Courtesy of Richard “Creative Class” Florida, it’s official:
Metropolitan areas where hybrids are most popular
Rank Metropolitan Area Hybrids per 1000 Households*
- Portland, OR 11.19
- San Francisco, CA 8.76
- Monterey, CA 6.83
- Santa Barbara, CA 6.08
- Los Angeles 5.60
- Bend, OR 5.35
- Washington, DC 5.06
- San Diego 5.00
- Charlottesville, VA 4.87
- Eugene 4.64
- Seattle 4.26
- Honolulu 3.86
- Eureka 3.67
- Sacramento 3.66
- Denver 3.50
*2006 Registrations (December 2006 YTD)
72 responses to “Hybrid Heaven”
Well, that’s gratifying. The too many to count times I’ve argued the merits of hybrid technology over bio-diesel and hydrogen and other techno-fix gadgetry may have been convincing enough. Like I’ve said here, plug-in hybrids are a demand-side solution, and not because people demand them.
An LA article about plug-in hybrids was titled “The 500mpg Solution”. The only way to gain that fuel mileage is to drive less often, less far and rely on battery electricity for those infrequent and short trips. This sort of demand for travel influences development patterns that produce more destinations closer to home that are naturally accessable without having to drive. This is the plug-in hybrid’s most important advantage in its long list of likewise phenomenal advantages.
Auto-related industries will be dragged kicking and screaming into the future. If their sorry butts get a little scratched up, so be it.
Our 2006 yearly MPG average: 45.9mpg
Over 50% better MPG than our previous slower, smaller car. And we don’t drive like “grannies” (a common misconception about hybrids), and we don’t drive more than we used to.
That’s what I call demand-side improvement.
(See, it is possible for a transit supporter/user to enjoy cars too.)
– Bob R.
(See, it is possible for a transit supporter/user to enjoy cars too.)
As long as its in moderation, and especially if its for trips, such as going to remote places or maybe moving large items, where transit doesn’t make sense.
Overall, its nice to see that we have 3 of the top cities in Oregon. And its interesting that Bend is ahead of Eugene.
pretty cool, and it’s not even close.
i’d love to see what the rankings were if they only counted per households with cars.
A 45.9mpg average pales compared to a number like 500mpg. When a Prius-type hybrid adds a small to medium size bank of batteries, it converts into a Plug-in Hybrid that can drive at higher speeds and many miles on electricity alone. Thus an economic incentive to drive shorter distances is created. Urban/suburban growth can be directed, as it must, toward development patterns that bring home closer to all other activity, and accessibility with less need to drive.
45.9mpg? Is that the best we can do? Not hardly.
Wells –
I do think plug-in hybrids are the way to go for the long-term, but 45.9mpg is what I’m achieving today with a real, commercially-available car.
I actually think the future in a couple of decades (at least for middle-class 2-car households) will look more like this: A larger hybrid vehicle (such as an SUV or minivan) for family trips, hauling large items or groups, etc. SUVs stand to benefit a lot from hybrid systems, plug-in or otherwise. The 2nd car in the household will likely be all-electric for commutes and in-town trips. There would be little need to go plug-in (with the expense of a very large battery pack plus the internal combustion system) when a pure EV will do as a commuter car.
I do see plug-ins becoming popular for households that want to do it all with one vehicle and don’t need a truck/van/suv.
But 500mpg equivalent? I really don’t think that’s achievable in the real-world. Even the ultra-light pure-EV two seater Tesla (which is a sports car with a powerful motor) gets about 135mpg equivalent… take out the sporty features and limit it for maximum efficiency and you can probably double that to 270mpg equivalent – still stunning, but not 500mpg.
– Bob R.
But 500mpg equivalent? I really don’t think that’s achievable in the real-world.
JK: That popularly touted number is ignoring the electrical energy used to charge the battereis on house power. If you confine your driving to electric only, your milage is infinate by that measure. It IS NOT RELEVENT AS AN INDICATOR OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION.
It is very relevent in terms of foreign oil.
Thanks
JK
Also be careful about assuming that the cost of electricity is a lot less than gas in the operation of the car. All areas don’t have our low cost electricity.
Actually, JK, the cost of electricity for electric cars in all areas of the USA is less than that of gasoline for the equivalent distance travelled in the same size car.
However, the original cost of the car (currently) is much higher due to the expense of the batteries, so the cost-per-passenger-mile (here we go again?) is higher, depending on the life cycle of the car and/or batteries.
For example, Phoenix Motorcars’ new electric SUV/pickup (4 doors plus a mini truck-bed) claims a range of 100mi+ from a 35KWh battery pack. Now, most EVs do not use the full range of the battery to prolong battery life. The actual energy consumed per mile will likely be in the 200wh/mi range, or 5mi per KWh of charge.
The most expensive conventional residential electricity in the country (in the NE) peaks at about 17 cents (Oregon at 7 cents). So, NE energy prices would be 3.4 cents per mile while Oregon energy prices would be 1.4 cents per mile.
A similar vehicle running on gasoline at 30MPG with $2.50/gal gas would be 8.3 cents per mile, still more than double the most expensive electricity. (However, like I said, EVs cost much more up front. As more of these things hit the road we’ll get a better idea of true life cycle costs.)
– Bob R.
I’m with Bob R on the utility of our hybrid Honda. It gets 44 on my wife’s daily commute and about 50 on long freeway trips. We don’t shift by the little arrow either. We typically wind the little 1.3 litre engine out to 4000 rpms to merge and pass……
Jim K has a good point about the source of electricity in an area where the power is produced primarily by fossil fuels, but here in the Northwest, a plug in hybrid would be pulling hydro power during “off peak” load times, and that’s a win/win.
Now if we can get the replacement price of these battery arrays down from the current $3,200…..
Pat –
Honda 1.3L – would that be an Insight? I heard that Honda might be bringing those out again with significant MPG improvements.
What I’d really like to see is a direct competitor to the Prius — something with as much room and as good (or better) an MPG rating. It’s no fun anymore trying to spot Priuses like ours around town — now the game is to notice when there aren’t any. Just because the town loves hybrids doesn’t mean most of us have to drive the same model! :-)
(And before anyone says the hybrid market share is too small to allow for competition, note that Toyota sells more of its single Prius model in the USA than the entire model line from Audi USA, and about the same as the entire model line from Volvo USA.)
– Bob R.
Bob R. For example, Phoenix Motorcars’ new electric SUV/pickup (4 doors plus a mini truck-bed) claims a range of 100mi+ from a 35KWh battery pack. Now, most EVs do not use the full range of the battery to prolong battery life. The actual energy consumed per mile will likely be in the 200wh/mi range, or 5mi per KWh of charge.
JK: The energy per mile does not change when you use less than a full charge, so you should use 35kw-hr / 100 to get 350 wh/mile. Unless you have some valid justification for the 200 wh/mi.
Bob R. A similar vehicle running on gasoline at 30MPG with $2.50/gal gas would be 8.3 cents per mile, still more than double the most expensive electricity.
JK: Again you choose the wrong comparison. This is about the cost of electrically powering a hybrid vs gas powering the SAME hybrid, therefore you should use the gas milage of the hybrid. Using the abovementioned figure of 45.9mpg and $2.50/gal, you get 5.4 cents per mile.
