Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The short explanation is that a rail based vehicle requires 95% less energy than an equivalent rubber tire vehicle (if already in motion), and 90% less energy to move from a dead stop. (And the newer electric trains can recover braking energy, cutting that figure down.)
Since we have a finite energy budget, it makes sense to use a form that is TWENTY TIMES more efficient. In other words, we can move 20 times as much for the same energy - or - move the same amount now for 95% less energy.
Granted, rail transit, in all its forms will not be as convenient as an automobile. But at 1/20 the cost, I can live with that.
FYI:
CSX trains averaged 468 miles per gallon per ton. Fuel-Efficiency - CSX
If you imagine substituting 5 passengers (each : 400 lbs), that's 2340 passenger miles per gallon fuel. Let's see a car, bus or any other land based transport beat THAT!
A 50 mpg Prius with 4 passengers, comes to 200 passenger miles per gallon. . . if it can haul a full load at that efficiency... more likely it will drop.
(CSX trains were diesel-electric locomotives. An electric locomotive is more efficient.)
The Oil Drum | Multiple Birds
"... Electrifying existing rail freight would trade 2.6 to 3 BTUs of diesel for one BTU of electricity."
Unfortunately, the fact that the automobile / petroleum / highway consortium accounts for upwards of 24% of the GDP, means that there is an entrenched interest to oppose electric traction rail by any means, fair or foul. Cutting the cost for transportation by 95% means cutting them off from a very lucrative cash cow. I can imagine the howls : "jobs will be lost!"
But it would be nice to see transportation costs drop to 1.5% of the GDP. We have better things to do with our lives that work to support the "driving" habit.
FYI:
CSX trains averaged 468 miles per gallon per ton. Fuel-Efficiency - CSX
If you imagine substituting 5 passengers (each : 400 lbs), that's 2340 passenger miles per gallon fuel. Let's see a car, bus or any other land based transport beat THAT!
A 50 mpg Prius with 4 passengers, comes to 200 passenger miles per gallon. . . if it can haul a full load at that efficiency... more likely it will drop.
(CSX trains were diesel-electric locomotives. An electric locomotive is more efficient.)
The Oil Drum | Multiple Birds
"... Electrifying existing rail freight would trade 2.6 to 3 BTUs of diesel for one BTU of electricity."
Unfortunately, the fact that the automobile / petroleum / highway consortium accounts for upwards of 24% of the GDP, means that there is an entrenched interest to oppose electric traction rail by any means, fair or foul. Cutting the cost for transportation by 95% means cutting them off from a very lucrative cash cow. I can imagine the howls : "jobs will be lost!"
But it would be nice to see transportation costs drop to 1.5% of the GDP. We have better things to do with our lives that work to support the "driving" habit.
Yes, that's extremely relevant.
The last time I was on a train, I was tossed in an empty rail car with a bunch other bodies and stacked until were were ceiling to floor like some sort of mass grave. Electrifying freight rail is likewise immensely stupid. Long distance passenger rail through heavily trafficked corridors often doesn't get electrified because it's not economically feasible. I find that particularly funny since you, supposedly, want to decrease GDP by "95% to 1.5%"... ignoring the fact that transportation is more like 10%, so that would only be 70% reduction.... by increasing the cost by electrifying freight.
If you want to move off the grid and get around in an ox cart and never by anything in a store (since it was delivered on a truck), no one is stopping you from breaking the driving habit except you.
The last time I was on a train, I was tossed in an empty rail car with a bunch other bodies and stacked until were were ceiling to floor like some sort of mass grave.
Electrifying freight rail is likewise immensely stupid. Long distance passenger rail through heavily trafficked corridors often doesn't get electrified because it's not economically feasible.
I find that particularly funny since you, supposedly, want to decrease GDP by "95% to 1.5%"... ignoring the fact that transportation is more like 10%, so that would only be 70% reduction.... by increasing the cost by electrifying freight.
If you want to move off the grid and get around in an ox cart and never by anything in a store (since it was delivered on a truck), no one is stopping you from breaking the driving habit except you.
[] And that's just fuel - not counting the cost of the infrastructure (bridges, roads, etc, etc).
(A 2011 study by the Urban Land Institute and Ernst & Young estimated the United States needed to spend $2 trillion to fix the country's physical plant.)
