Update:This morning’s Oregonian Article (unavailable when this post was first written) indicates that Fred’s Australian gig is temporary, volunteer work, and that he intends to remain with TriMet. (Thanks to commenters and someone who contacted me privately about this.)
Original Post:
A local transit blogger and light rail operator, PDXTrains, has received a tip:
TriMet’s Fred Hansen, according to Australian press reports, has accepted the position of “thinker-in-residence” regarding transit for South Australia. The position is stated to begin in October.
The articles I could find don’t specifically mention Fred’s resignation from TriMet, or a move to Australia, but the job title’s “in-residence” suggests both. No word yet from local news sources.
Newslinks:
- Adelaidenow:
Thinker In Residence Fred Hansen to ponder Adelaide transport - Adelaide Independent Weekly:
US public transport expert to help Adelaide’s development - ABC Online:
New Thinker for SA
42 responses to “Fred Hansen to depart TriMet, and the continent? [Updated]”
Hansen = Good news!!!
More good news:
BHO is reportedly set to mandate automobile efficiency standards of 47mpg average. This will end the debate about the best way to save energy, reduce CO2 and reduce foreign oil imports. Hands down it will be to encourage people to abandon transit and save money, energy,CO2 and oil by driving a new car!!
Here are the numbers:
47 mpg (125,000 BTU/gal) = 660 BTU/vehicle-mile
2660 BTU/vehicle mile = 1662 BTU/passengermile (sorry, Bob, this is a national mandate)
47 mpg car = 1,662 – efficient, low cost and conenient
Commuter rail = 2,751 – ENERGY WASTER!
Amtrak = 2,935 – ENERGY WASTER!
Average Transit Rail = 3,228 – ENERGY WASTER!
Average BUS =4,160 GAS GUZZLER!! (Ok its really Diesel)
Of course the bad news is that more people will die due to smaller, less safe cars, but the good news is that driving will still be safer than light rail (and probably Amtrak).
And, of course, all those extra deaths will be for a good cause – its GREEN!! And we don’t have to tippy-toe on arctic wastelands.
Thanks
JK
The “tip” by the way, was a google alert.
Google News Alert for: portland trimet
Thinker In Residence Fred Hansen to ponder Adelaide transport
Adelaidenow – Australia
Transport Minister Patrick Conlon today announced Fred Hansen, the general manager of transport provider TriMet in Portland, Oregon, will begin in October. …
FYI:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/05/trimets_leader_will_consult_au.html
Great, the “great thinker” just feels like going off to Australia and using his “great brain” free while we cut services here.
GOOD THINKING FRED!
Why don’t ya just get the **** out of here!
According to a report in the Oregonian, Hansen will only be visiting Australia and will remain at TriMet. Story at http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/05/trimets_leader_will_consult_au.html
I hope y’all notice the timing of FRED’S LITTLE VACATION.
Right after the new mall opens and as the labor contract expires.
As usual, Fred show’s his true colors.
Run away when your needed the most.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT KISS MY ***
Now we see where he is spending his “bonus” money.
I’m sure glad the TRIMET board is so happy about this.
ALL HAIL THE KING,
KING FRED the FIRST,
LONG LIVE THE KING!
Man.
If I went online and trashed my boss like that, I’d be fired in about five seconds.
Labor unions. Gotta love ’em.
Once again, JK, you’re presenting cherry-picked numbers.
To summarize: You’re comparing the vehicle type of “car”, which isn’t representative to all types of motor vehicles driven by solo drivers, omitting the fact that just because a target is set for the sale of _new_ vehicles, it will take longer than that for the entire fleet to cycle through (even with a cash for clunkers program), and then you’re comparing it to nationwide figures for transit, which serves different trip types than your national automobile figures which are both urban and rural, etc., you’re not considering where the energy for each mode comes from, and finally you’re assuming that no efficiency progress will be made with transit itself in the same time-frame.
We’ve been over the flaws in your methodology in excruciating detail many times before.
jk: BHO is reportedly set to mandate automobile efficiency standards of 47mpg average.