Bob R. The most expensive conventional residential electricity in the country (in the NE) peaks at about 17 cents (Oregon at 7 cents). So, NE energy prices would be 3.4 cents per mile while Oregon energy prices would be 1.4 cents per mile.
JK: Using a more realistic 350 wh/mi you get: 0.350 kwh/mi x 17c/kwh = 5.9 c, slightly more than gas at $2.50. In Oregon it is 2.4 c, about half of the price of gas. Now apply charger efficiency of around 85% to get 2.82 and 6.94 c/mile. See why we need to run the numbers (and checking the numbers was my only claim)?
Thanks
JK
Bob-
Can you quote some figures/ a source on that? That’s a really interesting figure. You’re saying that more Priuses (Priuii?) were sold last year than Audis or Volvos?
Also, Jim makes a good point, I don’t think there’s a good way to calculate MPG for an all-electric car in the Pacific NW, where hydro is likely to be the source of the power.
Not unless you’re talking miles per gallon of Columbia River that pour through the turbines of Bonneville Dam…
JK –
No, the comparison to 30MPG is more accurate. The Phoenix SUV compares with other small SUVs, not directly with a mid-size sedan like the Prius.
For example, the Ford Escape Hybrid SUV (front-wheel drive version) has a revised 2008 EPA rating of 30MPG combined driving. That’s why I used 30MPG as a figure — it is the comparable vehicle size and usage class.
Regarding usage of battery, you cannot use the maximum theoretical storage of an EV battery to determine actual kWh consumed per mile. Modern EV batteries are seldom, if ever, completely discharged — it is bad for the battery.
Take a look at this publication from the Idaho National Laboratory Advanced Vehicle Testing facility. Note that even 10 years ago, GM’s EV1 2-seater sedan achieved 6 miles per kW.
Also about 10 years ago, the all-electric version of the Toyota RAV4 SUV was tested by the same lab at better than 4 miles/kWh in combined driving.
Thanks,
Bob R.
The problem with the current hybrid hype mentality is the reasoning that everybody should wear size 12 army boots and drive teeny-weeny little puddle jumpers. However, that narrow methodology does not fit the needs of a diverse population and a vibrant economy. On the extreme side, when the makers of these miniature marvels start adding fifth wheels on the rear so thy can pull semi-sized freight trailers, they might make uniform sense. In between the extreme and reality is that businesses and individuals need greater flexibility and capacity for the movement of people and goods than can be provided in a tiny hybrid. Pickups, vans, SUVs and other multi-use and larger capacity vehicles provide that need, and therefore should not be viewed as unnecessary. Furthermore, the government has no business dictating or assuming need in this matter; nor it is it the responsibility of government to determine what stipulates the term need when it comes to gauging motor vehicles.
Great news. Now I guess there’s a certain South Park episode that needs to be broadcast throughout Portland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smug_Alert!
Garlynn wrote: Can you quote some figures/ a source on that? That’s a really interesting figure. You’re saying that more Priuses (Priuii?) were sold last year than Audis or Volvos?
I believe the preferred form is “Prii”. :-)
2006 Toyota Prius Sales (USA): 106,971 units
2006 Audi Sales (USA): ~83,000 units
2006 Volvo Sales (USA): 116,067 units
Also, in the mid ’90’s, Volkswagen was down for the count with fewer than 50K US sales, but now they are over 200K.
And finally a snark: Toyota sells 30% more Prius units in the USA alone than the entire worldwide unit output of Hummer. :-)
– Bob R.
JK is not quite correct about the plug-in hybrid’s popularly touted 500mpg potential only referring to fuel consumption, any kind of fuel, foreign, domestic, petroleum, bio-fuel or otherwise directly measured from tankful to refill.
Yes, any fuel combustion, no matter where generated to create the household electricity used to recharge the plug-in hybrid’s batteries, indirectly decreases the car’s mileage. But, as I struggle to explain, the real problem is not how the cars are fueled, but how far and how much we need to drive for so many purposes.
The plug-in hybrid’s batteries are a perfect technological match with solar rooftop photovoltiac systems. That energy source generates electricity with the least CO2 emissions. But more important, they generate only enough electricity to allow any plug-in hybrid vehicle, large or small, to drive just enough miles electrically, to affect the land-use and development aspect, which is closer to the point of solving the real problem – we drive too much, and because of that, we can’t make walking and bicycling safe or practical, nor practically arrange mass transit, all means of travel that are most energy efficient and most important for structuring economies that require the least amount of travel and transport of essential goods.
The plug-in hybrid is complexity simplified.
Terry wrote: The problem with the current hybrid hype mentality is the reasoning that everybody should wear size 12 army boots and drive teeny-weeny little puddle jumpers.
Who here said anything about eliminating large sedans, pickups or SUVs? Even elsewhere, all the hybrid enthusiast web sites are abuzz with news about new hybrid drive systems being applied to larger vehicles, even long-haul trucks, school buses, and military transport vehicles.
You can buy several different hybrid SUV models today (although towing capacity is limited and fuel savings are not where they need to be yet), and the big automakers are _finally_ bringing out (next year) full-size hybrid SUVs with heavy-duty capacities.
Now, personally, I’m going to keep advocating that people make smarter choices when (and if) purchasing a vehicle, including not buying something too big for what they really need — but that’s just me expressing my opinion. The reason hybrids are popular is because you don’t have to change your vehicle class or driving habits to realize lower fuel consumption and pollution reduction.
As you like to say, Terry, people are “voting with their cars” and in this case their wallets, and Portlanders are choosing hybrids in ever-increasing numbers.
– Bob R.
Also, Terry, the Prius is no “teeny weeny puddle jumper” – it is a mid-size, almost as big inside as a Camry. The Prius has 5 inches more rear-seat legroom than the popular Corolla — a car which is often mistakenly compared directly to a Prius.
– Bob R.
Bob R. Says: Regarding usage of battery, you cannot use the maximum theoretical storage of an EV battery to determine actual kWh consumed per mile.
JK: If the car will go 100 mile on a fully charged 35kw-hr pack, then that is a claim that it uses 350 whr/mi PERIOD. NOTHING MORE NEEDS TO BE SAID.
Bob R. Says: Modern EV batteries are seldom, if ever, completely discharged — it is bad for the battery.
JK: How does that relate to this discussion?
The original claim was that the battery would carry you 100+ miles. Or are you somehow claiming that they really said the 35kw-hr battery will run for 120 miles but we think you should only run it 100 miles, so we are just saying 100 even though it will really go 120. Ridiculous! That is not how the real world works.
The reality of that specification is that the battery will take you 100+ miles, but you shouldn’t go more than 80, or so, to preserve the life of the battery.
As to your pulled from thin air numbers for the car under discussion, get some real data.
Thanks
JK
Wells Says: JK is not quite correct about ….
JK: If you are going to say that I am not quite correct, would you do me courtesy of saying what you believe is correct?