[] Nor the cost for buying and maintaining an automobile... which is dependent upon one's budget. But I wouldn't be surprised if the average owner is spending 20% - 30% of his net income on his automobile and related expenses (insurance, etc).
$31,115 over five years is the "true cost to own" that Ford Focus.
$6,223 per year.
In relation to minimum wage ($7.25 / hour), that expense computes to 41% of gross wages. If one earns double minimum wage, that's 20.6% of pre-tax gross wages. In that case, one will be working 1/5 their life to "support" their habit. If one works from 18 to 70 (assuming later age of retirement), the automobile costs them over TEN YEARS of labor.
So scoff all you want.
If Joe Average is shown he can spend 30% of his income to travel by car or spend 1.5% of his income to travel by train, I think he may choose the train.
As to electrification, YES, it is more expensive to set up. But, NO, it is cheaper to run, especially if the cost for diesel fuel is going up and up and up. Plus, it boosts efficiency... no fuel to haul.
FWIW - Russia, which is a PRODUCER and EXPORTER of fossil fuels completely ELECTRIFIED their Transiberian RR.
Perhaps you should tell them how STUPID they were to waste all that capital. Trans-Siberian Railway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Electrification of the line, begun in 1929 and completed in 2002, allowed a doubling of train weights to 6,000 tonnes."
Hmmm, DOUBLING of train weights - moving more cargo and passengers - must be a BAD IDEA !
[sarcasm flag off]
The last time I was on a train, I was tossed in an empty rail car with a bunch other bodies and stacked until were were ceiling to floor like some sort of mass grave. Electrifying freight rail is likewise immensely stupid. Long distance passenger rail through heavily trafficked corridors often doesn't get electrified because it's not economically feasible. I find that particularly funny since you, supposedly, want to decrease GDP by "95% to 1.5%"... ignoring the fact that transportation is more like 10%, so that would only be 70% reduction.... by increasing the cost by electrifying freight.
If you want to move off the grid and get around in an ox cart and never by anything in a store (since it was delivered on a truck), no one is stopping you from breaking the driving habit except you.
Yes, I was going to say that while rail is quite efficient, passenger rail numbers won't quite match that of freight because we aren't being loaded into hoppers (not in the US, anyway).
Side note: One of the few electric freight lines in the US (the catenary wires in the middle of the desert made me do a double take when I saw it): Black Mesa & Lake Powell Railroad
[] And that's just fuel - not counting the cost of the infrastructure (bridges, roads, etc, etc).
(A 2011 study by the Urban Land Institute and Ernst & Young estimated the United States needed to spend $2 trillion to fix the country's physical plant.)
[] Nor the cost for buying and maintaining an automobile... which is dependent upon one's budget. But I wouldn't be surprised if the average owner is spending 20% - 30% of his net income on his automobile and related expenses (insurance, etc).
Yes. It is very "fun-ee" they you don't know the difference between energy and GDP.
$31,115 over five years is the "true cost to own" that Ford Focus.
$6,223 per year.
In relation to minimum wage ($7.25 / hour), that expense computes to 41% of gross wages. If one earns double minimum wage, that's 20.6% of pre-tax gross wages. In that case, one will be working 1/5 their life to "support" their habit. If one works from 18 to 70 (assuming later age of retirement), the automobile costs them over TEN YEARS of labor.
Minimum wage people don't buy new cars for a reason. And as I said, you're free to not buy into it this driving thing.
Quote:
So scoff all you want.
If Joe Average is shown he can spend 30% of his income to travel by car or spend 1.5% of his income to travel by train, I think he may choose the train.
Sure. Too bad that's totally fake numbers. BART depending where you live in the Bay is about $10 a day, just commuting. 250 days *$10 = $2,500. That's just for taking the train, no running errands. That's another $1000 or so for the bus. Call it half of what the car costs. Oh, wait. It's not 1.5%, it's in fact 15%. Typical for your math, off by an order of magnitude. And then there's the fact public transit is much more heavily subsidized than automobile travel. BART is about 40% subsidized, meaning $1000 a year, on the high end for what a driver could expect to receive in road subsidies. Buses are subsidized by about 80%, that's $4000 in subsidy. Wait. Now it's $7000 (including road subsidy) vs $8,500 for BART plus local transit subsidy. But it's all good because it's someone else, and not average Joe, paying for it and you don't even know what GDP so that's probably beyond your comprehension.
