. My country’s highway agency has already decided that funding for pavement rehabilitation will only be provided for roads carrying an aadt of more than 250 vehicles a day.
Though they aren’t closing these roads, but down grading them and that’s just my point about the flawed logic.
msetty. I think I found your source for the 2% or 3% claim for rail electrification at the oildrum. That refers only to longhaul freightlines. It would have to be in addition to the PHEVs 20% rather than instead of.
The fact that Americans railroads account for a higher proportion of freight ton miles than any European railway suggests that the proportion of truck freight that can be shifted to rail is a lot less than the 80% assumed by oildrum. BTS and DoE stats suggest that rail already dominates interstate freight more than 400 miles) whereas trucks may dominate intrastate freight, especially in farming states. On the whole, rail electrification is likely to produce only half the benefits argued by oildrum. The other half of the benefit can still be obtained by another silver bullet approach, one that doesn’t require federal funding, just federal regulation. Make EuroIV the minumum standard for all new trucks and buses and for engine replacements on existing public buses, especially school buses. That may require a mandatory reduction in sulphur content but that will have a magical effect on the existing deisel fleet.
Though even with 53′ dry vans there are other means, for instance Wabash National has there RoadRailer product line.
http://www.wabashnational.com/Intermodal.htm
Highwayman, It’s good to see railroads breaking away from tradition and becoming inovative.
Here is an inovative solution to enable multimodal container transfers at smaller sidings and to allow direct delivery of containers to smaller businesses that don’t have loading docks, instead of using multiple deliveries in smaller local delivery trucks from a logistics company.
http://www.steelbro.co.nz/content/products/applications/rail.aspx
The animation video is beautifully simple.
Thanks for the link Kevyn. Even Volkswagen is using light rail for moving auto parts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CarGoTram