What would a Warplanes film be like?

I saw a poster for the film Planes, part of the popular Cars franchise. I noticed that some of the characters are military jets (Super Hornets). I started to wonder what a film called Warplanes (that would happen in the same universe) would be like. Warplanes would follow a miscellaneous cast of American warplanes at a major air force base. There would be the young and fast F-22 planes that everyone admires and the F-35s who are in their teens, trying to prove themselves. Looking upon them are the older F-15s and F-16s, many of them combat veterans. Their "cousins", Ray-Ban-wearing F/A-18s, who sometimes come to visit for joint dissimilar air combat training, have traveled around the world, bombed exotic places, and starred in famous films. (Nobody remembers the F-14s any more.) Overseeing these "kids" are of course older, bigger planes: the clumsy but gentle transport C-5 and the little bit more agile C-17. Their friends include the radar plane E-3 and the best friend forever KC-135 and its bigger brother KC-10. (Obviously all of these would have cute names in the actual film.) Many older planes would actually be sad and bored. Once lauded as technological marvels, carrying expensive and advanced nuclear weapons, are now mostly used for training purposes or sitting in the desert, some having had their wings chopped off due to the START treaty. The B-52 and B-1 especially would still like to see some action, to prove that there still is a reason for them to exist. There's a generational gap between them and the F-22s and F-35s, even though they are supposed to work together. But one day, a plane they have heard of but never seen, the shadowy but respected E-4 Nightwatch, delivers a message from the trusty and wise VC-25 Air Force One which has sadly been shot down: they have a new mission, and they have to work together to complete it! There's no time for anyone to sit in the desert any more! The F-22s are excited to be moved to forward-operating bases assisted by their friends, KC-135s. Striking from multiple directions and with their Super Hornet buddies and allied Eurofighters, they target the bad guys' air defences to pave the way for the nuclear-armed B-52 bombers, escorted by the enthusiastic F-35s and F-16s. The Falcons and Raptors notice the tears in the corners of the old Stratofortresses' cockpit windows - the old guys are really touched by finally getting into action. They still know their tricks! They launch their nuclear-tipped ALCMs toward enemy targets, knowing they have fulfilled their duty, perhaps even fate. Some of them even drop old-fashioned B61 gravity bombs toward Russian cities and other civilian targets. They are heroes! One B-52, just before being shot down, is even informed of having been awarded a medal for outstanding combat service! In the sequel, the surviving Warplanes head back home, after saving the world from the bad guys who wanted to destroy their freedom and independence. Since all KC-135s were destroyed in air or on the ground, not all make it back - some have to ditch in the sea, some even meeting their allied Warships and brand new P-8 maritime reconnaissance planes. But the ones who make it back see that the enemy counterattack has destroyed almost the whole United States, including their own home air force base. Landing at civilian airports and facing innocent humans demanding answers for why they caused the country to turn into apocalyptic wasteland, they face completely new problems. People want to strip them of their radiation-hardened parts to build shelters, repair hospitals and build radios to coordinate rescue operations. Will our friends survive? Is this the end for the friendly machines designed as deliverers of mass destruction? (There are no further sequels.)

Private cars vs. public transportation, an epic battle

Ground rule: use public transportation if you can. It is good for the environment and good for the city (if you are in a city) and it increases your sex appeal. However, the whole picture is much more complex than that. City planners and bus manufacturers try to appeal to the public by launching publicity campaigns like this one from the Polish bus manufacturer Solaris Bus & Coach SA:

This photo is from their Facebook page. The photo caption reads (from Google Translate):

So many cars disappear from the streets of our cities, when their owners will fill one bus. Public transportation! This number of cars would be unnecessary, if Their owners changed to a bus. Public transport!

It looks like the bus in the photo is Solaris Urbino 18 Hybrid, which is one of the manufacturer's newest products, and is a very modern hybrid vehicle. Based on the product brochure, it the densest configuration, it can carry 161(!) passengers, which is quite impressive. It looks like there are about thirty rows of private cars, five cars in a row, so let's make a wild guess and assume that there are 161 private cars on the left side of the picture. The point is clear: many private cars actually carry only one passenger, the driver, and when you fully utilize a bus, you can carry lots of people.

The good bus

How many of the 161 passengers - who now have abandoned their cars and only commute by bus - can actually have a seat? Answer: 51. Assuming that all passengers are average-sized and able-bodied, 110 of them will have to stand for the whole journey, and they cannot take any wheelchairs or a baby strollers.

