Do the math
Posted by Yankee on September 5, 2005 - 12:56pm
So let's do the math on the incentives to drive vs. take the train, assuming we simply park the car when we arrive and do not use it for anything except intracity transportation:Amtrak ticket: $80 each way, $160 roundtrip (no discount for RT!)
2004 Honda Civic: 250 miles, 30 mpg, assume $3 and $3.50/gallon gas = $25-30/each way. That's really cheap compared to the $80 Amtrak tickets.Not that most people factor this into their plans, but gas is only a fraction of the cost of using a car for this trip. Let's assume parking is $25 each night x 3 nights. Tolls will be another $15 each way (bridge/NJ Turnpike/Tunnel). That brings us up to a total roundtrip cost for the car to $155-165. Ok that's competitive on the margin for one person to take the train, but remember this was a two person trip, meaning the car costs would be cut in half. This is the power of carpooling.
(Still, he ended up taking the train.)
Still, there is hope, should we get to the point where the nation becomes desperate for rail travel as an alternative. The US has a history of railroading (and electric streetcars, even though they were systematically destroyed in the early 1900s in favor of car travel), and the good news is that the US has a lot of old rights-of-way for railroads that still exist and that can be converted back to rail travel fairly straightforwardly. Interestingly, these rights-of-way are currently being protected through a policy called "railbanking". According to the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy:
Railbanking (as defined by the National Trails System Act, 16 USC 1247 (d)) is a voluntary agreement between a railroad company and a trail agency to use an out-of-service rail corridor as a trail until some railroad might need the corridor again for rail service. Because a railbanked corridor is not considered abandoned, it can be sold, leased or donated to a trail manager without reverting to adjacent landowners. The railbanking provisions of the National Trails System Act as adopted by Congress in 1983 have preserved 4,431 miles of rail corridors in 33 states that would otherwise have been abandoned.
It would be sad to see all of these miles of trails closed down, but if it were done in order to resurrect (or should I say create?) passenger and freight rail lines, I'd be all for it.
In full disclosure, I'm not as virtuous as peakguy. I went to Pittburgh over the weekend, and we did consider taking Amtrak from NYC. For us, it would have been more than economical ($100RT per person), and many times more ecological too. For me, the problem was time. It took us 4 1/2 hours door-to-door from our hotel in Pittburgh to our home in NYC, versus over 9 hours for the train. For a 2 day trip, it was just too much time.
And in case anyone is wondering, Pittburgh had gas for $3.19 for regular grade, and no lines anywhere.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Sure, most people already own the car so they figure "why not use it?", but increasingly I suspect that car-sharing (ie. Flexcar, Zipcar) and investments in public transportation infrastructure will change the balance.
We can hope, anyway.
100000 miles 250 miles is $37.50 assuming buying it new and running it
into the ground and linear depreciation. If you buy new and sell while
still a reasonable life left it wil be higher.
We could total the environmental damage of 1 gallon of gas - or an extra meal every day.
I grow a few veggies in containers, but nothing major.
And roughly one meal out each day.
At any rate, what do you think will be the effect of higher gas prices on shopping behavior? Maybe people will say, 'I'd like to buy organic, but with so much money going to gas, I'll buy the factory farm stuff?'
P.S. The 40.5 cents figure was calculated in late 2004 when gas was around $2 a gallon; the 2006 rate will almost certainly be higher.
A car-share may enable you to get rid of some of the fixed cost - but what about insurance? - but it depends on your travel patterns. If you travel to visit family over holidays, and the trip would be of no use to you at other times, well, everybody else wants the shared car on the major holidays too, and it can't be in many places at once. Oops. On the other hand, if your trips would still be useful off-peak, the arrangement might be a good deal.
If there is a near term increase in rail passengers, it will likely come from displaced flyers, not drivers. The airlines simply have to raise fares to have any hope of surviving, and that will push more people onto trains, buses and cars. My wife and I are going from DC to New Hampshire for Thanksgiving and we plan to drive our Prius to save money. Coincidentally, we will burn fewer BTUs/passanger-mile than we would by flying.
The events of the past week have really shaken a lot of people up: a major city is inhabitable with thousands dead and we've seen widespread gas lines and price spikes for the first time in a generation. The worst part is the realization that our federal government was incapable of preventing either. Both the slow rescue response and inability to prevent a price shock will have huge political backlashes. Perhaps if we are persistent and lucky we can turn the cries of, "Mr. President, what are you doing to lower gasoline prices?" into something more productive, such as, "Mr. President, what are you doing to cope with the onset of peak oil?" If there is anything that we can do as individuals it is to inform the people around us and now is a great time to start.
I think it's important to hit a couple points right up front, namely that "peak oil" doesn't mean "running out of oil", that the disappearance of a large spare production buffer leads to sudden and dramatic price swings when production disturbances (such as Katrina) occur, and over the span the next several decades peak oil will require a major change in transportation technology, infrastructure and ultimately our lifestyle. When asked for web resources I often point to this site as well as the ASPO site for starters, and I keep the Hirsch report and several other reports and presentations on the flash drive on my key chain.
Unfortunately it's tough to strike the ideal balance between urgency and contemplation. My sister in Pittsburgh told me about a discussion she had with a neighbor on his front porch. After listening for twenty minuets my sister's neighbor asked her, "Do you think I should sell my cars now before everyone else does?"
For the trip from NYC to DC, on APEX, the roundtrip cost is $35/person, or $70 for two people. That beats the $80 in gas and doesn't require parking/tickets/driving/wear'n tear on the car. There is the ghetto factor of busses, which might be a problem for some. I'm sure if more people take busses, then there will be delux busses for $10 more that cater to first class sensibilities.
