Keep Biking - We Need To



oilfreeandhappy wrote:
>
> I agree. Some hard data should be forthcoming to back that statement.
> However, I have read that airlines do use more fuel than if all the
> occupants drove cars. This was stated in a Worldwatch Institute
> article.


Well, yeah. The Space Shuttle proabably uses more fuel per
passenger-mile than a car, too. But we're talking about trains and
buses here. I'd be very, very surprised if Wayne isn't either making
stuff up or repeating some outright lie put forth by the very active
and well-financed anti-transit lobby.

Chalo Colina
 
Chalo Colina writes:

>> If one examines the relevant actual fuel consumption per passenger
>> mile statistics, mass transit systems, even the most heavily used,
>> in the US get roughly the same passenger per mile fuel consumption
>> as the average car (ie gas guzzler) with one occupant, the
>> driver. This is because transit keeps moving whether anyone is
>> using it or not, and the vehicles are very heavy.


> If you are going to make preposterous assertions like that, you had
> better back them up with reputable sources, preferably with hard
> numbers attached.


As an example, you can look at the busiest intersection in downtown
Stuttgart Germany any time of day and notice that the streets are
almost empty. This is the center of town with the main train station
in the center. I used these streets in the 1960's when they were
jammed with buses and streetcars between rows of cars. Today those
streetcars are below street level and subway interurban on a deeper
level below them under the train station. The main street, the
Königstraße, that runs into the middle of the train station is a
pedestrian mall today. Check it out:

http://www.stgt.com/extern/webcamtesion.htm

You can scroll the hour of the day below the panorama.

This is typical of larger European cities and it takes good city
tramnsit planning to do it.

The Swiss even build double track cogwheel RR's:

http://www.topin.ch/scripts/big_img.php?bild=ZER.JPG

Jobst Brandt
 
Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> The comparison with Australia is interesting, because it's probably the
> next most car-oriented society to the US. But the difference is still
> great -- probably because Australia is actually more urbanized than the
> US, with more of its population concentrated in and around major cities.
> These cities have decent public transportation that people actually use.
> Also, Australians are less likely to view American-style 50mi commutes as
> normal. Unless they're making special trips, they tend to stick close
> to home in their daily routine.


In the US, many people can not afford to live closer to their jobs, due
to housing prices.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
 
Wayne Pein wrote:
> ...
> If one examines the relavent actual fuel consumption per passenger mile
> statistics, mass transit systems, even the most heavily used, in the US
> get roughly the same passenger per mile fuel consumption as the average
> car (ie gas guzzler) with one occupant, the driver. This is because
> transit keeps moving whether anyone is using it or not, and the vehicles
> are very heavy....


The weight per passenger is much less for a transit bus than most
passenger vehicles, particularly SUV's. See
<http://www.newflyer.com/index/diesel_d30_35_40_60l> for an example.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
 
On 17 Jan 2006 01:48:42 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Matt O'Toole wrote:
>>
>> The comparison with Australia is interesting, because it's probably the
>> next most car-oriented society to the US. But the difference is still
>> great -- probably because Australia is actually more urbanized than the
>> US, with more of its population concentrated in and around major cities.
>> These cities have decent public transportation that people actually use.
>> Also, Australians are less likely to view American-style 50mi commutes as
>> normal. Unless they're making special trips, they tend to stick close
>> to home in their daily routine.

>
>In the US, many people can not afford to live closer to their jobs, due
>to housing prices.


Something can be done about that. It'll take years, but changes in
zoning and transportation can change that. It's not a random thing
that the US has developed that way, but rather the result of many
conscious and some unconscious policy decisions over the years.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
 
Chalo wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:

[...] mass transit systems, even the most heavily used, in the US
>>get roughly the same passenger per mile fuel consumption as the average
>>car (ie gas guzzler) with one occupant, the driver.

>
> If you are going to make preposterous assertions like that, you had
> better back them up with reputable sources, preferably with hard
> numbers attached.
>


This is an interseting question. Poking around on the web, I found some
hard numbers for the city of Portland at
http://www.saveportland.com/Car_Vs_Tri-Met/energy-cost-death-02d.htm

Quoting from that page,
> Energy usage for Tri-met bus system (FY2002)
> Annual Boardings 63,208,800 (from TriMet)
> Avg Boarding Trip Length 3.79 miles (from TriMet)
> Calculate: 63,208,800 x 3.79 miles
> Total bus system passenger miles : 239,561,352
> TriMet data: Total bus fuel consumption = 6,175,959 Gallons
> (from TriMet).