According to the news, it 35.5 mpg, not 47.
According to the news, it 35.5 mpg, not 47.
What JK appears to have done is select only the proposed MPG average for passenger cars (42MPG by 2016), not “light trucks” (most SUVs), and assumed a loading factor of 1.12 to get 47MPG per passenger-mile?
Apparently EngineerScotty thinks that I should not be able to express my opinions on a public discussion forum because it is my “boss”.
I should be fired for doing such an outrage.
And this is because of “union” protection.
No Engineerscotty, this is because of an amendment to the constitution that guarantees me freedom of speech, yes, even against my king and exalted ruler.
See in EngineerScotty’s view all employees everywhere should always and forever support anything that that their exalted leaders decide to do.
And if good little employees don’t do that then they are deserving of losing their jobs or even their heads.
I would bring something up but the moderators might decide to delete it sighting “godwins law”.
See those people that Godwin was talking about were all good employees and never questioned anything in life.
Things didn’t turn out so well for them, and plenty others either.
PS…
I read somewhere awhile back that the MPG tests/computations used to calculate fleet averages are based on the old testing standards, not the revised EPA numbers (which are lower in most cases) now posted on stickers.
Thus, a car may test at “40mpg” for the purpose of determining fleet average, but actually get “35mpg” based on the way we currently display EPA ratings. (In my experience, the new EPA sticker rating scheme is closer to reality.)
So this isn’t that big of an efficiency gain.
Al, Scotty, play nice.
Bob, things are not always “nice”.
But thanks for trying.
Actually, Al– I’m not suggesting either that you shouldn’t say anything bad about FH–either because you work (indirectly) for him, or because he is beyond reproach. Nor do I think you should be fired. :)
I’m simply pointing out that you’re lucky–many of us do work in jobs where public criticism of the boss or company is considered insubordination, and grounds for dismissal. The First Amendment, of course, doesn’t really apply in the private sector–it’s a restriction on government’s ability to regulate speech, not a blanket guarantee that people can say whatever they want without any consequence. I think that in terms of matters of political importance, it SHOULD be stronger–but that’s how it is.
As you work for a government agency–your rights as a citizen to criticize the government, and your duties as an employee, might conflict; in such cases your rights-as-citizen should probably win out.
But still–you should consider yourself lucky. You enjoy a level of job security that many of us do not.
many of us do work in jobs where public criticism of the boss or company is considered insubordination, and grounds for dismissal.
If I was part of Fred’s executive staff that theory might apply.
But given my lowly position within the organization it certainly does not apply.
As for the “private” sector, its basically a slave labor system. (for most people, with notable exceptions such as the technology companies)
No sick time, no vacation, fear at getting fired at the will of your boss, etc.
I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees.
GOD BLESS AMERICA.
I can’t wait to see what they are going to try to hit us with as the contract comes to an end.
Our executives get bonuses and take lengthy sabbaticals , but I’m sure we will be asked to give up our health benefits.
Americans are asleep to whats happening around them.
Fred is a microcosm of America today, put people out of work, cut their health plans, but the elite continue their lavish lifestyles.
And this is why I am a tad upset.
IT’S IN OUR FACE!
Good greif Bob,
Haven’t you ever noticed that Hansen leads Cherry Pick central?
Now that he’s brought the agency to the edge of imminent fiscal collapse he’s taking his enriched self and family to live large and lavish.
And you’re to busy trying to neutralize JK to notice. It’s almost like you get paid to do that.
One final comment before I terminate this subject from my discussion agenda.
If I hadn’t been paying attention to my Google alerts this whole thing would not have been discovered.
Fred was probably not going to tell anyone till the day before he left, if at all.
He basically tried to hide this from the public, just like he did with the WES bailout.
How can we trust a leader that is CONSTANTLY hiding information?
He is supposed to be a public servant, not an king, alas,
we see the power of the blogs!
JK:
We don’t need your Commie utopian plan of everyone riding in a small, foreign made vehicle. We want our Suburbans, what are you, anti-American?
Not to mention your methodology does not include the GHG emitted to produce these new vehicles – to which riding out a gas consuming clunker is more environmentally friendly.
