Just wondering….

Munich, Germany just canceled their Transrapid Maglev airport-to-city-center project. This 37-km (22.2 mi) project was to use the same technology as mebelihotel furnishing in BulgariaShanghai’s maglev train. Like the Shanghai maglev train, the Munich project was to have a top speed over 500 kph (360 mph).

It was canceled because the price had doubled from 1.85 billion euros to 3.4 billion euros. 3.4 billion euros is about $5.1 billion.

As point of comparison, the 21 mile BART-to-San-Jose boondoogle is about $4.7+ billion. BART trains rattle and shake at about 70 mph. (The project is really 21 miles because 5 miles are in Alameda County to get to the Alameda/Santa Clara border).

Which leaves me wondering.. WTF are we doing with extending BART to anywhere!??

Google is very proud of their solar panel project:

Google has installed over 90% of the 9,212 solar panels that comprise the 1,600 kilowatt project. Panels cover the rooftops of eight buildings and two newly constructed solar carports at the Googleplex.

This installation is projected to produce enough electricity for approximately 1,000 California homes or 30% of Google’s peak electricity demand in our solar powered buildings at our Mountain View, CA headquarters.

Yawn. Sure its better than nothing. But its significance? Debatable.

First of all, California’s energy mix from 2006:

This mix shows that California uses fossil fuels to produce:

(coal) 15.7% + (natural gas) 41.5% = 57.2%

of our electricity. So of Google’s nominal 1600kw solar installation only ~897.6 kw (slight deduction because solar power is variable during the day) displaces a greenhouse-gas-producing energy source. But lets say that Google got all of its fossil fuel electricity from coal. Using this information:

Now lets compare shall we?

Gallon of gas is about 6lbs and it is mostly carbon. For example, one sample compound in gasoline is octane which is C8H18. So carbon
(atomic weight 6 ) when burned combines with 2 oxygen atoms (atomic weight 8 ) resulting in CO2 (atomic weight 22 ). Therefore each gallon of gas when burned produces 3 2/3 its weight in CO2 or 22 pounds of CO2.

90.9 gallons of gas = 1 ton (2000 lbs)

6642.24 (google solar power savings) * 90.9 gallons of gas = 603780 gallons of gas

So what is this equivalent to?

Well over the next few years Google is planning on adding 3,000+ people at their Mountain View Headquarters. So those solar panels just about cover 1610 Google employees driving their 40mpg Prius 15,000 miles a year to get to work.

The math:

250 work days * 30 miles one-way * 2 = 15000 miles

This math reflects the reality of the bay area. 50% of the Bay Area’s greenhouse gas come from transportation. That you and me driving to work. By ourselves.

So if Google really wanted to impact the climate change problem they would:

Make it possible for employees to live closer to their job

This means satellite offices. Don’t expand in Mountain View. Mountain View refuses to build more housing because Mountain View City Council is not serious about Climate Change. If Google is serious about Climate Change, Google should build its offices close to where its employees can find housing. (Either that or have a serious heart-to-heart with certain MV politicos who like to pretend to be environmentalists when it is not too inconvenient.)

If Google enabling their employees to walk to work or take mass transit (and no the Google buses only partially count), this would do far more than those solar panels.

Provide free transportation during lunch hour from Google to local cities

Out of the 15,000 employees at the Googleplex. Lets say 3,000 every day decide that they don’t want to eat the cafeteria food. Figuring 3 people/car and half the cars go to Palo Alto (6 miles * 2 * 250 work days * 500 cars = 1500000mi. 37500 gallons with a Prius or 412.5 tons of CO2 ) and half go to Mountain View. (2.7 miles * 2 * 250 work days * 500 cars = 675000 miles. 16875 gallons with a Prius or 185.625 tons of CO2 ). Or in other words, 10%30% (see update at bottom) of the savings from the solar panels!

Naturally the numbers go down the more employees that love the cafeteria food. But it goes up for those going to lunch by themselves or in something less fuel-efficient.

