# Is mass transit a waste of energy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [January 15, 2010, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052 "2010-01-15T06:43:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Cecil\_Adams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cecil\_Adams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cecil_Adams)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2010, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/41 "2010-01-17T23:58:54Z")
> [@Ari\_S](#): > > Your argument is quite simplistic in a harmful way. > > First, you indicate fuel efficiency per passenger mile based on transportation systems as a whole (eg, a city’s subway system). This neglects the idea that transit systems would be much more efficient if they were used closer to their capacity, since clearly many are underutilized (your energy usage numbers are based on studies that use current, average utilization rates - which you don’t mention). So it’s disingenuous to flippantly discuss packed subway cars and rail being only 30% more efficient than cars - if more subway cars were packed, the average efficiency of rail would be much higher than that of cars. Sure, and the opposite would be true if people car-pooled more or if cars got better gas mileage. As I made clear in the column, I was trying to avoid speculation and deal with reality. NYC heavy rail, which is intensely used, currently averages about 2K BTU per passenger mile. I take that as close to the limit of what’s achievable. It’s more efficient than cars but less than you might think. > [@](#): > > Second, you refer briefly to one advantage of the density-promoting aspect of transit, but you completely overlook the important one: it allows people to travel dramatically shorter distances. This does not affect efficiency, but it does affect total energy use for transportation, which in the end is the important issue, not efficiency. In other words, the argument you make assumes travel distance would be the same regardless of which travel modes cities and regions emphasize. You’ve completely misunderstood my argument; I make precisely this point. That’s why I mentioned walking and riding bikes as urban transit options. However, I’m wary of claims that transit necessarily makes for shorter commuting distances. New York and Chicago, for example, have well-developed suburban rail systems, which make very long commutes feasible. Poughkeepsie, NY and South Bend, IN, both accessible by commuter rail, are roughly 90 miles from their respective metropolitan centers. ---
**Author:** ![Beaulieux](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Beaulieux](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beaulieux)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/42 "2010-01-18T04:37:59Z")
I have to say that I am surprised by the fact that mass transit doesn’t come out way ahead in energy usage, but energy use for operations is not the full picture. A complete life cycle analysis would need to take into account the energy used in the manufacture of the vehicles and the roads and rail lines. Energy use is only one aspect of environmental impact. For starters, the amount of pavement required for cars vs. transit is significant. I think it would have been worth mentioning the other environmental factors besides direct energy use and electric vs. petroleum in the column. I know that would make for a long column, so how about a follow up? ---
**Author:** ![Cecil\_Adams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cecil\_Adams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cecil_Adams)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/43 "2010-01-18T14:18:37Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > That was a fascinating article by Cecil and his able assistant Una. A couple of questions: > > 1. What’s the carbon footprint like? Does an electric train in practice beat an internal combustion engine? Presumably the answer varies a lot depending upon the source of power generation (coal vs. natural gas vs. nukes). Exactly. In the ideal world some envision, all vehicles will be powered by electricity generated by low-carbon technology. However, carbon emissions are really a separate issue. Even if the electricity is generated using coal, electric motors are going to supplant internal combustion engines, unless there’s some miraculous breakthrough in synthetic fuels. > [@](#): > > 1. Following what **Ari S** said, does mass transit get a boost by the fact that it’s typically supplemented by walking? Or is it compromised since some commute using multiple buslines which together take a roundabout route? Mass transit to some extent promotes density, and density can mean fewer trips involving motor vehicles. The point I made in my reply to Ari is that transit doesn’t NECESSARILY mean higher density; commuter rail systems work perfectly well in a spread-out suburban environment - witness metropolitan Chicago. > [@](#): > > 1. The marginal cost of an extra rider on a bus or subway with extra room is _de minimus_, right? It’s not zero, but as a general proposition the efficiency of any transportation mode operating below capacity rises when you add passengers. This is true of cars as well as transit, which is an important reason you can’t assume