The American Bus Association is releasing its latest annual Motorcoach Census today, and it strikes quite a blow at those who support increased funding for Amtrak. A “motorcoach” is a long-distance bus longer than 35 feet whose passenger deck is typically elevated above luggage bays. The census counts only private buses available for public use; transit agency buses and private buses used only for private use, such as Google commuter buses, are not counted.
Click image to download the report.
Most intercity buses are motorcoaches, but motorcoaches are also used for charters, tours, commuting, airport service, and other purposes. According to the survey, slightly more than 30 percent of the more than 1.9 billion motorcoach miles traveled in 2012 were scheduled, intercity buses.
A New Zealand innovation: the triple-decker intercity bus. Actually, there may be a few real triple-decker buses around, but this one was an April Fool’s joke.
The report also indicates that intercity buses carried an average of 36.9 passengers. That means intercity buses carried 21.4 billion passenger miles, more than three times as many as the 6.8 billion passenger miles carried by Amtrak (see p. A-2.2).
It acts by inhibiting cGMP-specific phosphodiesterase discount cialis this page type 5 (PDE5), an enzyme that regulates blood flow and relaxes pelvic blood muscles. Actually, two decisions that have consequences on each other. new.castillodeprincesas.com sales uk viagra It is the desire and sexual excitement that generates the nitric oxide that find out that link now discount cialis increases genital blood flow and lubrication in both sexes, producing erections in the male, unlike in the female. A recent study in the USA showed that in a period of 13 years, only 0.7% of 4557 sudden cardiac arrests in generic for cialis the Oregon region occurred within an hour after sex.
Considering that motorcoaches consumed 340 million gallons of fuel, the average motorcoach got 5.66 miles per gallon in 2012, a decline from 5.84 mpg in 2011. But occupancy rates grew, so passenger miles per gallon increased from 202 to 209, meaning each passenger mile required about 664 British Thermal Units of energy. According to the Department of Energy, Amtrak consumes about 2,200 BTUs per passenger mile, again more than three times as many as intercity buses (see table 2-14).
Most people who advocate taking the train to save energy don’t realize that trains are only a little, if at all, more energy efficient than other modes. For example, airlines use less than 2,800 BTUs per passenger mile, about 550 more than Amtrak. Keeping in mind that the appropriate measure is really passenger miles per BTU, Amtrak is only about 20 percent more energy efficient than flying. (Considering that planes use the most energy when taking off, airline trips over about 1,000 miles are probably more energy efficient than Amtrak.)
The difference between Amtrak and intercity buses is much larger: buses use 70 percent less energy than trains. So while someone can save only a little energy by taking the train instead of flying, they can save a lot of energy by taking the bus instead of the train.
According to UC Berkeley researchers, the difference is even greater when the full life-cycle energy costs are considered. Lifecycle costs for rail are 2.5 times operating costs; for highway they are 1.6 times operating costs, and for air they are just 1.3 times operating costs. This means Amtrak is actually less energy efficient than most flying and a lot of driving. Intercity buses, however, beat almost everything, being five times more energy efficient than Amtrak.
As companies such as Limoliner have proven, buses can be as comfortable and spacious as any train. Though a bus with only 28 seats isn’t going to be as fuel-efficient as one with 50 or more seats, it is still likely to beat Amtrak’s average.
You don’t have give up your Toyota Prius, however. At 48 mpg on the highway, a Prius carrying four people uses about the same energy per passenger mile as intercity buses. Under Obama’s fuel-economy rules, by 2025 the average new car will do even better than the Prius. Meanwhile, Amtrak’s energy efficiency is growing more slowly than any other intercity mode, so by 2025 Amtrak will definitely be the “brown” form of intercity travel.
“got 5.66 miles per gallon in 2012, an improvement from 5.84 mpg in 2011”
Typo? Switched numbers?
The difference in fuel efficiency really shouldn’t be too surprising, if you think about how much more a train’s passenger carriage must weigh than a bus with the same capacity (and a bus doesn’t require a separate locomotive). I’m curious about how the vehicles’ average occupancy compares. I’d guess the buses tend to run fuller than the trains, which would also be part of the reason for the greater efficiency. Buses, being privately operated, are only going to be run on routes that are profitable presumably. This is of no concern to Amtrak; where they will operate is based on political considerations. I suspect the Northeast Corridor does pretty well energy-wise, but the cross-country trains, running across vast expanses of lightly-populated areas, are a disaster. For these longer journeys, most people are going to fly, considering the travel time differences. The long-distance trains are probably mainly carrying leisure travelers, who have the luxury of time, and who probably consider the experience of riding the train part of the reason for the trip. Admittedly, riding a train is no doubt a much more enjoyable experience than a long-distance bus trip! But who would argue subsidizing the vacations of people is a good use of tax money? This brings up another important point. Buses can run with little or no taxpayer subsidies and still make a profit, while Amtrak loses money even with significant subsidies.
“At 48 mpg on the highway, a Prius carrying four people”.
With four people, and their luggage for an intercity trip, a Prius is more likely to get under 40 mpg, especially if it cruises at higher speed limits, like the 70 mph zones between Seattle/Portland or Seattle/Spokane.