Pay people not to drive

Reduce the parking and pay people not to drive to work. This is called Parking Cashout:

Cashing out reduced total vehicle emissions for commuting by 12 percent, with a range from 5 to 24 percent. To view the report summary (abstract) or to download a copy of the report

For Google, lets assume that 33% of the employees take the Google bus, public transit or telecommute. That leaves about 10,000 people driving 150,000,000 total miles each year to get to Google. Because they all drive 40mpg Prius, they ‘only’ burn 3,750,000 gallons of gas and ‘only’ produce 41250 tons of CO2. If Google could incentivize only 5% of those 10,000 employees to take public transit or telecommute, Google would stop 2062.5 tons/year of CO2 from being produced or about 30% 90% (see update at bottom) of the savings from the solar panels.

Inform the public

Google Maps is great. I use it all the time. Google added a public transit link. But they should really go a lot farther.

1. Determine the quickest route via car and via public transit. If public transit is within 10% of driving then display the public transit option preferentially.
2. When displaying the distance calculate and display the fuel cost of the trip (assume ~18 mpg). Compare the cost to the cost of public transit.
3. If public transit option includes, a bit of walking calculate how much calories would be burned. Display this in terms of time on a stairmaster at the gym. If trip involves hills, include that in the calorie consumption.
4. Trip planner: Allow a user to enter multiple errand destinations. Calculate the shortest trip to handle the errands. If destinations are within a mile of each other, assume the person is walking. (Display the calories burned as above).
5. Commute planner: Allow a user to enter their home address and their work address.
   • Calculate the total cost of the commute for the whole year.
   • Total numbers of miles driven.
   • Total cost of the gas consumed.
   • Total number of hours (in terms of days) that the person is driving.
   • Time of day that they would leave their house and time that they would get home
   • Repeat the calculation for the public transit option
   • Allow side-by-side comparisons with two separate work destinations for case when a person has two different job offers.
6. Home buying: Allow a user to enter their work address and multiple home addresses. Do the above calculations as above.
7. If a user is driving to a destination that has a parking fee, include the parking fee in the cost of driving.

I challenge Google to really get serious about global warming.

[Update: Google's promo-video claims:

So these panels are 2/3ths less significant. Please divide by 3 and multiple by 3 where appropriate above)]

My response to Shannon’s thinking about buying a car:

Congratulations saving so much money by avoiding car ownership for so long.

Here is my feedback:

• Forget the concept of a car retaining its “value”. A car is a liability not an asset. If a car runs and operates it has value. The only time the car’s “value” will matter is if it gets totaled in an accident.
• Don’t bother buying a new car. Its a stupid waste of money. Let the other poor sucker buy the shiny new object. Unless you are trying to impress some bimbo girlfriend, forget it.
• Forget the used car guides, they talk about general trends - not your specific car.
• Figure out how much money you want to flush down the car toilet. Double that number (maintenance, license, etc.) While you are figuring out what you want to buy set that money aside to make sure you can really do without it (the money that is).
• How many times can you rent a car with the above cash? Do you still need that car?

Now that you have decided that you really must discard your cash this way. Buy your car this way:

• Find out what your minimum monthly payment would be buying a car from a dealership. (Lets say $400/month)
• Decide what your hassle tolerance is. Your hassle tolerance is how long in months the car must run with only oil changes or other routine maintenance before you get pissed off with it. Note this is a minimum - not a as-long-as-possible value. Lets say 10 months - so after 10 months you wake up and discover that the car had been crushed by a semi you wouldn’t care.
• Hassle-tolerance * monthly payment = maximum to spend. Yes - maximum. In our example, that is 10*$400 = $4000. If you don’t mind buying a new-to-you car every 10 months, then if the car lasts 20 months - the last 10 months were ‘free’
• Look on craigslist. Buy the third car that passes a basic driving test and an inspection by a trusted mechanic (or at least a mechanic that you can beat the shit out of if he screws up). Why the third car? Because you should give yourself the opportunity to get a good deal but you should not agonize and ditter yourself into indecision. If you can’t decide by the third car then you don’t really need a car - its not urgent. Update: Note that I am not saying the third car period - but rather the third car in decent shape where “decent shape” = able to run at highway speeds and your mechanic doesn’t ask if he can share in the life insurance payout. The car is decent if it is ugly or has cigarette burns in the seats.
• Buy a car that you would never want to both getting comprehensive insurance on. If you don’t care if the car is destroyed in a collision, stolen, explodes, etc. — then you will not care if it is a ‘lemon’. Even a lemon will likely last ~10 months.