> To get miles per gallon, just divide total bus system passenger miles
> by total bus fuel consumption
> Passenger Miles per gallon: 239,561,352 ÷ 6,175,959
> = 38.79 Pass-mi/gal


Further adjustements, to account for the higher energy content per
gallon for diesel compared with gasoline, and for an average car
occupancy of 1.2 passengers, says that a car getting 29.13 MPG has the
same average energy consumption per passenger mile as does the Portland
bus system.
 
"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> OK, then explain Europe with its socialist policies and
> traditionally high import taxes, but which has generally better
> cars and better washing machines than the US has.
>

Better washing machines, you have to be kidding. Those little junkers
grunt and groan and take so many loads to do a decent wash that any
supposed "energy efficiency" is imaginary. The cars are fine, at least
our Renault Scenic was.
 
Johnny Sunset wrote:
> Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
>>The comparison with Australia is interesting, because it's probably the
>>next most car-oriented society to the US. But the difference is still
>>great -- probably because Australia is actually more urbanized than the
>>US, with more of its population concentrated in and around major cities.
>> These cities have decent public transportation that people actually use.
>> Also, Australians are less likely to view American-style 50mi commutes as
>>normal. Unless they're making special trips, they tend to stick close
>>to home in their daily routine.

>
>
> In the US, many people can not afford to live closer to their jobs, due
> to housing prices.
>


There are usually plenty of places close to work to live. Most people
set their expectations too high at the expense of long, polluting,
traffic-filled commutes. Some of this can be attributed to racism, some
can be attributed to an antiquated view of the perfect home, and some
can be attributed to the pathetic view that bigger is better.

Exceptions to this are places like San Francisco where geography limits
the ability to build more housing. Here in Los Angeles there is no area
where I cannot find a home close to work.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
 
Chalo wrote:

> oilfreeandhappy wrote:
>
>>I agree. Some hard data should be forthcoming to back that statement.
>>However, I have read that airlines do use more fuel than if all the
>>occupants drove cars. This was stated in a Worldwatch Institute
>>article.

>
>
> Well, yeah. The Space Shuttle proabably uses more fuel per
> passenger-mile than a car, too. But we're talking about trains and
> buses here. I'd be very, very surprised if Wayne isn't either making
> stuff up or repeating some outright lie put forth by the very active
> and well-financed anti-transit lobby.
>
> Chalo Colina
>


Now is that nice, accusing me of making things up?

http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/favorites/fcvt_fotw221.shtml
shows the energy intensity of rail. Bus transit is similar.

If there are 125,000 BTUs in a gallon of gas, a car that gets 25 mpg
with just the drvier in it gets 5000 BTU per passenger mile, right
within the range of public transit.

The energy savings of most public transit is a popular myth.

Wayne
The bicycle: Low energy vehicle for self-reliant individualists who are
healthier than average.
 
Chalo wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>>If one examines the relavent actual fuel consumption per passenger mile
>>statistics, mass transit systems, even the most heavily used, in the US
>>get roughly the same passenger per mile fuel consumption as the average
>>car (ie gas guzzler) with one occupant, the driver. This is because
>>transit keeps moving whether anyone is using it or not, and the vehicles
>>are very heavy.

>
>
> If you are going to make preposterous assertions like that, you had
> better back them up with reputable sources, preferably with hard
> numbers attached.
>
> Chalo Colina
>


Here's a preposterous one for you to examine.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/
2003/html/table_04_20.html

Wayne
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Johnny Sunset <[email protected]> wrote:
>In the US, many people can not afford to live closer to their jobs, due
>to housing prices.


In the US, many people CHOOSE not to live closer to their jobs because
that means accepting less home than they like. I choose a town home
within city limits over a house, yard, and commute by car for the same
money elsewhere.

--
<a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/">Home Page</a>
In 1913 the inflation adjusted (in 2003 dollars) exemption for single people
was $54,567, married couples' exemption $72,756, the next $363,783 was taxed
at 1%, and earnings over $9,094,578 were taxed at the top rate of 7%.
 