(Some states have higher speed limits. Try driving a Prius on the freeway at 55 – 60 mph in Arizona where the limit is up to 85 mph and see what happens. Or Texas where you’re likely to be run off the freeway by monster trucks.)
The Antiplanner is misquoting the UC Berkeley lifecycle study. The researchers actually didn’t do a analysis of Amtrak. The closest was for Caltrain, which has sufficient differences from Amtrak that no conclusions can be drawn from the data provided.
The lifecycle costs of Amtrak are probably fairly close to 1x operating mainly due to the very limited infrastructure used by Amtrak trains, outside the Northeast Corridor (which also must be split with hundreds of daily commuter trains). For the long distance trains, the main additional energy and lifecycle costs are for the rolling stock and perhaps a little for stations, most of which is fully depreciated by now.
The biggest obstacle to improving Amtrak’s fuel efficiency is the large tare weight of Amtrak trains per passenger, which is typically up to 5 tons per occupied passenger space on many corridor and long distance trains. For example, Capitol Corridor trains weight around 500 tons, for typical loads of about 100 passenger miles/train mile. The long distance trains on average carry ~180 passenger miles/train mile on 900-1,000 ton trains (2 locomotives at 140+ tons each, plus 9-10 Superliners at 75 tons each–do the math!).
In terms of actual mechanical rolling efficiency, passenger trains are more efficient that buses, up to three times more efficient on a weight basis. A typical 1,000 ton long distance train consumes about 3.5 gallons/mile, or ~500 btu per ton mile, versus ~1,200-1,300 btu/ton mile for buses, based on btu content of diesel fuel.
The fundamental problem is not technological, but institutional: that Amtrak continues the hoary, ancient railroad tradition of excessively heavy trains relative to passenger loads. The Europeans solved this issue long ago, mainly by operating much lighter trains (for example, a Swiss Stadler GTW 2/8 DMU weighs around 80 tons (US, without FRA-mandated modifications) and seats up to 160 people. Assuming an average load of 40% seated, this results in 110-115 passenger miles per gallon compared to Caltrain’s ~70 (this is based on typical fuel usage of 1.8 mpg for the Stadler DMU, a figure directly quoted to me by the manufacturer). The tare weight at these occupancies is only 1.25 tons per occupied seat for the Stadler design vs., on average, ~2.5-3.0 tons for Caltrain’s much heavier locomotive hauled trains.
The irony in this discussion is that at his other excellent website (streamlinermemories.info) The Antiplanner has extensively documented the US railroads’ “Streamliner” era, particularly the era when lightweight trains were designed and operated during the 1930’s and 1940’s. Most of these trains were technological successes, but for various reasons the railroads didn’t carry the technologies forward and reverted to building new passenger trainsets that weighed nearly as much as the old “heavyweight” cars, particularly after World War II. One explanation of this wrong turn has been developed by Greg Thompson in his book The Passenger Train In the Motor Age, which points out that the railroad industry didn’t have much of a handle on its business metrics and failed to see the direct relationship between tare weight and train fuel and maintenance costs, e.g., heavier trains cost more to fuel and maintain than lighter ones (this is obvious to truckers and bus operators, but coming out of their monopoly status a century ago, the railroad industry never put much analysis into its business metrics until after it was too late).
Thanks msetty for the interesting overview on train weights vs operating efficiency.
How does train weight impact the underlying infrastructure?
Stadler does indeed make a nice tram. I’m most familiar with ZVV S18.
http://www.stadlerrail.com/media/uploads/factsheets/TANGO_Forchbahn_e.pdf
Passenger trains tend to require better track maintenance at higher standards than for freight, since they operate at higher speeds and require such things as higher super-elevation around curves if reasonable speeds are to be maintained . On the other hand, heavy freight trains cause a lot more wear and tear on rails and ties than passenger trains, per se, mainly due to the much higher average axle loadings. While typical US passenger locomotives have similar axle loadings as freight units, freight trains also have much higher axle loadings for the entire train so contribute much more to line wear and tear.
To some extent, passenger trains on heavily-used freight lines–without major capital improvements–also can cause major conflicts with freight operations in matters such as curve super-elevation (e.g., freights require less at slower speeds and greater axle loadings) as well as passenger train on-time performance, e.g., particularly if there aren’t enough passing sidings on predominately single track freight mainlines. Freight trains are also relatively slow, using up relatively large amounts of track capacity per train which further reduces the limited capacity available for passenger trains.
These conflicts are also why the freight railroads reasonably demand major capital improvements for proposed Amtrak train reintroductions such as the North Coast Limited route through Southern Montana and North Dakota–the BNSF mainline particularly east of Billings was quoted as requiring $600 million+ in these improvements due to the heavy coal train movements on the line that Amtrak chose to study for that project. There are alternatives to the route studied by Amtrak (with some limited new construction), but they are not creative enough to figure this out!
Count on msetty to come in and provide a serious answer to kens’ rhetorical question:
But who would argue subsidizing the vacations of people is a good use of tax money
Well, msetty would.