We’ve been over this a million times, one more person on mass transit will not increase GHG, but one more person on the road will.
Good Grief, Steve.
Haven’t you ever noticed that Hansen leads Cherry Pick central?
Haven’t you ever noticed that I have been critical of some of Fred Hansen’s positions in the past, and have rebutted some of his assertions in-person, to his face, at public meetings?
Haven’t you ever noticed that this very blog frequently highlights news articles which aren’t exactly “good news” for Fred Hansen or TriMet?
Haven’t you ever noticed how I’ve produced multiple documentary videos which are critical or at least very revealing about TriMet operations?
Haven’t you ever noticed that I’m not the paid tool you so frequently, falsely, accuse me of being?
TriMet on the edge of imminent fiscal collapse? Good greif (sic) indeed John E.
Bob R. Says: Once again, JK, you’re presenting cherry-picked numbers.
JK: Am I? Lets see:
Bob R. Says: To summarize: You’re comparing the vehicle type of “car”, which isn’t representative to all types of motor vehicles driven by solo drivers,
JK: OK, lets look at fleet average which INCLUDES SUVs etc (No not the hummer sized suv, the popular ones that are all over town):
Proposal is for 35.5 mpg (Obama to Toughen Rules on Emissions and Mileage, NYT, May 19, )
that is 125,000/35.5 = 3521.13 BTU/vehicle-mile
This is a national mandate, so we will use the national car occupancy rate of 1.57:
3521 / 1.57 = 2243 BTU/passenger-mile
So we can re-write our table as follows:
35.5 mpg car/SUV = 2,243 – efficient, low cost and convenient
Commuter rail = 2,751 – ENERGY WASTER!
Amtrak = 2,935 – ENERGY WASTER!
Average Transit Rail = 3,228 – ENERGY WASTER!
Average BUS =4,160 GAS GUZZLER!! (Ok its really Diesel)
Gee, nothing changed. New cars still save energy, CO2 & cost
Bob R. Says: omitting the fact that just because a target is set for the sale of _new_ vehicles,
JK: The quote was “BHO is reportedly set to mandate automobile efficiency standards”. Were you afraid someone would think that BHO was going to mandate older cars suddenly get better?
Bob R. Says: then you’re comparing it to nationwide figures for transit, which serves different trip types than your national automobile figures which are both urban and rural, etc.,
JK: OK, lets break it down bit:
Lets look at using 1.3 on the local service and the national average for the long haul:
Long haul:
35.5 mpg car/SUV (1.57/car) = 2,243 – efficient, low cost and convenient
Commuter rail = 2,751 – ENERGY WASTER!
Amtrak = 2,935 – ENERGY WASTER!
Short haul:
35.5 mpg car/SUV(1.3/car)=2,709
Average Transit Rail = 3,228 – ENERGY WASTER!
Average BUS =4,160 GAS GUZZLER!! (Ok its really Diesel)
Gee, nothing changed. New cars still save energy, CO2 & cost
Bob R. Says: you’re not considering where the energy for each mode comes from,
JK: Amtrak, commuter rail, transit bus, cars all use oil. LRT usually gets its energy from coal and uranium, sometimes from fish and birds (dams & wind) Note that coal puts mercury, uranium, thorium and radium into the atmosphere. Cars DO NOT. Locally there is a bit more hydro, but this is a national story.
Bob R. Says: and finally you’re assuming that no efficiency progress will be made with transit itself in the same time-frame.
JK: That is a good assumption, looking at the history of transit energy usage. (See national transportation energy databooks)
Bob R. Says: We’ve been over the flaws in your methodology in excruciating detail many times before.
JK: Usually with no change in the conclusion, just a few insignificant changes.
Final Comment:
If you want to save energy, reduce CO2 and save money, get people into BHO mandate cars (39 mpg per Fox news.) There will no longer be any room for debate – cars save energy and reduce CO2 over transit.
Thanks
JK
This is a national mandate, so we will use the national car occupancy rate of 1.57:
More of the same, JK.