Wells Says: But, as I struggle to explain, the real problem is not how the cars are fueled, but how far and how much we need to drive for so many purposes.. . .which is closer to the point of solving the real problem – we drive too much, and because of that, we can’t make walking and bicycling safe or practical,
JK: Who the heck are you to tell us how we should live? Would you like George Bush to tell you how to live, say, starting with what church you MUST attend and who you cannot sleep with? Get off this crap of telling others how to live.
Wells Says: nor practically arrange mass transit, all means of travel that are most energy efficient
JK: You are 10-20 years out of date if you think mass transit saves energy. Today’s average cars are more efficient. Hybrids beat the pants off of transit for energy efficiency. Also transit costs at lest 3 times what driving costs. And light rail kills people at a far higher rate than cars.
Wells Says: and most important for structuring economies that require the least amount of travel and transport of essential goods.
JK: I hope you are not thinking of restructuring the economy to some utopian ideal. That has been tried several times in the last century resulting in hundreds of millions people dead. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, PolPot. I hope you are not as stupid as the planners that think they can restructure our society without massive harm to real people.
Thanks
JK
500mpg? I think it’s fair to say we are a long way from that. But clearly times are changing. The demand for personal and business travel is extremely strong and I believe there will always be an affordable, powered vehicle pool available (electrics, say) to the vast majority of the population. The vehicles may be much smaller and lighter (still safe) and use lots less energy to run than today’s gas engines. Technology and innovation will produce a solution if only out of necessity and the sheer demand to come up with an answer.
Bob’s comments goes right to the point:
“The reason hybrids are popular is because you don’t have to change your vehicle class or driving habits [emphasis mine] to realize lower fuel consumption and pollution reduction.”
JK, I will work toward improving modern urban and suburban settings. I believe transportation consists of many forms, and all are important. You may not agree that our liberty to travel has become severely restricted. You may accuse me of being draconian and a utopian idealist. I think you’re wrong.
[personally directed comment removed]
Hitler — Godwin’s Law — This thread is now done.
[personally directed comment removed]
JK shouted: “If the car will go 100 mile on a fully charged 35kw-hr pack, then that is a claim that it uses 350 whr/mi PERIOD. NOTHING MORE NEEDS TO BE SAID.”
Because when an EV manufacturer states the capacity of the battery pack in kWh, and separately states the estimated range of the vehicle, the are NOT (and have rarely ever) stating the energy consumption per mile of the vehicle. They are stating an estimated range for normal use, and normal use does NOT include full discharge of the complete capacity of the battery.
As for the rest of my “from thin air numbers”, they came from the government lab in charge of testing electric and hybrid vehicles, and I provided direct links.
– Bob R.
And here, JK, is a direct link to the Dept. of Energy study of the 1998 Toyota RAV4 EV showing an efficiency of 245 Wh/mile. (~4 miles per kWh)
That was state-of-the-art 9 years ago. These vehicles are still around today, you can even find them occasionally on eBay.
– Bob R.
And here, JK, is a direct link to the Dept. of Energy study of the 1998 Toyota RAV4 EV showing an efficiency of 245 Wh/mile. (~4 miles per kWh)
JK: Cool, do you have anything that is for the car under discussion so that we are using comparable data, which is so important to you in other threads.
Get back to me when you use both electric and gas consumption for the SAME hybrid vehicle. That is what the discussion is about – the cost of electricity vs gas for the SAME VEHICLE. Introducing mileage from a non- hybrid is NOT RELEVENT.
Thanks
JK
Jim said:
“The original claim was that the battery would carry you 100+ miles. Or are you somehow claiming that they really said the 35kw-hr battery will run for 120 miles but we think you should only run it 100 miles, so we are just saying 100 even though it will really go 120. Ridiculous! That is not how the real world works.”
That is how an electric cars work, yes. The 100 mile range is the recommended range, and you shouldn’t exceed that, (on a regular basis,) unless you happen to like to buy new batteries. But yes, it will do 120 miles on that charge… I now understand how your brain works, when you see two numbers that shouldn’t be divided, you divide them anyways, and then you get numbers that don’t actually make any sense, but you go ahead and post them on debunkingportland.com…
You should read about batteries though:
http://www.windsun.com/Batteries/Battery_FAQ.htm
In particular, the “Cycles vs Life” section. There is a trade-off, and assuming those cars came with a warranty, the car maker wouldn’t want to advertise a range that would cost them to have to replace the batteries within the warranty period, would they?
JK demands: Get back to me when you use both electric and gas consumption for the SAME hybrid vehicle.
I’m always happy to answer your demands, JK, you know that…
Here is an FAQ from E-Drive systems. E-Drive is a start-up company developing a plug-in modification for the Toyota Prius. They have delivered a couple of test vehicles to commercial fleets, but as of yet you cannot go out and buy one.
Here is a great quote from their FAQ which is relevant the flame you sent my way earlier:
You see, JK, it’s just like I said – EV systems do not use the entire full-discharge capacity of the battery.
The FAQ claims their system gives an EV range of 30 to 50 miles (sometimes as a “boost” to the gasoline system – a Prius generally runs on gasoline over 35mph, but it gets complicated.) Taking the low-range estimate of 30 miles, that’s an electric efficiency of 213 Wh/mile.
At the nation’s highest residential electric rate of 17 cents (2003 figures), the electricity to travel 45 miles would cost $1.63 (67 cents in Oregon).
The FAQ claims the gasoline MPG of the modified Prius is similar to a stock Prius, which makes sense because A) the modification only adds a net 80lbs to the weight of the car and B) the modification provides a greater capacity for energy from regenerative braking to be stored.
Now, please JK, get some rest – with all this shouting and demanding you must be getting tired.
Best wishes,
Bob R.
By the way, JK, E-Drive isn’t the only place with plug-in modded Prii — check out CalCars.org for a do-it-yourself approach.
People are also modding Ford Escape / Mercury Mariner Hybrids, which like the Prius use a “series-parallel” hybrid design that can operate in all-electric mode at low speeds.
– Bob R.
By the way, Bob, most electric cars DO not use lithium Ion, most use NiMH batteries. Lead acid and LI-Ion are well known for having problems at full discharge (although exaggerated a bit for lead-acid). I wasn’t aware of such a problem with NiMH.
As to your latest attempt a apple-apple comparison, why not give us the cost per mile of gas vs electric for Oregon and the higher rate so we can see.
Since you are such an authority on these cars, how do they ensure that each cell in the battery is charged to the same amount? How do they preserve this balance during discharge.
And can you briefly tell us how they turn the motor into a generator for braking?
Thanks
JK
By the way, Bob, most electric cars DO not use lithium Ion, most use NiMH batteries.
Where did I ever claim otherwise? In fact, the RAV4 EV I linked to is an NiMH-based vehicle. However, all the “action” is in Lithium Ion these days, and there may be licensing/patent restrictions which will prevent NiMH from being used in pure EVs for a very long time.
I wasn’t aware of such a problem with NiMH.
There are. That’s why the Prius babies its battery, never fully charging or discharging it, so that it will last the life of the car.
why not give us the cost per mile of gas vs electric for Oregon and the higher rate so we can see.
I just did basically that, above:
But, to break it down for you:
With gas at $2.50/gal, the cost per mile from gasoline in a 45mpg Prius is: 5.5 cents.