transit will automatically trump autos as the energy situation evolves. ---
**Author:** ![petesally](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ea666f/32.png) [@petesally](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/petesally)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/44 "2010-01-18T15:00:58Z")
I’ve made a non-scientific study of mass-transit busses here where I live - suburban St. Louis. I don’t know the population density per sq mile, but there is mostly subdivision development with lots in the 1/4- to 1/2-acre range. I practically never see a bus with more than a half dozen passengers. That is anytime day or night including rush hour. I’ve noticed the same thing when I’m in the more densely populated down town areas - never more than a handful or passengers. I’m talking huge diesel buses, what - 50 feet long, belching clouds of black smoke. They poke along at low speed dodging between lanes. When one stops, it blocks traffic. There has to be a better way. Let me make a proposal: - For most routes a minivan would carry the passenger load handily. - With cheaper vehicles ( a minivan has to be cheaper than a monster bus) there could be more transit vehicles on each route. - More vehicles per route would reduce the waiting time. This would make taking busses morer attractive and increrase ridership - not per vehicle, but per route. - Keep a few monster busses for the routes and times that justify their use. I don’t know why mass-transit insists on thge huge vehicles. I suspect it has something to do with federal grants. Switching to minivans will increase gasoline consumption - minivans are gasoline fueled whereas busses are diesel. But this is a small issue since the distinction of gasoline- vs diesel-usage is a red herring. Peter ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/45 "2010-01-18T15:44:42Z")
The current configuration of cars and mass transit is half of the story. The other half is the evolution of living spaces in the U.S. Each side creates and reinforces the other. The balance we have now is a logical necessity of billions of small decisions made over the last century. Suburbanization started more than a century ago, but the major trends that affect us today can be said to start after WWII. Because of the pent up demand from the Depression and the War the country immediately needed some 15,000,000 new houses. Cities were overcrowded and run down, with no new buildings and little maintenance for two decades. Suburban land was open, available, and cheap. Instead of the feared post-war recession and unemployment, jobs boomed and people could afford cars and houses. They rushed out of the cities. We can argue what would have happened if mass transit had followed and suburbs got created along railway lines as had happened pre-war. But no money went into mass transit and money flowed into building highways. At first the highways were designed to replicate commuter routes into the cities. But if the logic was against building houses in the cities, a similar logic said that factories, stores, warehouses, distribution centers and other job sites that needed lots of land would make more sense being built in the same empty, cheap land in the suburbs. And that same logic doomed mass transit. Mass by definition can only work when large numbers have need to go to particular areas. Central cities were mass. Suburbs were not. They were lattices of points that individually did not gather sufficient people to make a mass transit stop economically worthwhile. Worse, their number and location kept changing. Central city was always there. Every year, new suburban sites opened over a larger physical area. This increased the potential costs of any mass transit system exponentially. Cars had none of these drawbacks. They were perfect for going place to place with single occupants. So more people bought cars and went to more locations that existed because they were easy to get to by car. And each year mass transit became more expensive and more inconvenient. This is the current situation, except worse, because it exists everywhere in the country, not just as an extension of older cities that already had a large central core. We’ve had 60 years in which the logic of every daily move by the vast majority of Americans is dictated by where a car can go. The real question is: have we reached a point at which that must change? Nobody has a convincing answer to this. We have certainly not reached a point where most people putting down their money for sites to live and modes of transportation are convinced a change must take place. Only one thing historically has changed thinking. Gas prices. The OPEC crisis of the 70s did change thinking. Higher gas prices brought legislation to mandate higher fleet gas mileage. But that meant people could maintain their current life logic, just with better cars. The four dollar gas bump in 2008 made a similar but much shorter bump. So why mass transit? What is the logic of it? There is some logic for connecting cities by train rather than plane, but only within about a 400 mile trip. Unfortunately, most of these corridors are in the most expensive places to build. There is very little logic for extending fixed-route mass transit almost anywhere inside sprawling metro areas. A few