It is true that number of vehicles on the right (1) is less than the number of vehicles on the left (161). The bus full of people would be much more efficient on transporting the people than the cars are, which is the point of mass transportation in general.

These publicity campaigns consistently compare the "best case" scenario for buses and "worst case" for cars, and this may lead to unrealistic expectations. In the scenario of the image, the bus will be as full as it can legally be. It probably won't be comfortable, fast or maybe not even safer than private car (there are no safety belts or air bags on buses, except for the driver). Because it is full, stops will be long and cumbersome, some people might even have to step out to let other passengers out, and then board again. The bus will also use slower and smaller roads to pick up passengers, and will usually not take the passengers to their ultimate destination - they will have to switch to another bus or walk (or use other form of transportation).

The mass transportation model works well in crowded cities for commuting, but actual occupancy rates are often much lower. According to UK Department for Transport's report, the estimated average occupancy rate (vehicle miles divided by passenger miles) of buses in London was 19.3, which is good - but only 9.1 outside of London (11.1 for the whole Great Britain). It also mentions that the current trend is that the rate for outside London is falling, potentially making mass transportation less effective and more challenging to maintain.

The bad private cars

According to University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems' report, average occupancy rate of all U.S. vehicles was 1.55 in 2011. The average rate varies by trip purpose - for leisure it is close to 2, for commuting it is often close to 1, and sometimes the car can also be full(!).

1.55 passengers is 31 % of a passenger vehicles maximum capacity (assumed five). 11.1 passengers is only 15.9 % of maximum capacity of a traditional city bus (40 seats and 30 standing, rough estimate). 

With these figures, you only need two or three cars to match the average occupancy rate of a bus, and with a car you can travel from point to point with greater flexibility. Fuel efficiency for new cars is more than 25 miles per gallon (sorry for using non-standard units!) and for an ordinary U.S. city bus, according to National Renewal Energy Laboratory's study, was roughly 4.0 mpg (Appendix C). 

With 11 passengers, this would equal to 44.0 passenger miles per gallon (we're talking approximations here, in reality of course fuel economy changes with the load), which is only slightly better than for a modern passenger vehicle with only 1 occupant! A full passenger vehicle would clock near 150 passenger miles per gallon (assuming no extra hurdles, heavy traffic, stops etc.) - and even with average 1.55 passengers it would still clock an impressive 38.75 pmpg.

Conclusions

Based on these numbers, driving a passenger car alone is approximately as fuel efficient as it is to travel on a bus, and with at least two passenger, it is significantly more efficient. At the same time, it is much more comfortable, flexible, faster and safer, and it allows you to transport groceries, strollers and other items.

However, this is not the complete picture either, for many reasons.

While that 4.0 mpg for a city bus is measured based on actual vehicle miles and fuel consumption, directly comparing it to passenger car fuel deficiency is difficult. Cars are used for much more than commuting, and often buses simply do not go where drivers would like to go. Often bus trip involves somebody driving a private car to pick up a passenger, because the nearest bus stop is too far away (or in a dangerous place) to walk. With newer buses (and hybrid and electric engines) efficiency can be improved - and bus is not the only form of mass transportation in many cities.

Good city and transport planning can improve public transport by planning the city around it and making it easy to catch a bus or train and switch between them. However, it may create dense suburbs without which heavy rail transport might not be worth building there.

And, perhaps most importantly, the average occupancy rate can be vastly improved. If people really would ride the bus when it is practically possible, there could be less traffic on the roads, less pollution and better fuel economy (per passenger) for buses. Owners (and drivers) of private cars are not (all) stupid. Many of them would ride the bus, subway, train or tram if it was feasible, but it is not because of bad route planning. I was unfortunate to experience this myself in 2009 when I started in a new job which was located only about 5 km from my home - but travel time there by bus was almost 40 minutes, and involved one or two switches. I bought a car (Citroën C1, 64.0 mpg) and haven't regretted that decision one second. (I still walked there sometimes.)

Frank Palmer of Daily Kos wrote about the "mpg fallacy" - and made some of the same points I make here. 

We will not and practically cannot achieve the utopian future where private cars have been exchanged for mass transportation - at least not in near future, and meanwhile, a more complete picture of different forms of commuting and transportation should be discussed in public. Mass transit is good, but by average not nearly as good as it is claimed to be. Sadly.

P.S. The modern hybrid bus in the image would achieve around 1000 pmpg.

