Real Estate Market / Inflation / Recession / Depression (Frederick: mortgage, environment, credit)

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Charles

From

Fuel efficiency in transportation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Passenger airplanes averaged 4.8 L/100 km per passenger (1.4 MJ/passenger-km) (49 passenger-miles per gallon) in 1998....


Amtrak reports 2005 energy use of 2,935 BTU per passenger-mile, or 39 passenger-miles per gallon...

How about the chart farther down in the article?

Transport mode Average passengers
per vehicle Efficiency
per passenger
Rail (Commuter) 32.9 2,569 BTU/mi 48 mpg
Rail (Intercity Amtrak) 17.9 2,760 BTU/mi 45 mpg
Rail (Transit Light & Heavy) 22.4 2,750 BTU/mi 45 mpg
Motorcycles 1.1 2,272 BTU/mi 55 mpg
Cars 1.57 3,496 BTU/mi 36 mpg
Air 90.4 3,959 BTU/mi 32 mpg
Personal Trucks 1.72 4,329 BTU/mi 29 mpg
Buses (Transit) 8.7 4,318 BTU/mi 29 mpg

[Charles]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

How about the chart farther down in the article?

Transport mode Average passengers
per vehicle Efficiency
per passenger
Rail (Commuter) 32.9 2,569 BTU/mi 48 mpg
Rail (Intercity Amtrak) 17.9 2,760 BTU/mi 45 mpg
Rail (Transit Light & Heavy) 22.4 2,750 BTU/mi 45 mpg
Motorcycles 1.1 2,272 BTU/mi 55 mpg
Cars 1.57 3,496 BTU/mi 36 mpg
Air 90.4 3,959 BTU/mi 32 mpg
Personal Trucks 1.72 4,329 BTU/mi 29 mpg
Buses (Transit) 8.7 4,318 BTU/mi 29 mpg

I know, and I updated my previous post. It goes back to time versus money. How cheap would a rail ticket (or how expensive an air ticket) have to be for someone to take a train over a plane?
I wonder which way our bosses would want us to travel considering they'd pay our salary while we're watching the plains go by. (Now, if they had free high speed internet on board like FREX does, then people could work while traveling....I'd love that.)

The two curves haven't crossed yet.

By the way, in 1995 I did take the train from Oxnard (near LA) to San Francisco one way with my bike ($59 for me, $6 for the bike) and I rode my bike back to LA. It was fun but it did take about 11 hours to get there.

[Bob from down south]

Originally Posted by Charles

Wouldn't the increase in fuel costs affect ticket prices on trains too? Will trains be able to get people to the destinations they are getting now as fuel efficiently (pick a metric, like passenger-mile/gallon or something) for similar costs? Also, when factoring in how much money a person's time is worth will train fares be low enough to make the extra time traveling an considerable alternative?

I guess the question would be, How big a price ticket differential (between planes and trains) would there have to be for someone to say, "I think I'll spend two or three days on a train rather than six hours on a plane."?

Well, the fuel efficiency differential is pretty large...trains today can achieve something in the neighborhhod of 300-400 passenger miles/gal of fuel...probably more if higher usage drove a significant increase in pax density, where airplanes get around 45-50 pax mile/gal on legs of 1000 nm or more (less on shorter legs due to lower cruise altitudes and a higher proportion of time spent maneuvering in departure/arrival). So as the price of fuel goes up, the differential widens tremendously. Once fuel costs reach $10-20 per gallon, I think the time-expense tradeoff becomes a serious consideration.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by Bob from down south

Well, the fuel efficiency differential is pretty large...trains today can achieve something in the neighborhhod of 300-400 passenger miles/gal of fuel...probably more if higher usage drove a significant increase in pax density, where airplanes get around 45-50 pax mile/gal on legs of 1000 nm or more (less on shorter legs due to lower cruise altitudes and a higher proportion of time spent maneuvering in departure/arrival). So as the price of fuel goes up, the differential widens tremendously. Once fuel costs reach $10-20 per gallon, I think the time-expense tradeoff becomes a serious consideration.

1. Hub/spoke flight patterns, i.e., 2 take off and 2 landings to get 1 pax from 1 origin to 1 destination wastes fuel and crew hours, not to mention MY time. It doubles the need for airport gates, ramp rats, fuelers, etc. It may help to fill planes on each leg of a trip, but at what cost, and for sure it does nothing for MY convenience. When big hubs like Chicago or Atlanta have weather issues, the WHOLE nation gets the ripple effects - NOT efficient at all.

2. When fuel prices reflect the excess of demand over supply, i.e., go way up, then MAYBE we can start to use all those tele-conference facilities that we were told would make travel largely obsolete.