Electrifying freight rail is likewise immensely stupid. Long distance passenger rail through heavily trafficked corridors often doesn't get electrified because it's not economically feasible. I find that particularly funny since you, supposedly, want to decrease GDP by "95% to 1.5%"... ignoring the fact that transportation is more like 10%, so that would only be 70% reduction.... by increasing the cost by electrifying freight.
Many if not most passenger rail in highly trafficked corridors are electrified. I don't think your statement makes much sense. Electrified freight rail does exist in some parts of the world. It makes more sense more high acceleration and higher speed than freight rail is typically used for.
[] And that's just fuel - not counting the cost of the infrastructure (bridges, roads, etc, etc).
(A 2011 study by the Urban Land Institute and Ernst & Young estimated the United States needed to spend $2 trillion to fix the country's physical plant.)
[] Nor the cost for buying and maintaining an automobile... which is dependent upon one's budget. But I wouldn't be surprised if the average owner is spending 20% - 30% of his net income on his automobile and related expenses (insurance, etc).
Yes. It is very "fun-ee" they you don't know the difference between energy and GDP.
You're the one who switched references.
I wasn't referring to a 95% drop in GDP - YOU MADE UP THAT CLAIM. And then smugly debunked it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
I find that particularly funny since you, supposedly, want to decrease GDP by "95% to 1.5%"... ignoring the fact that transportation is more like 10%
I was referring to a 95% drop in ENERGY USED to move cargo and passengers by steel wheel on steel rail.
Perhaps you need to re-read what you wrote and what I wrote.
Quote:
jetgraphics: Unfortunately, the fact that the automobile / petroleum / highway consortium accounts for upwards of 24% of the GDP, means that there is an entrenched interest to oppose electric traction rail by any means, fair or foul. Cutting the cost for transportation by 95% means cutting them off from a very lucrative cash cow. I can imagine the howls : "jobs will be lost!"
But it would be nice to see transportation costs drop to 1.5% of the GDP.
Transportation costs approx. 24% of GDP
Reduced by 95% to
1.5% of GDP.
$31,115 over five years is the "true cost to own" that Ford Focus. $6,223 per year.
In relation to minimum wage ($7.25 / hour), that expense computes to 41% of gross wages. If one earns double minimum wage, that's 20.6% of pre-tax gross wages. In that case, one will be working 1/5 their life to "support" their habit. If one works from 18 to 70 (assuming later age of retirement), the automobile costs them over TEN YEARS of labor.
Minimum wage people don't buy new cars for a reason. And as I said, you're free to not buy into it this driving thing.
But the example was referring to those who made DOUBLE minimum wage.
Tsk, tsk. x 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
Quote:
So scoff all you want.
If Joe Average is shown he can spend 30% of his income to travel by car or spend 1.5% of his income to travel by train, I think he may choose the train.
Sure. Too bad that's totally fake numbers.
BART depending where you live in the Bay is about $10 a day, just commuting. 250 days *$10 = $2,500. That's just for taking the train, no running errands. That's another $1000 or so for the bus. Call it half of what the car costs. Oh, wait. It's not 1.5%, it's in fact 15%. Typical for your math, off by an order of magnitude. And then there's the fact public transit is much more heavily subsidized than automobile travel. BART is about 40% subsidized, meaning $1000 a year, on the high end for what a driver could expect to receive in road subsidies. Buses are subsidized by about 80%, that's $4000 in subsidy. Wait. Now it's $7000 (including road subsidy) vs $8,500 for BART plus local transit subsidy. But it's all good because it's someone else, and not average Joe, paying for it and you don't even know what GDP so that's probably beyond your comprehension.
Well, as to "fake numbers", I didn't use BART for my example. YOU DID, and then smugly debunked yourself.
But let's take NYC Metro as our example:
30-Day Unlimited Ride MetroCard - Cost: $104, reduced fare $52
$1248 / $624 per annum;
$3.47 / $1.73 per day.
$6,223 per year versus $1248 / $624.
