A study discussing the economic virtues of public transit can be found at

http://www.apta.com/info/online/vary.pdf

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000

Answers

BTW, Since some of you have stated that transit is "socialist," I thought I'd offer this brief rebuttal:

I believe that road-building and auto-centric advocates calling transit "socialist" is in fact the pot is calling the kettle black. Auto-centric culture (and its by-product, called "Sprawl") is itself the real socialism, aided and abetted by government at every step. To name a few examples:

1. Government interstate highway spending in the '40s and '50s that obtained revenues by taxing streetcars and bus transit (which did not use highways). More recently, the government taxed urban drivers to subsidize white flight from their neighborhood -- not to mention the highways that literally destroyed urban neighborhoods.

2. Government run schools that were better for suburbs than for cities, and desegregation orders that created this inequity by ensuring that city children had to go to school with kids from the projects, while suburban children got to go to schools that hadn't had society's problems dumped on them.

3. FHA loan guarantees that subsidized suburban white flight, by refusing to guarantee loans in older urban neighborhoods.

4. Zoning laws that ensured that the newly created suburbs bore no resemblance to prewar suburbs.

5. Environmental regulations that proactively discouraged use of urban industrial "brownfields" and thereby encouraged migration to suburbia.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

(Total lack of) common sense-

The warning on the cover page of your reference says it all:

This study by Cambridge Systematics was underwritten by the private sector Business Members of the American Public Transit Association, 1201 New York Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 20005. The findings are those of the authors. October 1999

This is an advocacy paper, by a business group. It is a commercial for the people who derive their industry profits from selling stuff to transit companies. They have their first amendment rights, and can claim whatever they want, just like Phillip Morris claimed for decades that they didn't believe that smoking was any big deal.

You don't win the debate by posting a 72 page commercial and saying, "so there." You don't win the debate by saying, oh and here's five more (dubiously interpreted) issues that I believe back me up.

If you TRULY have the courage of your convictions, take whatever issue you believe to be the MOST compelling, and we'll start a debate on it with both sides having a chance to have their say, provide the facts that back up their opinions, and ultimately something approaching truth will emerge.

If you think you can defend any of these opinions, go for it. But don't tell me that cigarettes are safe because Phillip Morris published a commercial that said they were, and expect it to end there.

the Craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 17, 2000.

common sense(?)-

This gets funnier by the minute. Look at the references for this opinion piece.

American Public Transit Association, Employment Impacts of Transit Capital Investment and Operating Expenses, Washington, DC, 1983. American Public Transit Association, National Impacts of Transit Capital and Operating Expenditure on Business Revenues, Washington, DC, 1984. American Public Transit Association, Transit Funding Needs, 1995- 2004: Findings of an APTA Membership Survey, Washington, DC, 1994. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States 1997, Washington, DC, 1997. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Measuring and Valuing Transit Benefits and Disbenefits, TCRP Report 20, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1996. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and Economic Development Research, Inc., Economic Impacts of the Long Range Transportation Plan, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Los Angeles, CA, 1999. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., et al., Investment in Public Transportation: The Economic Impacts of the RTA System on the Regional and State Economies, Regional Transportation Authority, Chicago, IL, 1995. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. with Raytheon-Ebasco, Lasting Economic Benefits of Public Transit Investment  Phase 2 Final Report, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, New York, NY, 1997. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., with Robert Cervero and David Aschauer, Economic Impact Analysis of Transit Investments: Guidebook for Practitioners, TCRP Report 35, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1998.

They reference THEIR PREVIOUS OPINION PIECES! You consider this a scientific reference? This is a self-licking ice cream cone, not a scientific reference. I don't know who to feel sorrier for, them or you. You, I guess. They are getting paid good money to try to bend public opinion. You are spouting off the wall conspiracy theories (taxing urban drivers to subsidize white flight,having kids go to local schools to scuttle transit, FHA discriminating against the cities to scuttle transit, environmental laws to scuttle transit).

Usually in logic we use something called Occam's razor. The idea is that if there are a lot of things going on and one thing will explain them all, and the alternatives require many things working together in concert, it is most likely that the single issue is the true cause and effect issue. Doesn't always work, but it USUALLY works that way.

Given that there is a worldwide decrease in the market share of transit, don't you think it might be possible that people just like the freedom and convenience of the auto and as they become more prosperous, are leaving transit behind? Doesn't that sound a little more (pardon the pun) Common-sense than a vast federal (not even right wing, but FEDERAL conspiracy to destroy transit?

But as I said, if you want to take on these issues one at a time, let's go for it. They seem to make about as much sense as saying that the feds found a high speed non polluting alien flying TRANSIT BUS at Roswell, and have been hiding it in Area 51 ever since, but if you can bear the humiliation of starting a thread and trying to debate these one issue at a time, go for it. It won't be a particularly serious debate like I have with d, but I'm sure "zowie" will have fun kibitzing.

the Craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 17, 2000.

FWIW-

Cambridge Systematics is one of a number of consultant companies collectively referred to as "Beltway Bandits" that increase the cost of government by hiring themselves out as advocacy groups to lobby and write favorable studies for clients (including public agencies). From their website http://www.camsys.com/:

Firm History

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. recently celebrated 25 years of providing transportation planning and related consulting services. The company was founded under the charter of the application of systematic analysis to problems of transportation, the environment, urban development, and regional planning. Cambridge Systematics was founded by four Massachusetts Institute of Technology professors and a transportation consultant on September 1, 1972 in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The firm was incorporated in Massachusetts on September 27, 1972.

