Demonstrate Your Creativity in Two Media Contests


Show off your communication skills:

  • APTA (the American Public Transportation Association) is soliciting YouTube videos for their “Dump the Pump” campaign. Check out contest rules here.
  • Transportation Alternatives, the NYC advocacy organization is soliciting PSAs for their “Biking Rules!” campaign.

Interesting uses of crowdsourcing…

[Update 2009-08-12 from Bob R.]

I’ve decided to enter the “Dump the Pump” video contest, and could use the help of PortlandTransport readers… view this comment for details.


36 responses to “Demonstrate Your Creativity in Two Media Contests”

  1. jk: And cars are cheaper too.

    A one-month all zone TriMet pass is currently $86. Please demonstrate how someone can own, operate and commute in a car for less money.

  2. My understanding is that $86 bus pass only represents a fraction of what it really costs to give you a ride on the bus. Union labor aint cheap, nor is the ridiculously priced $4/gallon Trimet is under contractual obligation to pay.

    Lets say that $86 is 1/3 of what it costs to provide those rides, with a real cost of $258— That is plenty for fuel, insurance, oil changes, and the occasional maintenance item on a bought-and-paid-for early 90’s car (I bought mine for 800 bucks several years ago and it gets me around just fine).

  3. I could, I suppose, say that $86 is 1/10 of what it costs for me to ride the bus, but it wouldn’t make any sense at all.

    For $86, you can ride the bus every day throughout the system. How about some evidence to support the idea that a person can own and operate a car for less than that? Because “cars are cheaper” implies that, well, a car is cheaper. Without making up numbers.

  4. I think it’s fair to say both parties are correct, depending on whether you want to view the statement about costs from the end-user perspective, or the taxpayer perspective.

    However, if we’re going to examine the costs from the taxpayer perspective, it opens up a discussion about net benefits, as well as externalized costs and benefits, and the case isn’t quite so favorable to the automobile as it one might think.

  5. For a fair (fare?) comparison, one must either compare:

    * Out of pocket expenses for a Tri-Met pass ($86/month)

    vs

    * Out of pocket expenses for owning and operating a motor vehicle, including depreciation, insurance, licensing, parking, tolls, maintenance, and fuel.

    (A useful second comparison might also include public subsidy for both choices; as Anthony points out, even full-fare passengers only pay a fraction of the cost of their ride–but by the same token, motorists only pay a fraction of the cost of the roads they drive on through non-general taxes and other charges).

    It is probably possible to drive on $86 per month–but it’s probably not possible legally. (Many motorists manage to own autos on low budgets by not buying insurance).

    But legally?

    * Buy a used econobox; one which gets good gas mileage and is fully depreciated. We’ll assume zero depreciation. (Purchase price of the car is treated as a capital expense; we’re only concerned about operating expenses. If you bought a new car, though, you would have to incur depreciation costs).

    * Have an excellent driving record, shop around for insurance, and get the minimum coverage (no collision or comp, just liability). You might get insurance for, $25 a month.

    * Work in a location which has free parking, and doesn’t incure a toll on the way in or back. ($0, parking/tolls).

    * Don’t get a personalized or cute license plate. The registration fee for two years is $54, the DEQ fee is $21. The drivers license fee (class C, noncommercial) is $59 for 8 years, or abour $15 for two years. All together, DMV/DEQ fees amortized are $45 a year, or nearly $4 per month.

    * We’ll assume that you pray religiously, and as a result of your appeals to the god(s) of your choice, don’t get into an accident, and the car doesn’t break down. (A doubtful assumption with an old car). However, we assume that you take good care of said car, changing the oil every six months (a reasonable duration given the amount of driving you’ll be able to afford). Assuming $20 bucks an oil change times two (cheaper than the regular price at Jiffy Lube) gives you another $3 a month. Double it for other maintenance charges to $6 a month (laughable, I know).