With electricity at 7 cents/kWh, the cost per mile from electricity in a modified Prius getting 213 Wh/mile is: 1.5 cents.
Since you are such an authority on these cars, how do they ensure that each cell in the battery is charged to the same amount?
The charge controller computer monitors banks of cells – I believe there are 36 banks in a stock Prius. If one bank goes bad it can be taken out of service automatically. Toyota has claimed (sorry, my old bookmark to this is a dead link now) that they’ve never had to completely replace a Prius battery due to wear-and-tear.
The plug-in modifications from various groups use different charging systems and battery configurations, but the principle of monitoring sub-sections of the battery remains the same.
And can you briefly tell us how they turn the motor into a generator for braking?
Yes, the electric motor in the Prius (there are actually two, but for the simplified explanation they function as one) is like most other electric motors: If you put electricity in, it spins. The opposite is also true: If you spin it, it puts electricity out.
Regenerative braking is natural and invisible to the user in a Prius – the brake pedal functions in part in software – most of the initial braking, all the way down to 6 or 7 miles per hour, is actually using the forward momentum of the car to turn the electric motor, outputting electricity into the battery. The friction brakes don’t really kick in until you are coming to a full stop. This is one of the reasons the Prius does so well for MPG in city driving.
The Prius also regenerates mildly when “coasting”, more-so when going down a hill. To a driver new to hybrids, the Prius will seem to slow down a bit more rapidly when coasting compared for example to a stick shift with the clutch pushed in.
FYI, when quoting the efficiency of electric vehicles, the typical amount of energy regained from regeneration is already included in the final average.
– Bob R.
Bob R. If you spin it, it puts electricity out.
JK: So they are using DC motors. That’s kinda suprising, most new pure electrics are using AC motors. (you can’t just spin an AC motor to get electricity out, you have to overdrive the phase rotation rate if it is the commonly used induction motor.)
Thanks
JK
JK concluded: So they are using DC motors
They are using AC synchronous motors.
From: This Toyota Japan document on the hybrid system:
– Bob R.
Wow. I guess I’ll have to watch my personally directed comments. I’ll just say that
[those were personally directed too – please talk about policy, not people.]
Uh…what about all these batteries and their impact on the environment?
JK’s personally directed comment about Wells: “Who the heck are ‘you’ to tell us how we should live? Get off this crap of telling others how to live.”
JK’s personally directed comment about Wells: “‘You’ are 10-20 years out of date if ‘you’ think mass transit saves energy.”
JK’s personally directed comment about Wells: I hope ‘you’ are not thinking of restructuring the economy to some utopian ideal. That has been tried several times in the last century resulting in hundreds of millions people dead. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, PolPot. I hope ‘you’ are not as “stupid as the planners” that think they can restructure our society without massive harm to real people.
Chris. If you’re going to delete my responses to JK’s personally directed comments toward me and others (“stupid planners”), then remove his posts as well. It’s obvious no one here understands the potential for plug-in hybrids. Why am I not surprised?
Frank. Automotive battery recycling has been a viable industry for decades with little impact on the environment compared to petroleum. When an automotive battery nears its useful life, they can further lengthen their usefulness in household power applications with the plug-in hybrid, further reinforcing their environmentally sound credentials. Recyling of such automotive/household batteries is likely to become an industry that will not be outsourced. Other local occupations related to battery power system maintenance will be created. Jobs jobs jobs. As if.
Wells: It’s obvious no one here understands the potential for plug-in hybrids. Why am I not surprised?
Wells, I know that one notorious individual is directing personal invective at you, but SOME people do understand the potential for plug-in hybrids. At least I do! Don’t despair.
Frank: Uh…what about all these batteries and their impact on the environment?
NiMH batteries (like in the Prius) are less harmful to the environment than conventional lead-acid batteries, and are not prone to leakage. Toyota offers a bounty ($200 IIRC) on every battery with their contact information imprinted directly on the battery pack — these batteries won’t be rotting away in junk yards.
Lithium Ion batteries are even better still — far less toxic — although time will tell if the problems with thermal runaway have been adequately addressed by carmakers. (Carmakers claim that the problems have been solved and that lab testing proves it, but we will soon know real-world results.)
From the Tesla Motors web site:
– Bob R.
Chris. If you’re going to delete my responses to JK’s personally directed comments toward me and others (“stupid planners”), then remove his posts as well.
Wells, my apologies. If I’m being selective in my editing, it’s because I’m actually reading yours while I’ve pretty much trained myself to skip over certain other folks.
The point is the EVERYBODY should be focusing on policy, not individuals, and particularly not other participants in the conversation.
Let’s keep it respectful!
Bob R said: “the Prius is no “teeny weeny puddle jumper” – it is a mid-size, almost as big inside as a Camry. The Prius has 5 inches more rear-seat legroom than the popular Corolla — a car which is often mistakenly compared directly to a Prius.
The Prius is in fact is considered a compact small car as is the Corolla. The Camry is considered a mid-sized, but of the smaller assortment.
As for the hybrid SUVs, they are of the smaller bobtail variety that have limited carrying capacity. SUV stands for sport utility vehicle. Many people buy them because they can double as a covered pickup and a multi-passenger carrying vehicle – hence the name Sports Utility Vehicle.
The point of my comment was that one size does not fit all. I too welcome efficiency as long as it does not compromise size and carrying capacity, does not reduce the performance of the vehicle, and does not cost an extra arm and leg in the up front price of the product.
These are some of the very same reasons I oppose mandating ethanol use; it compromises efficiency by reducing the fuel mileage (up to 15%) and often the performance of a vehicle, and when added to gasoline, the up front price is higher. Furthermore, efficiency wanes when it takes more energy to produce ethanol from corn than the end product provides.
On Friday, I wrote: the Prius is no “teeny weeny puddle jumper” – it is a mid-size, almost as big inside as a Camry.
Today, Terry responded with: The Prius is in fact is considered a compact small car as is the Corolla. The Camry is considered a mid-sized, but of the smaller assortment.
(Apparently this is the week where it is fashionable to start disputes over every little detail. Sigh.)
First, Terry, I never said the Camry wasn’t a mid-size. I don’t know why you found it necessary to “correct” me on that.
Now, for some details I have retrieved from Edmunds.com:
2006 Toyota Corolla
EPA Class: Compact Cars
Wheel Base: 102.4 in.
Front Leg Room: 41.3 in.
Rear Leg Room: 35.4 in.
Luggage Capacity: 13.5 cu. ft.
2006 Toyota Prius
EPA Class: Midsize Cars
Wheel Base: 106.3 in.
Front Leg Room: 41.9 in.
Rear Leg Room: 38.6 in.
Luggage Capacity: 16.1 cu. ft.
2006 Toyota Camry
EPA Class: Midsize Cars
Wheel Base: 107.1 in.
Front Leg Room: 41.6 in.
Rear Leg Room: 37.8 in.
Luggage Capacity: 16.7 cu. ft.
What are the differences?
For wheelbase, the 2006 Prius is 3.9 inches longer than a Corolla, but just .8 inches shorter than the 2006 Camry.
For rear set legroom, the Prius has 3.2 inches more than a Corolla (very important if you haul passengers often), and it even has .8″ more legroom than the Camry!