The firm experienced rapid growth in the 1970s, and a second office was established in September 1976 in Berkeley, California to coordinate West Coast activity. In 1994, this office moved from Berkeley to Oakland, California. Responding to the growth of national planning and resource management issues, Cambridge Systematics opened its third office, located in Washington, D.C., in March of 1991. The addition of this office enhanced the services offered to federal agencies, as well as services for mid-Atlantic and nationwide clientele. Several satellite offices have been established in the past several years in Metropolitan Seattle, Washington; Metropolitan Chicago, Illinois; Oakridge, Tennessee; and Portland, Oregon to respond to the needs of our geographically diverse client base. Several of Cambridge Systematics staff currently provide on-site client support at the offices of the Federal Highway Administration and the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.

Services

The Web Services Team The Web Services Team provides innovative solutions for the project needs of both public and private sector clients. Our goal is to provide the best means of both project management and communication for each client, as well as to provide the necessary support and maintenance to make that project productive during its lifespan.

Our team includes professionals in security, networking technologies, Lotus Notes administration and development, Microsoft Internet Information Server and FrontPage 98, web site design, Java Script and HTML. We are constantly exploring new technologies to further expand our services, and we are ready to assist you from project conception through completion. We are committed to helping you communicate more effectively and offering creative and original solutions to aid you in your project management.

If you would like more information about the services we can offer to help you with your project, look through our Frequently Asked Questions, or, if you prefer, contact us directly. http://webservices.camsys.com/services.htm Services

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

Craigster:

As the Great Communicator once quipped, "There you go again!"

It seems you prefer to attack the messenger instead of debating the message. There you go again!

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

No common sense,

I am committed to helping you communicate more effectively and offering creative and original solutions to aid you in your attempts to learn and gain comprehension.

So please read Craig's post a bit more carefully. He is asking which individual ISSUES you would like him to debate.

"There you go again," ignoring what you can not defend. It seems you would rather attack the forum participant, rather than offering a direct response to his request that you identify individual issues.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

"It seems you prefer to attack the messenger instead of debating the message. " I am not, in this case, attacking the messenger. I am informing the messenger that he has confused an advocacy piece with a scholarly study. Notwithstanding that, if you would be so kind as to pick an individual issue, start a thread and debate that issue. What you have done is the equivalent of the old school boy challenge, "My old man can lick your old man!" Maybe yes, maybe no, but the rules of engagement need a little bit more definition than just here's an advocacy piece and SO THERE! That's only (you should pardon the expression) coomon sense.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 17, 2000.

CS-

On a different thread, I just indicated that I considered you potentially educable. Don't start disappointing me on that assessment, CS.

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

CS-

Still waiting for you to choose one of those alleged "greater benefits of transit" to debate.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 18, 2000.

CS- Still waiting for you to choose one of those alleged "greater benefits of transit" to debate.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 19, 2000.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the craigster was STILL waiting for CS to come up with one of those "greater benefits of transit" to debate. Ho-hum. Think I'll turn in early tonight.

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 21, 2000.

CS. CS! ..............................anyone seen CS?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 23, 2000.

One begins to suspect that CS is dodging a fight.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 24, 2000.

10 de-merits for CS. He is a no show.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 24, 2000.

Economic virtues of public transit, isn't that an oxymoron?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 25, 2000.

I have to admit, Ive been hanging back waiting for CS or some other pro-transit type to take up the alleged greater benefits of transit issue. Its what they typically do once you demonstrate conclusively that further expansion of transit makes no economic sense. But nobody has risen to the bait, and my patience has finally been exhausted. This material on environmental effects of transit buses is found on a great many websites, from the EPA to DOT to California Air Resources Board to whatever. Here are a few resources for those who really want to get into it:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/mailouts/msc9928/msc9928a.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/vmweb/finalrep.pdf

This one, from UC Berkeley, actually has a fairly readable analysis. I would only point out that while it indicates that diesel buses are slightly more fuel efficient on a passenger mile per gallon basis, this reverses on an energy basis (more BTU in a gallon of diesel than a gallon of gas). But its pretty easy reading, fair without being technical, and demonstrates that the fuel savings and air pollution advantages theoretically possible with transit, just arent realized in practice, because of inadequate load factors. We built it, they didnt come. A DEMAND problem, not a capacity problem.

