Cars are cheaper than transit (less than 1/3 the cost)
Your numbers have been widely and repeatedly debunked. (Hint: It depends on the type of trip and length of trip, city vs. rural, external costs, etc. Things you dismiss as "nits" but which are in fact, significant.)
Small cars use less energy than transit, so public policy should be directed at getting people into small cars, not transit.
So is it fair to say you supported the recent increase in CAFE standards?
Small cars emit less CO2 than transit, so public policy should be directed at getting people into small cars, not transit.
You've stated many times and in many forums that transportation CO2 emissions are not a pollutant and not relevant to climate change. But you now say "public policy should be directed at getting people into small cars" in relation to CO2 emissions. Have you changed your stance?
(Also, your energy/CO2 figures have been repeatedly debunked, and even by your own figures published on one of your several web sites, electric rail transit uses less energy than cars.)
Cars usually are faster than transit.
Usually, yes. Nobody that I know expects transit to completely replace automobiles. Transit is good for certain types of trips in certain corridors. This isn't an either-or situation. Have you not heard people speak of a "multi-modal" transportation system? The modes can be complementary, not in competition with each other.
BUT WE DIGRESS ...
Let's get back to the cost of cars and this supposed 22,000 figure, which (according to Terry and JK) states that a bus does 22,000 times the damage to roads as do cars.
ASSUMPTION ALERT: For the purpose of this exercise (and because Terry and JK still haven't provided the basis for the calculation of this 22,000 figure in the first place!), I'm going to assume a typical mid-size car (instead of a larger car, truck or SUV), and then use the same standard for buses that JK has asserted.
Starting with the car... how about a popular mid-size American sedan, with the smallest engine available: The 2008 Chevy Malibu, 4cyl. 2008 EPA Ratings: 22mpg City / 30mpg Highway / 25 Combined.
Source: Edumnds.com and FuelEconomy.gov
Now, transit critics have often asserted that the gas tax should not be increased because current taxation levels would support needed roadway capacity improvements and regular maintenance if the taxes weren't "diverted" to transit and "non-road" projects like stormwater runoff, curb extensions, etc.
Let's give those critics the benefit of the doubt and ASSUME that 50% of all gas taxes collected are pure waste, and that the other 50% covers actual maintenance costs.
The Federal gas tax is 18.4 cents, 24 cents for Oregon, for a combined 42.4 cents. 50% of that is 21.2 cents.
The example Chevy Malibu's combined city/highway MPG is 25mpg. That means, using the 21.2 cent figure, that the Malibu generates 0.848 cents of our hypothetical "non-waste" gas tax every mile.
Based on this intentionally low-balled figure which makes things VERY favorable to the automobile, a bus which does 22,000 times as much damage would cause $186.56 of damage to the road PER MILE.
In Fiscal Year 2007, TriMet drove buses a total of 25,794,420 vehicle miles.
Using the $186.56 per mile figure, that means that, according to JK's methodology, TriMet buses caused $4,812,206,995 of damage to metro-area roads in FY2007.
That's right (using all-caps because JK likes to use them): FOUR POINT EIGHT BILLION. _BILLION_ __BILLION___ (!!!) dollars in one year.
That's right, according to JK, Portland-Metro area roads are disintegrating to the tune of FOUR POINT EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS --- EVERY YEAR! --- just because TriMet drives these buses around.
Right.
Sure.
JK, this doesn't begin to pass the smell test.
Just like your low-balled numbers for automobile cost-of-ownership, this 22,000X nonsense is just that.
$4.8 billion per year indeed.
Whatever.
Sorry I had to SHOUT ... but you just can't seem to let go of the ridiculous.
OK, JK ... More ASSUMPTIONS for you ...
JK, wrote: "BAD NUMBER, BLATANT ASSUMPTION ALERT!"
Cars are cheaper than transit (less than 1/3 the cost)
Your numbers have been widely and repeatedly debunked. (Hint: It depends on the type of trip and length of trip, city vs. rural, external costs, etc. Things you dismiss as "nits" but which are in fact, significant.)
Small cars use less energy than transit, so public policy should be directed at getting people into small cars, not transit.
So is it fair to say you supported the recent increase in CAFE standards?
Small cars emit less CO2 than transit, so public policy should be directed at getting people into small cars, not transit.
You've stated many times and in many forums that transportation CO2 emissions are not a pollutant and not relevant to climate change. But you now say "public policy should be directed at getting people into small cars" in relation to CO2 emissions. Have you changed your stance?
(Also, your energy/CO2 figures have been repeatedly debunked, and even by your own figures published on one of your several web sites, electric rail transit uses less energy than cars.)
Cars usually are faster than transit.
Usually, yes. Nobody that I know expects transit to completely replace automobiles. Transit is good for certain types of trips in certain corridors. This isn't an either-or situation. Have you not heard people speak of a "multi-modal" transportation system? The modes can be complementary, not in competition with each other.
BUT WE DIGRESS ...
Let's get back to the cost of cars and this supposed 22,000 figure, which (according to Terry and JK) states that a bus does 22,000 times the damage to roads as do cars.
ASSUMPTION ALERT: For the purpose of this exercise (and because Terry and JK still haven't provided the basis for the calculation of this 22,000 figure in the first place!), I'm going to assume a typical mid-size car (instead of a larger car, truck or SUV), and then use the same standard for buses that JK has asserted.
Starting with the car... how about a popular mid-size American sedan, with the smallest engine available: The 2008 Chevy Malibu, 4cyl. 2008 EPA Ratings: 22mpg City / 30mpg Highway / 25 Combined.
Source: Edumnds.com and FuelEconomy.gov
Now, transit critics have often asserted that the gas tax should not be increased because current taxation levels would support needed roadway capacity improvements and regular maintenance if the taxes weren't "diverted" to transit and "non-road" projects like stormwater runoff, curb extensions, etc.
Let's give those critics the benefit of the doubt and ASSUME that 50% of all gas taxes collected are pure waste, and that the other 50% covers actual maintenance costs.
The Federal gas tax is 18.4 cents, 24 cents for Oregon, for a combined 42.4 cents. 50% of that is 21.2 cents.
The example Chevy Malibu's combined city/highway MPG is 25mpg. That means, using the 21.2 cent figure, that the Malibu generates 0.848 cents of our hypothetical "non-waste" gas tax every mile.
Based on this intentionally low-balled figure which makes things VERY favorable to the automobile, a bus which does 22,000 times as much damage would cause $186.56 of damage to the road PER MILE.
In Fiscal Year 2007, TriMet drove buses a total of 25,794,420 vehicle miles.
Using the $186.56 per mile figure, that means that, according to JK's methodology, TriMet buses caused $4,812,206,995 of damage to metro-area roads in FY2007.
That's right (using all-caps because JK likes to use them): FOUR POINT EIGHT BILLION. _BILLION_ __BILLION___ (!!!) dollars in one year.
That's right, according to JK, Portland-Metro area roads are disintegrating to the tune of FOUR POINT EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS --- EVERY YEAR! --- just because TriMet drives these buses around.
Right.
Sure.
JK, this doesn't begin to pass the smell test.
Just like your low-balled numbers for automobile cost-of-ownership, this 22,000X nonsense is just that.
$4.8 billion per year indeed.
Whatever.
Sorry I had to SHOUT ... but you just can't seem to let go of the ridiculous.