For luggage capacity, the 2006 Prius offers 2.6 more cubic feet than a Corolla, and just .6 cubic feet less than a Camry.
Now, like I said, the Prius is a mid-size car which is more akin to a Camry than a Corolla.
The only thing I was wrong about was earlier I said that the Prius had 5″ more rear-seat legroom than the Corolla. I was wrong — it only has 3.2″ more. It also has 3.8″ more total combined legroom.
Please, next time look up the EPA size class ratings… I do happen to know a thing or two about my very own car. Thanks.
– Bob R.
As for the hybrid SUVs, they are of the smaller bobtail variety that have limited carrying capacity. SUV stands for sport utility vehicle. Many people buy them because they can double as a covered pickup and a multi-passenger carrying vehicle – hence the name Sports Utility Vehicle.
Terry, perhaps you should reconsider your blanket dismissal – would you consider a Toyota Highlander a “smaller bobtail” with limited carrying capacity?
2006 Toyota Highlander Hybrid
Edmunds Type: Midsize SUV
Where Built: Japan
EPA Class: Sport Utility Vehicles
Length: 185.4 in.
Width: 71.9 in.
Height: 68.7 in.
Wheel Base: 106.9 in.
Ground Clearance: 7.3 in.
Curb Weight: 4245 lbs.
Gross Weight: 5675 lbs.
Maximum Cargo Capacity: 81 cu. ft.
Maximum Seating: 7
Acceleration (0-60 mph): 7.05 sec.
Horsepower: 268 hp
Torque: 212 ft-lbs.
Maximum Payload: 1430 lbs.
Maximum Towing Capacity: 3500 lbs.
Drive Type: AWD
Clearly it is not a full-size SUV, but I sure wouldn’t call it a “bobtail”.
Now, like I said on Friday, some Hybrids don’t get stellar fuel economy (this is because some hybrids are marketed on “performance” rather than solely on fuel economy), but the HiHy does OK with a 2006 EPA rating of 31mpg city / 27mpg highway (Adjusted 2008 rating of 27 city / 25 highway).
– Bob R.
CBS National News, over the weekend, did a small piece about hybrid sales falling. They specifically mention hybrids not qualifying for a rebate after a cap on a total number of hybrid sales being reached, particularly on the Toyota Prius. The only redeeming point they mention was hybrid good mileage. This sort of TV News sound bite does a disservice to the public. The invaluable benefits and advantages hybrid vehicles have over other vehicule technology far exceeds public need and expectations. CBS is probably answering to their automobile advertizers, all of whom are opposed to producing cars that are safer and last longer.
It’s obvious no one here understands the potential for plug-in hybrids. Why am I not surprised?
JK: Let me be clear about a few things:
1. The plug in hybrid has the promise to dramatically cut our petroleum consumption with favorable implications for foreign policy and balance of payments. I think it has the ability to cut fuel consumption by well over 50%,. That plus tar sands or coal gasification probably will ensure our transportation energy supply for many decades, if not centuries. The price will be the need for more electric power plants: new generation nuclear. (I have said this before on this blog, but apparently some have forgotten. Why am I not surprised?)
2. History shows that when the power of government tries to reshape society the result has been consistently deadly. Only the government has the power to kill on a massive scale (tens of millions of people).
3. Portland has a number of people who wish for a simpler life, but they don’t realize that others don’t share that view when they try to force their views on others. They also don’t realize that the life of the 1900s was much harsher than now – people died literally from cut fingers. A telling exercise it to look at the cause of death for the ultra rich from the era. One big movie star died of TB!
BTW:
Mass transit quit saving energy many years ago. It now uses more energy than the average car.
Mass transit also costs much more than owning and driving a car.
Since mass transit uses more energy, it also pollutes more.
Light rail is especially expensive.
the above claims are well documented at DebunkingPortland.com
(The proper comparison between a car and mass transit is a one seat car that goes about 20 mph with poor heating and no air conditioning. Such a car would be much cheaper than the average car, beating mass transit’s cost even more.)
Thanks
JK
Mass transit quit saving energy many years ago.
Not true.
It now uses more energy than the average car.
Buses in Portland achieve 35 passenger-miles per gallon. (Gallons of Diesel consumed divided by passenger miles served.)
For your statement to be true, the average private automobile (carrying 1.27 passengers on average, per ODOT data) would have to average 27.5 miles per gallon in short-trip urban driving (the trips which are comparable to transit).
Now, before you go there, I am willing to concede that the last generation of Diesel buses is dirtier in terms of pollution per passenger-mile than gasoline autos. Only recently has Diesel been reformulated to burn cleaner and improvements to pollution controls are now being phased in as mandates for large Diesel vehicles. In other words: Diesel is going to get a lot cleaner in the coming years.
In keeping with this topic, TriMet has been road-testing hybrid buses for some time now, and electrification of routes (such as MAX, streetcar, perhaps trolleybuses someday) reduces local air pollution and also reduces net overall pollution.
Mass transit also costs much more than owning and driving a car.
You’ve never shown this to be true for close-in urban trips. We’re comparing to transit here, remember?
(The proper comparison between a car and mass transit is a one seat car that goes about 20 mph with poor heating and no air conditioning.)
All (or very nearly all) TriMet transit vehicles have heating and air conditioning. The original MAX cars (still going strong after 20 years) were retrofitted with air conditioning 10 years ago.
You’re welcome,
Bob R.
Bob R. Says: Buses in Portland achieve 35 passenger-miles per gallon. (Gallons of Diesel consumed divided by passenger miles served.)
For your statement to be true, the average private automobile (carrying 1.27 passengers on average, per ODOT data) would have to average 27.5 miles per gallon in short-trip urban driving (the trips which are comparable to transit).
JK: Local data is your red-herring, I spoke of national data:
You will find that done in Table 2.10 of the National Transportation Data Book:
Transit Buses……4160 BTU per passenger-mile
Cars………………..3549 BTU per passenger-mile.
END OF ARGUMENT.
However, If you want to talk of Portland, then we can.
First, you forgot to adjust for the 11% higher energy content of diesel, so the average car would have to beat 27.5 / 1.11 = 24.78 mpg. It just so happens that the national new car average mpg is 30. See table 4-23 of National Transportation Statistics 2007. Average car for 2006 is not available yet, but is probably close to 25. So, even by your method, transit still doesn’t save energy.
But that is the average car, including big ones. If you care about reducing energy you will get a small, efficient car such as the KIA which is 3004 BTU per passenger-mile (at 1.3 passenegers), beating Trimet by 26%. So transit DOES NOT save energy – small cars still beat TriMet – save energy be getting a small car instead of taking the bus. (Of course this is not apples to apples, since no modern car, no matter how crappy is as cramped and inconvenient as that single transit seat you get to use. Can you get a single seat car that only goes 20 mph? If you could it would probably get 100mpg. Of course you don’t always get a seat on transit.)
Bob R. Says: (quoting JK) Mass transit also costs much more than owning and driving a car.
You’ve never shown this to be true for close-in urban trips. We’re comparing to transit here, remember?