    So far, we’re up to $35 a month, just for insurance, fees, and maintenance. Which leaves $51 a month for gas. Gas is (generously) $2.50 a gallon, so you have enough left over for 20 gallons of gas, give or take a few ounces, per month. If you can get 40 miles to the gallon, congratulations! Your driving budget is 800 miles.

  6. Union labor aint cheap, nor is the ridiculously priced $4/gallon Trimet is under contractual obligation to pay.

    The government has been known to pay for things, most of which are of absolutely no benefit to the citizens.

    Transit is one of the very few things that American citizens can actually use coming directly from our tax money.

    Who cares what it costs?

    It’s NOTHING compared to the amount of money coming from our tax dollars to fund the war machine.

  7. JeffF Says:
    jk: And cars are cheaper too.

    A one-month all zone TriMet pass is currently $86. Please demonstrate how someone can own, operate and commute in a car for less money.
    JK: That $86 only covers 20% of the actual cost. The rest is paid by other taxpayers – essentially welfare. Whoever pays it, it is still a cost — about $430/mo.

    $430 a month at the actual cost of an average car will get you about 1700 miles/ month, well above the average USA milage of about 1000 miles/mo.
    Refrence: portlandfacts.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit(2005).htm

    Case demonstrated

    JK: However, we could look at the average Trimet bus speed of 12.31 MPH and assume you will not spend more than 4 hrs/day on the bus (ignoring waiting time at the bus stop(s)). That gives a max of 50 mi/day. For a 30 day month, you get 1500 miles/ month, 18000 miles/yr. A car will cost about $0.21 per passenger-mile x 1500 = $315, a lot less than the actual transit cost of $430.

    A more reasonable time spent on the bus would be 2 hours/day (unless you really like wasting time) Then your monthly milage would be 750 and the car’s cost about $0.31/pass-mi for a monthly cost of $234 – about ½ the actual cost of transit!!!

    Has anyone considered giving every needy transit user a free car, with taxi fare for those unable to drive? Might save money and would certainly provide better service to the needy.

    Refrences:
    2007 National Transit Database
    portlandfacts.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit(2005).htm
    portlandfacts.com/Transit/AAA_method.htm

    Case again demonstrated
    JK: We could just look at the average cost per passenger mile of the top ten bus companies in the nation and find that transit costs $1.01 per passenger mile, then look at the inflated AAA number of about $0.55 per vehicle-mile, or about $0.42 per passenger-mile, 41% the cost of transit.

    Using a more realistic car cost of $0.25 per passenger-mile, cars cost just 25% the cost of the average big city bus. (BTW, Trimet is about the same)

    Case again demonstrated

    All of the above are unfair as they compare the cost of a multi passenger car with the cost of a single seat on transit.

    They also include all car costs, including road construction and some support for transit, while the transit cost does not include the cost of roads or even fuel tax!

    Thanks
    JK

  8. Part of my primary occupation is video production.

    I’ve decided to take up the challenge of producing a “Dump the Pump” video. The prize offered by the contest promoters is relatively small, and unlikely to be won, so this is a project just for fun and with the potential to add to my portfolio.

    I have a concept and script in mind (would rather not reveal publicly at this time)…

    If you are an aspiring actor and would like to participate, please contact me at bob@peak.org

    I need:

    * Three actors, to be filmed individually. Preferably one adult male, one adult female, and one female child, although the roles are not set in stone and casting is flexible. Previous acting experience (formal or informal) preferred — if there’s a YouTube out there showing your abilities, that’s fantastic.

    * One of the shooting locations, ideally, would be a large porch overlooking floral landscaping/garden, with room for a small round table.

    * Props: Need replica gas pumps, preferably larger than 2′ tall. Can be toys, cabinets, whatever, so long as the object is instantly identifiable as a gas pump (vintage or modern) by most viewers. Have one already, can order 1 more, need 2 or 3 others. A genuine full-size antique or replica would be ideal, but it is understood that these are very heavy, difficult to move, and fragile — but if you can hook me up with someone who has one and is willing to take a risk, fantastic!