You are deliberately using nationwide figures which include rural miles and trip types not at all germane the urban/suburban transit, and then comparing those directly to transit types. Further, the Portland-area (whose transit policies you oppose), based on your own previous comments, does better on a BTU-basis than the national transit numbers you post.
And the Portland Metro Area’s occupancy numbers, as provided by ODOT (I know you know this, we’ve discussed it before), is nowhere near 1.57. (The original post was about TriMet, after all, before you went off on this reposted tangent.)
(39 mpg per Fox news.)
I suggest you don’t tout Fox News as a source if you want people to take your numbers seriously — Fox is pretty notoriously inaccurate, to put it politely.
Jim Karlock:
The MAX gets about 52.7 MPG:
Passenger Miles per kWh: 186,540,535 ÷ 43,058,913 = 4.33 P-mile/kWh
Electrical BTU per passenger mile: 3412 Btu/kWh ÷ 4.33 P-mile/kWh = 788 Btu/pass-mile
Fossil fuel BTU per passenger mile 3 x 788 = 2364 BTU/pass-mile
MAX translated to gasolene: 125,000 Btu/gal ÷ 2364 Btu/pass-mile = 52.87 pass-mi/gal
—-
A single Prius takes 113 million BTUs to manufacture:
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_09usedcars
For the millionth time, one more person buying a new car and on the road is more consuming energy wise than one more person on mass transit.
I might add, the average lifespan of a single car is not very long, meaning that after 160,000 or so miles, a new car is purchased consuming million more energy.
In fairness, the accuracy of the Prius manufacturing BTU claim has been disputed.
I’ve searched around and I found that the average car manufacturing takes about 100 million Btus, even if there is debate. Knowing that, before you drive your car, it has essentially burned 1,000 gallon of gasoline – equivalent to putting 30,000 miles on a car that averages 30 mpg.
Let’s assume it’s half that. That’s still equivalent of 500 gallons of gasoline burned to make your car.
To anyone who thinks I am against this (manufacturing cars because of energy use), please understand these are just arguments against Karlocks’ blatant misleading of statistics. And not that I am anti car.
I’ve actually never made the case that people should ride transit because of GHG emissions – rather only argue against the insanely asinine arguments that light rail emits more GHGs than automobiles championed by O’toole et. al. fan base.
Even more insane are arguments from Wendell Cox who state that single family detached homes consume less energy than attached multi-family units.
There’s nothing wrong with making arguments against the status quo, and I don’t disagree that a lot of decisions are made just to “cut carbon”, just the absurd amount of misleading information by “this crowd” is insulting to everyone’s intelligence.
PS: Can you delete my 3:03 PM post? [Moderator: Done.]
extra deaths will be for a good cause
I don’t know how anybody can honestly say that any death is for a good cause.
arctic wastelands
Hey, what’s one person’s trash is another person’s (or animal’s) treasure.
Getting back to the story (because the other things, like the fact that people just don’t drive 47 MPG cars to work on average, have been covered), I have to give some credit to Fred, since I understand it to be him that initiated the Productivity Improvement Program (PIP), which has saved millions of dollars and increased employee morale, as well as doing a model job building Interstate MAX. In addition, he’s good at building relationships.
OK ws now cite credible sources and include the same for transit vehicle construction.
Don’t forget to include LRt’s right of way construction AND maintenance.
Thanks
JK
Don’t forget to include LRt’s right of way construction AND maintenance.
Now we’re getting somewhere. Don’t forget to include the automobile’s right-of-way construction and maintenance, including parking facilities, etc. Seems to me you left that out of your original assertion.
JK:OK ws now cite credible sources and include the same for transit vehicle construction.
ws:Define credible? Is your website credible, btw?
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/04/21/ask_pablo_cars/
JK:Don’t forget to include LRt’s right of way construction AND maintenance.
ws:Sure, North Interstate MAX EIS stated it would consume about 4 trillion Btus for construction.
This is just equal to the manufacturing of 40,000 cars @ 100 million Btus each (4 trillion / 100 million), and not the roads they drive on or they gas they consume!