JK: You are changing the subject agin. The subject is NOT “close-in urban trips” it is all transit in the real world, Portland or nationally, not some theoretical world. If you want to admit that transit works only for close in urban trips, and it has no place connecting Hillsboro – Beaverton – Gresham to Portland, or even most neighborhoods, we can agree. But that is not what transit is actually used for. It is being pushed as a replacement for the car – something that it can never do. Even in that planner’s paradise, Europe, transit only has a 16% market share. Even for downtown Portland workers it is only 37% (down from 45% in the last 4 years while drive alone went up to 48%)
Bob R. Says: (quoting JK) The proper comparison between a car and mass transit is a one seat car that goes about 20 mph with poor heating and no air conditioning.
All (or very nearly all) TriMet transit vehicles have heating and air conditioning. The original MAX cars (still going strong after 20 years) were retrofitted with air conditioning 10 years ago.
JK: Glad to hear that you no longer have to swelter (why did it take Trimet 10 years to AC MAX?). Get back to me when the kick out the drug dealers and get their average speed up.
Bob R. Says: Now, before you go there, I am willing to concede that the last generation of Diesel buses is dirtier in terms of pollution per passenger-mile than gasoline autos. Only recently has Diesel been reformulated to burn cleaner and improvements to pollution controls are now being phased in as mandates for large Diesel vehicles.
JK: Yeah. So much for all those “spare the air – take transit” days. A bunch of LIES. Also, why didn’t Trimet, the alleged good guys, improve their bus pollution without a Federal mandate? It certainly was possible to make a particle trap or filter if they really cared. But that is the company that can’t even figure out a guard to keep people from ending up under the front wheels of a MAX train.
Thanks
JK
JK wrote Local data is your red-herring, I spoke of national data:
Gee, I thought the name of the blog is Portland Transport. It strikes me as interesting that whenever local data from the Portland experience undermines your point, you go running to look for national averages.
You will find that done in Table 2.10 of the National Transportation Data Book: Transit Buses……4160 BTU per passenger-mile
Cars………………..3549 BTU per passenger-mile.
Did you mean the Transportation Energy Data Book? I am look at Table 2.10 right now.
You were clever to omit Personal Trucks from your comments (which includes many SUVs).
As I already brought up, the Portland-area vehicle occupancy (according to ODOT accident statistics) is 1.27. The table you quote for a national average uses a load factor of 1.57 and also includes both rural miles and urban miles.
Transit trips are overwhelmingly urban — yet here you are again comparing national averages which include rural miles to urban trips.
If you adjust the occupancy figures for Portland-area travel (1.27 vs 1.57), your figure of 3,549 BTUs for cars jumps to 4,387 BTUs — exceeding the national average consumption for transit buses.
You also conveniently left out the rail transit figures from the same table: 3,228 BTUs per passenger mile – significantly better than cars or buses.
END OF ARGUMENT.
Try shouting it even louder next time, it might help.
First, you forgot to adjust for the 11% higher energy content of diesel, so the average car would have to beat 27.5 / 1.11 = 24.78 mpg. It just so happens that the national new car average mpg is 30. See table 4-23 of National Transportation Statistics 2007.
I’m looking at the same table. In addition to new cars, it also quotes the efficiency of all cars on the road. The latest data is from 2004:
Passenger car: 22.4 mpg
Other 2-axle 4-tire vehicle: 16.2mpg (that’s pickups and SUVs)
Average car for 2006 is not available yet, but is probably close to 25. So, even by your method, transit still doesn’t save energy.
Let’s go back to your original statement, shall we? You said, quite definitively: Mass transit quit saving energy many years ago. It now uses more energy than the average car.
My methodology is clear and the facts still back me up after your adjustments and protestations: Your original statement is incorrect. You can make the results come very close by including the rural miles that you include and by including national averages and by excluding light trucks and SUVs, but nonetheless you have not proven your original statement.
Last time, I said to JK: You’ve never shown this to be true for close-in urban trips. We’re comparing to transit here, remember?
JK then replied: You are changing the subject agin. The subject is NOT “close-in urban trips” it is all transit in the real world, Portland or nationally, not some theoretical world.
No, JK, even nationally, most “transit” trips are urban, not rural. “Urban” in the sense of within a developed metropolitan area.
Your figures include all rural miles driven. Rural miles cost less per mile, get better gas mileage, put less wear-and-tear on a vehicle, and have higher passenger occupancies. Given a choice between two identical used cars at the same price, would you buy one with 75,000 city miles or 75,000 highway miles?
The tables you cite already take into account the urban nature of transit — long-haul buses and long-haul passenger rail are separate line items (“intercity”) – even commuter rail gets a separate category rather than as transit.
If you want to admit that transit works only for close in urban trips, and it has no place connecting Hillsboro – Beaverton – Gresham to Portland, or even most neighborhoods, we can agree.
Hillsboro is “close in” to Beaverton. Gresham to Gateway is close-in, and Gateway to Portland is close-in. PDX airport to Rose City Park is close-in. These are the kinds of trips that are served by transit. Just because MAX or a bus runs a long distance does not mean that it is primarily intended to serve a passenger riding the entire route. Transit is meant to serve a variety of trips along segments of a route.
The average trip length per originating ride on TriMet (including transfers) is 5.4 miles — about the distance between the centers of Tigard and Beaverton, for example.
But that is not what transit is actually used for. It is being pushed as a replacement for the car – something that it can never do.
Nobody anywhere in government or anyone I’ve met through my own advocacy has ever intended, pitched, or characterized transit as a replacement for automobile. It is an alternative mode of transportation, not a replacement.
Regarding pollution, JK adds: So much for all those “spare the air – take transit” days. A bunch of LIES.
Oh, come now JK, I expect better obfuscation from you. On Clean Air Action Days, if people who normally commute by car decide instead to use transit, that does not mean that a bunch more buses suddenly appear on the roads — those buses and trains are running anyway, every day, and when people switch from using a car to using a bus or train, net pollution decreases.
– Bob R.
JK also wrote: But that is the company that can’t even figure out a guard to keep people from ending up under the front wheels of a MAX train.
Well, JK, if that particular issue is so important to you, I think you’ll be quite pleased by the new streamlined design of the Siemens S70 LRVs coming here in 2009. These new trains will also offer more seats per 2-car train than the current MAX LRVs.
– Bob R.
“[transit] is being pushed as a replacement for the car”
wrong. it is being offered as an alternative option to the car, so not everyone has to drive everywhere, especially those who are not able.
Jim also ignored several other factors in table 2.10. The national average ridership per bus is 8.7. In Portland is 10.3. The national average for rail is 21.7, in Portland it is 44.8…
(I think it is interesting to note the “demand response” section too. Since we legally have to provide LIFT type service if we don’t have a bus system in the first place…)
Now, I freely admit that buses aren’t that great of a way to save energy. Certainly, if that was the only goal, we could just do what Cuba does and force carpools at gunpoint, and get about the same effect, but we aren’t Cuba, and I’d rather not be told what to do by people with guns…
Do any of these calculations include subsidies for things like “free” parking, pollution clean-up or oil defense?…
those buses and trains are running anyway, every day
…Or the fact that, thanks to those subsidies, transit vehicles are often at least somewhat empty and not as efficient as they could be?