$6223/$1248
(almost 5:1 cost difference)
$6223/$624
(almost 10:1 cost difference)
Assuming NYC would be charging a premium compared to other cities/metros, and the cost of car ownership in NYC might be a wee bit higher than Edmund's guesstimate, we're not off the reservation.
In the NYC metro example, compared with Edmund's Ford Focus, we're looking at a best case drop in cost of 90%.
Of course, if one owned a more expensive car and/or that consumed more fuel, the savings for rail would be closer to 95%.
...
And at the worst case, the metro rider saved "almost 80%".
I think I made my point that building an electric rail based infrastructure will benefit the people, by reducing transportation costs, and reducing the demand for imported petroleum.
P.S. THANK YOU for the kind words (insults). It is high praise from an opponent.
:-)
You're the one who switched references.
I wasn't referring to a 95% drop in GDP - YOU MADE UP THAT CLAIM. And then smugly debunked it.
I was referring to a 95% drop in ENERGY USED to move cargo and passengers by steel wheel on steel rail.
Perhaps you need to re-read what you wrote and what I wrote.
Transportation costs approx. 24% of GDP
Reduced by 95% to
1.5% of GDP.
Tsk, tsk.
After all this, you're still not getting it. We're back to mass-graving trains to make them look better math. Transportation is not approximately 24% of GDP. The approximately 28% of energy use you used to defend your claim that it's not 24% of GDP is nonsensical.
Tsk, tsk.
Quote:
But the example was referring to those who made DOUBLE minimum wage.
Tsk, tsk. x 2
Duh. That's why half the cost of a car (unsubsidized) of someone making double minimum wage is 15%. Here's how that math works. 30%/2 = 15%. Not 1.5%. 15%.
tsk^2, tsk^2.
Quote:
Well, as to "fake numbers", I didn't use BART for my example. YOU DID, and then smugly debunked yourself.
But let's take NYC Metro as our example:
30-Day Unlimited Ride MetroCard - Cost: $104, reduced fare $52
$1248 / $624 per annum;
$3.47 / $1.73 per day.
$6,223 per year versus $1248 / $624.
$6223/$1248
(almost 5:1 cost difference)
$1248/6223 does not equal 10%, not even close.
And you forgot that the MTA subsidizes 60% of transit costs, so that's really $3120.
And you forgot that NYers still own cars (according to NYC they own 230 per 1000 residents; according to the world bank the US average is 439 per 1000 residents. Add back in half of that $6223.
We could add in other minor factors, such as the fact that taxis are responsible for 1/3 as many people as public transit in NYC and collect ~80% as much in fares, another $1000 per resident. But like the transit subsidy that doesn't matter for "GPDnergy," because Average Joe isn't paying for it and that means it doesn't exist and isn't a part of GDPnergy.
Of course, the cost of driving in NYC is much higher than in the US. That's not an argument against driving as much as it's an argument against driving in NYC (or in my case, living in NYC). Just not my cup of tea, but I think it's great if it's yours.
Quote:
And at the worst case, the metro rider saved "almost 80%".
And by worst case, you mean best. Metro Joe saved 80% on his transportation because Tax Payer Joe picked up 40% of it, he never used a taxi, and doesn't own a car. Oh, and did we mention the cost of living in NYC? The $5000 saved on transit will cover a few months' rent premiums in NYC. Thanks, but no thanks. If NYC is your thing, and you want to spend more to live in it, by all means. I'll happily spend my $5000 a year not to live there. I've spent five of the last ten years car-free. It's not a horrible way to live by any means. Rather than dictating to everyone how they would be better off if they were mass-graved in electric trains, you just worry about yourself and ditch the car and climb off your high-horse.
In the 1950's urban planners believed you could always build enough freeway lanes to handle whatever traffic would come. Nobody thought availability of petroleum would be a problem. In fact Southern California still produced a lot of oil.
The energy charts at the bottom show reasonably clearly that there are no great solutions. Nothing gets to 2:1 anymore 20:1. There are some really bad ones though.
And note that a lot of this ignores recovering capital cost. Which you actually need to do somehow or the other in these discussions.
As a for instance there is absolutely nothing competitive with solar thermal as an energy source...except for the cost of building the damn things and that they are even less useful for dark hour use.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(not in the US, anyway).