corridors, maybe. There is some logic for increasing bus routes but the sprawl of suburban areas makes these economically infeasible almost everywhere unless cars are somehow eliminated as competitors. There is great logic in making cars cheaper to operate. This is offset by the fact that new technologies, like hybrids or electrics, cost incrementally more than the savings in gas and will probably stay that way for years, maybe decades. The other alternative is a gas tax but that too makes operating a car more expensive. What about changing the infrastructure? Get people back into cities. Create walkable suburbs. Place schools and stores and other daily destinations together to eliminate the need for mileage. Why would this happen without overwhelming economic incentive? I’ve read articles for decades crowing about enclaves of 10,000 new residents in cities, while 1,000,000 more people enter suburbs unheralded. We live in a car culture. More cars, at least more total vehicles, than people. Cars work for the individual so incredibly well that they are a necessity for almost everyone outside of a few atypical locations. Mass transit can replace only a tiny fraction of cars but at an enormous cost. Even for the sake of the planet most people won’t do that. A much larger percentage of people could replace gas cars with better environmental alternatives. People drive less than 50 miles on most trips, or whatever the latest guess is. At best, however, people with two or more cars will replace one of them with an alternative. And they will need economic incentives to do so. That pushes the change-over point out several decades beyond where forecasts about other conditions are in any way meaningful. I’m not suggesting doing nothing. I’m saying that most of the plans being offered won’t work. In many ways the fact that everything is up for grabs is a good thing. Better to let many experiments play out to see which one wins than to pick something guaranteed to be wrong and mandate it. My hunch is that the winner will be something not being talking much about right now, because all the current plans are losers. That’s not as much fun as advocating your pet project, I know. History is like that. ---
**Author:** ![Byway](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9dc877/32.png) [@Byway](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Byway)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/46 "2010-01-18T15:45:15Z")
There is a major flaw in the analysis that significantly skews the results, and can lead to an unrealistic comparison between modes: To be valid, the analysis has to be restricted to truly competitive trips. Overall modal averages are not sufficient, since they include many trips that are unlikely to be made using an alternate mode. A couple of examples should demonstrate my point: - Transit is primarily available only in urban areas, with little availability in rural areas. The average energy use of automobiles includes rural travel, which is typically on routes with higher speeds and fewer stops than you would see in a city. Anyone familiar with the EPA energy ratings on cars knows that the MPG figures are significantly higher for highway driving compared to urban driving, meaning the energy use per mile is significantly lower. The average energy use statistics for automobiles include rural travel, and while a vehicle may cover greater distance in rural areas, they are at significantly lower energy use per mile, which is the yardstick for comparison that was used in the analysis. Consider a family of five choosing to drive on a vacation. The energy use per passenger-mile will be relatively low, since such travel is typically at highway speeds, for the most part, and vehicle occupancy is high. Transit is not available as an alternative, nor will it ever be. It is therefore totally unrealistic to include such trips in a comparison with transit energy use. - The most recent survey of the reasons people took trips was several years ago, but it found that the major reason for transit riders was the so-called journey to work or school. This covered something 90 percent of all trips. What is significant about this is that for automobiles, the survey also kept track of the average occupancy of the vehicle by trip type, and for the subset of trips that were specifically for the journey to work, vehicle occupancy was less than 1.1 passengers per vehicle, with the trend to even lower numbers based on previous surveys. This compares to the average occupancy for all trips by automobile of around 1.57 passengers per vehicle. Therefore, the energy use per passenger of a car for trips to work is in the order of 40 percent higher due to the lower occupancy of the vehicle alone. If the comparison is truly limited to trips that are transit-competitive, meaning those journeys that an individual might consider one mode over another, and both modes are available, the difference between cars and transit will increase significantly in transit’s favor. Finally, since the analysis was supposedly looking at what is happening today, it is curious that the energy consumed by SUVs and light trucks was left out of the analysis. Personal trucks are used for something like 40 percent of all journeys, and they use about 25 percent more energy per vehicle-mile than cars. One only has to look at an office or factory parking lot to see how prevalent they really are. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/47 "2010-01-18T15:47:05Z")