Transit is never going to efficiently serve the farmer or rancher going into town or an urban dweller moving large items. For those trips, hybrids and other better technologies are a good thing. But for moving a lot of people from point A to point B, it is a very inefficient use of space and (OK, probably) pollution to put almost everyone in their own vehicle and provide parking spaces for all of those vehicles.
Bob R. You were clever to omit Personal Trucks from your comments (which includes many SUVs).
JK: That is because I am comparing cars, not trucks to mass transit. A more appropriate companion would be to the smallest one seat car available because that would more closely match the transit experience.
Bob R. The table you quote for a national average uses a load factor of 1.57 and also includes both rural miles ad urban miles.
JK: That is because it is national data.
Bob R. Let’s go back to your original statement, shall we? You said, quite definitively: Mass transit quit saving energy many years ago. It now uses more energy than the average car.
JK: That is a correct statement – mass transit uses more energy per passenger mile than cars. You keep trying to distort that reality. Including you introducing local bus data combined with national fleet milage, then you try to adjust the national fleet to Portland’s rider ship without adjusting the fleet itself – seemingly whatever will get the answer that you desire. You also try to introduce SUVs which clearly are not cars.
* The simple reality is that bus transit uses more energy than cars.
* Another reality is that Portland buses report better efficiency that NATIONAL car data, but are consume far more fuel per passenger mile than small cars such as the KIA at Portland’s average load.
* The best way to save energy is to switch to a small late model car, if that matters to you – many people rate safety or space for their passengers higher.
BTW: If you adjust the AAA cost of driving from their average 2.5 year old car to the national average of 9 years you get about the same cost as the national average that I have on DebunkingPortland.com. So the main problem with the AAA data is that they assume a car age typical of their members instead of the whole country.
BTW2: That Mecca of transit usage, Europe, has now fallen below 16% of people-kilometers going by transit. Private car is now up to 78%. Fat chance of bettering that in the USA. see DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/EuroTranistShareLoss.htm
Even in perfectly planned Portland, transit’s share of downtown worker commuting has fallen, while driving has increased over the last 4 years. see DebunkingPortland.com/Smart/VibrantDowntown.htm
Thanks
JK
JK continues to reiterate the same tired assertion, perhaps hoping that nobody will scroll up to see the very numbers that refute his point… That is a correct statement – mass transit uses more energy per passenger mile than cars
In the corridors that transit serves, compared to passenger cars, especially in the Portland metro area where transit has a higher occupancy average than the national average and cars have a lower occupancy than the national average, transit uses less energy per passenger mile than cars. Rail transit quite especially so.
You also try to introduce SUVs which clearly are not cars.
On this point we are in complete agreement. Unfortunately, much of the single-occupancy daily-commuting public thinks otherwise.
you try to adjust the national fleet to Portland’s rider ship without adjusting the fleet itself – seemingly whatever will get the answer that you desire.
You are the one who keeps using aggregate nationwide averages which include all rural miles driven, poorly-performing transit systems from other cities, etc., and yet your national data still doesn’t beat the Portland experience.
If you want to compare apples to apples, fine, I’ve been waiting for you to produce genuine local data which compares metro area transit to metro area auto trips. You never have, not ever.
In recent days, every substantive claim you’ve made here has been shown to be wrong, from the number of tracks that MAX runs on, to whether or not TriMet vehicles are air conditioned, to the performance of plug-in hybrids and EVs, to the type of electric motor used in hybrid cars. Even when referring to government publications, you routinely omit any data (such as rail transit energy usage) which is clearly and obviously contrary to your assertions. Given that track record, why should we believe any of your claims?
– Bob R.
Bob R.In recent days, every substantive claim you’ve made here has been shown to be wrong, from the number of tracks that MAX runs on,
JK: How does this relate to the fact that transit uses more energy than small cars?
Bob R. to whether or not TriMet vehicles are air conditioned,
JK: How does this relate to the fact that transit uses more energy than small cars?
Bob R. to the performance of plug-in hybrids and EVs,
JK: How does this relate to the fact that transit uses more energy than small cars?
Bob R.to the type of electric motor used in hybrid cars.
JK: How does this relate to the fact that transit uses more energy than small cars?
Bob R.Even when referring to government publications, you routinely omit any data (such as rail transit energy usage) which is clearly and obviously contrary to your assertions.
JK: How does this relate to the fact that transit, including rail, uses more energy than small cars?
Bob R.Given that track record, why should we believe any of your claims?
JK: How does this relate to the fact that transit uses more energy than small cars?
The fact is that you cannot refute my basic claim, so you have introduced countless red herrings and diversions for the basic truth:
Transit does not save energy. see DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/BusVsCarTEDB.htm
Thanks
JK
How does this relate to the fact that transit uses more energy than small cars?
Oh, now it’s small cars, is it? Where in your much-touted and sacrosanct national averages are small cars broken out from the rest of the pack?
Let’s go back, yet again, to your original claim, JK: “Mass transit quit saving energy many years ago. It now uses more energy than the average car.”
Look right there, JK, you said “average car”. There’s no getting around that. Since you can’t prove that claim, you keep backing off from it — by omitting rail from the definition of “transit”, by using national averages instead of data and experience from right here in Portland, and using average figures which include rural miles and rural occupancies for cars.
You call your web site Debunking Portland and yet when you get around to actual attempts at “debunking” you use national averages instead of the real numbers from Portland.
Oh, and since dozens of people (including me) have asked you this many times in multiple forums, and you continue to fail to respond, I’ll ask again: Does your activity here or on your web site receive backing or support from any organization or individual? Do you have any potential conflicts of interest?
– Bob R.
Notice how he says “average” until he has to back up his claim. Then it’s suddenly “small”.
Really Jim, if you want to compare transit to cars, you should compare it to limos and taxicabs, because with regular cars, you normally have to drive. I can’t read a book or sleep while driving, but I can do that on transit. For the trips when I’m not driving, I tend to be riding with a friend or family, and it is generally considered rude to pull out a book or fall asleep in those situations. (The exception being long[rural] trips, not the sort of trips that should be compared to urban transit systems anyways.)
Limos and taxicabs are not small cars, for instance most taxicabs are Crown Victorias, a car well know for getting awful gas mileage.
JK: I have revised a number of pages on DebunkingPortland.com. I would like to thank Bob R. for his suggestions (but not his straw men, red herrings and diversions)
Highlights:
debunkingportland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit(2005).htm
* Commuter rail projected to cost $1.70 per passenger-mile (over 6 times the cost of driving)
* Updated driving costs to 2005 data (transit still costs over 3 times driving)
* AAA driving cost or 52 cents per vehicle mile becomes 30 cents when adjusted for average car age.
debunkingportland.com/Transit/10LaneFreeway-2.htm
* Debunked: Rail carries more people than a ten lane freeway
debunkingportland.com/Polls/CongestionPolls.htm
* Unpublished Metro survey shows people want roads, not bikes/transit to solve 217 congestion
Thanks
JK
Alex-jon Says:
Notice how he says “average” until he has to back up his claim. Then it’s suddenly “small”.
