# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/121 "2010-04-01T21:37:56Z")
I’m reminded of the old saying, “When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.”. A little thought should make it obvious that mass transit rail it an application of the 19th and 20th century concept of economies of scale. It works well when you have large population areas with high population density like New York or Tokyo, but it doesn’t work when you have smaller, low density and decentralized population areas. The problem isn’t with mass transit rail, but with people who insist on applying the mass transit rail hammer to non-nail cities. When you are dealing with low density population areas or small cities then you need to look for a different tool. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/122 "2010-04-01T22:01:30Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. Short run length (6.8 m). If it’s only 6.8 metres long, I’m surprised the cars can move at all. They must be very short to even fit on the track. ---
**Author:** ![ditto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b782af/32.png) [@ditto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ditto)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/123 "2010-04-01T23:20:18Z")
The article in question doesn’t deal with increased congestion, subsequent pollution, gridlock, or land mis-use by building more parking structures to support single-occupant vehicles. Hopefully it was just an April Fool’s joke. Else the author could be considered nothing more than a fool himself. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/124 "2010-04-02T00:32:35Z")
> [@ditto](#): > > The article in question doesn’t deal with increased congestion, subsequent pollution, gridlock, or land mis-use by building more parking structures to support single-occupant vehicles. Actually most of those topics are covered in Brad’s Robocar articles: [http://www.templetons.com/brad/robocars/](http://www.templetons.com/brad/robocars/) ---
**Author:** ![ditto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b782af/32.png) [@ditto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ditto)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/125 "2010-04-02T14:42:30Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > Actually most of those topics are covered in Brad’s Robocar articles: > > [http://www.templetons.com/brad/robocars/](http://www.templetons.com/brad/robocars/) “Robocars require no new infrastructure or public money” You mean except for the infrastructure itself of public roadways that are basically free to private entities? Gee, this is starting to sound like the trucking industry! Thanks for the link, either way. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/126 "2010-04-02T15:40:39Z")
**Giles** said: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. Short run length (6.8 m). > > If it’s only 6.8 metres long, I’m surprised the cars can move at all. They must be very short to even fit on the track. :smack: That’s _miles_. My abbreviator must have been defective. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/127 "2010-04-02T15:47:08Z")
**hogarth** said: > [@](#): > > Yeah, I read the Wikipedia article too. But if it only runs once or twice a day with such low efficiency, there must have been only a couple of dozen people riding it per day! It didn’t say running only once or twice, it said using only 1 or 2 cars per day. The car runs up and down the length of the Strand and down to the Seawall, or 6.8 _mi_. At 25 mph, that’s still one full run ~20 mins. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/128 "2010-04-02T16:03:14Z")
**bradtem** said: > [@](#): > > Well, if Galveston has an excuse, I may change the no-prize to Kenosha, Memphis or north Little Rock, who are not as bad as Galveston but still pretty bad. Anybody know about their light rails and why they do so badly? According to the Kenosha website: > [@](#): > > However, sharp differences in function and trip-length produces a stark disparity in comparative operating and maintenance (O&M) costs, which are currently quite high for the streetcar – as a general rule, modes carrying passengers longer distances tend to show higher cost-effectiveness than modes functioning in a short-haul, stop-and-go, circulator mode over short route lengths. > > [snip] > > While costs of over $4.50 per passenger-mile and over $4.00 per passenger-boarding are inordinately high for typical LRT, they may not be quite so egregious for a short, slow, central-area shuttle or circulator service. Small cars, short runs, slow speeds. I imagine North Little Rock is a similar situation. The population is low for an urban area and the population density is low. ---
**Author:** ![Ed\_Zotti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/fbc32d/32.png) [@Ed\_Zotti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ed_Zotti)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/129 "2010-04-02T16:16:20Z")
> [@ditto](#): > > “Robocars require no new infrastructure or public money” No offense, but I’m looking to see robocars around the same time as that Mars colony. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/130 "2010-04-02T17:28:39Z")
