My other car gets 100 miles to the gallon
Cross posted at Conceptual Guerilla
Did you know, that right here, right now, without inventing anything new, we have a proven, off the shelf technology and transportation mode that is up to ten times more fuel efficient than the average car and up to 4 times as efficient as the latest hybrids. Additionally, that technology consumes less land than air and car travel, travels on a bed that does not include asphalt and other impervious materials, and is significantly safer. It is time to ride the rails to sustainability, and I will tell you why below the fold.
Recently I have been watching the debate over transportation options and have noticed that there is much hand-wringing and public debate over continual expansion of road and air travel to keep up with the increasing demand and population. I argue that plane and car travel are a dead end and cannot be retooled for efficiency fast enough to address issues such as peak oil and global warming, despite lip service to new technologies such as hybrid cars and hydrogen powered vehicles (which will use fossil feedstocks rather than water electrolysis). These technologies as well will take years to penetrate the market, especially given the huge cost of replacement for the current automobile fleet, which is largely borne by the individuals and businesses using these vehicles. Additionally, the huge government subsidies to the infrastructure for cars and planes are scandalous in light of the pollution, waste, and money losses, particularly with respect to the airline industry. The last highway bill passed expends upwards of $250 billon of federal funds over the next several years, and this does not include the expenditures of state and local governments. Roads and highways gobble up vast land areas, cause runoff and environmental damage such as acid rain and salinization of soils, contribute 40 percent or more of the annual greenhouse gasses, and promote a deadly transportation system that kills nearly as many Americans each year as were lost in the entire Vietnam war. Also, the average annual cost per family to own and operate cars is in the neighborhood of 15-22 percent or more of the American median income, a cost that along with health care, shelter and other necessities is rising faster than the official rate of inflation, and eats up more and more of the family budget. Its time to think outside the box that our current presidential regime and rubber-stamp congress have constructed with regards to transportation options.
To use myself as a personal example, the relentless increase in gasoline prices (nearly 100% inflation since 2001) have taken a huge bite out of the family budget, given the fact that I need to commute a very long distance to work. Fortunately, I have taken a job that is on a commuter train line, with the office only 150 feet from the Wheaton Metra Station. It has helped my personal bottom line, with gasoline at $3.00 a gallon a monthly train pass saves me real money (approximately $7 per day) over driving to work. Therefore, I began to take the train. I have access to a work vehicle at the office to drive to project sites if I need to. This transit mode is far more relaxing than driving - I can sleep, read, catch up on work on my laptop, and write articles and rants such as this one.
I have become interested in what the state of and the future of rail travel in the US is, and why we have not been more active in promoting it. In a nutshell, in the era of cheap fuel, the choice was made to starve rail transit for both in town commuting and intercity travel in favor of flying and driving - this was despite the fact that they even had high speed rail in the late 40's, with a train that traveled 120mph and made the Minneapolis to Chicago run in under 6 hours, much faster than the current Amtrak service. The fact that we have gone backwards in railway speed and efficiency since over 50 years ago is scandalous. The canard that was constantly bandied about is that trains are too inflexible and inefficient compared to airplanes and cars.
Apparently, many of the public has not been convinced of this. The Metra trains that I ride on have estimated a 5-20 percent annual increase in ridership dependent on the line since the recent fuel price runups under the Bush regime. Amtrak is recording similar recent ridership increases, especially in the more densely populated corridors. During my commutes a 9-car train that holds 150 passengers per car often fills to capacity and then some.
Reading up on the state of train travel and perusing the railroading forums, I became curious as to just how fuel efficient trains are. This is important in that trains represent an off-the shelf "back to the future technology" that can solve many of our pollution and overconsumption issues, not to mention save a heck of a lot of money for Americans. I tried to find information on the Internet and elsewhere regarding the fuel economy of trains to come up with reason to support rail. There was very little, except a study that focused on interurban train travel in 1930-1962. This study found that trains averaged in the 35-40 miles per gallon per passenger range, with the exception of World War II, when efficiencies topped 80 mpg due to heavy passenger use with the war curtailing auto usage.