    I have the necessary video and audio gear already.

    Shooting schedule is flexible and can be juggled around the requirements of each individual actor and location.

    Compensation: None — this is for fun and a minuscule amount of fame.

    If I don’t hear much from the PortlandTransport crowd, I’ll expand this search to other venues.

    Thanks in advance,
    Bob Richardson
    bob@peak.org

  9. Regarding the costs of using a car, are you considering things like pollution clean-up (like the 40% of the Big Pipe project), “free” parking, oil defense and some road expansion (like Washington County’s MSTIP), as well as other policies like encouraging suburban development that discourage transit use?

    And using costs noted in this comment, the actual cost of someone taking up a single seat on transit for half an hour is about $1.27 for bus ($99.38/39 seats/2 half hours) and about $1.05 for MAX ($320.76/76*2 cars/2). So someone who pays a full fare and maybe transfers once (especially if one of those boardings are on MAX) pays much more than 20% of their fair cost. Unless, of course, you believe that the people who do ride should have to pay for the empty seats not used by the people that don’t ride.

  10. JK: That $86 only covers 20% of the actual cost. The rest is paid by other taxpayers – essentially welfare. Whoever pays it, it is still a cost — about $430/mo.

    Which does nothing to prove your argument that cars are cheaper for an individual, which is how people make choices about transportation (and pretty much everything else).

    $430 a month at the actual cost of an average car will get you about 1700 miles/ month, well above the average USA milage of about 1000 miles/mo.

    Except, again, this is meaningless to an individual.

    A more reasonable time spent on the bus would be 2 hours/day (unless you really like wasting time) Then your monthly milage would be 750 and the car’s cost about $0.31/pass-mi for a monthly cost of $234 – about ½ the actual cost of transit!!!

    I don’t spend anywhere near two hours a day on transit, JK. In fact, my own personal bus ride is roughly five minutes. The longest commute I had was from North Portland, when it was a 40 minute trip. Note that this is 40 productive minutes, when I can read, write, listen to music, etc.

    Has anyone considered giving every needy transit user a free car, with taxi fare for those unable to drive? Might save money and would certainly provide better service to the needy.

    Terrific. Let’s just add an automobile for every person currently riding the bus. Brilliant. If you love gridlock and even longer commutes. I’ll stick to the bus.

    Thanks,
    Jeff

  11. Jason McHuff Says: Regarding the costs of using a car, are you considering things like pollution clean-up
    JK: Transit pollutes too. Just look at the fuel consumption to get an idea how much exhaust is put out. Buses use more energy than cars per person mile transported, so they put out more pollution. Also more dangerous pollution because of being diesel.

    Same for the old lie about oil defense – buses use more oil per passenger-mile, so require more oil decence.

    Suburban development occurs because THAT IS WHERE MOST PEOPLE PREFER TO LIVE. Just because a small group of deluded “smart growth” followers think otherwise, does not alter the truth. (Virtually every foundation of smart growth is false: Density costs more, pollutes more, causes less personal interaction, and actually causes congestion. Transit costs more, uses more energy and is slower than driving. And Europeans DO NOT use transit for most motorized trips – 78% drive! Lie after lie from the “smart growth” promoters, yet people still repeat their garbage!)

    Thanks
    JK

  12. Jeff Terrific. Let’s just add an automobile for every person currently riding the bus. Brilliant. If you love gridlock and even longer commutes. I’ll stick to the bus.
    JK: The number of people riding transit is so small, there will be no noticeable effect on congestion, except into downtown where transit functions to export parking spaces. This is just another cost of high density that should be paid by the downtown users, not the rest of the area.

    Thanks
    JK

  13. Buses use more energy than cars per person mile transported

    Buses use more energy than your hypothetical cutoff for cars, not more energy than the actual fleet driven in the real world.

    (Bus riders who also own vehicles aren’t just owners of small, fuel-efficient vehicles. And bus riders without car, should they decide to stop riding and buy a car, are not guaranteed to buy only a small, fuel-efficient vehicle.)