http://www.its.berkeley.edu/publications/UCB/94/PRR/UCB-ITS-PRR-94- 19.pdf

4 Evaluating APTS Services - Trends in the Industry Transit operations in the U.S. have been losing shares of the surface travel market consistently over the last twenty years. The proportion of transit trips has decreased to around 3 to 5% of the total trips by all surface modes (Volpe Center, 1992). Given this current condition, it seems appropriate to examine the role APTS services may have in reversing this trend. Summarizing the discussion from section 3, there are two main areas in which there seems to be hope for attracting people to public transit. First, APTS technologies can mitigate some of the barriers travelers may perceive to using transit by providing information, offering easier payment options, etc. At the same time, APTS may allow transit operators to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of transit and other HOV operations, thereby making transit options more attractive to the traveler. Given these goals of APTS development, we are particularly interested in knowing how these technologies may affect the air quality and fuel consumption impacts of the transportation system. 4.1 Air Quality Impacts As mentioned before, the CAAA of 1990 has added momentum to the goal of reducing tailpipe emissions from mobile sources in urban areas. This has been reflected most obviously in the tighter standards for tailpipe emissions for transit buses, enacted as part of the CAAA legislation. Concern has also been reflected in the development of bus engines and alternative fuel sources with reduced emissions levels. In this section, we examine the air quality and emissions impacts of bus fleets, particularly with an eye to how the potential shift of travel from the automobile to transit services under APTS may affect overall emissions rates. Statistics from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offer some insight into the emissions rates of automobiles versus those of diesel buses under current operating conditions. Table 1 shows the ratio of emissions rates of a diesel bus versus those of a typical passenger car (Santini and Schiavone, 1991). These statistics are based on an assumed auto occupancy of two people and a bus occupancy of thirty passengers. The most obvious dimension to note from this table is that while transit diesel buses do have higher emissions rates in all four emissions categories when compared on a per-vehicle basis, they have lower emissions rates on a per-passenger basis in all categories except particulate matter (PM). This suggests that shifting travelers out of their automobiles and into transit buses provides direct benefits in several emissions categories. Inasmuch as APTS technologies can achieve this mode shift, emissions levels of HC, CO, and NOx can be reduced directly, on a per-passenger basis. These ratios are a little suspect, in that the assumed bus occupancies of approximately 30 passengers per bus may be overly optimistic, although the same is true of the automobile occupancy figure of two persons per auto. However, reducing the average automobile occupancy to 1.6 and reducing the bus occupancy to 10 persons per transit bus (statistics suggested by Davis and Strang, 1993) still results in ratios that are less than 1:1 for HC and CO emissions (new statistics would be 0.36:1 for HC and 0.65:1 for CO). The ratio for NOx emissions would increase to 1.51:1, while that of particulate matter increases to about 80:1. Similar benefits of APTS technologies in reducing vehicle emissions have been noted by other studies. In particular, the study done by Jack Faucett Associates for the Volpe Center (Jack Faucett Associates, 1993) offered similar observations about HC and CO emissions, and suggested that there was still some question about the potential impacts for NOx emissions. Their observations, listed in table 2, strengthen these likely emissions benefits of APTS technologies. The emissions figures suggested here still point to significant problems in current transit bus fleets with respect to NOx and PM emissions. It is known that NOx emissions are pre-cursors for the creation of ozone in urban areas, due to the reaction of these nitrous oxides with oxygen and other chemicals in the vicinity of buses and other mobile sources. Moreover, it is typically the ambient ozone levels that are most often responsible for violation of the NAAQS in larger urban areas. In this respect, increasing transit mode share may have the unintended effect of increasing NOx emissions per person trip and thereby resulting in a worse, rather than better, performance with respect to the NAAQS. While the data seem to support this hypothesis, the magnitude of this impact is less certain. Overall, some statistics suggest that the nitrous oxide emissions of transit bus fleets would increase the national ozone concentration levels by about 0.2%; however, ozone concentrations in certain hot spots in central business districts may be increased by upwards of 8% (Santini and Schiavone, 1991). The emissions of particulate matter from bus fleets may also lead us to be suspect of mode shifts to transit brought about by APTS technologies. The statistics in table 1 clearly indicate that buses produce significantly higher concentrations of particulate matter than autos, even when corrected on a per-passenger basis. Some researchers have argued that the impact of bus fleets on particulates only contributes on the order of 0.5% of the concentration of PM in urban areas like Los Angeles, largely because mobile source emissions are a small fraction (19%) of total regional PM emissions (Santini and Schiavone, 1991). Again, however, the overall magnitude of this contribution masks the problem of hot spots such as central city areas, where buses contribute a much higher proportion of PM than this broad average. These statistics on PM emissions cast additional doubts on the air quality benefits of APTS technologies. In the midst of this discussion, research over the past ten to fifteen years has suggested that engines running on alternative fuels may be used to lower the emissions rates of transit buses. For this study, we may consider the net benefit brought about by the introduction of APTS as well as the substitution of buses running under alternative fuels. In particular, there are a number of technical improvements in bus fuels and engines that may yield lower emissions of NOx and PM. The literature to date suggests that it is difficult to reduce both NOx and PM emissions simultaneously. To be more precise, under current engine and fuel systems, there is some synergy between the two emissions levels such that technical improvements which reduce one set of emissions also increase emissions of the other. This makes it difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative engine and fuel systems, as there is an inherent trade-off between the two measures. A recent study examined alternative fuel and engine technologies in bus fleets (Small, 1991). Four different technical options were considered for reducing PM emissions in transit bus fleets: .1. Low-aromatic fuel: This fuel is developed by an additional process that removes substantial sulfur from traditional diesel fuel. As a result, SOx emissions (part of PM emissions) are reduced. 2.. Particulate traps: A particulate trap is attached to the exhaust system of the bus. 3.. Low-aromatic fuel and particulate traps: A combination of the above. 