As a result, you will buy a car that:

• you will not have an emotional attachment to — save emotional attachments for people not things.
• you will be indifferent to. You will not wash the car (saving money, time and clean water).
• you will not waste time cleaning the car.
• will not be hard to ditch when confronted with a huge repair bill.
• you will be able to sell for about what you paid for it - even if it doesn’t run at all you will be able to convert it to a tax deduction.
• drive it into the ground.

As background, my wife and I between the 2 of us have owned 5 cars: 1 new, 4 used. We never paid more than $4000 for a used car (or van). The car that has lasted the longest is a 1991 Ford Festiva - which gets over 30mpg. We paid $1500 for that car. The other vehicle we own is a 1994 Dodge Caravan - $4000. We have never ended up with a lemon. We have spent a total during our entire combined life span of >80 man-years on vehicle purchases is about ~$35,000. (I think that might be too high actually).

Update ( 9/7/2008) :
Apparently I am not the only one see things this way. Cars: The real reason you are broke.

Stowe makes an interesting point, and one that the Sierra Club may help change.

Naturally, he is a bit of a technology geek so he imagines a technology infrastructure in place first but never the less the question remains…

Can we help save CO2 emissions by getting outdated cab pick up laws changed?

From September 2007 Railway Age editorial page:

Wendell Cox responds
“Your confusion on my position (’From the Editor,’ RA, August, p. 4) misses the difference between means and objectives. Thirty years ago, I was appointed to the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission with an objective to reduce traffic congestion by means of a rail system. Largely because of my 1980 amendment, rail transit was built in Los Angeles.

Really? In the late 80’s when I lived in LA the only thing built was the rather pathetic Blue Line. And was this built because of you or in spite of you?

While the means of rail was achieved, the objective was not, as traffic congestion continued to worsen.

Maybe you had the wrong objective?

“Around the world, rail transit has shown virtually no capability for reducing traffic congestion in urban areas.

Wendell Cox focuses exclusively on the question “does rail reduce traffic congestion in urban areas”. We have spent 50 years and billions building a nationwide interstate highway system, so we should apply the same logic to road-building. Doesn’t our 50-year experiment in the asphalt and pavement prove that “roads have virtually no capacity for reducing traffic congestion in urban areas”? Somehow with roads ‘congestion’ becomes an argument for building more infrastructure, yet with rail ‘congestion’ becomes an argument for building less!

Using this logic, I am sure Wendell’s good advice to railroads is to abandon double-tracking projects because “rail doesn’t reduce congestion”!

At the same time, with intermodal capabilities and further investment, substantial amounts of highway freight could be diverted to freight rail, which could help achieve the objective of reducing future congestion on the roads we are insufficiently expanding.

Wrong objective produces wrong results.

Furthermore, if Wendell simplistically defined the problem as ‘congestion’ it is to be expected that he can only simplistically answer “build more roads”. The reality is congestion is caused by the interaction of complex issues that has at the center poor land-use planning. Congestion is merely the symptom of the problem that we are not enabling people to live close to where they work. We also put goods distribution centers a considerable distance away from stores and existing transportation infrastructure.

One of the easiest ways to reduce congestion is to reduce the amount of miles goods and people need to move daily. If we were to cut in half the distance people needed to commute - we would easily solve the ‘congestion’ problem, without building a single road. If poor urban planning got us into this mess then better urban planning must be part of the answer. Instead we rely on rail-building as a band-aid and then blame the resulting disjointed piecemeal rail lines (which in many cases don’t even form a network) for the continued congestion.

So trillions have been spent on roads in the past 50 years and we still have a problem? May be we should try something new.

