15 ms·

I don't think you're right about efficiency. Trains and boats are definitely more fuel efficient than flying, and cars are close. The figure for planes is about

I don't think you're right about efficiency. Trains and boats are definitely more fuel efficient than flying, and cars are close. The figure for planes is about 90 passenger-miles per gallon, for fully loaded (55 people) deisel buses it's about 330. (All from this lovely article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transportation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transporta...) Of course it depends on your stopping and starting.

gizmo686 13y ago
There is also a question of how efficient a mile is. When talking about transportation efficiency, the distance you want to talk about is the distance from point A to point B. When you talk about miles per gallon, you generally are talking about the total distance traveled which, unless you are moving in a perfectly straight line, is greater than the distance between the two points. I assume that air travel would travel closer to a straight line, so a single air mile gets you further than a single bus mile. I haven't actually checked this, and have no idea if this difference is large enough to cover factor of ~4 difference you are citing.
thedrbrian 13y ago
But planes are more likely to be full than buses or trains. From personal experience buses and trams are only full at rush hour and are sparsely populated at other times.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
ars 13y ago
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transportation#US_Passenger_transportation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport... For more realistic figures rather than theoretical maximums. And I especially found it interesting to note that as typically used, cars are better than busses.
- wisty 13y ago
  I think buses are better than cars, for inter-city travel. Wikipedia's numbers are probably more relevant to transit buses (i.e. the ones local governments run, which are often empty). Greyhound doesn't run uneconomic routes.
  - contingencies 13y ago
    Bicycles are really healthy, cost little to acquire, are easy to repair, last for ages, and work reasonably well in most climates. the bicycle is one of the most efficient forms of transport... half the energy per unit distance of walking ... converts to about [there are 2 claims in wikipedia, 732 and 879 mpg] I strongly suggest any hackers (aging and pot-bellied or otherwise) give long distance cycling a go: it's truly pleasurable and great for your brain! I spend much of my 20s doing this in foreign countries.
    - derleth 13y ago
      > work reasonably well in most climates. If you like to be boiled in the summer and frozen in the winter, not to mention having to cycle on icy roads with no shoulder and sixteen-wheelers bearing down on you. Anyway, if you do cycle, please don't make a habit out of blowing past pedestrians at full speed, and think twice about riding on the sidewalks.
      - contingencies 13y ago
        Perhaps consider moving to a less automobile-obsessed culture and a better climate.
        derleth 13y ago
        Your snark aside, I don't cycle. I walk. Mainly, I'm concerned with getting knocked down by a cyclist who thinks that sidewalks are a wonderful place to go full speed without having to worry about anyone else.

gizmo686 13y ago

There is also a question of how efficient a mile is. When talking about transportation efficiency, the distance you want to talk about is the distance from point A to point B. When you talk about miles per gallon, you generally are talking about the total distance traveled which, unless you are moving in a perfectly straight line, is greater than the distance between the two points. I assume that air travel would travel closer to a straight line, so a single air mile gets you further than a single bus mile. I haven't actually checked this, and have no idea if this difference is large enough to cover factor of ~4 difference you are citing.

thedrbrian 13y ago

But planes are more likely to be full than buses or trains. From personal experience buses and trams are only full at rush hour and are sparsely populated at other times.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

ars 13y ago

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transportation#US_Passenger_transportation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport... For more realistic figures rather than theoretical maximums. And I especially found it interesting to note that as typically used, cars are better than busses.

wisty 13y ago
I think buses are better than cars, for inter-city travel. Wikipedia's numbers are probably more relevant to transit buses (i.e. the ones local governments run, which are often empty). Greyhound doesn't run uneconomic routes.
- contingencies 13y ago
  Bicycles are really healthy, cost little to acquire, are easy to repair, last for ages, and work reasonably well in most climates. the bicycle is one of the most efficient forms of transport... half the energy per unit distance of walking ... converts to about [there are 2 claims in wikipedia, 732 and 879 mpg] I strongly suggest any hackers (aging and pot-bellied or otherwise) give long distance cycling a go: it's truly pleasurable and great for your brain! I spend much of my 20s doing this in foreign countries.
  - derleth 13y ago
    > work reasonably well in most climates. If you like to be boiled in the summer and frozen in the winter, not to mention having to cycle on icy roads with no shoulder and sixteen-wheelers bearing down on you. Anyway, if you do cycle, please don't make a habit out of blowing past pedestrians at full speed, and think twice about riding on the sidewalks.
    - contingencies 13y ago
      Perhaps consider moving to a less automobile-obsessed culture and a better climate.
      - derleth 13y ago
        Your snark aside, I don't cycle. I walk. Mainly, I'm concerned with getting knocked down by a cyclist who thinks that sidewalks are a wonderful place to go full speed without having to worry about anyone else.