4.. Methanol: An alternative fuel requiring a different fuel-burning system in the buses engine. This research discovered higher reductions in PM emissions as one moves across these four technologies. Low-aromatic fuel yielded about a 26% reduction in PM emissions from the typical transit bus, while reductions of PM emissions of 77% were observed for particulate traps. Both options in synergy produced benefits of about 81% reduction, while the methanol bus cut PM emissions by almost 96% (Small, 1991, p. 20). These statistics suggest that PM emissions can be reduced by a factor of 4 or 5 with selected modifications to existing diesel technology, while an alternative fuel like methanol can reduce emissions by a factor of 20 to 25. Given the ratios of bus to auto PM emissions of 33:1 to perhaps up to 80:1 (from table 1), alternative fuels like methanol could reduce this ratio to 3:1 at the least, and perhaps down to almost 1:1. Thus, it seems that shifts in mode from auto to transit buses can yield more minor air quality impacts in terms of PM and perhaps NOx if alternative fuels can be adopted simultaneously. These improvements in bus technology, however, have an associated price. Smalls study also examined the cost-effective-ness of these four technical alternatives, using the ratio of the total cost of the measure to the net reduction in kilograms of PM emissions. The direct measures were $1.58/kg for fuel modification, $3.63/kg for particulate traps, $3.95 for the combination, and $19.98/kg for methanol. The results suggest that while alternative fuels like methanol can achieve reductions in PM emissions five times larger than fuel modification and particulate traps, the average cost per kilogram reduction is more than five times greater. Thus, there is an inherent trade-off in the potential reduction of these emissions and the cost of the technology to realize them. 4.2 Fuel Consumption Impacts Shifts in mode split from private automobiles to public transit that occur due to APTS technologies also may have impacts on overall fuel consumption. Intuition might expect that the higher vehicle occupancies of public transit may indeed provide better fuel economy than individual drivers in their own cars. From this perspective, it would seem that improvements in transit market share have great appeal for fuel economy. One may also look more generally at trends in both automobile and transit bus fuel economy. Over the past twenty to twenty-five years, there has been considerable improvement in automobile fuel economy. The regulatory power of the Clean Air Act of 1970, and subsequent regulations from the EPA for new automobile fleets, has had considerable effect on fuel consumption by the U.S. automobile fleet. These standards have required automobile manufacturers in the U.S. to increase the average miles per gallon in manufactured vehicle fleets several times since the original CAA rulings. In 1970, automobiles in the U.S. averaged about 13.4 miles traveled per gallon of gasoline, or about 22.8 passenger-miles per gallon of gasoline when average automobile occupancy measures were included. The latest statistics from the FHWA (Davis and Strang, 1993), based on data from 1990, suggest that the fuel economy of automobiles has improved by about 50% over the 1970 data: about 20.9 vehicle-miles traveled per gallon, or about 33.4 passenger- miles per gallon of gasoline. At the same time, vehicle miles of travel by automobile have increased dramatically since 1970; however, the net gasoline consumed by automobiles between 1970 and 1990 only increased by about 6.3%. While automobile fuel economy has risen substantially over the past twenty-five years, the statistics for transit buses are much less salutary. Average bus fuel economy has decreased from about 4.4 miles per gallon of diesel fuel in 1970 to about 3.8 miles per gallon in 1990. Even though passenger-miles of travel have increased from 18.1 billion in 1970 to over 21.1 billion in 1990, the net fuel economy of transit bus fleets has decreased from 56.1 passenger-miles to 37.1 passenger-miles per gallon of diesel fuel (Davis and Strang, 1993). This latter statistic is compounded by the expansion of bus mileage over the same period. Between 1970 and 1990, transit bus miles have increased from 1.41 billion to 2.15 billion. This amounts to a 52.8% increase in bus miles, compared with a much smaller 16.6% increase in passenger miles over the same time period. Clearly, APTS technologies can contribute to the bus fuel economy measures if they are able to improve the ratio of passen-ger- miles to vehicle-miles. Such benefits may be possible by increasing the number of passengers on buses, or simply by improving the efficiency of service so that vehicle miles may be reduced. In addition, APTS measures that reduce idling, such as signal pre- emption, can improve transit fuel economy. However, the statistics presented above indicate that the impacts on fuel consumption of diverting a traveler from the private auto to transit are small. Simply based on the average fuel consumed per passenger mile, private auto yields 33.4 passenger-miles per gallon of gasoline, while transit buses attain only 37.1 passenger- miles per gallon of diesel fuel (Davis and Strang, 1993). This implies that fuel savings amount to only about 0.003 gallons per passenger- mile, or about 0.03 gallons over a typical 10-mile trip. When one factors in the (usual) higher cost of diesel fuel relative to gasoline, the economic value of fuel savings from diverting travelers from auto to transit virtually disappears. This suggests that, at least at the margin, there is little or no benefit in fuel consumption from a mode shift to transit. Initial investigation of alternative fuels suggests that these fuels are not nearly as fuel-efficient or cost-effective as existing petroleum-based fuels. For example, the energy content of methanol typically requires that vehicles consume almost twice as much of it as conventional gasoline per mile of travel. Also, methanol currently costs at least as much as gasoline per gallon, indicating that it is at least twice as expensive on a vehicle-mile basis as conventional gasoline. One must thus trade off the additional expense of metha-nol- based systems with our dependence on petroleum products. Even if we could convert all of our current transit fleets to methanol, the savings in petroleum would amount to only about 37,300 barrels of crude oil per day, or less than 0.3% of the total transportation energy use in the United States (Davis and Strang, 1993). 5 Conclusions The development and deployment of IVHS technology has been presented as a means to alleviate congestion, reduce energy consumption, increase transportation safety, improve air quality, and increase worker productivity. APTS technologies have also been promoted as one of the most effective ways of simultaneously achieving all of the listed objectives. Certainly, the smart traveler, smart vehicle, and smart intermodal services being promoted as part of APTS may serve to attract travelers from their automobiles to public transit. These services may increase the attractiveness and the performance of public transit in terms of several key characteristics: speed, reliability, flexibility, convenience, and safety. However, the current legislative climate places notable emphasis on environmental and intermodal issues. The potential for developing and implementing some innovative transit technology programs may be dependent on public funds allocated under the stipulations of the 1990 CAAA and the 1991 ISTEA. The flexibility in regional transportation spending found under ISTEA could lead to greater involvement by transportation agencies in developing and deploying APTS services. Yet, because of the air quality stipulations of the CAAA, there will continue to be considerable concern about the ability of transit investments to improve regional air quality. With the likelihood that APTS technologies will lead travelers to switch from their automobiles to public transit for their trips, it is still uncertain whether there can be significant benefit for regional air quality and fuel consumption. The data we have assembled for this study suggest that, even under current diesel fuel and engine systems, emissions per passenger-mile for bus transit are considerably lower than automobiles in both categories of hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO). However, the data also suggest that emissions of nitrous oxides (NOx ) and, more noticeably, particulate matter (PM) may be higher for buses than autos on a passenger-mile basis. Alternative fuels or other clean-air technologies can assist in reducing NOx and PM emissions from transit bus fleets, but only at a significant expense. Similarly, at the margin, the fuel economy (measured in passenger- miles per gallon of fuel) of an urban transit bus is only very slightly better than for an automobile. When the cost of fuel is included, there is likely no difference between the fuel economies of the two modes. Alternative fuels such as methanol have significantly worse fuel economy (almost double the fuel consumed per passenger-mile) and are at least as expensive per gallon as gasoline and diesel fuel. This leaves considerable doubt of less fuel consumption, or fuel expenditures, as people switch from auto to transit. These observations suggest particular directions for research and development for the APTS effort, both in California and in the U.S. First, in terms of APTS investment, there should be substantial effort placed on the technologies that draw travelers to transit without significant commitments to alter existing transit service. The environmental and energy concerns regarding the value of bus transit relative to the automobile can be alleviated in part by efforts that bring about increases in transit passenger-miles without increases in vehicle miles.