    But you know that, because you’ve been told it a thousand times before.

    Same for the old lie about oil defense – buses use more oil per passenger-mile…

    …than your made-up scenario.

    By your statement you appear to implicity acknowledge that oil defense is, in fact, a subsidy for oil-consuming vehicles, yes?

    Suburban development occurs because THAT IS WHERE MOST PEOPLE PREFER TO LIVE.

    Terrific. Then remove the subsidies and incentives and codes and requirements which tilt the balance in favor of suburbia, and let the market choose, rather than taking a “they can live beyond Beaverton!” attitude toward new residents.

  14. The number of people riding transit is so small, there will be no noticeable effect on congestion,

    Nope… transit is busiest at the peaks, and even a minor increase in peak traffic can cause a lot of congestion.

    except into downtown where transit functions to export parking spaces.

    The ratio of TriMet’s daily boardings to Park & Ride spaces is something like 10:1 (forgive me if I don’t dig up the calculation this time).

    This is just another cost of high density that should be paid by the downtown users, not the rest of the area.

    Close-in (ie, most of the downtown users) service on TriMet is the least expensive to provide. It’s the lower-ridership, lower-density suburban service with the highest operating cost per boarding. Therefore, downtown users are in fact paying a greater share of their costs, not the “rest of the area”. A higher percentage of downtown employees use transit, again, therefore the downtown users are contributing a greater share of revenue from payroll taxes, not the “rest of the area”.

    This is not the first time we’ve gone over this.

    You frequently toss out “lies lies lies lies lies”, like a matter of habit. But in response I’ll be charitable and just say that you are not fast to incorporate updated/corrected information information into your rhetoric.

  15. It doesn’t sound like JK is likely to volunteer for your commercial, Bob.

    It’s really too bad… he has lots of video experience.

  16. I should clarify on the Park & Ride issue: I fully support reducing or removing the federal reqruirements for Park & Ride lots along new transit projects. I also support gradually converting the lots which exist into mixed-use, walkable developments.

  17. JK: Suburban development occurs because THAT IS WHERE MOST PEOPLE PREFER TO LIVE.

    Shouting doesn’t make it true, Mr Karlock. There seem to be a lot of urban areas that millions and millions of people chose to live in. Your continued assertion that “most” people want to live in big houses on big lots nowhere near their jobs is simply projection.

  18. Suburban development occurs because THAT IS WHERE MOST PEOPLE PREFER TO LIVE.

    Yet oddly, a most of my friends would kill to move to NW Portland but stay in Vancouver or Hillsboro because it’s a lot cheaper. Many settle for living near MAX even if they don’t commute with it, they consider it a valuable amenity. Most people I know who live far outside downtown do it because their job is in the suburbs, or the cost of living in a good neighborhood in the city is too high for them.

    Some do prefer the suburbs, typically parents. Those without kids generally don’t seem to want the yard to deal with, nor to be so isolated from places they want to go to.

    Most families I might believe, but single people and childless couples often don’t feel the need for a big yard, it’s just seen as the cheap option and they’ll happily bypass it instead.

  19. [Moderator: Italics tag corrected.]

    Dave H Says: Suburban development occurs because THAT IS WHERE MOST PEOPLE PREFER TO LIVE.

    Yet oddly, a most of my friends would kill to move to NW Portland but stay in Vancouver or Hillsboro because it’s a lot cheaper.
    JK: Thanks for verifying what I said. Cost IS part of one’s choice. Without considering cost, most people would prefer a Rolls-Royce too.

    You cannot ignore cost in any free choice, to do so is to ignore reality. And high cost is a characteristic of most high density areas. Some people even claim high cost is a measure of success (probably racists hoping to price out “undesirables”)

    Dave H Says: Most people I know who live far outside downtown do it because their job is in the suburbs, or the cost of living in a good neighborhood in the city is too high for them.
    JK: Again, thanks for verifying what I said. Job location is an important part of many people’s choice of where to live, as are quality of schools.