“Finally, passenger and freight rail are not the same.This is illustrated by Europe, where freight rail volumes are so small, in large measure because high passenger rail volumes make freight rail uncompetitive relative to trucks. By contrast, in the U.S., the majority of truck and rail ton-miles are on rail.
“No first world nation has both a world class freight rail and world class passenger rail system.The U.S. is better off for the choice it has made.”

Is it? In order to function in the U.S. a car is required. In the rest of the world a car (and its associated high expenses) is optional. I would rather have the option and put money into my children’s education than a car.

Email your comments to wvantuono sbpub . com.

Finally, Wendell completely ignores the ability of rail to deliver goods deep into a city, or across the country, goods and people in large volumes, speedily, and in an energy-efficient manner. In an era of increasingly high energy costs and population growth, these characteristics will become increasingly important.

If maybe for the next 50 years we should try something different than more of the same that got us into this mess, my vote is with rail.

According to this:

• 1 double stack train equals 280 trucks
• trains are 2-4x more fuel efficient than trucks on a ton-mile basis
• trains are 2-3 cleaner than trucks w.r.t NOx emissions on a ton-mile basis

So this from the east…. notice not a word about how Americans love their cars so much that they would never get out to take a train… especially a train that easily beats the car!

Published Tuesday, September 12, 2006, by PA Office of the Governor

Governor Rendell, Amtrak Announce $145 Million Upgrade of Keystone Passenger Rail Service

90-minute, 110 mph Express Starts Oct. 30

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Governor Edward G. Rendell today joined with Amtrak in announcing the completion of a $145 million upgrade of the Keystone Corridor that will bring 110 mph service to the Philadelphia-to-Harrisburg passenger rail line.

The enhanced service, which begins Oct. 30, will feature 90-minute express trains between Harrisburg, Lancaster and Philadelphia, a 30-minute improvement over the current two-hour trip. Local service will also improve to 105 minutes between Harrisburg and Philadelphia. Amtrak is adding three Monday-through- Friday roundtrips and one on Saturday and Sunday to the lineup of 67 roundtrips.

“Throughout the past three-and-a-half years, we have made investments to significantly improve Pennsylvania’s transportation system,” Governor Rendell said. “A quality transportation system is essential for economic development and growth as well as improving the quality of life for our residents. Upgrading the Keystone Corridor is an example of the positive investments we are making.”

“Given the right service frequencies and equipment, this route easily draws a million riders a year,” Governor Rendell said. “This faster service should attract even more riders and marks a significant step forward for rail transportation in Pennsylvania.”

“How we use transportation will be crucial to addressing how we manage fuel consumption in an era of rising prices and uncertain supply sources,” Governor Rendell added. “Our experience with the Keystone Corridor in Pennsylvania shows that passenger rail is far from being relegated to our museums. Passenger rail is viable and can help America work towards energy independence.”

The 104-mile Keystone Corridor is one of Amtrak’s most popular routes.

“Over the past several years, more and more Pennsylvanians have chosen to take Amtrak when traveling across the state. Just last year we saw a 14- percent increase in ridership on our trains along the Keystone Corridor,” said David M. Laney, Amtrak chairman. “To respond to this demand, Amtrak and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania worked together to develop a partnership to improve rail service at the local level. This new service will provide much-needed additional rail service between Harrisburg, Philadelphia and New York.”

Completion of the upgrade, which included new rail, track bed, signals and rebuilt rail cars, caps a long effort by the commonwealth and Amtrak on the corridor. Governor Rendell and Amtrak announced in July 2004 an amended agreement that expedited the project. Funding was split among the commonwealth, Amtrak and the Federal Transit Administration. The upgrade also marks a return of all electric service to the line. The 110-mph service will be the fastest outside Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor.

Among the upgrades being added to the corridor:

* Push-pull electric train sets, which will eliminate the need to turn the train around in Harrisburg or switch engines in Philadelphia.

* Installation of approximately 200 miles of continuous welded rail, which provides for a smoother ride.

* Installation of 216,000 concrete ties, 48,000 wooden ties and 52 new switches.