EXCEPT OF COURSE, WE ARE DOING JUST THE OPPOSITE. WE HAVE DRAMATICALLY INCREASED THE VEHICLE MILES IN THE HOPE OF INCREASING THE PASSENGER MILES.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 25, 2000.

To Craig: Hmmm, doesn't sound like we get much bang for our buck, if we utilize buses powered by natural gas. I didn't know that natural gas is effectively twice as expensive as gasoline (since the bus consumes the natural gas at twice the rate of gasoline). Nor did I know that the nitrous oxide emissions result in locally high concentrations of ozone. I really despise diesel-powered buses, though. They cover everything with soot. It's really disgusting. I find it hard to believe that objective data would lead one to choose a diesel-powered bus over a natural-gas-powered bus.

But, your post refers to methane. Isn't natural gas really propane? I have to be skeptical of the things you post, since you have track record or being deceitful and misleading. Whenever you post "facts", I have to assume a bias on your part. Therefore, whatever you post, the "truth" probably isn't as bad.

With the advent of I-695, those of us who rideshare are no longer paying as much as we used to, so it's difficult to justify the same level of subsidies, let alone increased levels of subsidies.

I believe Sound Transit is utilizing those "damn" accordion buses, which, presumably, if full, would hold a "butt-load" of passengers. Perhaps, under that scenario, one could justify the natural-gas powered bus. I don't know. You keep nailing nails into the coffin of Sound Transit. Sound Transit has to deliver bang for the buck, or the taxpayer won't stand for it.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 26, 2000.

Matthew,

What are we gonna do with you? Just when I think progress is being made....

If you operate on the assumption these busses are running around full, (those "damn" accordion buses, which, presumably, if full, would hold a "butt-load" of passengers.) then you are missing the big picture of all those busses, large and small, that operate with only a few people aboard. That is the norm.

While you appear to be a bright young man, a bit of restraint before you hit the submit button might be helpful, to keep you looking from looking like a fool.

My personal feeling is that while Craig's information is interesting, I don't think it should used as a basis for or against continued support.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

"I have to be skeptical of the things you post, since you have track record or being deceitful and misleading" Excuse meeee?

Matt-

Many long years ago, one of my profs said that before you make any big decisions, you ought to get a big piece of scratch paper, and start doing the math. You don't always know for sure what the true figures to use are (although in this day and age you can find accurate figures far more often than not) but you can almost always "bound" the correct figures with best case and worst case estimates. Set up the problem, crank the numbers, and see what you come out with. If you really have that Masters in Ops research (even from the Farm, I'm a Golden Bear alumni myself), I'm sure you were taught the technique of sensitivity analysis or trade-off analysis, which are similar. Get yourself a big piece of butcher paper and a magic marker. Decide what info you need to make an informed business decision on Sound Transit, get the data, and do the numbers yourself if you don't trust my calculations. They aren't going to come out any different for you.

One of the problems with transit is that so many of the things that people "know" are wrong. The reason for this is that they are based on an idealized version of transit, operating at capacity, hauling loads in both directions, etc., that doesn't exist in the real world. The reality (ask Marsha, she has more experience than you or I have, she was a driver) is quite different.

Given the reality of population densities and load factors in the real world and the demographic trends driving social actions in the US, the things that people "know" are just wrong. IN PRACTICE, buses are less energy efficient than autos per passenger mile (that doesn't mean every bus on every route, but the mean bus on the mean route), they cause MORE particulates and NOX per passenger mile than cars, (although they are better in CO), they cause FAR MORE damage to roads than do cars per passenger mile (hey, they weigh 30 tons), and if you get out that butcher paper and crank the ACTUAL numbers yourself, you'll see all this.

So if you don't trust me, do a little legwork and get the figures and do the math yourself. Don't take everything every advocate has to say at face value. I post website references to FACTUAL sites with most of my postings. These aren't the opinions of advocates given in papers referencing previous opinions given by the same advocates. These are, typically, federal statistics that YOUR TAX DOLLAR has paid for. You certainly have a right to use this material to form your own opinions.

But use this information to form your own opinion. Don't just say what you "know" to be right. And don't denigrate someone else's FACT based opinion unless you have facts (as in generalizable objective data, not anecdotes) to refute it.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 26, 2000.

"But, your post refers to methane. Isn't natural gas really propane? I have to be skeptical of the things you post, since you have track record or being deceitful and misleading. Whenever you post "facts", I have to assume a bias on your part. Therefore, whatever you post, the "truth" probably isn't as bad. "

Natural Gas, also known as methane, is a colorless, odorless, fuel that burns cleaner than many other traditional fossil fuels. It is one of the most popular forms of energy today. It is used for heating, cooling, production of electricity and it finds many uses in industry. Increasingly, natural gas is being used in combination with other fuels to improve their environmental performance and decrease pollution.

http://www.naturalgas.org/OVERVIEW.HTM

If you dont trust me Matt, look it up yourself. Go to any dictionary or search engine and it can give you a reference on what natural gas is, for crying out loud.

-- (craigcar@crosswind.net), January 26, 2000.