    Overwhelmingly, people choose to live in the burbs because of jobs, costs, schools etc. These are all factors in their free choice. Smart growthers are advocating removing that choice.

    Thanks
    JK

  20. JeffF Says: There seem to be a lot of urban areas that millions and millions of people chose to live in.
    JK: And millions MORE choose to live in suburbs because of lower costs, less pollution, lower crime and better schools.

    JeffF Says: Your continued assertion that “most” people want to live in big houses on big lots nowhere near their jobs is simply projection.
    JK: Quit misrepresenting my statements.

    Thanks
    JK

  21. JK wrote:

    Dave H Says: Suburban development occurs because THAT IS WHERE MOST PEOPLE PREFER TO LIVE.

    JK, I’ve asked you before to fix up your quoting style. You’ve attributed to Dave something which you wrote, just as you’ve previously attributed to me and others something that you wrote.

    In years past, I’ve gone through and cleaned up your messy attributions. Please do it differently from now on.

    Thanks.

    Gone over what?

    Deliberate obtuseness is not appreciated.

  22. Bob R. Says: Buses use more energy than cars per person mile transported

    Buses use more energy than your hypothetical cutoff for cars, not more energy than the actual fleet driven in the real world.
    JK: Sorry, Bob.

    TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 28–2009:
    Buses, transit……..4,315 BTU per passenger-mile
    Personal trucks…. 3,946 BTU per passenger-mile
    Cars………………….3,514 BTU per passenger-mile
    WOW, even “personal trucks” (SUVs) are now beating transit buses.

    Even TriMet’s 3,619 BTU per passenger-mile is beat by cars that get over 22 mpg (or 26 mpg if you insist on using 1.3 people per car.)

    Bob R. Says: But you know that, because you’ve been told it a thousand times before.
    JK: Yep, I have to keep reminding you of the real data.

    Bob R. Says: Same for the old lie about oil defense – buses use more oil per passenger-mile…
    JK: Buses consume more energy per passenger-mile, so they use more oil. Why is that is hard to understand?

    Bob R. Says: By your statement you appear to implicity acknowledge that oil defense is, in fact, a subsidy for oil-consuming vehicles, yes?
    JK: No, it is just showing the illogic of your side.

    Bob R. Says: Terrific. Then remove the subsidies and incentives and codes and requirements which tilt the balance in favor of suburbia, and let the market choose, rather than taking a “they can live beyond Beaverton!” attitude toward new residents.
    JK: Good idea. Start by removing Metro’s wall around the area which prevents people from living beyond Beaverton, instead of trying to force them into our over crowded neighborhoods.

    Thanks
    JK

  23. Bob R. Says:
    JK, I’ve asked you before to fix up your quoting style. You’ve attributed to Dave something which you wrote, just as you’ve previously attributed to me and others something that you wrote.
    JK: NO I DIDN’T. That is why i put it in italics. A common technique for quoting.

    Thanks
    JK

  24. Looks like it does, though the stylesheet behavior (indenting, with no other indication, such as a border), stinks in my opinion… everyone is a critic.

  25. buses use more oil per passenger-mile

    Are you talking about well-used buses, which is what you’d get if people had to pay for things I mentioned (“free” parking, pollution cleanup, etc), or are you including buses that run not because they are necessarily economically viable but as a social service for those who might have no other way to get around? Note that a bus can add other passengers without the rider having to do anything, and will probably still run if the person doesn’t ride, so the actual fair oil use is the extra amount it takes to carry the extra person, as well as stop while they get on and off.

