Interesting article that argues that public transit is not energy efficient:
http://www.templetons.com/brad/transit-myth.html
It gives me the warm fuzzies to learn that our Yamaha Vino is actually far more energy efficient then any kind of public transit.
Here are the interesting parts…
How can this be?
A full bus or trainload of people is more efficient than private cars, sometimes quite a bit more so. But transit systems never consist of nothing but full vehicles. They run most of their day with light loads. The above calculations came from figures citing the average city bus holding 9 passengers, and the average train (light or heavy) holds 22. If that seems low, remember that every packed train at rush hour tends to mean a near empty train returning down the track.
Transit vehicles also tend to stop and start a lot, which eats a lot of energy, even with regenerative braking. And most transit vehicles are just plain heavy, and not very aerodynamic. Indeed, you’ll see tables in the DoE reports that show that over the past 30 years, private cars have gotten 30% more efficient, while buses have gotten 60% less efficient and trains about 25% worse. The market and government regulations have driven efforts to make cars more efficient, while transit vehicles have actually worsened.
In order to get people to ride transit, you must offer frequent service, all day long. They want to know they have the freedom to leave at different times. But that means emptier vehicles outside of rush hour. You’ve all seen those huge empty vehicles go by, you just haven’t thought of how anti-green they were. It would be better if off-hours transit was done by much smaller vehicles, but that implies too much capital cost — no transit agency will buy enough equipment for peak times and then buy a second set of equipment for light demand periods.
Transit planning is also driven by different economies. Often transit infrastructure (including vehicles) is paid for by state or federal money, while drivers (but also fuel) are paid from local city budgets. This seems to push local city transit agencies to get bigger vehicles and fewer drivers where they can, since drivers tend to be hired full-time and can’t be kept idling in low-demand periods.
“There is a bit of a paradox within these numbers. In spite of them, it is always the green move for any individual to take existing mass transit over their car. That’s because the transit is running anyway, so the incremental cost of carrying one more passenger is indeed less than just about any private vehicle. It is similarly green to carpool in somebody else’s car that’s going your way.
As such, these numbers should not make you feel better about taking your car instead of the train. Particularly solo, since solo drivers are what make the car’s average efficiency worse while carpoolers make it better”
Yes, you should still take transit
There is a bit of a paradox within these numbers. In spite of them, it is always the green move for any individual to take existing mass transit over their car. That’s because the transit is running anyway, so the incremental cost of carrying one more passenger is indeed less than just about any private vehicle. It is similarly green to carpool in somebody else’s car that’s going your way.
As such, these numbers should not make you feel better about taking your car instead of the train. Particularly solo, since solo drivers are what make the car’s average efficiency worse while carpoolers make it better.
These numbers instead are there to guide policy. What sort of transportation infrastructure should we build to be green? And, to a more limited extent, what sort of transportation should you support? The math should influence your decisions, and those of city planners who work for you, on what new transit to build, and what to keep running.