"But, your post refers to methane. Isn't natural gas really propane? I have to be skeptical of the things you post, since you have track record or being deceitful and misleading. Whenever you post "facts", I have to assume a bias on your part. Therefore, whatever you post, the "truth" probably isn't as bad. "

You had the incredible arrogance to call the man a liar without even taking 15 seconds to look the facts up in any dictionary, and then to post YOUR IGNORANCE for us all to see?

There are times when one would like to hang the whole human race, and finish the farce. Mark Twain, 1871

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

More about Methane and why can't we utilize all the other sources of it for fuel? http://www.c-f-c.com/specgas_products/methane.htm Livestock produce massive amounts of methane http://www.ciesin.org/TG/AG/liverear.html And our sewage processing plants could be using the methane that most of the population produces..

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

And specifically for Matthew Here is some information on PROPANE http://soli.inav.net/~penfold/andy/koth.html I figured you could relate

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

Also, Matt-

The post above referred to METHANOL, or wood alcohol. LPG or propane are not much more expensive than diesel, if you ignore the capital costs of their fueling facilities. Of course, they don't have much of a passenger mile advantage in CO of HC over passenger autos, which was the point of the original posting.

It would help if you would read the original posting in the original context. The POINT was that the supposed advantages of transit over autos with respect to air pollution (remenber what this thread is about, WAAYYY up there at the top) largely disappear when you look at the ACTUAL (versus the theoretical best case) figures. The reality is that the average transit rider in King County today uses more energy and pollutes the air about the same as the auto driver.

-- (craigcar@crosswind.net), January 26, 2000.

One other thing Matthew fails to take into account is the capital costs involved with the switch. Besides a retrofit cost, or new equipment, your average Bus mechanic is trained to work on diesel engines, and would need retraining. None of that is cheap. Combine that with less fuel efficiency, and it really looks bad on butcher paper.

What is the lowest passenger per hour figure Matthew's Local Transit will operate a route before it is eliminated? Generally, if it falls below a certain level, the route gets cut. (I believe 10 was the magic number at Kitsap) How many routes are border line? Does he even know? That was one of my pet peeves with transit. Running routes into areas with very low or no ridership. If you can understand a route and how/why it was designed, you often come to the conclusion that it may only have the needed ridership to keep it going 1/4 of the time.

That is why I think raising standards/requirments is so important. Routes can be redesigned to accomodate those 1/4 passengers and eliminate the needless empty bus thing. No DEMAND should mean no SERVICE. Branching out to try to increase ridership did not work.

My little brain has a hard time comprehending a fixed route system outside of urban areas. Why would you want to drive HUGE busses in residential areas with low potential for ridership. You may have 10 potential riders if you just moved a single stop several blocks one direction. How do you know? You don't. You take your chances when you try to design a route. Just because there is population density, you can't assume the ridership is there.

But with Demand Response, YOU KNOW WHERE THE RIDERS ARE!

In a Demand Response system, you design your route EVERY DAY based on knowledge of the area. If you take a 16 block area, on a map, and mark 10 stops you must make, all you basically have to do is connect the dots, trying to keep the line traveled as short as possible. If you specialize in an area, you get quite good at it. In fact, in Kitsap, Operators are trained to know the entire county this well, and even though they have a printed manifest, they will change the order of work to be the most efficient as possible. Most of these people stop thinking in terms of streets previously known to them, and have a map page for each area permanantly imprinted in their memories. When traffic is heavy or accidents cause backups, they can and do deviate and take a different route if traffic warrants it. They have the flexibility, knowledge of the area and advanced warning from other operators. Vanpool drivers don't even get that advantage.

They also memorize the names and addresses of 2000 or more individuals, and can give each other directions if necessary. Did I mention they make a lot less money than someone who reads from a little card of which streets to travel that have stops MARKED for them the whole way? Sorry, I digress.

This concept for someone who drives a vanpool van is not too difficult, is it Matthew? Why have a big empty bus drive from an urban area, to pick up 10 passengers in a suburban area, and drive back to the urban area? What if no one WANTS to ride that day? You just sent that big bus out there for nothing. Too bad it cost you something, huh?

Except for commuters, the rest of the population can be served in lower demand areas by creating routes to urban, shopping and medical areas and operating them on tuesdays and thursdays for example. If everyone knows that is when transportation is available, that's when they make plans to ride. Youngsters can also make plans to utilize transportation in that way. Why should it be available six or seven days a week if the demand isn't always enough to support the service?

Matthew, you gotta quit limiting your ideas on this transportation thing. Really. You could be a pioneer.....

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

to Craig: I'm still not sure if buses are powered by propane or methane. I'll assume, for the moment, that even if propane could be used as a source of fuel, its effectiveness is still much worse than gasoline, which is usually worse than diesel.

I'm still of the opinion the bus routes run by Sound Transit could offer timely mitigation of congestion at known rush-hour choke points in South King County. I really can't comment on other parts of the Puget Sound, since I rarely travel elsewhere during rush-hour.

I don't think society should be willing to pay a limitless price for mitigating congestion. Especially when society can achieve the same type of mitigation via vanpooling for a cost of approximately $500 per person.

And, now, with the advent of I-695, the folks (like myself) who vanpool aren't contributing as much as they were before. So any inequities are further magnified. But, ironically, even though my passengers have more discretionary dollars to spend, they would balk at paying substantially more, and the vanpool would dissolve. They've become quite spoiled, I'm afraid.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 26, 2000.

to Zowie: I never called Craig a "liar". I said he was deceitful, misleading, and biased. I am correct in that regard because of his insistence in using Metro data to pass judgment on the express buses plying the I-5 corridor.

And, for your information (butthole!), I did look up natural gas, methane, and propane in the dictionary. And, it provided me no added information to draw a conclusion. In fact, using my dictionary, I could conclude that natural gas is a generic term for several potential fuel sources.

So, before you accuse someone of calling someone else a liar, get the facts. Why didn't you check your own dictionary, first, before recommending it to me?!!!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 26, 2000.