    Density costs more

    How so, since it takes less driving and infrastructure to serve people when they are closer together?

    pollutes more

    How does density (a measurement) pollute? But how does it lead to more pollution when garbage & recycling trucks, mail vehicles, UPS/FedEx/etc vehicles, food delivery vehicles, transit vehicles, police vehicles, fire vehicles and infrastructure (cable, water, sewer, telephone, electricity, etc) maintenance vehicles all have to travel less to reach the same amount of people?

    actually causes congestion

    But what if the extra congestion doesn’t matter because you don’t have to drive as much or at all to get to destinations?

    better schools

    How much of that is because families can move to suburban districts without having to pay for new school capacity that their children need, draining the inner-city district of students in the process? That’s been the case here, with Beaverton, North Clackamas, etc districts not being able to build schools fast enough while Portland can’t keep its open.

  26. JK restates the same rehashed national statistics again, and then says:

    “Even TriMet’s 3,619 BTU per passenger-mile is beat by cars that get over 22 mpg (or 26 mpg if you insist on using 1.3 people per car.)”

    That’s precisely my point, JK. You’re using an imaginary cutoff of 22/26mpg. That’s not the fleet. If you’re going to make comparisons between TriMet’s _actual_ numbers, then compare them with our _actual_ vehicle fleet, not some hypothetical future fleet.

    Yes, I do insist on 1.3 people per car, because that’s the actual ODOT statistic.

    Yep, I have to keep reminding you of the real data.

    And you keep ignoring the real local data. Our investments in transit and planning are producing better results than the national averages, and for the thousandth time, your national averages are WRONG for this comparison, even if the BTUs were locally-relevant, because you don’t separate out rural trips.

    You’ve previously dismissed this as “nit picking”, but you’ve never, ever, updated your numbers.

    I wrote in response to an earlier remark by JK:

    By your statement you appear to implicity acknowledge that oil defense is, in fact, a subsidy for oil-consuming vehicles, yes?

    JK replied:

    No, it is just showing the illogic of your side.

    Too bad, because you’ve not only failed to show any actual “illogic”, but you’ve denied the reality of a massive subsidy to oil-consuming modes of transport.

  27. I wrote:

    JK, I’ve asked you before to fix up your quoting style. You’ve attributed to Dave something which you wrote, just as you’ve previously attributed to me and others something that you wrote.

    JK replied:

    NO I DIDN’T. That is why i put it in italics. A common technique for quoting.

    I’ve gone back and corrected the typo in your italics tag.

    But your quoting style is still confusing: By putting something _you_ said in italics, but putting it right after the words “Dave H said:” in bold, with no line break, and no indentation to separate it from the following text, it creates the false impression that you’re quoting Dave, when in fact you’re quoting yourself.

    You’re also signing all of your recent posts with an invalid URL.

  28. TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 28–2009

    Are you referring to this document, specifically Chapter 2? If so, there is a caution right above the table (on page 14) that says that “it is not possible
    to obtain truly comparable national energy intensities among modes”. It means that a well-used bus may in fact use much less energy than the figure given, while a car or truck with a single commuter in stop-and-go traffic might use much more.

    prevents people from living beyond Beaverton

    You mean they can’t live in Hillsboro? And if they want undeveloped land, there’s lots of it in Damascus. But the truth is that you need to fix the real problem (subsidies like new infrastructure and cheap driving given to suburbs) before you take away the workaround (the growth boundary).

  29. jimkarlock Says:

    JeffF Says: There seem to be a lot of urban areas that millions and millions of people chose to live in.

    JK: And millions MORE choose to live in suburbs because of lower costs, less pollution, lower crime and better schools

    Your assertion was that “most” people want to live in the suburbs, which is patently not true. If it was true, the suburbs would be bigger than the cities. People pay a lot of money to live in cities like Seattle, San Francisco and New York because they want to live there and because they are willing to pay more to do so. Because cities also have amenities by their very nature, and millions of people choose those over the virtues of the suburbs.

    Cities cost more because the demand is higher, JK. How do you reconcile this with your claim about “most people”?