Johnny Sunset wrote:
>
> In the US, many people can not afford to live closer to their jobs, due
> to housing prices.


Due to a decrease in the real value of their salaries, you mean.

Stuff at Wal-Mart is "holding its price" because the twin miracles of
Chinese slavery and plummeting quality standards allow it to get
cheaper all the time. Things with basically fixed value (like in-city
property) let us know what's happening to our real earning power.

Chalo
 
Wayne Pein wrote:
> Chalo wrote:
>> Wayne Pein wrote:


>>> If one examines the relavent actual fuel consumption per passenger mile
>>> statistics, mass transit systems, even the most heavily used, in the US
>>> get roughly the same passenger per mile fuel consumption as the average
>>> car (ie gas guzzler) with one occupant, the driver. This is because
>>> transit keeps moving whether anyone is using it or not, and the vehicles
>>> are very heavy.


>> If you are going to make preposterous assertions like that, you had
>> better back them up with reputable sources, preferably with hard
>> numbers attached.


> Here's a preposterous one for you to examine.
>
> http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/
> 2003/html/table_04_20.html


And another one that says the opposite:

http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/humanpower1.html

Just goes to show that info in print, even if it looks authoritative, is
not always accurate. Or perhaps the assumptions are not stated, leading
to different interpretations.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu
 
dvt wrote:
> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>> Chalo wrote:
>>
>>> Wayne Pein wrote:

>
>
>>>> If one examines the relavent actual fuel consumption per passenger mile
>>>> statistics, mass transit systems, even the most heavily used, in the US
>>>> get roughly the same passenger per mile fuel consumption as the average
>>>> car (ie gas guzzler) with one occupant, the driver. This is because
>>>> transit keeps moving whether anyone is using it or not, and the
>>>> vehicles
>>>> are very heavy.

>
>
>>> If you are going to make preposterous assertions like that, you had
>>> better back them up with reputable sources, preferably with hard
>>> numbers attached.

>
>
>> Here's a preposterous one for you to examine.
>>
>> http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/
>> 2003/html/table_04_20.html

>
>
> And another one that says the opposite:
>
> http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/humanpower1.html
>
> Just goes to show that info in print, even if it looks authoritative, is
> not always accurate. Or perhaps the assumptions are not stated, leading
> to different interpretations.
>



I think it is safe to assume that the BTS figures are more accurate than
an unreferenced graphic on a bicycling related website. But you can
believe whatever you want.

Wayne
 
Wayne Pein wrote:
> Chalo wrote:
>
> > Wayne Pein wrote:
> >
> >>If one examines the relavent actual fuel consumption per passenger mile
> >>statistics, mass transit systems, even the most heavily used, in the US
> >>get roughly the same passenger per mile fuel consumption as the average
> >>car (ie gas guzzler) with one occupant, the driver.

> >
> >
> > If you are going to make preposterous assertions like that, you had
> > better back them up with reputable sources, preferably with hard
> > numbers attached.

>
> Here's a preposterous one for you to examine.
>
> http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/
> 2003/html/table_04_20.html


That table shows that bus service, even averaging in all the broken
systems that are designed to *prevent* people from wanting to use them,
gets comparable energy efficiency per passenger-mile to cars. So it's
certain that the most heavily used metropolitan bus systems, where
ridership is high and distances short, beats that average by a wide
margin.

Furthermore, your table shows that Amtrak-- strong contender for the
worst, most underutilized rail system on the planet-- has consumption
per passenger mile on the close order of half that of the *averagely
occupied* car (something >1 passenger).

What you said was that even the _most heavily used_ transit systems
consumed energy like _single-occupant cars_, and that's simply not true
even according to the statistics you cite.

Chalo Colina
 
Chalo wrote:
>>>Wayne Pein wrote:


>>Here's a preposterous one for you to examine.
>>
>>http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/
>>2003/html/table_04_20.html

>
>
> That table shows that bus service, even averaging in all the broken
> systems that are designed to *prevent* people from wanting to use them,
> gets comparable energy efficiency per passenger-mile to cars. So it's
> certain that the most heavily used metropolitan bus systems, where
> ridership is high and distances short, beats that average by a wide
> margin.


OK, so an optimal bus system is better than single occupant typical
cars. I suppose a fairer comparison would be against optimally loaded
energy efficient cars.


