Oil, will it be the last straw for America?

Most bus systems do not cater to individuals. They cater to the masses. You wanna talk about common sense? Get real.

0 Replies

A bus in Germany, with 25% of possible passengers in it, uses 2.5 l/100km = 112.8 mph. (sources: German Railway company, et.al.)

My car (150 PS, 2 liter) uses in town traffic 35 mph (6.8 l/100 km), on normal roads 38mph and on autobahn with an average speed of 150 km/h (95 miles/h) 33 mph.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Wheres your numbers to dispute my calculation?

I'm not sure why I should be required to provide actual data when you are relying on nothing but pull-it-out-of-your-butt guesswork.

okie wrote:

My numbers are system wide with all riders on the system; isn't that the obvious way to look at the efficiencies of a bus system? Discount factor? If you are referrring to my discount from the approximately 35 mpg per passenger mile to be likely equivalent to 25 to 30 mpg per passenger mile for a personal car, based of the fact that no bus would likely go directly the shortest route from your house to exactly where you want to go, I do not see where that factor would be accounted for in their figures? I admit my factor is an estimate, but surely nobody would suggest there would not be a factor. Provide evidence if thats what you believe.

The Portland figures are based on all passenger-miles, including the ones that go zig-zag, serpentine, and loop-the-loop. Those figures can only tell us actual passenger-mpg, not passenger-mpg if all the bus routes went straight to where each passenger wanted to go. No doubt there are some inefficiencies inherent in the routing of buses, and not everyone will get a straight-line route to their destination. But then not everybody who drives gets that either. And, of course, with all the buses replaced by bus passengers driving cars, it would be that much more difficult to negotiate that straight-line route.

okie wrote:

I know its not easy to re-examine the validity of the long held traditional belief that all mass transit saves energy, as drummed into people and therefore accepted and used in arguments all the time, but if the truth is possibly different based on actually running the numbers, then I'm sorry.

When someone shows me evidence that actually refutes the validity of that long-held belief, I'll accept it. You haven't done it. Not by a long shot.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

I'm not sure why I should be required to provide actual data when you are relying on nothing but pull-it-out-of-your-butt guesswork.

When someone shows me evidence that actually refutes the validity of that long-held belief, I'll accept it. You haven't done it. Not by a long shot.

I provided the data from the Portland bus system. Wheres yours? I never claimed the same figures would apply to every system, and if someone can provide figures for others, I am interested. I simply used the figures to point out that bus systems do not necessarily save much fuel, and perhaps not any at all for some, and perhaps none at all if everyone drove an economical car. My analysis was based on a quick calculation, but is based on real and sound numbers as found on the internet. If you can prove them wrong, or find others that look better, that is what we need is more information.

Some of you are simply upset that I have the nerve to question the holy grail of belief that mass transit is always an important solution to saving energy. Perhaps it may be in some cases, but it might not be in some cases.

0 Replies

Okie

Did you like Joe's answer. I would have been mine too.

People don't get killed when nations talk.

0 Replies

cavolina wrote:

Okie

Did you like Joe's answer. I would have been mine too.

People don't get killed when nations talk.

Jimmy Carter was happy to talk to North Korea and 20 years later, the Clinton administration was happy to still be talking to them and assured us that they had no weapons, but shortly afterward they clearly demonstrated them wrong by shooting some test missiles. Talk is cheap. I'm all for it, but do you believe no wars in history were ever necessary when push came to shove?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

A bus in Germany, with 25% of possible passengers in it, uses 2.5 l/100km = 112.8 mph. (sources: German Railway company, et.al.)

My car (150 PS, 2 liter) uses in town traffic 35 mph (6.8 l/100 km), on normal roads 38mph and on autobahn with an average speed of 150 km/h (95 miles/h) 33 mph.

But the real question is not assuming 25% passenger capacity. If thats the average, great, but what is the average number of passengers on all buses in the system at any given time? This would provide a way to calculate passenger miles per gallon. I think it probably will be better, maybe much better than the Portland system, but who knows until somebody runs the numbers?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

But the real question is not assuming 25% passenger capacity. If thats the average, great, but what is the average number of passengers on all buses in the system at any given time? This would provide a way to calculate passenger miles per gallon. I think it probably will be better, maybe much better than the Portland system, but who knows until somebody runs the numbers?

25% passengers as average is very low, in reality. (Bus companies might consider to cancel a line with such a capacity, at least lower the frequency.)

The average number of passengers on all buses in a system at any given time in the calculation therefor is 25%.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

A bus in Germany, with 25% of possible passengers in it, uses 2.5 l/100km = 112.8 mph. (sources: German Railway company, et.al.)

My car (150 PS, 2 liter) uses in town traffic 35 mph (6.8 l/100 km), on normal roads 38mph and on autobahn with an average speed of 150 km/h (95 miles/h) 33 mph.