I did not feel that this was relevant to today, given the fact that trains today are more fuel efficient than they were 45 years ago. I decided to do my own calculation exercise with respect to the train efficiencies. Based on 2003 ridership figures (likely much higher now) of 39,000 passengers per day, the average train on my route carries 619 passengers per train, and the driving distance of the train is 63 miles (Chicago to Harvard). The average current technology diesel locomotive gets two to three gallons per mile. Based on this, given a fuel economy of 3.45 gallons to the mile (2004 average fuel economy for diesel commuter rail per US government statistics), the train uses 217 gallons of diesel to travel from Chicago to Harvard. Given the average train load of 619 passengers, this gives a fuel usage of 0.35 gallon (slightly more than 1/3 gallon) used per passenger to travel the 63 mile trip. Doing the math, this gives a fuel economy of 180 passenger miles per gallon of fuel used. Now this figure may be inflated due to the fact that the train empties out on the first half of the trip at the stops, and only 100-200 people travel to the end of the line, but I think it is reasonable to assume that 100+ passenger miles to the gallon is routine!. No car can touch this unless it is carrying multiple passengers and let's face it, 90 percent of commuters in cars tend to travel alone. The only way to beat this fuel economy with off-the shelf technology today would be to telecommute!
Can you imagine these 619 passengers driving cars the same distance? With the average car getting 21 miles per gallon, and assuming all of these people save 2.75 gallons of gas each over the trip by not driving, that adds up to lots of gasoline (up to 1700 gallons per train trip!)
What is even more interesting that newer train technology (diesel multiple unit locomotives) are even more efficient with fuel usage of only 20-25 percent of that of the current locomotive powered trains. Some of these train types are being used in Europe on intercity and commuter lines. This makes rebuilding our nations rail network even more attractive as a way of weaning ourselves off Middle East petroleum and reducing the effluents that contribute to global warming. Train locomotive power plants are relatively non-finicky and can also be run on bio-diesel. Also, diesel-electric hybrid locomotives are in development and prototype form, and provide even more opportunities for efficiency.
Rebuilding our rail infrastructure would seem to me to be a no-brainer. Especially here in the Midwest, nearly all towns are still served by the rail trackage and rights of way used to deliver agricultural products to market. Minor upgrades to the trackage, which would be cheaper than putting in new roads, would ensure improved freight and passenger accessibility. All town centers with over 1000 people should be served within walking distance with a rail stop, with trains in smaller areas possibly smaller and running on the electric grid.
An important side benefit to trains, besides the phenomenal fuel economy, is the technology of the rail bed. As anyone who has ever seen a train or ridden on one knows, typical train tracks consist of two steel rails laid over either wooden ties, or in some places now, concrete ties. These ties are laid over a bed of crushed stone. Unlike the solid paved roads and runways that are needed for automobile and air travel, these railbeds are a pervious surface, in which rain and snow tend to soak in, rather than run off. Managing runoff in built up areas with lots of roads is a serious problem and leads to a high external cost of increased flooding and non-point source pollution. Not to mention the fact that these asphalt surfaces absorb heat and contribute to urban heat-island effects and global warming above and beyond the effects of the vehicles driving on them. This is not to mention that the vast majority of pavement is constructed from asphalt, which itself is derived from petroleum. Railroad trackage contains no such material. Plus, the steel of worn out railroad tracks is easily recycled and reprocessed for the same use, unlike waste asphalt.
Additionally, three to four sets of tracks can fit in the same right of way as a four lane street with limited medians. Each track can easily handle six trains or more per hour, each with approximately 900 persons. With full capacity, that translates to 21,600 passengers per hour. With this amount of cars, assuming an average of 1.5 passengers per car, this would translate to 14,000 cars per hour, which would mean that the road would need to handle 233 cars per minute.
