# Traveling Green(er)



## WhoozOn1st (Jun 29, 2008)

From the 6-29-08 Business section of the L.A. Times.

Print headline: The high road to low emissions

It has some Amtrak content and moves on to driving, flying, and carbon offsets. Not reproduced online is a chart from the actual newspaper called "Gauging your carbon footprint." It lists in bar graph form carbon emissions, in pounds, per person for a round trip from L.A. to San Francisco.

Flying on Alaska Airlines: 300 lbs.

Flying on Southwest Airlines: 406

Driving alone (25 mpg car): 527

Driving alone (16 mpg SUV): 793

Driving alone (47 mpg hybrid): 273

Carpooling (2 people, 25 mpg): 263

Train: 284


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 29, 2008)

Clearly we need wind farms and catenary.


----------



## jackal (Jun 30, 2008)

I'm surprised that rail's not more efficient, especially considering how much more efficient freight rail is over trucking and air freight.

Is that train calculation based on actual current load factors? If so, what are those load factors? If they're anything less than 100%, then that figure will only improve as train usage goes up.

Plus, too, once current cars are consistently near 100% occupancy (there will always be a slight shortfall due to turnover), it might be easier for Congress to approve funds for new rolling stock. As new rolling stock comes online, trains get longer and the locomotives get used more efficiently, thereby driving the carbon footprint down and the gas mileage up.


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Jun 30, 2008)

jackal said:


> Is that train calculation based on actual current load factors? If so, what are those load factors?


Only reporting what the chart said; don't know the methodology. What I found intriguing was the difference between Alaska and Southwest. Southwest operates only leased 737s, while an Alaska round trip, L.A.-S.F., might involve MD-80s, though Alaska operates 737s as well. Same airports for both.


----------



## jackal (Jun 30, 2008)

Alaska only has (IIRC) 6 more MD-80s, and they're rapidly being phased out. However, it's possible the chart was composed earlier, back when the Mad Dogs were more prevalent.

Could also be that WN (FT/IATA lingo for Southwest...I didn't pick it) has higher average load factors than AS, although AS flights are pretty dang full these days, too. Almost forgot--WN can squeeze more people in, too, since there's no first class.

Er, reverse that. I just scrolled up and looked at the chart. AS is _more_ fuel-efficient than WN! Maybe AS has a higher percentage of next-generation (and therefore more fuel-efficient) 737s (737-700s, -800s, and -900s) than WN does.

OK, I'm confused now....


----------



## saxman (Jun 30, 2008)

jackal said:


> Alaska only has (IIRC) 6 more MD-80s, and they're rapidly being phased out. However, it's possible the chart was composed earlier, back when the Mad Dogs were more prevalent.
> Could also be that WN (FT/IATA lingo for Southwest...I didn't pick it) has higher average load factors than AS, although AS flights are pretty dang full these days, too. Almost forgot--WN can squeeze more people in, too, since there's no first class.
> 
> Er, reverse that. I just scrolled up and looked at the chart. AS is _more_ fuel-efficient than WN! Maybe AS has a higher percentage of next-generation (and therefore more fuel-efficient) 737s (737-700s, -800s, and -900s) than WN does.
> ...


Yeah I'm a little confused by that calculation too. And one more little error on Southwest....they do indeed have first class, its ALL first class :lol:


----------



## PRR 60 (Jun 30, 2008)

saxman66 said:


> ...And one more little error on Southwest....they do indeed have first class, its ALL first class :lol:


Herb could not have said it better himself! :lol:


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 30, 2008)

I think a lot of those numbers are picked out of their ass. For example, the train. I bet riding an NJ Transit 12-car clocker gives you a lower foot print then an Amtrak Reigional, and that gives you a lower foot print then, say, the Empire Builder.


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Jul 1, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I think a lot of those numbers are picked out of their ass.


As usual, this individual completely misses the point. The numbers are quite clear for the specific given situation: R/T L.A.-S.F. Not meant to apply to NJT. Not meant to apply to a Regional. Not meant to apply to the EB. And not meant to be extrapolated to driving or flying comparisons with those routes.

I guess clear and specific just doesn't cut it for some.


----------



## gswager (Jul 1, 2008)

Maybe that's for two landings/take-offs, somewhere in the Bay areas. You know that SWA is a short distance flights.


----------



## transit54 (Jul 18, 2008)

I'd also have to guess SWA is for short distance flights. That being said, I saw some data 6 months ago that showed JetBlue as the most fuel efficient airline and Southwest not far behind. Then there was a pretty big gap between them and the next carrier. Of course, I can't find that data now. I originally saw it on the corporate intranet that I no longer have access to. But I recall it being based on some sort of government data.

I think the type of train and service also matters. I listed to a talk by Richard Heinburg about two years ago. He had a very interesting slide comparing fuel efficiencies of various transport modes. Short haul flights were by far the most inefficient, and on the other end was the bicycle, followed by foot, and closely followed by the TGV. I wish I could get a copy of that chart, it was pretty interesting to look at.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jul 19, 2008)

Is the TGV more energy efficient, per passenger mile, than the Acela? I suspect it may well be, but the question here really is one of whether the greater wind resistance presumably encountered at a 170 MPH average or whatever it is vs the 69 MPH average is less significant than the constant braking and acceleration due to curves on our poor quality American track.


----------