Suburban locations are a noncar owner's nightmare. Buses and planes get you to the city, but the location of the family event, industry or firm might be 30 or more miles out of town. This is the whole reason America consumes so much petrol on transportation.
There's a side effect of having a car which is detrimental to you, but a benefit to others. You become the chauffeur. Without the car, you can't be expected to drive everyone around.
A postscript: My wife and I made it through the three-day weekend without once entering the garage.
This is clearly a matter of personal preference and perception, but my guess is that a lot of people will avoid car pooling until gas gets truly expensive--say over $8/gallon.
I recently priced the train from a major east coast city to a mid west city that is on the main east west line. I wanted to compare to airfare. My father who is retired would like the train and wouldn't be bothered by the extra time.
Here is what I found: The base price for the train was $50 more expensive, required two train changes, and would take 22 hours. This was not a sleeping car, just seats. The plane ticket has one connection and takes 6 hours total travel time. And the airport is closer than the closest train station.
This is a travesty. I can't recommend the train for any reason, price, comfort or time. I can't fathom how planes are more efficient than planes for long distances. Obviously there are such huge subsidies for air transport that even sharing track with freight can't make trains competitive over long distances. If you make the trains so uncompetitive that you can't have ridership, of course they will go out of business. What a country.
my recent journey on the TGV from Paris to Lyon. 287 miles by road,
that is farther than from New York to Washington DC, 1 hour 55 minutes
on the train, 2 hours 30 minuets from my hotel to the company I was
visiting. $78.30 equivalent for the train $10.20 for the taxis
(both ends near the stations) in comfort and legroom in the cheap
seats greater than first class in any plane, A smoother ride than any
plane or car, excellent food available, freedom to walk around and
powered my nuclear generated electricity that consumes no fossil fuel,
for the actual power generation. France generates more nuclear powered
electricity than it consumes including that used for trains.
What a contrast to the flight back to the UK and the drive around London to get home.
It can be done.
In the age of oil depletion, rails will be an even more desirable freight route. I'm guessing they will be adding a lot more semi-trailer cars to reduce the number of long-haul trucks. This will make them even less interested in running passenger trains.
[1] http://enthusiasm.cozy.org/archives/2005/08/trip-to-the-market/
[2] http://www.aaasouth.com/acs_news/Drivec05.asp
ps. regular gas was $3.35/gallon at 6 stations in Cambridge Ma this evening.
I'm biking a lot now, but once there is snow on the ground, I'll want something with more than two wheels. Since January, I've been looking for an alternative to the gasoline-powered car. I've found so many ephemeral EV websites, like the Zenn. There are nifty little european EVs that you just can't get in the US, like the Twike. http://www.twike.us/
There are a few four-wheel Human-Powered Vehicles, like the Rhoades car, which can have helper electric engines: http://www.rhoadescar.com
The only three-wheeled enclosed HPVs, or velomobiles, in the US seem to be the old Alligt and Flevobike Alleweders, which can have electric helper engines: http://www.velomobileusa.com/ (The new Flevo Versatiles are beautiful objects, but are sold in Europe.) It seems more practical to buy a trike and enclose it myself.
Neighborhood EVs seem to be little more than golf carts, but might be the best choice to keep from being run over by an SUV: http://www.electric-bikes.com/nev.htm
I'm still cogitating.
http://www.electroauto.com/index.html
http://www.canev.com/KitsComp/S10Kit/S10-Kit.html
http://www.kta-ev.com/index.html#anchor871905
He says that Twike is taking pre-orders now for delivery in 2006. The classic Twike, or "Twike Active," will be configured with reduced electrical power to qualify as an electric bicycle. The European models can move along pretty briskly, but I guess they have to cripple them for NHTSA.
The no-pedals "Twike Easy" will be considered a motorcycle, which requires registration and a motorcycle operator's license. Twike US asks that those who pre-order be committed to purchasing a Twike, so that they can get accurate numbers for production. No deposit is required until the unit you are buying is actually on the production line.
Twike Actives cost about 12,310 euros in Europe, which is about $15,000 (I think they should cost less with less battery power, but who knows). The Twike Easy, with no pedals, costs almost a thousand euros less in Europe (I suspect that complying with NHTSA motorcycle standards might greatly increase that price in the US).
By comparison, the open, two-seater Rhoades Cars with electric assist cost over $5,000. The one-person Alligt or Flevo with electric assist would cost about $6,000.
That would be AUD$5.88 dollars per gallon.
For example, I live in Texas. A state larger than some countries. Amtrak basically has two routes through the state -- the Texas Eagle (enters the state from the west, hits San Antonio, then north to DFW, then east toward Texarkana before heading to Chicago) and the Sunset Limited, which goes from Los Angeles to Orlando, FL and stops in TX in San Antonio and Houston.
If you aren't living on one of these routes, then you have a choice to take a bus to the nearest train station, or to drive there. Walking would take far too long and a taxicab far too much expense.
For example, this means you cannot hop a train in Dallas and go to Houston. You can go from Dallas, west to Fort Worth, down to San Antonio, then switch trains and go to Houston. This will turn what would be a four hour car trip into a two day adventure. Just the Dallas to San Antonio leg will take ten hours, where it's five or six hours by car.
So if you are a business person ("time is money") or a person travelling with small kids or just someone without a lot of time, there is no other option than to drive or fly.
Southwest Airlines will take you from Dallas to Houston for $99 in 55 minutes. And they have twenty something flights every day, leaving about every thirty minutes.
Driving it will take four or five hours to make it from Dallas to Houston, and you won't have to rent a car or take a cab when you get there.
I wonder when gas prices and the fixed costs of owning a car will cause a shift in housing decisions causing people to value mass transit over suburbs...
WAY cheaper than Amtrak, and shockingly about half the price of Greyhound/Peter Pan.