* Upgrading of signal and electrification systems, including two dozen signal instrument houses.

This is the first upgrade of these systems in 70 years on the line, which once was part of the Pennsylvania Railroad and has had passenger trains running on it since 1834.

I read BBC regularily. The amount of climate news provided by this service is excellent.

This is positively scary:

Carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at anytime in the last 800,000 years, the latest study of ice drilled out of Antarctica confirms.

The “scary thing”, Dr Wolff added, was the rate of change now occurring in CO2 concentrations. In the core, the fastest increase seen was of the order of 30 parts per million (ppm) by volume over a period of roughly 1,000 years.

“The last 30 ppm of increase has occurred in just 17 years. We really are in the situation where we don’t have an analogue in our records,” he said.

At this rate it is not inconcievable that we are looking at climate failure (not just change) within our lifetime.

I ran across this interesting article today. This article from a very unlikely source goes to demonstrate what we in the transit community have known for a long time, Americans can and do want an alternative to their cars.

This is from Commercial Property Online, hardly an environmental or transit-oriented publication. In their article, Commuter and Light Rail Driving Development in California :

The development and expansion of commuter rail systems in California has spurred a great deal of commercial development, a cross-sector expansion that most in the industry agree is only in its early stages.

The projects, which range from the proposed $40 billion high-speed rail connection spanning the 700 miles between San Francisco and San Diego to the more modest $200 million Sonoma Marin rail transit line (SMART) stretching 75 miles from Cloverdale to San Rafael, have been a boon for commercial developers, who have seen increased demand for development–especially near rail stations–as a result of the expanding lines.

“You’re seeing a lot of development at these stations, all generated by proximity to rail, and these would not have happened without the rail,” said [Transwestern Commercial Services west region president George] Garfield. “If our cities are to grow in a compelling way, rail will be a meaningful component of that.”

This demonstrates that being pro-transit, pro-environment can also be good business.

Personally, I am so glad that my wife and I brought a house within walking distance of both a light-rail line and Caltrain. Also I know that The Crossings development in Mountain View California is very popular and has a strong sense of community. (link to google map). People within that development, even when they are looking to move up, try to find a larger townhouse still in The Crossings.
The Crossings has a density of about 21 units/acre and is located at Caltrain’s San Antonio train station. On the other side of the train tracks, the 27-acre Mayfield Mall development will have 578 units for a similiar density of 21.4 units/acre.

This is what the EPA says about The Crossings:

The Crossings, located in the city of Mountain View, 30 miles south of San Francisco, transformed a failing 1960s auto-oriented mall into a vibrant neighborhood that offers a variety of transportation choices. The 18-acre infill project, developed by TPG Development, demolished the original shopping mall and replaced it with homes, retail shops, and a daycare center, all oriented toward the new San Antonio Avenue Caltrain commuter rail station. San Mateo Transit busses meet each train and connect to nearby communities. Narrow tree-lined streets and sidewalks and small pocket parks all combine to create a walkable and bikeable neighborhood. It takes residents less than five minutes to walk from any of the houses to the stores or to the commuter rail station, and two minutes or less to walk to a park.

The Crossings project was built starting in 1994 and as the EPA notes:

Citizens asked for low densities with open space.

Twelve years later, Mountain View residents came out saying that for The Mayfield Mall project … they wanted …(drumroll) a big park and that the proposed housing development would result in high traffic volumes.

But has that happened with The Crossings? Remember according to the EPA, The Crossings is “a vibrant neighborhood that offers a variety of transportation choices”. In other words, people aren’t driving!

Furthermore considering the prices in the area as blogged by burbed.com, the EPA’s comment about cost seems appropriate:

Using on-street parking places to meet minimum parking requirements allowed more land to be used for homes, increasing overall density [when compared to the overall city density of 7-20 units/acre].

Although priced at market rates, the compact design makes the units relatively affordable in the high-cost Silicon Valley real estate market.

So here is hoping for more rail development for more affordable homes!

The Sierra Club was recently approached by Growth Options for the 21th Century, a group that wants to increase federal funding to expand freight railroad capacity.