Propane is used for fuel in trucks so I assume busses could use it as well. We have a propane powered truck, but can't find anyone who knows how to work on the dang thing.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

to Marsha: Believe me, I love your demand-response concept. With the advent of I-695, people have no excuse for solving problems on their own. The government is taking less money, so we should be able to pay our own way.

But, if it turns out the Federal government is paying for our buses and vanpool vans, why not take advantage of a freebie. Otherwise, the feds will throw the money away, possibly in some other state.

I completely support the concept of setting a limit on how much we're willing to subsidize folks who rideshare. I understand that you and others would like the subsidy to be near zero, but I, personally, don't mind paying some taxes, if there's a potential to significantly mitigate congestion.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 26, 2000.

"And, for your information (butthole!), I did look up natural gas, methane, and propane in the dictionary. And, it provided me no added information to draw a conclusion. In fact, using my dictionary, I could conclude that natural gas is a generic term for several potential fuel sources. "

Proving your incompetence at even using a dictionary (I sure didn't have any trouble finding the info in mine).

Obviously you are a WHIZZ at research. Ask other people to do YOUR research for them BECAUSE YOU ARE INCOMPETENT, then insult them.

What arrogance. You are now up to 8 of nine on the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder (needed five of nine to qualify).

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

Matthew,

Butthole? You stated" I am correct in that regard because of his insistence in using Metro data to pass judgment on the express buses plying the I-5 corridor." Gee, that is not the information I came away with.

For you to accuse Craig of being deliberately misleading, or giving false information is, well, deliberately misleading and giving false information. You jumped to conclusions regarding the tone and intent of Craig's posts big time. But please, feel free to document. Go back and read those misleading facts, copy, then post them here. I want to see you refute any single fact that Craig has misled us with. Find the CORRECT data then. We do not all jump to the ridiculous conclusions you do Matthew! Just because you have a comprehension problem and like to assume points that were never made, is no reason to resort to this type of behavior. What would your mother say?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

Matt-

Look THAT up in your Funk and Wagnalls:

Main Entry: natural gas Function: noun Date: 1825 1 : gas issuing from the earth's crust through natural openings or bored wells; especially : a combustible mixture of METHANE and higher hydrocarbons used chiefly as a fuel and raw material

(Actually, this is the Merriam Webster on-line dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)

Funny, the OTHER dictionaries say pretty much the same thing.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

Matthew,

You don't get it do you? The times, they are a changing. It is not just about saving a few dollars. It's making a transportation system fit the needs of it's passengers. Big busses and fixed routes are NOT always the answer. The changes need to be made so that people who need the service will have it. Your frustration with us is misdirected more than you know. In order to affect these changes, you need to do battle with the whole transportation system and Unions. Not us. These people are on a gravy train, they will not change their ways willingly. If you feel strongly about maintaining an important Transportation system, you need to take Craig's information to heart and USE it!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

to Zowie, Marsha & Mark: I'm flattered you all find the need to defend Craig against me. But, I suspect he can take care of himself.

But, with all of you ganging up against me, Zowie might want to find a new personality disorder which includes paranoia as one of the criteria.

I may be schizophrenic. No I'm not. Yes I am. Not. Am too.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 27, 2000.

"I may be schizophrenic. No I'm not. Yes I am. Not. Am too. "

Matt- The personality problems you have are burden enough for anyone. Don't wish for any additional problems. And schizophrenics respond real well to phenothiazines, at least for the first 15-20 years. People with personality disorders are more of a treatment challenge. Their insight is inadequate to keep them engaged in therapy. Plus, therapists think they're a pain in the rear, just like everyone else does.

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 27, 2000.

to Zowie: If a narcissist sought treatment from a therapist, they're not much of a narcissist. How can someone with a grandiose sense of self importance justify seeking treatment?

The reality is that "disorders" are only relevant if they threaten the safety and well-being of society. If an individual is irrational to the point they can't operate mechanized equipment, then there is a potential threat to the public saftey. Likewise, if a person's fantasies indicate a high probability the individual will be unable to take care of themselves and their family. Then, that is a real problem.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 27, 2000.

"to Zowie: If a narcissist sought treatment from a therapist, they're not much of a narcissist. How can someone with a grandiose sense of self importance justify seeking treatment? " If you would READ what I said rather than trying ego-driven one-upsmanship, you'll see that I indicated that THEY DON'T. As you are doing right now, it is inherent in the diagnosis that they have little insight into their own problems, hence little motivation to change. That is what makes them so unpleasant when (usually under threat of their marriage breaking up) they go see a therapist, and why the outcome for treatment is SO BAD. No motivation. No insight. That's why the therapists DON'T MIND that they disengage from therapy. These are unpleasant people to deal with, even for trained healthcare professionals. Hard to get enthused about people that just never get it, especially when they are a pain in the butt.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Mark Twain

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 27, 2000.

Well, if the therapists had any sense of ethics, they'd turn the patient away, rather than milking them of their hard-earned money. Sounds like the therpists's association made up a disorder so they wouldn't have to actually work and treat people with real problems like alcoholism or a gambling addiction.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 27, 2000.

"Well, if the therapists had any sense of ethics, they'd turn the patient away, rather than milking them of their hard-earned money"

You may ALSO have a reading disorder:

That's why the therapists DON'T MIND that they disengage from therapy.

Their insight is inadequate to keep them engaged in therapy.

Plus, therapists think they're a pain in the rear, just like everyone else does.

Ony the other hand, this may be criteria nine at work, shows arrogant or haughty behaviors.

You may simply NOT CARE to read what other people right, assuming that it is not worth you taking the time to understand it if it differs from your current ideas.

In any event, it's like I said; they aren't bad enough to institutionalize, just too abnoxious to waste your time on. And prospects for improvement are nil.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 27, 2000.