> [@Cecil\_Adams](#): > > Exactly. In the ideal world some envision, all vehicles will be powered by electricity generated by low-carbon technology. However, carbon emissions are really a separate issue. Even if the electricity is generated using coal, electric motors are going to supplant internal combustion engines, unless there’s some miraculous breakthrough in synthetic fuels. My cite here is ‘a guy at a small alternate-fuel vehicle show,’ but he claimed that electricity generated in a large plant and then distributed through a massive grid is more efficiently generated than electricity generated by smaller generators (like a car engine). So his claim would be an electric train gets more bang for the buck, even if the electricity is generated by a coal plant. I guess that’s accounted for in your BTU common-denominator. Gotta think about it. > [@The Master](#): > > It’s not zero, but as a general proposition the efficiency of any transportation mode operating below capacity rises when you add passengers. This is true of cars as well as transit, which is an important reason you can’t assume transit will automatically trump autos as the energy situation evolves. But a car tops out at about 4 passengers; 5 or 6 if they’re really friendly. If you want to go higher (minivan, etc), the gas mileage needs to be adjusted down, implying a higher ‘starting BTU’ number that passengers are adding incrementally to. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/48 "2010-01-18T15:53:02Z")
> [@Avumede](#): > > I think the problem with the article is that it discounts the effect of mass transit in city layout. A dense city packs in much more per mile. Mass transit makes that density possible. So measure per mile may not be the best statistic. Perhaps energy per average trip would be more instructive. For another reason, too, energy per trip might be more instructive. Last night I asked Google how to get to Evanston, IL, from Glenview, IL (both near-Chicago suburbs). By car the way is obvious. Asking Google how to go via mass transit, it suggested I drive to Des Plaines, take one Metra (light rail) line down to Union Station in downtown Chicago, walk across the street to Ogilvie, then take another Metra line out to Evanston. Sometimes mass transit forces pretty convoluted routes that can double the miles traveled. ---
**Author:** ![monopolytophat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e68b1a/32.png) [@monopolytophat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monopolytophat)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/49 "2010-01-18T16:17:38Z")
> [@petesally](#): > > I’ve made a non-scientific study of mass-transit busses here where I live - suburban St. Louis. I don’t know the population density per sq mile, but there is mostly subdivision development with lots in the 1/4- to 1/2-acre range. I practically never see a bus with more than a half dozen passengers. That is anytime day or night including rush hour. Your information is both out of date and incorrect. Most STL Metro bus service outside the I-270 loop (the “subdivision development” area you describe) was ended last year due to funding cuts. It should never return. Suburban sprawl is not design to be served by buses and it should not be. Furthermore, I don’t know what buses you’re looking at downtown at rush hour, but the ones I see/ride are packed. ---
**Author:** ![hogarth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hogarth/32/1773_2.png) [@hogarth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hogarth)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/50 "2010-01-18T17:16:40Z")
> [@Cecil\_Adams](#): > > NYC heavy rail, which is intensely used, currently averages about 2K BTU per passenger mile. I take that as close to the limit of what’s achievable. It’s more efficient than cars but less than you might think. I suspect that the NYC subway could significantly reduce the BTU used per passenger mile if it only ran between 7 and 10 a.m. and 4 and 7 p.m. (say). But of course minimizing BTU per passenger mile isn’t the subway’s only goal; far from it. The big advantage that my car has in this energy comparison is that it doesn’t keep driving around all day while I’m at work! ---
**Author:** ![petesally](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ea666f/32.png) [@petesally](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/petesally)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/51 "2010-01-18T19:14:53Z")
> [@monopolytophat](#): > > Your information is both out of date and incorrect. Most STL Metro bus service outside the I-270 loop (the “subdivision development” area you describe) was ended last year due to funding cuts. It should never return. Suburban sprawl is not design to be served by buses and it should not be. > > Furthermore, I don’t know what buses you’re looking at downtown at rush hour, but the ones I see/ride are packed. Actually at least some suburban routes, if not most or all, have been restored. So I don’t think my observations are out of date. Also, I said my observations were not scientific. There may in fact be some if not many routes and times that ridership justifies the big bus. But you have not my basic point. Why is it that smaller busses are not used when ridership is a handful (read one, two or a handful of passengers)? Peter ---
