• uthredii@lemmy.mlM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 years ago

    Reasons for this could be:

    1. low average number of passenegers
    2. buses have old inefficient engines because of underfunding/underinvestment
    • bruhbeans@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 years ago

      I’m curious how/where this data comes from, seems like it would vary a lot, e.g. Seattle and SF have some electric busses using catenary wires, Chicago has diesel-electric hybrids, Bogotá has dedicated lanes so busses aren’t sitting in traffic, etc. Different cities will have different mode share, too, so some systems will have more riders. In Chicago, the train system is distributes inequitably, leading to a higher mode share for the train in wealthy areas and a higher mode share for the bus in poorer areas.

    • bruhbeans@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 years ago

      it’s also much easier for a city to electrify its bus fleet, vs convincing private citizens to go electric with their personal cars.

    • DPUGT2@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 years ago

      No one’s designing specialty engines for buses. They just pick a model from their catalog(s) that is within specs, and most of those are seeing the same kinds of efficiency gains as other internal combustion engines.

      If anything, they’re somewhat exempt from the higher emissions standards of cars, so they might actually be more efficient, passenger-mile-per-gallon. Or at least, that would be my first guess.

    • sexy_peach@feddit.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 years ago

      I vaguely remember that a travel bus takes like 14-20liters per 100km or something like this which makes it extremely low per passenger

    • pingveno@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      But on the other other hand, having a bus available - whether it’s full or not - makes it more viable for people to live a car free lifestyle, which in turn makes them less likely to use a car, which in turn leads to higher bus use. Or so the story goes.

    • sexy_peach@feddit.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      Honestly the whole thing seems pretty stupid, other sources have numbers that seem more sensible. This is the first I found ;)

  • pingveno@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    It’s worth noting this is the grams per passenger-kilometer cost. The most efficient kilometer is the kilometer you don’t take, so a plane trip to a nearby vacation spot is going to be less efficient per-kilometer than going around the world, but much more efficient overall.

  • ezmack@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 years ago

    Surprised motorcycles aren’t better. Even driving like a lunatic mine got great gas mileage

  • Sr Estegosaurio@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 years ago

    Trains and metropolitan trains (metro & rail buses) are amazing transports but sadly ppl keep insisting on cars…