Well, that OTHER Eliza program, Metrosucks, is baaaaaack! Making an utterly irrelevant comment as usual. We didn’t miss it in its absence.
Are you as obnoxious in person as in this forum? Researchers have found that most trolls are.
poor msetty, his position is sooooooo weak he has to pretend his opponents are figments of his imagination or internet bots.
Yes, Metrosucky, you have soooo much influence outside this blog. If the pro-rail position is so weak, how come Amtrak has survived 43 years and counting?
If the pro-rail position is so weak, how come Amtrak has survived 43 years and counting?
I guess we could use that sort of logical fallacy with any number of subjects. The reason Amtrak has “survived” is because there isn’t the political will in Congress to kill that boondoggle once and for all, not because there is great inherent worth in Amtrak. Now msetty, I understand you like your choo choo trains and want the entire US to be re “railed” due to some imaginary grievances you nurse against autos, but that’s not going to happen. All these pathetic rail boondoggles popping up here & there are the dying gasps of a relic that’s about to be shelved for good in the next decade.
msetty gives some much needed information. The lighter train cars would be a game changer in terms of energy use and maintenance costs. This should have been done a long time ago.
Unfortunately, this only gives further proof why the government-transportation planning monopoly is so bad. Instead of spending billions just for the planning stage of fantasy trains for elites, the same money could replace the heavy cars with lighter ones based on the European model.
The resulting savings would reduce the costs of operation and encourage more use of train travel. But the same powers that claim to support train travel use their positions to enrich themselves and their cronies – and trains suffer as a result.
Touché, John1000!
If the pro-rail position is so weak, how come Amtrak has survived 43 years and counting?
Not sure if this is a serious question.
MJ:
If the pro-rail position is so weak, how come Amtrak has survived 43 years and counting?
Not sure if this is a serious question.
Of course it is a “serious” question. Amtrak has survived numerous assaults by its opponents. You’d think they’d want to understand WHY political support for intercity passenger trains has been strong enough to overcome these assaults, if not get enough money to expand service to a much more complete passenger rail network that would be really useable beyond the Northeast Corridor and a few others.
Dismissing train supporters, particularly those outside the Northeast Corridor, merely as nostalgic “railfans” shows intellectual laziness, a failure to comprehend some complex politics, as well as a lack of respect for people who fundamentally disagree with the “smart” academics, libertarians and others who have regularly and tiresomely have bashed trains for 43 years. Only the English-speaking countries outside Great Britain and India seem to have difficulty in understanding the benefits of trains that most of developed world–now including China–seem to have no problem comprehending. Perhaps its rail opponents who are basically full of –it?
So, since other people do something it must be a good idea and we should do it too. No need to think about if it really is a good thing to do.
So, since other people do something it must be a good idea and we should do it too. No need to think about if it really is a good thing to do.
Right. See, Builder gets it, why can’t we be like everyone else and spend bucketloads of money on things almost no one will use but msetty thinks is a great idea cause it’s survived so long without being completely, 100% eliminated?
The Eliza Program sez:
Right. See, Builder gets it, why can’t we be like everyone else and spend bucketloads of money on things almost no one will use but msetty thinks is a great idea cause it’s survived so long without being completely, 100% eliminated?
Which “almost no one will use” in the U.S. because it is hardly available except in a few corridors and doesn’t make up a coherent network useful to most travelers. And which was almost completely eliminated only the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand…
On average, the typical U.S. resident makes less than 1 round trip per year by air, and only a handful of intercity round trips by automobile, but I don’t hear this group complaining about subsidies to air travel or the increasing gap between motor vehicle taxes and what is spent on that mode. In fact, a very large percentage of U.S. residents don’t make any intercity trips at all in a typical year, yet I don’t hear anyone denigrating the economic importance of such travel.
But, no, the “experts” who comment on this blog know better than the rest of the developed world who have come to completely opposite conclusions regarding the benefits and utility of passenger rail. Only in the U.S., New Zealand, Canada and Australia with 6% of the world’s population, really knows the “truth.” Not.
Hey Metrosucks, here’s an app for you:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2014/03/17/meet-cloak-the-antisocial-network-that-helps-you-avoid-people/.
Please use.
For those of you who think I’m an idiot and am morally challenged because I don’t agree with libertarian/free market ideology, read this article defending Nate Silver’s new online venture:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/03/20/stacking-the-deck-against-538/.
Then there’s this:
http://theweek.com/article/index/258396/in-defense-of-nate-silver.
msetty,
I don’t think you are an idiot or morally challenged. I do think that you are wrong. I also think that making personal attacks is counterproductive.
He’s not just wrong, he’s terminally selfish. To satisfy his rail fetish, he doesn’t care how much money is poured down the toilet or burned.
It would be very interesting see what the Antiplanner could come up with projecting what the inter-city bus industry would look like if it got subsidies close to, or even fractions of, the intercity rail industry.
If the intercity buses were subsidized instead of harassed, the USA could have a low cost way to see the country without huge investments in infrastructure.
Old idea, but a good idea, just need open access.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no28ZdjNWdY