**Author:** ![palindromemordnilap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/db5fbb/32.png) [@palindromemordnilap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/palindromemordnilap)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/52 "2010-01-18T19:19:03Z")
From the points made here already, it’s clear that there are a lot of factors that Cecil either overlooked or just didn’t have space to include. There are also a lot of side issues that don’t affect the energy question but do affect, say, carbon emissions or workforce mobility. Obviously the average load numbers Una supplies (1.57 for cars, 9.1 for buses, 97.2 for air, 26.3 for trains) take into account both city and cross-country/rural loads. In big-city weekday commutes, train loads are much higher and car loads much lower. This would seem to me the best apples-to-apples comparison; that is, the time when I might weigh one alternative against another. The one fact that is indisputable is that increased ridership on mass transit increases energy efficiency. This ought to be the takeaway. Instead, Cecil leads people away from this simple truth by saying “transit currently offers no energy advantage over cars.” This may seem fact-based based on his incomplete analysis but it does not fulfill his stated goal of stamping out ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![petesally](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ea666f/32.png) [@petesally](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/petesally)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/53 "2010-01-18T19:26:20Z")
> [@monopolytophat](#): > > Your information is both out of date and incorrect. Most STL Metro bus service outside the I-270 loop (the “subdivision development” area you describe) was ended last year due to funding cuts. It should never return. Suburban sprawl is not design to be served by buses and it should not be. > > Furthermore, I don’t know what buses you’re looking at downtown at rush hour, but the ones I see/ride are packed. Actually some, if not most or all, of the suburban routes have been restored with new funding. So I don’t think my observations are out of date or wrong. I stand by my statement that almost all the busses I see have very few passengers. I don’t go downtown at rush hour. It may be busses down there are full at those times. I said as much in my original posting that there may be routes and times that justify the giganto-busses. But you haven’t addressed my central point: the size of the bus should match the match the typical ridership for a given route at a given time. It’s silly to run a 60-foot bus with four passengers aboard. Peter ---
**Author:** ![hogarth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hogarth/32/1773_2.png) [@hogarth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hogarth)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2010, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/54 "2010-01-18T19:31:11Z")
> [@palindromemordnilap](#): > > The one fact that is indisputable is that increased ridership on mass transit increases energy efficiency. Increased ridership on any of the listed methods of transportation would increase energy efficiency, I suspect. I really think the factor that’s keeping subway service from blowing away private automobiles in terms of efficiency is the requirement to provide service during off-peak periods. ---
**Author:** ![Cecil\_Adams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cecil\_Adams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cecil_Adams)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/55 "2010-01-19T00:57:06Z")
> [@palindromemordnilap](#): > > The one fact that is indisputable is that increased ridership on mass transit increases energy efficiency. This ought to be the takeaway. Instead, Cecil leads people away from this simple truth by saying “transit currently offers no energy advantage over cars.” This may seem fact-based based on his incomplete analysis but it does not fulfill his stated goal of stamping out ignorance. The one fact that’s indisputable is that increased ridership on _anything_ increases energy efficiency. However, you’ve clearly got your mind made up, so I’ll let it go at that. ETA: Sorry for simulpost, should have read to the end of the thread. ---
**Author:** ![Bookkeeper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bookkeeper/32/281_2.png) [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/56 "2010-01-19T02:19:05Z")
> [@petesally](#): > > Actually some, if not most or all, of the suburban routes have been restored with new funding. So I don’t think my observations are out of date or wrong. I stand by my statement that almost all the busses I see have very few passengers. > > I don’t go downtown at rush hour. It may be busses down there are full at those times. I said as much in my original posting that there may be routes and times that justify the giganto-busses. > > But you haven’t addressed my central point: the size of the bus should match the match the typical ridership for a given route at a given time. It’s silly to run a 60-foot bus with four passengers aboard. > Peter One of the reasons for not having multiple small buses instead of one big bus on a route is that a significant portion of operating costs goes to pay the drivers. If you reduce the total number of vehicles and maintain the same capacity by moving to bigger vehicles, you save on driver salaries. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/57 "2010-01-19T02:47:27Z")