[multitrak]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

We need a railroad building program in the USA to rival that of the interstate system. It will take 25+ years, if we push real hard, but it's all money spent on things that last and provide benefit for 100+ years.

the last major collaborative effort between private industry and goverment was the Alyeska consortium which built the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System (interestingly, it was authorized by Nixon in 1973 and completed in 1977). the only way a trillion dollar (just for starters) national or multiple regional rail program could ever be built is through another massive collaboration between government and private industry. but the profit motive has got to be there otherwise you can kiss it goodbye. in addition, nearly all the states have got to benefit somehow or it will never pass in congressional appropiations.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by multitrak

the last major collaborative effort between private industry and goverment was the Alyeska consortium which built the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System (interestingly, it was authorized by Nixon in 1973 and completed in 1977). the only way a trillion dollar (just for starters) national or multiple regional rail program could ever be built is through another massive collaboration between government and private industry. but the profit motive has got to be there otherwise you can kiss it goodbye. in addition, nearly all the states have got to benefit somehow or it will never pass in congressional appropiations.

True, and all part of the envisioned scheme.

[Bob from down south]

The Amtrak fuel efficiency is not a good basis for analysis...those guys are using full-sized ~3500HP locomotives to pull a relatively small train of coaches. There's an outfit called Colorado Railcar that uses a specially designed self-propelled coach plus up to two unpropelled coach trailers that get more like 1.1 mpg with 400-600 pax.

Colorado Railcar Manufacturing, LLC

Amtrak, IMHO, is a poor example of what rail service could or should look like. I fear that too many people judge the efficacy of rail as a transportation mode based on the government-subsidized third-world service we see on Amcrap. Anyone who's been on a french TGV high-speed train knows that we can do a hell of a lot better than that.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Bob from down south

Well, the fuel efficiency differential is pretty large...trains today can achieve something in the neighborhhod of 300-400 passenger miles/gal of fuel...probably more if higher usage drove a significant increase in pax density, where airplanes get around 45-50 pax mile/gal on legs of 1000 nm or more (less on shorter legs due to lower cruise altitudes and a higher proportion of time spent maneuvering in departure/arrival). So as the price of fuel goes up, the differential widens tremendously. Once fuel costs reach $10-20 per gallon, I think the time-expense tradeoff becomes a serious consideration.

I don't think fuel will have to get that high--I think $6.00+ will start getting the job done--read: I think a bunch of airlines will be toast.

Another thing is the statistics. Current Amtrak is hardly a poster-child for fuel efficiency. Most of its locomotives are nearly 20 years old or older. There are more efficient (by anywhere from 8-20% more efficient) "prime movers" (the actual diesel engine in the locomotive) already available now. Most Amtrak cars are at least 30 years old, with relatively energy-inefficient heating and air conditioning technology from that period. Years of being starved for capital funds has not allowed Amtrak to modernize their train fleets much in either comfort or fuel efficiency.

Another factor in the calculations is that they only calculate the fuel use of the vehicle itself, not all of the fuel and petroleum use needed to build and maintain the infrastructure. Highway petroleum efficiency is an absolute nightmare when those costs are factored in--everything from asphalt to snow removal, to the energy needed just to repave the damned things. Rail only uses a fraction of that. As for air, a major consideration in ancillary fuel use is that airports have to increasingly be located far from city centers (like DIA)--that loads a tremendous amount of "overhead" type fuel use on air travel just for passengers to get to and from the airport. When we had plenty of cheap fuel to waste (did we every really have that, or just think that we did?), we might have been able to afford it (though Americans personal and governmental debt load sort of says otherwise), but with that era now just about over, more fuel-efficient transportation is going to be the watchword.

I feel strongly enough about this that I am currently buying railroad stocks for a long-term investment. I think rail will be the main viable transportation alternative in this country within a few years.

[Bob from down south]

Originally Posted by multitrak

the only way a trillion dollar (just for starters) national or multiple regional rail program could ever be built is through another massive collaboration between government and private industry. but the profit motive has got to be there otherwise you can kiss it goodbye. in addition, nearly all the states have got to benefit somehow or it will never pass in congressional appropiations.

Maybe this can be the first goal of a new Works Projects Administration (WPA), sorta like the one FDR formed in the First Great Depression. Has broad national scope, and could put lots of displaced mortgage brokers and realtors to good use. There's something about the mental image of Lawrence Yun with a pick-axe over his shoulder that makes me smile a really big smile...

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

.....snip....I feel strongly enough about this that I am currently buying railroad stocks for a long-term investment. I think rail will be the main viable transportation alternative in this country within a few years.

Even Warren Buffet is buying rails, of the big 4 he's buying UP, BN, NS. Only corporate raider Carl Icahn is buying CSX. Rails seem a good investment for Buffet, or anyone, as "they" ain't making any more of them. To get more of them requires a huge national investment scheme which we are not likely to see (bummer), which means the rails will be able to jack up freight rates as fuel prices go up for truckers, i.e., grow profits. The existing rails have some ability to grow their capacity but they are constrained by high investment costs to add trackage, and a notable lack of meaningful Federal incentives to build our way of our highway gridlock situation.

s/Mike