>
> Furthermore, your table shows that Amtrak-- strong contender for the
> worst, most underutilized rail system on the planet-- has consumption
> per passenger mile on the close order of half that of the *averagely
> occupied* car (something >1 passenger).


So? Some rail is way worse than cars. Yet transit proponents don't even
know it or acknowledge it. You didn't.


>
> What you said was that even the _most heavily used_ transit systems
> consumed energy like _single-occupant cars_, and that's simply not true
> even according to the statistics you cite.
>
> Chalo Colina
>


Well, I appear to have overstated my position. Appologies. But I think
you can see that a blanket statement that transit is an energy saver is
simply not true. And like I mentioned before, urban transit sucks up
would-be bicyclists and walkers, making it look far better than it
otherwise would.

Wayne
 
G.T. wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > Matt O'Toole wrote:
> >
> >>The comparison with Australia is interesting, because it's probably the
> >>next most car-oriented society to the US. But the difference is still
> >>great -- probably because Australia is actually more urbanized than the
> >>US, with more of its population concentrated in and around major cities.
> >> These cities have decent public transportation that people actually use.
> >> Also, Australians are less likely to view American-style 50mi commutesas
> >>normal. Unless they're making special trips, they tend to stick close
> >>to home in their daily routine.

> >
> >
> > In the US, many people can not afford to live closer to their jobs, due
> > to housing prices.
> >

>
> There are usually plenty of places close to work to live. Most people
> set their expectations too high at the expense of long, polluting,
> traffic-filled commutes. Some of this can be attributed to racism, some
> can be attributed to an antiquated view of the perfect home, and some
> can be attributed to the pathetic view that bigger is better....


If I lived close to my place of work, renting a single bedroom
apartment (~700 square feet/65 m²) would cost approximately 50% of my
net pay. I guess I should live in a shipping crate somewhere closer.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley (
 
Drew Eckhardt wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Johnny Sunset <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In the US, many people can not afford to live closer to their jobs, due
> >to housing prices.

>
> In the US, many people CHOOSE not to live closer to their jobs because
> that means accepting less home than they like. I choose a town home
> within city limits over a house, yard, and commute by car for the same
> money elsewhere.


There are millions of people working service sector retail jobs in
suburban areas that can not afford even a single bedroom apartment near
their place of work.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
 
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 17 Jan 2006 01:48:42 -0800, "Johnny Sunset"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Matt O'Toole wrote:
> >>
> >> The comparison with Australia is interesting, because it's probably the
> >> next most car-oriented society to the US. But the difference is still
> >> great -- probably because Australia is actually more urbanized than the
> >> US, with more of its population concentrated in and around major cities.
> >> These cities have decent public transportation that people actually use.
> >> Also, Australians are less likely to view American-style 50mi commutes as
> >> normal. Unless they're making special trips, they tend to stick close
> >> to home in their daily routine.

> >
> >In the US, many people can not afford to live closer to their jobs, due
> >to housing prices.

>
> Something can be done about that. It'll take years, but changes in
> zoning and transportation can change that. It's not a random thing
> that the US has developed that way, but rather the result of many
> conscious and some unconscious policy decisions over the years.


Not to mention racial based discrimination, "white flight", etc.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
 
Chalo Colina wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> >
> > In the US, many people can not afford to live closer to their jobs, due
> > to housing prices.

>
> Due to a decrease in the real value of their salaries, you mean.


While it is true that real wages in the US have been falling for the
last 3 decades (not coincidently with the rise of the political right
and the lack of a political party representing labor), housing prices
have been inflated by speculation and financial institutions providing
larger mortgages than the income of the borrowers would suggest is
prudent.

> Stuff at Wal-Mart is "holding its price" because the twin miracles of
> Chinese slavery and plummeting quality standards allow it to get
> cheaper all the time. Things with basically fixed value (like in-city
> property) let us know what's happening to our real earning power.


The blue collar middle class is an endangered species in the US, and
most of the white collar middle class will see substantial decreases in
standards of living over the next several decades, prior to the
inevitable collapse of civilization due to overpopulation and
exhaustion of natural resources.

Isn't it wonderful to be the first live on the downward slide of human
civilization!

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
 

Similar threads

O
Replies
3
Views
282
S