> [@bradfregger](#): > > I put it there on purpose because conservatives are blind to the possibility of EVs and yet, they are and will continue to be our best alternative. I’m afraid I’ll have to disagree. Can you provide any evidence that Conservatives “are and will continue to be our best alternative”? :D:D:D ---
**Author:** ![Silvermink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Silvermink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silvermink)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/58 "2010-01-19T12:15:39Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > You want to get electric vehicles on the road? Pass a stiff gas tax. Barring that the future is not electric. I would gladly buy an electric car today if someone made one affordable. Almost all current hybrid/electric cars are well over $20,000. I think that Rav4/EV mentioned was close to $40k. A $5,000 street legal golf cart would probably sell like wild fire. ---
**Author:** ![petesally](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ea666f/32.png) [@petesally](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/petesally)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/59 "2010-01-19T14:27:21Z")
> [@Bookkeeper](#): > > One of the reasons for not having multiple small buses instead of one big bus on a route is that a significant portion of operating costs goes to pay the drivers. If you reduce the total number of vehicles and maintain the same capacity by moving to bigger vehicles, you save on driver salaries. What you say is true. However if there are few big busses on a route rather than several small ones, wait time increases. This discourages potential passengers. For example if one large bus capable of carrying 75 passengers cruises a route once an hour, a rider’s quick trip of 30 minutes becomes a one-and-a-half hour journey - quite an ordeal. This is magnified if the rider has to change busses to get to his destination, Now consider if four minivans cruise the same route. Wait time will be no more than 15 minutes. The 30-minute trip becomes a 45-minute trip. This is more reasonable. I think more people will be willing to forego using the car in this case. As to costs: surely four minivans cost much less than one giganto-bus, maintenance would be less, and fuel would be less. Yes, there will be four drivers rather than one - but there will be more farepaying passengers to pay for them. I have never seen anything but the large busses operated by BiState (the local transit authority). It seems to me that sizing the vehicle to the ridership is basic. ---
**Author:** ![hogarth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hogarth/32/1773_2.png) [@hogarth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hogarth)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/60 "2010-01-19T15:04:44Z")
> [@petesally](#): > > But you have not my basic point. Why is it that smaller busses are not used when ridership is a handful (read one, two or a handful of passengers)? > > Peter According to Wikipedia, some places do just that. > [@Wikipedia](#): > > Transit buses can be single-decker buses, double-decker buses or articulated buses. Selection of type has traditionally been made on a regional as well as operational basis; however, with the advent of global manufacturing, all three types can be seen in the same location or country. Depending on local policies, transit buses will have two or three doors to facilitate rapid boarding and alighting. > > In cases of low-demand routes, or to navigate small local streets, some models of minibus and small midibuses have also been used as transit type buses. > **[Transit bus | Types](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_bus#Types)** > > Transit buses can be single-decker, double-decker, rigid or articulated. Selection of type has traditionally been made on a regional as well as operational basis; however, with the advent of global manufacturing, all of these types can be seen in the same location or country. Depending on local policies, transit buses will also usually have two, three or (for articulated) four doors to facilitate rapid boarding and alighting. > In cases of low-demand routes, or to navigate small local streets, s... > **[Midibus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midibus)** > > A midibus is a classification of single-decker minibuses which are generally larger than a traditional minibus but smaller than a full-size single decker and can be anywhere between 8 metres (26 ft 3 in) and 11 metres (36 ft 1 in) long. While used in many parts of the world, the midibus is perhaps most common in the United Kingdom, where operators have found them more economical, and to have a sufficient number of seats compared to full size single-decker buses. > Midibuses are often designed to... [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052.md?page=4)