Freight is another reason to ride the rails. Per ton of freight, trains are capable of using one-quarter to one third the amount of fuel that long-haul trucking uses. Yet another way to cut our dependency on the dubious regimes and corporations that provide our energy.
There is less material waste, as well with trains. Typical train rolling stock, including locomotives, freight and passenger railcars, usually lasts at least 25-30 years with proper maintenance, and older equipment is often preserved or rehabbed for use by other railroad providers. How many 25-30 year old cars are still on the road?
An additional benefit to public train transportation is a huge cost savings to individuals. Personal automobiles carry an enormous cost burden that can range between $3500-$6000 per year or more, which includes fuel, the cost of the vehicle/depreciation, insurance, maintenance and repairs, etc. Especially for those at or below the median American income, this transportation cost devours 18-20 percent or more of a family budget, except in areas where transit alternatives are present. This figure is based on early 2005 gasoline prices which have increased over 50% since the initiation of the study that determined family transportation costs. Even for a very long commute such as my own, the train costs less than $2400 per year for unlimited travel. The yearly fuel cost alone for many vehicles is larger than that amount. Trains also make transit easily accessible to those who cannot or will not drive, including children, elderly, economically disadvantaged, and disabled citizens.
Cheap labor conservatives, and the road lobby constantly massage the numbers to make it appear that mass transit, especially rail, constitutes a financial black hole. They rarely acknowledge the external and sunk costs of driving and trucking, instead focusing singly on "profit and loss" (most mass transit is partially subsidized and usually runs at a loss, sometimes exceeding 50 percent after fare revenue), and the per capita tax dollars spent. Naturally, they can come up with a lower per mile tax subsidy cost of driving, given that the mileage of the road network is much larger than that of transit, so the unit cost per passenger-mile is cheaper despite a much larger absolute expenditure for roads and airports relative to rail transit. Persons such as Wendell Cox and Randal O'Toole, notorious anti-rail shills financed by the highway lobby for the Cato Institute, Reason Institute and Heritage Foundation, use these techniques of analysis. Unfortunately, the analysis is seriously flawed in that none of the actual individual per-capita costs of driving, such as vehicle purchase, depreciation, maintenance, insurance, and fuel are factored into the mix of costs. These are easily quantifiable and need to be factored into all transportation analyses. When the less obvious costs of driving, such as the greenhouse gases and other effluents, cost of oil to the economy and the need for military adventurism to ensure access to the oil, and all of the ancillary effects such as flooding run-off, road upkeep, the costs of accidents in lost lives, injuries, property damage, etc, the cost "advantage" of the asphalt car-truck transportation complex becomes even harder to defend. Costs are costs, whether they are borne to the individual through taxes, or are paid to the private sector for vehicles, fuel, insurance and other costs of driving, when no alternatives exist.
In a nutshell, we need to do the math, get on track, and rebuild our nation's rail infrastructure. Trains are part of a path to a sustainable future, and need to be promoted as a viable alternative to driving and over the road trucking.
References:
Cost of Driving
http://www.transact.org/... - Driven to Spend - report detailing the huge budgetary impact of automobile based transit on the typical American family. Be aware that their numbers pre-date the huge (50%) increases in gasoline prices since early 2005.
Anti-Rail, Pro Road Advocates
http://www.lightrailnow.org/... - Details funding of Wendell Cox, anti-transit advocate
http://www.lightrailnow.org/... - Rebuttal of Randal O'Toole's work "Great Rail Disaster" pro-road biases.
Statistics on Railroad Transit (used as sources in this writing)
http://www.apta.com/... - collection of links to stats on rail transit, including fuel economy, ridership, miles, equipment, providers, etc.
http://www.metrarail.com - Metra (Chicago region commuter rail) ridership statistics
http://www.railroad.net/... - Discussion of railroading, including transit, freight and providers