> [@Ed\_Zotti](#): > > No offense, but I’m looking to see robocars around the same time as that Mars colony. I think sooner. GM is already showing concept vehicles. Maybe not in the US. Here the legal obstacles are bigger than the technical ones. The lawyers nearly managed to destroy General Aviation in the US. [http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new\_cars/4350065.html](http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4350065.html) [http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/electric-networked-vehicle](http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/electric-networked-vehicle) I would like something faster than 25mph. 45MPH could work anywhere you don’t have to get on the freeway. 25MPH would only work in places like Celebration, Florida. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebration,\_Florida](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebration,_Florida) I assume that assisted steering will come first. The computer can ask for help when something is happening its programs don’t know how to handle. I don’t know why we would want a colony on Mars anyway. Lunar and asteroid colonies would be much more useful for supplying raw materials for orbital industries. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2010, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/131 "2010-04-02T17:37:40Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > **hogarth** said: > > It didn’t say running only once or twice, it said using only 1 or 2 cars per day. The car runs up and down the length of the Strand and down to the Seawall, or 6.8 _mi_. At 25 mph, that’s still one full run ~20 mins. I totally misunderstood what you meant by “Currently not in operation because of Ike, but when running there was 1 on weekdays, 2 on weekends.” ---
**Author:** ![Ed\_Zotti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/fbc32d/32.png) [@Ed\_Zotti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ed_Zotti)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2010, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/132 "2010-04-03T16:16:41Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I think sooner. GM is already showing concept vehicles. Maybe not in the US. Here the legal obstacles are bigger than the technical ones. The lawyers nearly managed to destroy General Aviation in the US. With all respect, I think you greatly underestimate the complexity involved in making something like this work in an urban environment, as opposed to a theme park or other controlled setting. The notion that millions of privately-owned, computer-navigated, close-spaced vehicles could safely converge on an urban core at relatively high speed over indifferently maintained streets strikes me as fanciful. Operating a conventional mass transit system is child’s play by comparison. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2010, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/133 "2010-04-03T20:55:59Z")
> [@Ed\_Zotti](#): > > With all respect, I think you greatly underestimate the complexity involved in making something like this work in an urban environment, as opposed to a theme park or other controlled setting. The notion that millions of privately-owned, computer-navigated, close-spaced vehicles could safely converge on an urban core at relatively high speed over indifferently maintained streets strikes me as fanciful. Operating a conventional mass transit system is child’s play by comparison. I don’t know if actually disagree, since we haven’t discussed a timeframe. I suspect be a significant part of traffic within 20 years will be autonomous, but they will be deployed in other countries before the US. They are talking about unmanned trucks for the Army by 2015, but I suspect a lot of these will be for convoy duty and the lead truck will be manned and the unmanned trucks will be in following mode. [http://carswilldisappear.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/technology-trends-in-car-parking-the-darpa-urban-challenge-part-one/](http://carswilldisappear.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/technology-trends-in-car-parking-the-darpa-urban-challenge-part-one/) The next step would be a Freeway mode, where the car will operate automatically and switch back to the driver when it gets close to the exit or some event outside it’s operating parameters occur. It will be a gradual transition to robocars in downtown areas. I suspect an intermediate step will be autonomous lanes where manually operated vehicles aren’t allowed. ---
**Author:** ![Ed\_Zotti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/fbc32d/32.png) [@Ed\_Zotti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ed_Zotti)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2010, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/134 "2010-04-04T01:31:46Z")
Robotrucks in desert convoys I’ll buy. Robocars on long, boring drives on the Interstates … I’m not seeing the economic driver, but technically, sure, you could get that to work. Robocars replacing the subway at rush hour in NYC? I’ll be astonished if we see this in 25 years. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2010, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/135 "2010-04-04T05:14:18Z")