I don't follow your math, Walter. My calculation shows 2.5 l/100 km as being 40 kilometers per liter and your car at 6.8 l/100 km would do 14.7 kilometers per liter, which doesn't seem accurate.

What we need to determine is passenger miles per gallon, or in your case, passenger kilometers per liter.

0 Replies

Well, I've used the actual data from my board computer - taken from 55,000 km/year.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I provided the data from the Portland bus system.

Yes, but that number didn't support your conclusion, so you discounted it by some made-up figure.

okie wrote:

Wheres yours?

I'm happy to continue using the figures that you provided. I just won't distort them to suit my argument.

0 Replies

The data for the bus a per passenger - sorry forgot to type that.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

The data for the bus a per passenger - sorry forgot to type that.

If then the buses average 40 passenger kilometers per liter, then it would be much more efficient than Portland. If my math is correct, it would translate into approx. 94 passenger miles per gallon vs the appx. 35 in Portland. This is without factoring in any zig zagging by the bus to your destination and without any extra driving to a central parking area, which might also be out of your way just to catch the bus to begin with. Perhaps that is not required where you are.

0 Replies

Mass transit has it's place in urban areas, there is no questioning that. It is just not effective in rural setting though.

Bus companies run a profititable businees, or are funded through taxpayers. I have no problem with mass transit and would not hesitate to use it if it were available, but it isn't. Instead, I continue using my civic hybrid for my commuting purposes and my gas-guzzling SUV for recreation.

One of the nice things about having a job is being able to afford gasoline.

0 Replies

okie, Your one-track mind about detours doesn't make any sense. Many people take their cars to the train station to catch a train - then to drive home after their return. That is a very common way to use public transit systems all over the world. What's your point?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

okie wrote:
I provided the data from the Portland bus system.

Yes, but that number didn't support your conclusion, so you discounted it by some made-up figure.

okie wrote:
Wheres yours?

I'm happy to continue using the figures that you provided. I just won't distort them to suit my argument.

The number does support my conclusion when the estimate of indirect routing is included. It is an estimate, not made up out of nothing that does not exist. It is based on real world inefficiency of routing that you agreed did exist in an earlier post, but now you claim does not exist. The only thing left to argue is what the actual figure would be. Mine is conservative by figuring only an additional 16 to 17% more distance required on average to reach your destination vs driving a car. It could be 25% for all I know, there are no figures on it as far as I know. It really doesn't matter as all we are doing here is figuring out a ballpark figure or estimate, which is not made up, it is based on pretty sound data.

But to make you happy, fine go ahead and take the discount out of the equation, and if everybody that rode a bus in Portland drove a car like Walter's at about 35 mpg, it would still show the bus system as saving no fuel whatsoever vs everybody driving a car like his on exactly the same route the buses take to get where they go, which would also be taking the long way there most likely, but still proves the point that mass transit in some places is likely nothing more than a boondoggle in terms of saving fuel. Perhaps a convenience for some people. An energy saver no.

0 Replies

Most people that use mass transit either don't own cars (like in NYC) or can not afford to own them (cash challenged) and live in large urban areas.

0 Replies

How mayn cars are used with about 35 mpg in the USA, btw?

(My total average over 36,000 miles is exactly 39 mpg (US)/44 mpg (UK)/ 6 l/100km [and that includes some thousand miles with more than 130 miles/hour!].)

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, Your one-track mind about detours doesn't make any sense. Many people take their cars to the train station to catch a train - then to drive home after their return. That is a very common way to use public transit systems all over the world. What's your point?

You must be missing the obvious concerning this point that I brought up. The point is that terminals are not always conveniently located on the way to where you might want to go. If you wish to go 15 miles south, depending on where you live, you might drive north 2 miles to a terminal so that the train takes you 17 miles back south to your destination. You cannot compare riding the train 17 miles with driving your car 17 miles in this particular case. You would need to compare driving 4 miles in your car + 34 miles on the train with driving your car 30 miles to and from your destination. You would need to find an average for all passengers in this regard in order to adjust the apparent efficiencies of the system.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not picking on trains as I think they are probably efficient in lots of places. However, I've long suspicioned the inefficiencies of bus systems in many places simply because I routinely see buses wandering around with 1 or 2 passengers on them during the day. Buses may be wonderful conveniences for some, but I am simply saying do not assert they are energy savers in all cities or areas. The evidence may not support it.

And for Walter, what kind of car do you have?

0 Replies

okie, there may be times when busses run with just a few passengers; what matters is the total passengers per day/week/month/year and the total cost vs the number of vehicles it replaces. You talk about the times you see busses running with 1, 2, or 3 people in it, but ignore the fact that they also run fully packed during commute hours. Your one-sided arguments are myopic and short-sighted.

0 Replies

Oil, will it be the last straw for America?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know