    You yourself wrote: You cannot ignore cost in any free choice, to do so is to ignore reality. And high cost is a characteristic of most high density areas. Some people even claim high cost is a measure of success (probably racists hoping to price out “undesirables”)

    “High cost” is a characteristic of cities because people want to live there. If living in the suburbs was more desirably, housing there would be more expensive.

  30. Easy, Jeff–Jim blames the higher cost of urban living on nasty socialist planners.

    Of course, in many other parts of the world, where one doesn’t find nasty socialist urban planners (or massive subsidies of suburban lifestyle); one finds and even greater concentration of wealth in central city areas, with the poor generally living on the periphery.

  31. Bob R. Says:
    JK restates the same rehashed national statistics again, and then says:

    “Even TriMet’s 3,619 BTU per passenger-mile is beat by cars that get over 22 mpg (or 26 mpg if you insist on using 1.3 people per car.)”

    That’s precisely my point, JK. You’re using an imaginary cutoff of 22/26mpg. That’s not the fleet. If you’re going to make comparisons between TriMet’s _actual_ numbers, then compare them with our _actual_ vehicle fleet, not some hypothetical future fleet.
    JK: That is the MPG a car has to beat to beat the bus. Wasn’t that plain? (I even included your alleged 1.3 people per car. )

    Bob R. Says: Yes, I do insist on 1.3 people per car, because that’s the actual ODOT statistic.

    Yep, I have to keep reminding you of the real data.
    JK: What do you mean – I included your alleged 1.3 people per car?

    Bob R. Says: And you keep ignoring the real local data. Our investments in transit and planning are producing better results than the national averages,
    JK: Better, but still lousy compared to small cars (and not really much better than average cars.). If either cost or energy were really your goal, you would be pushing small cars instead of transit. And the push for transit and density is hurting people by increasing their cost of living and commute times. Moving people to transit just wastes money and energy compared to small cars.

    Bob R. Says: and for the thousandth time, your national averages are WRONG for this comparison,
    JK: Bob, are you going off the deep end? I gave Trimet numbers and included your 1.3 people per car. BTW, since you insist on local data, why don’t you give us local data for car average MPG?

    Bob R. Says: even if the BTUs were locally-relevant,
    JK: I gave Trimet BTUs – is that somehow not local?
    I used 1.3 people per car to keep you happy. Is that not local?

    Bob R. Says: because you don’t separate out rural trips.
    JK: We can separate out rural Trimet trips when Trimet stops rural service.

    Bob R. Says: You’ve previously dismissed this as “nit picking”, but you’ve never, ever, updated your numbers.
    JK: What are you complaining about now?

    BTW, you complained about having to fix my HTML italic code – what was the problem?

    Thanks
    JK

  32. That is the MPG a car has to beat to beat the bus. Wasn’t that plain?

    Now that you finally included those figures, yes.

    But your original blanket statement contained the same fallacy you always lead off with — that transit should be compared to “small cars”, not the actual real-world fleet — that somehow a person switching to (or from) transit is going to be in the “small car” category.

    Not all people drive “small cars”. No all transit riders can or will switch to “small cars”.

    It’s that simple.

    What do you mean – I included your alleged 1.3 people per car?

    You only included that figure late in the discussion, JK, after everyone grew exasperated with your rhetorical evasions. You started this whole thing with at 4:14am on the 11th, and didn’t post the local energy use and occupancy figures until many comments later, at 4:23pm on the 12th — 36 hours later.

    And you’re still doing it _right_ _now_ by saying “alleged”. I don’t “allege” it, JK, it’s an ODOT report, which you’ve been given in the past.

    What are you complaining about now?

    Your childish tactics, evasiveness, and obtuseness.

    BTW, you complained about having to fix my HTML italic code

    Yes I did.

    what was the problem?

    Looks like you substituted an “l” for an “i”.

    Also, I see from your style that you capitalize opening tags and put the closing ones in lower case. That’s actually completely fine and standard, but I’ve seen some filters (including the ones used by Movable Type installed here) reject upper-case tags if they don’t match with lower-case tags. I suggest all lower-case from now on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *