 | Another 100 billion barrels of oil found in Iraq? | The Oil Drum | Are Subsidies to Oil Companies Ever Justified? |  |
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
TOD:Europe
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
- The 2008 IEA WEO - Production Decline Rates
- The EU Strategic Energy Review: maybe not so depressing after all
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils, for time is the greatest innovator.”
—Francis Bacon, Essays
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
NewsWeek Letter to the Editor
This letter came from the "Energize America" debate on High Speed InterCity Rail (I am a doubter and question if that is our highest priority. I prefer semi-HSR with 100 mph freight & 110-125 mph passenger service instead of high speed passenger only rail).
I was the one that pointed out the Strickland data on Urban Rail efficiency to the group.
The original letter mentioned cutting funding from 80% federal to about 1/3rd federal funding during the Bush Administration. Despite 3 multi-billion examples of 1/3rd FTA funding (and one 20% and one 8% FTA funding), they edited the funding phrase down.
Best Hopes,
Alan
I'm a regular traveler on Amtrak. I'd be delighted with even quasi<?>-high speed rail -- 50mph average would be a treat. And instead of cutting service, it needs to be extended. Major routes, like Portland to Denver have been cut.
Alan -- can you tell me how many passenger miles per gallon it is possible to get with ordinary locomotives -- Amtrak style? And how many equivalent passenger miles/gallon with electrified rail? -- Or is that conversion even meaningful?
How does that compare with Greyhound buses and 737's?
Last time I calculated (a couple of years ago), diesel Amtrak (outside NEC) was getting ~85 pax mpg. Sleepers & 58% (memory) load factor hurt the #s. Electrification improves BTU efficiency (trade diesel for electricity) by x2.5 on plains and x3 in mountains and built up urban areas (industry rule of thumb).
Southwest Airlines got about 54 pax-mpg in 2006 (also memory).
Greyhound ?? I do not know real world load factors.
Best Hopes,
Alan
The U.S. Department of Energy publishes a Transportation Energy Data Book.
It contains a tremendous amount of useful energy information on motorized transportation modes (passenger and freight) in the U.S.
For the passenger modes, Tables 2.11 and 2.12 (in Chapter 2) list the general BTUs per passenger mile as:
Mode BTUs/passenger mile (2003)
Cars 3,549
Light Truck 7,004
Bus (Transit) 4,160
Bus (Intercity) 932 (for 2000)
Air (Commercial) 3,587
Air (General Aviation) 10,384 (for 2001)
Rail (Intercity - Amtrak) 2,935
Rail (Transit) 3,228
Rail (Commuter) 2,751
As always, the devil's in the details. Tables 2.11 and 2.12 strongly warn that "Great care should be taken when comparing modal energy intensity data among modes. Because of the inherent
differences between the transportation modes in the nature of services, routes available, and many additional
factors, it is not possible to obtain truly comparable national energy intensities among modes." I have not yet looked into the various assumptions that went into the computation of the above numbers.
Those statistics ahve been roundly criticized for unrealistic assumptions (# of pax/car as one example). "Bush data manipulation" has been one allegation I have heard (no comment lacking facts myself).
I prefer private data in this case.
http://strickland.ca/efficiency.html
He takes real world and generally representative examples instead of "global averages" more subject to manipulation.
In any case, the changes in Urban form over time due to TOD effects save more energy than direct energy savings via substitution.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Thank you for the positive reference, Alan. I would just like to add that if anyone has references to the real numbers for a particular Amtrak service I would be happy to add it to the table. Right now the data I have for diesel-electric locomotive-hauled trains is not the greatest. I have information from one trial service for the Colorado railcar+trailer (392 passenger-mpg if all seats taken), and one data point taken from the fact that commuter rail trains (which I've seen with my own two eyeballs :-) ) can be 10 bi-level cars long with only one 3000 hp locomotive, which apparently burns 761 L/100 km. Knowing the seating capacity of each car yields the number I calculated - 421 passenger-mpg with all seats filled. Amtrak single-level trains are likely to have less than half the seating capacity but not significantly different mass (less dense seating, a restaurant and baggage car perhaps) and if they're on average half full then you would expect something on the order of 1/4 the efficiency overall.
This is too much handwaving for my liking - I'd like to nail a more exact number down. The difficulty of finding such information continues to astound me - surely the energy efficiency of transportation service should be an important factor in public policy.
Maybe I'll try some more searching. I've started looking through the academic literature and there is a stunning paucity of data there as well. Maybe I'm just not searching in the right place - anyone have any ideas?
I have been wanting to (time available) to get the annual #s for Long Island Railroad (some small % freight) as a valuable addition for you directly from LIRR. LIRR is, of course, electrified.
Best Hopes,
Alan
thanks to all. Some great leads.
Obviously, there is no simple answer. Especially if people want to keep moving around, and apparently, they do.
Someone might fix the html tag that I typed wrong at the start of this thread, though obviously it doesn't impair readability-- it's just inelegant
Yeah, I'm going to guess there's a fairly sulphurous devil lurking in the details. Rolling coefficient of friction for rail is only around 0.3%, more than an order of magnitude less than for a car, and wind resistance will be divided up among the passengers. Rail-car-plus locomotive weight per passenger can be surprisingly high, but at reasonable loading should still be less than for a car. So unless there are only two or three passengers per rail car, which rarely happens on any overall average because it's unsustainably expensive, this just doesn't seem physically reasonable - and especially not for multiple-unit electric transit trains, which need no locomotive weight. For very high speed trains it may be a different story, but there are none of those in the USA for the DOE to keep tabs on.
Semi-HSR is a concept borrowed from SBB (SwissRail).
They plan to mix High speed (160 kph) speciality freight trains mixed with 200 & 240 kph pax trains. The "extra kph" to true HSR is not worth the cost of losing freight in the US.
Much time sensitive freight (fish, perishable veggies, JIT inventory, electronics, etc.) could be shifted from truck and air to rail and this could save as much oil as pax service.
At night, a different mix of medium density, non-stream lined cargo (containers et al) could operate at 90-110 kph with the streamlined 160 kph freight trains.
For the metrically challenged.
200 kph = 123 mph
160 kph = 100 mph
100 kph = 62 mph
NOT TGV, but faster than driving. And more energy efficient.
Best Hopes,
Alan
This is a concept that I have developed over time.
I suppose this semi-HSR has been developed in Switzerland because of the impossibility to reach the real high speeds in such a small territory (not flat furthermore).
I agree however with you that this use of the infrastructure is the most rational, esp. taking account the fact that it doesn't cost too much to refit the old lines to bear higher speeds.
The new Gotthard tunnel is flat (0.25 % maximum grade from memory) and almost straight for 56 km ! With 20 km and shorter tunnels as well; it will be a flat, almost straight run from Zurich to Milan when finished :-)
Best Hopes for SBB,
Alan
The prosperity of Switzerland started with the collecting of the taxes for the crossing of the alps, so we can say that this way is very important for us..
Hello Alan,
I need your translation skills again : what does Kudos means?
Thx in advance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudos
Alan,
Were you to be transformed from the resident TOD rail transport expert to Transit Czar USA, how would you prioritize the mass transit projects we desperately need. HSR (or even semi-HSR) between major eastern and midwestern cities (and their airports) could eliminate short-haul air travel, offering energy savings and freeing air/runway space for cross-country/international travel. Light rail in major cities enhancers air quality, saves time, energy, etc.. We as a country seem to be reluctant to begin more than a few of these projects at one time--successful ventures (such as light rail in Salt Lake City) bring more converts; disasters (Amtrak using Union Pacific rail between LA and San Francisco) push us back to more highways.
What would be your top-ten projects in this country--bang-for-the-buck-wise (i.e. energy efficiency) and p.r.-wise?
Interesting, I took a while to think this over.
My #1 would be built out the Miami 103 miles of elevated "subway" type rail (20 open, 3 under construction) *IF* Miami agrees to TOD (they are the national leader today) AND promote bicycling (stop lights have a green for bike a few seconds before a car green, like Copenhagen) and take car lanes for bike lanes. Using preTOD population; 90% of population will be within 3 miles of a station and over 1/2 within 2 miles.
http://www.miamidade.gov/trafficrelief/RailMap.htm
Show how a major American city can be transformed !
Build out New Orleans 35 mile plan (mine :-) and show how, on a different scale (and MUCH cheaper) a city can also be transformed.
The "Big 3" mega-projects by convential cost-benefit would be the 2nd Avenue subway in NYC, the Red Line subway in LA (perhaps only a couple of stops past UCLA instead of all the way to the Sea as an economy measure "for now"; I am unsure if those last few miles will have a great payback). And the downtown Inter-connector in LA as well (allows much better connections between all of the light rail line & Union Pax station).
That's 5.
Connect North Station and South Station in Boston. To save $, take some lanes from the rubber tires in the "Big Dig". This allows commuter rail to serve all of the city and lets the Northeast Corridor continue up to Maine. It will also help, indirectly, to connect ths subways together better.
Redo the California HSR into semi-HSR (saving $$$), extend to Phoenix & Tuscon and make express freight an equal priority to pax (ship veggies not only to SF, LA & PHX but allow connections for "high ball" express freight service (at, say 65 mph) to Chicago, etc. A demonstration of concept proposal.
Salt Lake City's 90 mile plan; a lessor transformation but still a useful example for people to see & believe in.
Add extra TransBay tunnels in SF. Existing ones have uncertain life span (OOPS if they are shut down before new ones can be built) and are near capacity today. Post-Peak Oil they will be maxxed out !
A tenth one is my concept for Portland. Run a subway from the Eastside (before Convention Center) under the river with a station underneath Pioneer Square. Elevators up and escalators exiting 2 blocks away from Pioneer Square in all 4 directions. Continue in subway till merging back with the Blue line in the tunnel.
Avoiding downtown will allow longer trains to be used AND express service to the heart of downtown. Faster for downtown users AND it connects East Portland (airport, etc.) with "west of the mountain" on the Blue Line. Right now it takes almost 20 minutes to crawl through downtown Portland, limiting "through" traffic.
Add subway link at right angles to Pioneer Square subway station to Portland State Univ. Maybe just one tunnel with a passing track in the center.
This will add significant value to ALL of the rest of the Portland system (Blue, Red, Yellow & Green lines, streetcar and commuter rail + future plans).
And if the 100+ year old "Steel Bridge" fails (only Light Rail accross Willamette River), it will not be a complete disaster for Portland (see SF TransBay risk above). The subway can take the load.
Hope this helps explain WHY as well as just "What"
IMHO "systems" are more valuable than isolated lines. And I want to demonstrate how a comprehensive system can radically change a city. And I want to build redundancy where a single line can cause a major bottleneck or even a disaster.
Best Hopes,
Alan
WOW! Thanks for the quick reply. You are a gentleman and a scholar. If I remember correctly the "BIG DIG" was originally supposed to include the North Station-South Station link. That was the selling point for a variety of transit lobbyists (such as the Natl Assoc. of RR Passengers) as it could have extended the Eastern Corridor to northern New England. Twenty years and twenty billion later and we are just further from functional transit.
Hi Alan,
and thanks for the Q, as well as for the A.
What about fixing Amtrak? So that it runs even approximately on time, w. some contingency planning for delays, rail service (not bus service), etc.
(I just had yet one more conversation with a person who wants to take Amtrak on frequent trips in CA, but cannot afford to be stranded at odd, late hours, etc.)
My "focus group" (of individual, anecdotal conversations) says fixing the "Coast Starlight" would attract many riders.
What is required for this to happen? Agreements with the ROW/rail owners? Freight lines? How much money? Or is it a lack of something else, in addition?
The biggest issue is infrastructure.
The second is freight RR attitude. UP is seen as VERY bad in that area.
The new Amtrak President has an interesting proposal. He wants $1 billion/year that Amtrak can give as grants to freight RR to improve their infrastructure.
So, if UP (and BN-SF) want $$$ for Cajun Pass in CA (a shared mountain pass in CA with BN-SF that is a major bottleneck), they have an incentive to be nicer to Amtrak elsewhere on their system. Or the $$$ may go to another bottleneck elsewhere (Chicago needs work !).
Personally, I like the "backdoor" subsidy for freight RR.
A group of RRs paid for a Kansas City improvement recently that removed a major bottleneck. They built a double track overpass (almost 10,000' long bridge) so the E-W trains could go over N-S trains without an at grade crossing. Simple concept, NOT cheap.
On-going RR improvements ARE helping ! UP is double tracking between LA & El Paso. 55% to 60% done today. Amtrak Sunset Ltd had a SLOW schedule and was often late for that ! Things have significantly improved according to a transit advocate (editor of Light Rail Now where I publish my series of srticles) even with the work only half done.
CA has a rail system designed for a much smaller state. MAJOR improvements are needed. The freights are doing what pencils out for them (and that they can afford). But the social & economic benefits of improvements go beyond the Return on Investment calcs for UP and BN&SF.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Thanks again, Alan,
So what move could citizens make to bring about major improvements?
As far as I can tell, Energize America is working only on HSR? Is there any movement or group working on CA rail (for eg.)? (Who is BN-SF?)
So, you like what the new Amtrak Pres is doing, then? Do you think he'll get the money?
BN-SF is Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad. They share a duopoly with Union Pacific over most of the Western US.
Energyize America is changing their focus (in part due to my efforts).
The fired Amtrak President, David Gunn, was their best one EVER ! The new guy (my read) is a pure politican who tells everybody what they want to hear. Perhaps an essential skill for a gov't RR. He also appears to be smart.
Time will tell.
Best Hopes,
Alan