Why I don't like abortions

It is unfortunate that I feel the need to write this.

I don't like abortions. They terminate a pregnancy that, in most cases, could lead to the birth of a healthy human baby. As a part of the operation, the baby - or egg, embryo or fetus - is killed and removed from the uterus. Many abortions are done for non-medical reasons where the pregnancy is not threatening the mother's life and the fetus seems healthy.

In addition to the fact that abortion involves killing, it is also a medical operation, and all operations carry risks. The medication that the mother has to take has its own risks, too, and it is known that abortion is a traumatic experience to many.

I also don't like hospitals in general. They are almost prison-like institutions where people are taken to lie on an uncomfortable bed, attached to cold medical equipment and given drugs whose ingredients are not always clear to the patients. People are made to go through treatments that are sometimes done without correct equipment and with incorrect diagnosis can be fatal.

People tell of horrible experiences and derogatory treatment in hospitals of different kinds - even when the treatment is exactly what was needed for their condition. As the place of childbirth, hospitals have been criticized as being inhumane facilities that do not provide the comfort and support that the mother giving birth requires.

I also don't like prisons in general. They are inhumane places where people lose their freedom, which is one of the most precious things one can have in today's society. While at least nominally covered by a legal system designed to provide them with food, medical care, security and legal services, prisoners are often beaten (both by other prisoners and guards), submitted to degrading treatment and there are even cases where completely innocent bystanders have had to suffer through a lengthy prison term because of errors in the judical process.

It is said that the main purpose of prisons isn't even the punishment - that they are correctional facilities that are supposed to reeducate criminals to reenter the free world as reborn citizens that are able to work and live like others. Per actual statistics, it is known that many prisoners join gangs while detained and will pursue a criminal career outside the prison. Thus, a relevant purpose for the prison in this context seems to be containing the unwanted, criminal portion of the population where they cannot harm others. But that's expensive, and it consumes public funds desperately needed in other places.

I also don't like guns and other weapons. They are designed specifically to hurt and kill people and destroy property. Inducting lethal trauma to other people should not be necessary or right anywhere, ever. Yet almost all sovereign states on this planet maintain organized militia, often called "defence forces" or, in the case of Japan, the questionable "self-defence forces".

The greatest losses of life in the history of humankind have been directly or indirectly attributable to the use of weapons in an organized manner. The two World Wars left the whole world in an insane state of cold war between two superpowers - USA-led NATO and USSR-led Warsaw Pact. Even decades after the end of Cold War, many countries still maintain and develop arsenals of city-destroying nuclear weapons, whose use might very well be the end of the whole human species were they ever used in any manner.

I also don't like cars and other road transportation. This is something I have hated since I was a little kid, when I proclaimed that the automobile is the worst invention ever. Now, as we have come to understand how large role the humanity plays in the global climate change, road traffic has been shown to be a major contributor to the terrible problem.

It is known that much of the road traffic actually consists of single cars with only one person inside - the driver. At the same time, the routes they drive are congested with other drivers going to same places using the same roads. This traffic could often be easily replaced with efficient mass transit systems, but since the advent of the auto industry, it has been a struggle, huge corporations selfishly opposing these more efficient and environmentally friendlier plans. However, even in places where such a system exists, many still choose to use private cars to travel to work, making maintaining the road network even more expensive and necessiting their expansion and constant resurfacing. And what about traffic accidents? They kill people all the time, everywhere. All the advances in safety have done nothing to the actual problem - that traffic kills, and you cannot avoid it anywhere, even if you just walked everywhere. It doesn't end.

I also don't like the fact that people disagree with me. I have done my research, and I know I'm right. If people would just do what I say, there would be no time wasted on arguments and endless and worthless debates. There would be one, unified system where people would live in peace, doing good things, discussing in constructive manner and the world would be without abortions, prisons, guns and polluting road traffic. Everybody would be happy. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

But the world doesn't revolve around what I like and what I don't. Many things that I don't like are acceptable and even necessary. They are and should be legal and regulated within a comprehensive and transparent legal framework, to ensure that there also exists a system to make constant progress to make us need those things less. In the case of abortions, it is important to educate the youth (and people in general) about sexuality and reproductive matters, keep condoms and other conctraceptives available, and have sexual health clinics - including Planned Parenthood type services - and access to safe abortion clinics available to all.

I still don't like people disagreeing with me, but that is just one of the things I have to accept. They might not like me disagreeing with them either, and they have the right not to.