My general feeling is that we should be very wary. The law of unintended consequences starts coming into play pretty quickly.

The railroads are multi-billion-dollar corporations with well-funded lobbyists and growing traffic volumes, including I might add, Powder River coal.

According to the June 2006 issue of Railway Age, the 141,641 coal carloads are 41.1% of the 344,772 carloads transported by all major U.S. railroads in 2006 to-date. Coal volume grew by 11.1% at the same time all other categories declined in volume (except for agriculture products). By signing on without question, the Sierra Club may be signing on to help make coal-fired plants more cost-effective.

The Sierra Club should not be in the business of providing a direct corporate assistance to any corporation unless the environmental movement extracts some sort of meaningful concession for something that the corporation would not otherwise do.

Freight railroads have not been a friend of passenger rail and the price of help in getting money should be a changed attitude.

For examples:

1. Minnesota’s Northstar commuter line which will begin operation on BNSF tracks from Big Lake, MN to Minneapolis was scaled back from 18 trains/day to12 trains/day. It was originally supposed to extend to St. Cloud, MN. The line in question is part of BNSF’s transcontiental route. Any improvements on that route should allow for the originally planned 18 trains/day. Those lost 6 trains represent 1200 more cars each day being driven.
2. The UPRR has been causing the Coast Starlight to be running up to 12 hours late.
3. The Coast Daylight project has been hampered by UPRR’s refusal to even state that they would permit it to run even if the state of California does contribute money toward improved infrastructure.

According to the May 2006 issue of Trains Magazine, January 2006’s tardy top 10 are:

Just one on-time Coast Starlight for the entire month of January!

From another Sierra Cluber:

Between June 30 and July 6, UP alone accounted for 1800 minutes of delay along the 124-mile Cascades Amtrak route (2 Cascades passenger trains/day, heavily subsidized by Oregon) between Portland and Eugene OR.

Recently, the National Association of Rail Passengers (NARP) wrote to the Surface Transportation Board urging enforcement of 49 USC 24308 (c), which requires Amtrak trains be given ‘preference over freight transportation…except in an emergency.’

Their letter reads in part:

Host railroads cause the majority of delay minutes. Amtrak’s April report, available on-line, shows that 54% of all delay minutes on long-distance trains that month were in two categories: “freight train interference” and “slow orders.”

In June, 2006, for example, just 15% of trips of the Los Angeles-Seattle Coast Starlight, which primarily uses UP, reached final destinations less than four hours late; the comparable figure for the Sunset Limited (UP) was 32%. On the shorter New York-Florida line (mostly CSX), only 57% of trips (including Auto Train) reached final destination less than three hours late. During the month, more than 100,000 passengers rode Amtrak trains that reached their final destinations over four hours late; the overwhelming majority of these passengers were on routes that use CSX or Union Pacific exclusively or primarily. By contrast, the Chicago-Los Angeles Southwest Chief (BNSF) and Chicago-Seattle/Portland Empire Builder (BNSF and CP) were on time (no more than 30 minutes late) 63.3% and 80.0%, respectively.

This suggests that UP and CSX do not take seriously 49 USC 24308(c), which requires that Amtrak trains be given “preference over freight transportation…except in an emergency” or where the Secretary of Transportation, in response to a railroad’s application for relief, has “established the rights of the carrier and Amtrak on reasonable terms.”

The fact that BNSF can post numbers that are so much better than UPRR and CSX’s proves that the tardyness is caused by corporate indifference, not by any inherent Amtrak issue.

Any Sierra Club legislation support should be tied directly to a requirement that any improvements make it possible to increased passenger rail service over the right-of-way (ROW) improved with federal dollars and that increased passenger service be permitted or on a parallel ROW. This would allow for the case of shifting freight traffic off of one ROW to make room for passenger rail.

The Sierra Club should know who is funding Go21 before we sign-on as well. We need to know who we are getting into bed with.

We should also not be forced into a false either-or choice of funding freight-only improvements at the expense of passenger rail or having more trucks on expanded highways. And certainly, we should demand that the above numbers be improved!