"1. Government interstate highway spending in the '40s and '50s that obtained revenues by taxing streetcars and bus transit (which did not use highways). More recently, the government taxed urban drivers to subsidize white flight from their neighborhood -- not to mention the highways that literally destroyed urban neighborhoods.

2. Government run schools that were better for suburbs than for cities, and desegregation orders that created this inequity by ensuring that city children had to go to school with kids from the projects, while suburban children got to go to schools that hadn't had society's problems dumped on them.

3. FHA loan guarantees that subsidized suburban white flight, by refusing to guarantee loans in older urban neighborhoods.

4. Zoning laws that ensured that the newly created suburbs bore no resemblance to prewar suburbs.

5. Environmental regulations that proactively discouraged use of urban industrial "brownfields" and thereby encouraged migration to suburbia. " Don't forget the government locking up the saucer with a non- polluting energy source in Area 51(spaceborne mass transit), their intentional destruction of the Hindenburg in New Jersey (airborne mass transit), their intentional destruction of the Challenger (Space Transit System), not to mention the shooters they put on the grassy knoll to take out Kennedy, just as he was about to announce a multi- billion dollar program to beat the Russians in building mass transit.

It's a CONSPIRACY I tell you. They are ALL out to get the noble transit system.

Clueless Sap- Do you hear voices, too? Do they talk about you? Is someone shooting radar waves into your brain, to force you to do things you don't want to do? Are these weird things? Forbidden things?? Sexual things???

Join us, for the ultimate transit trip. Join us.

Eternity awaits! Come to Heaven's Gate!

-- Marshall Applewhite (m_applewhite@Hale-Bopp.cosmos), January 27, 2000.

to Zowie: Hey, at least we agree "prospects for improvement are nil". After all, how can you improve on perfection?

By the way, I feel somewhat inadequate. What is the remaining criterion [for narcissistic personality disorder] I failed to exhibit? I'd be disappointed to find out that I'm just an "average" narcissist. I believe it's important to be the "best" at what you are.

"From each according to their ability; to each according to their performance." - Matthew M. Warren

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 28, 2000.

"What is the remaining criterion [for narcissistic personality disorder] I failed to exhibit? I'd be disappointed to find out that I'm just an "average" narcissist. I believe it's important to be the "best" at what you are. "

Since you asked:

(4) Requires excessive admiration.

Reference DSM-IV

Also see this website (among many others)http://site.health- center.com/brain/personality/narcissistic.htm. Or you can take a web-based teast at http://www.mentalhealth.com/dx/fdx-pe07.html

As the name suggests, people with narcissistic personality disorder are quite self-absorbed. They display a pattern of grandiosity in fantasy or behavior. Acquaintances often describe them as arrogant and boastful. Less than 1% of the population suffer from this disorder. Feelings of grandiosity Not only do people with this disorder feel superior to others, but they also believe they are exceptionally unique and special. They believe they are entitled to special treatment simply because they are who they are. They may envy others while believing that others are envying them. They may exaggerate their accomplishments and talents. Need for admiration People with this disorder seek constant admiration, adulation, and bolstering from others. They may be ambitious, not for success, but for fame and admiration. Lack of empathy They have good social skills when it comes to initial contact with others. They may be quite charming in an attempt to gain the other person's awe. However, they are so focused on themselves that they are not capable of empathizing with others. Preoccupation with fantasy People with narcissistic personality disorder often fantasize about wealth and fame. Overly high expectations If they do not achieve the goals they have set for themselves, they feel a strong sense of failure which brings feelings of shame and worthlessness. They often react to criticism with rage.

Treatment

In other disorders, brief therapy can result in permanent personality change. Brief therapy has not been shown to do the same for narcissistic personality disorder. Insight-oriented psychotherapy is typically the first treatments sought; both of these therapies take several years. Insight-oriented psychotherapy, also called psychodynamic therapy, tries to provide the individual with greater insight into problems in the hope that this will change behavior. Insight-oriented psychotherapy analyzes aspects of the individual's personality and tries to relate them to childhood conflicts. As with other personality disorders, the client-therapist relationship is crucial. Therapists try to empathize with clients about their sensitivities and disappointments which encourages the client to develop the same skills. (But it's real hard to do, because they are such obnoxious SOBs............. zowie)

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 28, 2000.

to Zowie: "People with narcissistic personality disorder often fantasize about wealth and fame." What are the fantasies of "normal" people? With the proliferation of lotteries, gambling, etc., I was beginning to think I'm the ONLY person who DOESN'T fantasize about wealth. As far as fame goes, I'd be happy if my family admired me most of all.

So, in your opinion, I don't require excessive admiration from others. I'm just your run-of-the-mill obnoxiously arrogant jack ass.

Actually, I just want people to deal with me objectively, and judge me on my performance. I'm kind of excited about the future, because, with the internet, people could bid on my services (assuming I have any to offer), and I could finally find out my true market value.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 28, 2000.

"So, in your opinion, I don't require excessive admiration from others. I'm just your run-of-the-mill obnoxiously arrogant jack ass.

Actually, I just want people to deal with me objectively, and judge me on my performance."

As a frequent reader and rare contributor to this forum, If that IS zowies opinion of you, I would think it likely that he HAS dealt with you objectively and APPROPRIATELY judged you on your performance.

Mikey

-- Mike Alworth (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), January 28, 2000.

to Mikey: Hey, I have no problem with Zowie. He (she?) seems like an OK person. Rarely has anything useful to say, though, concerning transportation. Usually quotes Mark Twain. Maybe he's trying to talk about the ferry system (i.e., Mississippi River).

And, again, this is a discussion forum. So, I could care less about people's personality.

I just want people to know that my obnoxiousness is not personal, it's from the heart, man.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 28, 2000.