Asphalt roads need major maintenance and repaving. So lifespan is also important in measuring the Btu output from roads. Concrete needs less maintenance, but only a very small percentage of roads are made from concrete.
To get a scale of 40,000 cars; there were 250 million registered cars in America in 2006. And a good percentage of the total vehicles are not just small automobiles, but SUVs and trucks – which take more Btus to construct them.
LR construction is minimal when compared to road construction and vehicle manufacturing!
What Australians are saying:
Latest Comments:
Well the think will have lots of time to ponder whilst waiting for a bus!!
Posted by: Paul of Northern Suburbs 6:55pm today
Like Ian of Adelaide, I saw a Thinker-in-Residence, the other night at my pub. He was pondering on this beezer idea to get people out of cars and onto public transport. Transfer the strippers from the Labor’s Colac Hotel to the buses and the trains. Ticket price? I wouldn’t blink an eyelid. State deficit solvered.
Posted by: Robbo of Wynn Vale 1:39pm today
South road was 2 lanes both ways 17 years ago, guess what? it still is, great planning SA, our transport system is terrible, give me “the London underground” any day of the week, seriously.
Posted by: Owen Long of Aberfoyle Park 12:45pm today
There’s a thinker in residence on the Brighton train. Faced with the typical abysmal service he suggested a chair lift to replace the trains. We paid nothing for his suggestion and it will be just as good as the pages of waffle this overseas guy will produce at our expense.
Ron, shame on you for sticking to the original topic. :-)
Meanwhile…Fred Hansen was too busy planning his trip to Australia that he didn’t attend the gala TriMet event, the Bus Parade to mark the reopening of the downtown Transit Mall and the central piece of Portland’s successful transit system dating back to 1977.
Since Fred is taking four paid days from TriMet on his vacation down under, I suggest that the riders of TriMet all receive four FREE ALL DAY/ALL ZONE passes to compensate US for having to pay him on his vacation.
My employer pays ME on my vacation–paid vacations are standard benefits for working professionals (and unionized labor forces).
While there are many legit things to complain about Hansen for–what he chooses to do on his time off I would think is his business.
ws Says: The MAX gets about 52.7 MPG:
Passenger Miles per kWh: 186,540,535 ÷ 43,058,913 = 4.33 P-mile/kWh
Electrical BTU per passenger mile: 3412 Btu/kWh ÷ 4.33 P-mile/kWh = 788 Btu/pass-mile
Fossil fuel BTU per passenger mile 3 x 788 =2364 BTU/pass-mile
MAX translated to gasolene: 125,000 Btu/gal ÷ 2364 Btu/pass-mile = 52.87 pass-mi/gal
JK: Now account for the fact that the average Portland car carries 1.3 people:
52.87 Pass-mi/gal / 1.3 pass/vehicle = 40.67 vehicle MPG
Since MAX mainly travels along freeways, one should compare this to highway MPG.
Any of the new BHO Mandate cars, and many current cars, will easily match for highway MPG.
ws Says: For the millionth time, one more person buying a new car and on the road is more consuming energy wise than one more person on mass transit.
JK: You forgot that building toy trains takes energy too, especially the right of way which is used only by a few vehicles per day. Compare this to a highway which is used by huge numbers of people. (BTW, the most number of people transported on a single right of way is a bus only road in NYC)
As I keep observing: If you want to save energy, reduce CO2 and save money, get people into BHO mandate cars (39 mpg per Fox news.) There will no longer be any room for debate – cars save energy and reduce CO2 over transit.
Thanks
JK
TOY TRAINS
My tribute to
JIM KARLOCK
Any of the new BHO Mandate cars, and many current cars, will easily match for highway MPG.
For the sake of reference:
As I mentioned before, I had read awhile back that the CAFE standards were calculated differently than what we see on the EPA labels. Here’s a recent article which discusses the difference:
Edmunds.com: When CAFE Meets EPA: A Tale of Two Fuel Economy Standards
The actual MPG of the fleet, once deployed, is not going to increase as radically as would be implied by just looking at the 2016 CAFE standard.