How full must a 60/62-foot Artic be for it to have less of an environmental impact than x number...

[BrooklynIRT]

...of cars or commuter vans?

 

http://freakonomics.com/2012/11/07/can-mass-transit-save-the-environment-right-wing-or-left-wing-heres-a-post-everybody-can-hate/

 

I got a bit worried when I saw this article because I was thinking about how it is good to have mass transit vehicles that are not packed to the gills all the time or on every section of the routes so riders get some space and comfort, especially during off-hours (which would make mass transit more attractive to those who do not use it as much at the moment). yet at the same time if the bus is too empty, there might be a problem (operating costs, space-inefficiency, and the environment).

 

so I would like to know just how empty an Artic (say an Xcelsior or LFS Artic) has to be for its operation (forget about the manufacture for a moment) to have a worse impact per passenger on the environment than that of some number of less space-efficient automobiles.

 

the comparison I am most interested in is two fully-loaded dollar vans (one right behind the other) compared to an Artic carrying some number of passengers but not a crush load. what is the maximum capacity of a dollar van? about what is the minimum number of passengers the Artic needs to carry for its operation to have the same environmental impact per passenger as that of the two fully-loaded dollar vans? I am looking for a break-even point.

 

the reason I am saying two dollar vans vs. an Artic is that I know that when the two dollar vans are moving at a decent speed, they occupy more road space than the Artic because the second van has to leave a following distance for the van in front of it.

 

fortunately when the manufacture of the vehicles is also considered it seems like the bus winds up winning the environmental impact battle, for reasons that I think are obvious. I was just curious about the operation by itself.

 

I put per passenger in bold b/c I forgot it initially and it is an extremely important specification.

[MHV9218]

I remember working this out years ago when the fleet was still all diesel...an artic, if I remember right, needed to have at least 35 people on board for it to be more efficient than a small car with four people in it. The numbers are obviously different now whatwith more efficient buses and cars, and carpooling like that is pretty rare. But that did always make me think while on the M14 coming in from the LES at night, completely empty. 

[RookiePhenom]

I feel as if Commuter Vans, in comparison to artics, might be somewhat incomparable. Usually vans are capable of transporting 5-13 people (at least with the program in Chicago), and are used for services in low-density areas, inter- and intra-suburban commutes, as well as helpful for areas where you don't want to invest in a 40-foot bus (or coach) or a commuter rail. If people are interested in a low-cost method to get in between the areas you need (home and work), then you can gain enough traction to ensure a mass commute preference.

 

In order to get service in a van at optimum, 5 or 6 people would work in smaller vans; whereas about 7-9 would be needed for the larger vans.