JK: Also notice how the average car DOES beat mass transit for energy efficiency. In the special case of Portland transit is a bit more efficient (according to Trimet’s data) and cars have a lower average occupancy. When you adjust the average car to Portland’s average occupancy, it comes out a bit worse than Portland buses. see DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/BusVsCarTEDB.htm
However, this is not fair because we are still using the nation’s car fleet makeup, instead of Portland’s.
I have used the small car comparison many times. Typically by pointing out that small cars beat the pants off of transit for both cost and energy, so what is the point of transit? It probably would be cheaper to give free small cars to the needy and free DOOR TO DOOR taxi vouchers to those unable to drive and needy. Better service, lower cost, lower energy.
Thanks
JK
Bob R. Says: Let’s go back, yet again, to your original claim, JK: “Mass transit quit saving energy many years ago. It now uses more energy than the average car.”
Look right there, JK, you said “average car”. There’s no getting around that. Since you can’t prove that claim,
JK: Just look at the federal government supplied data – it’s as plain as day.
For links see DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/BusVsCarTEDB.htm
Bob R. Says: you keep backing off from it — by omitting rail from the definition of “transit”, by using national averages instead of data and experience from right here in Portland
JK: I can find no implication of Portland in the statement:
“Mass transit quit saving energy many years ago. It now uses more energy than the average car.”
Portland was your red herring introduced to divert attention from the real data.
Bob R. Says: Oh, and since dozens of people (including me) have asked you this many times in multiple forums, and you continue to fail to respond, I’ll ask again: Does your activity here or on your web site receive backing or support from any organization or individual? Do you have any potential conflicts of interest?
JK: I seem to have missed your disclosure of your real name.
Thanks
JK
I asked JK for the nth time: Oh, and since dozens of people (including me) have asked you this many times in multiple forums, and you continue to fail to respond, I’ll ask again: Does your activity here or on your web site receive backing or support from any organization or individual? Do you have any potential conflicts of interest?
JK demonstrates memory loss: I seem to have missed your disclosure of your real name.
JK – you know my real name. I’ve posted with it here often. I’ve communicated with you via private email and we’ve exchanged documents.
A few days before the above repetition of the question about your support, I had asked and did include my full name. I also included disclaimers and statements about my own interests, in case you’re going to ask me that yet again.
I’ve seen many people on other sites ask you the same question with their real name.
Here’s my name, again, for the record: Bob Richardson
So, care to answer the question, at last?
You’re welcome,
Bob R.
bobrichardson.com
Didn’t work very well with my firefox.
Thanks
JK
For those who may not understand the importance of disclosure:
In every single industry on this planet, when there is research involved that is done in an ethical manner (and I do emphasize ethics), it is expected practice for an individual presenting conclusions on a topic based on personal research to reveal any financial disclosures or potential conflicts of interest that they may have.
Anyone can present information on any topic they would like. However, if they refuse to disclose any potential conflicts of interests or release a financial disclosure, than that individual is not a credible source of information. It’s as simple as that. If one refuses disclosure, they are still free to say whatever they would like. But as far as relevency or credibility goes regarding accuracy of the data? There absolutely none whatsover.
Slight correction:
“If one refuses disclosure, they are still free to say whatever they would like. But as far as relevency or credibility goes regarding the LEGITIMACY OF THEIR CONCLUSIONS? There is absolutely none whatsover.”
So, JK, are you going to answer the question?
– Bob Richardson
Jim K said:
“bobrichardson.com
Didn’t work very well with my firefox.”
It worked fine in mine. Not that it was that interesting, it is just another personal website. He has his resume up, (he writes software,) a few of the links are broken, (they probably worked when he first wrote the pages, but you know, 4 years later, the other sites have changed on him,) and I bet he gets a lot of spam with his e-mail address published like that, he should wrap it in a layer of javascript…
However, what is your point? Is it kind of like speculating about if hybrid motors are AC or DC, are you just wanting to waste time and not answer the question?
Thanks Matthew… I should update that site, it’s more of a “cobweb” site than a web site these days. :-)
For a look at something more recent using my software, check out:
http://www.hawthornestreetcar.org/
http://www.rcpna.org/
Now, JK, how about answering the question?
Thanks,
Bob Richardson
Bob R. Says: Show me a recent US-built double-deck freeway project that pencils out to 65 lane miles for $2 billion. (Just over $30 million per lane-mile.)
JK: According to Bob Poole, one was actually built at that cost – it is a new method that keeps the cost low. It was talked about at the Atlanta American Dream conference. I’ll get you the reference when I go through the videos to make one hour TV programs out of them,
—————-
Here it is:
It is in the presentation by Bob Poole which starts 21 min into this weeks program, titled “reducing Congestion”. He talks costs at 30 min into the program. The specific reference to 30 mil per lane mile is the actual cost of an elevated freeway in Tampa built from precast sections hauled into place. BTW I misheard the number: he actually said $13 million per lane mile. Also note a proposal to double deck an existing freeway with auto only lanes that are not tall enough for trucks or buses to almost double the throughput by not catering to buses and trucks. He also mentioned a French tunnel, under construction, that uses the this type of double deck for cars only.
Preserving the American Dream plays on Comcast cable at:
Sun….10:00pm…ch 11
Mon… 7:00 pm…ch 22
Fri…… 5:00 pm…ch 23
Thanks
JK
JK –
Are you referring to the elevated portion of the Tampa Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway? The one that had a section collapse during construction?
The six-mile elevated portion (consisting of three reversible lanes) cost $420 million to build when all was said and done, working out to $23 million per lane mile, so you are correct that it cost less than $30 mil per lane mile to build, although it is only 18 lane miles, not 65 lane miles a you were asked to prove.
However, most of the construction was not in dense urban areas, so comparing costs to say double-decking I-5 would be problematic.
I note that the current round trip toll is $3 (cash) for the full length of the expressway. Are Portlanders ready for a double-decked I-5 with a $3+ toll? If you think so, I suggest you get a lobbying campaign together and push for your cause.
Along those lines, are you yet ready to answer the question: Does your activity here or on your web site receive backing or support from any organization or individual? Do you have any potential conflicts of interest?
You’re welcome,
Bob Richardson
I found an article on the recent early toll increases on the Tampa expressway.
What struck me as interesting was the overwhelming negative tone in the comments written by Tampa-area residents. If you didn’t know this was an expressway, you’d swear the comments were the exact same kind that get levelled against light rail projects. :-)
Some examples:
and
and
While skimming a number of articles on the expressway, it seems (although I cannot verify this at this time) that part of the problem with perceptions among locals is that the tolls apply to both the old expressway and the new elevated reversible lanes, so even if you aren’t using the elevated express lanes you do pay some measure of toll, and locals believe that their tolls are being used to subsidize and justify the new elevated portion even if they don’t use it themselves.
Also noteworthy: The $420 million reversible lanes carried 2,000 cars on opening day. I could not find a single article quoting more recent usage, but several articles mention that the predicted usage was to be 6,000 cars by September, 2006.
None of these articles mentioned the average vehicle occupancy for the reversible lane commuters, but even using the national average that JK likes to quote of 1.57 persons per vehicle, this $420 million expressway carries fewer person-trips per day than Interstate MAX, and is closer in ridership to the Portland Streetcar.
– Bob R.