I don’t know about New York. The main thrust would be low population density cities where efficient rail transportation isn’t possible. In NY, the thrust is to convert the subways into Robo-trains. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=434xF4pAcHQ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=434xF4pAcHQ) Also remember that Robocars will be networked with all the cars communicating with each other and central control hubs. The behavior might be more like a flock of birds or a swarm of bees than anything we associate with human behavior. I for one look forward to the end of the dreaded gaper block and other problems caused by the vagaries of human behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Ed\_Zotti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/fbc32d/32.png) [@Ed\_Zotti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ed_Zotti)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2010, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/136 "2010-04-04T14:03:28Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > I don’t know about New York. The main thrust would be low population density cities where efficient rail transportation isn’t possible. In NY, the thrust is to convert the subways into Robo-trains. We don’t disagree then. I thought you were arguing that robocars would supplant mass transit entirely. On his website, for example, Brad Templeton says, “Robocars may spell the end for urban mass transit.” That strikes me as farfetched. Interesting about the NYCT L train, but you have to wonder what the justification is. If I understand the video correctly, the trains still have two-person crews - at any rate they still have conductors. In Chicago the trains have been operated for the past ten years with one person crews, who runs the train and also opens the doors. There’s a cab signaling system but no automatic train control. The CTA has had some incidents due to operator error but to my knowledge the last fatalities were in 1977. Meanwhile WMATA, which has automatic train control, has had two collisions that I know about since 1996 resulting in 10 deaths. That doesn’t sound like much of an argument for robotrains. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2010, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/137 "2010-04-04T19:10:52Z")
> [@Ed\_Zotti](#): > > Interesting about the NYCT L train, but you have to wonder what the justification is. If I understand the video correctly, the trains still have two-person crews - at any rate they still have conductors. In Chicago the trains have been operated for the past ten years with one person crews, who runs the train and also opens the doors. There’s a cab signaling system but no automatic train control. The CTA has had some incidents due to operator error but to my knowledge the last fatalities were in 1977. Meanwhile WMATA, which has automatic train control, has had two collisions that I know about since 1996 resulting in 10 deaths. That doesn’t sound like much of an argument for robotrains. The short answer is featherbedding. They may not be able to go to automated trains until the current motormen retire and even then the unions will fight it. A more valid reason is that you can’t take people out of the loop until the system is fail-safe. These trains are controlled from a central hub, so you need to make the communication links bulletproof. I suspect Singapore will go to unmanned trains before NYC and London, who are also testing them. The automated trains will increase capacity, since they will be able to run the trains closer together. It will also give more flexibility about how many trains to run, since they won’t have to pay motorman for a full shift when they want to run trains for a few hours in the morning and afternoon. That will save a lot of energy. ---
**Author:** ![DKhannonski](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7993a0/32.png) [@DKhannonski](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DKhannonski)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/138 "2010-04-06T00:52:49Z")
It seems to me that you are comparing apples to oranges. If the CTA’s cars are smaller, that doesn’t necessarily make them less efficient than a larger car. For example., let’s say the DC trains hold 180 people and Chicago’s only hold 90. If there’s the same number of employees involved (let’s posit one per train), then if Chicago runs a four car train and DC runs a two car train, they’re both hauling the same number of passengers and probably the maintenance and wear and tear on the trains, axles, rails is the same. My point: I’m not certain that measuring the efficiency of a system merely by the capacity of the cars they use is appropriate. Also, in my limited experience, I just have a great doubt that Chicago’s cars are smaller than Boston’s. Certainly Boston has very, very severe curves and turns in its 120 year old underground system. The only way your observation can be correct is if you are counting one of the newer Boston “accordion” cars, or double cars, as a single car. Now, those are marvels of engineering. Didn’t have them when I was first there in the 60s. However, if they are counted as but a single car, then why isn’t a real Chicago CTA two car train, of the same length, counted as a single car? I just am very doubtful about the way you went about proving CTA is less efficient that other systems, by analyzing car capacity. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/139 "2010-04-06T02:26:46Z")
I not sure exactly what you are talking about. I looked up the numbers for Boston and Chicago and Boston is listed as having Light, Heavy and Commuter rail and Chicago is listed as having Heavy and Commuter rail. I tried to combine all three as a single spreadsheet here: [http://cid-5499ec78c0f87e41.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/LightHeavyCommuterRail.xls](http://cid-5499ec78c0f87e41.skydrive.live.com/self.aspx/.Public/LightHeavyCommuterRail.xls) If that doesn’t work then you need to download Figures 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 from here: [http://cta.ornl.gov/data/chapter2.shtml](http://cta.ornl.gov/data/chapter2.shtml) I’m not sure what part of the Boston system you are comparing to what part of the Chicago system. The Heavy and Commuter rail parts seem to have similar numbers, but Chicago doesn’t have a light rail system to compare with Boston’s Also keep in mind, that the numbers are heavily dependent on how full the rail cars are. ---
**Author:** ![Ed\_Zotti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/fbc32d/32.png) [@Ed\_Zotti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ed_Zotti)\ **Post date:** [April 6, 2010, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052/140 "2010-04-06T18:50:15Z")
We’re talking about this column: [http://chicago.straightdope.com/sdc20100401.php](http://chicago.straightdope.com/sdc20100401.php) > [@DKhannonski](#): > > It seems to me that you are comparing apples to oranges. If the CTA’s cars are smaller, that doesn’t necessarily make them less efficient than a larger car. For example., let’s say the DC trains hold 180 people and Chicago’s only hold 90. If there’s the same number of employees involved (let’s posit one per train), then if Chicago runs a four car train and DC runs a two car train, they’re both hauling the same number of passengers and probably the maintenance and wear and tear on the trains, axles, rails is the same. My point: I’m not certain that measuring the efficiency of a system merely by the capacity of the cars they use is appropriate. Efficiency is partly a function of weight. A 2200-series car on the CTA weighs 44,500 pounds and has a capacity of 90. This works out to 494 pounds/passenger. An R160 car on the NYCT “B” division weighs 85,200 pounds and has a capacity of 243, or 351 pounds per passenger. In both cases, most of the weight being hauled is the rail car itself. All things being equal, the NYCT car is more energy efficient than the CTA car. WMATA Metro cars fall in between these extremes. A 7000-series car will weigh 80,000 pounds and have a capacity of around 180, or 444 pounds per passenger. (This is a function of the seating arrangement to an extent; the cars themselves are larger than most NYCT cars.) Consider the energy usage of the three systems: Chicago: 4,200 BTUs/pass mi DC: 3,400 NYC: 2,000 It’d be silly to say this is strictly a function of car capacity, but capacity is surely a factor. > [@](#): > > Also, in my limited experience, I just have a great doubt that Chicago’s cars are smaller than Boston’s. Certainly Boston has very, very severe curves and turns in its 120 year old underground system. The only way your observation can be correct is if you are counting one of the newer Boston “accordion” cars, or double cars, as a single car. Now, those are marvels of engineering. Didn’t have them when I was first there in the 60s. However, if they are counted as but a single car, then why isn’t a real Chicago CTA two car train, of the same length, counted as a single car? I just am very doubtful about the way you went about proving CTA is less efficient that other systems, by analyzing car capacity. You must be thinking of MBTA Green Line cars. These are light rail (streetcars), not the heavy rail cars we’re discussing here. MBTA Blue Line heavy rail cars are slightly larger than CTA cars (~49’ vs. 48’). MBTA Red and Orange Line cars are much larger (~65’ for Orange, I assume similar for Red). Car capacity isn’t the only factor in energy efficiency, but it’s not a trivial concern and puts the CTA at a disadvantage compared to other rail systems. That makes it all the more important that the El be operated as efficiently as possible. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-mass-transit-a-waste-of-energy/525052.md?page=8)