The Eddington Report


The “Stern Report”, a policy document providing advice to the British government on climate change has gotten a fair amount of notice in the press lately.

A very similar document published in January, the Eddington Report, has not drawn as much attention, but as it focuses on transportation policy, should be very interesting to readers of this blog. The report was jointly commissioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Transport in the UK (the U.S. equivalents would be the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Transportation).

I’ve only read the executive summary, but it’s still an impressive piece of research.

Sir Rod reaches the same conclusion that the “Cost of Congestion” study does, that transpotation is vital to the economy, and that investing in transport will be important. But he also reaches some conclusions that go in a different direction:

  • That transportation infrastructure is largely built out, so we’re looking at incremental improvements
  • That the first and most important thing to do is add pricing to the system, attaching prices both to congestion and carbon footprint
  • That many small projects are going to have more impact than a few large projects (note that scale is relative here – by “large” I think he means things like the Trans Texas Tollway)

Sit down and have a good read…


30 responses to “The Eddington Report”

  1. * That transportation infrastructure is largely built out, so we’re looking at incremental improvements
    JK: Except for the West Side Bypass. And other outer roads as we expand the living area to accommodate population increasers and people’s desire to live where they want, instead of where the planners want people to live. But Metro does need to start putting housing where the jobs are instead of in Damascus while the jobs are in Hillsboro. Shows the utter failure of planning, Portland style.

    * That the first and most important thing to do is add pricing to the system, attaching prices both to congestion and carbon footprint
    JK: Good idea – get all the low income people off of the roads, so I can have a faster commute. Those low income people don’t need that money to feed their kids anyway. Why do so many “progressive” schemes end up screwing the poor?

    * That many small projects are going to have more impact than a few large projects (note that scale is relative here – by “large” I think he means things like the Trans Texas Tollway)
    JK: Of course the 2 BILLION that we wasted on toy trains would have built about 65 lane-miles of double deck freeway, or up to 200 lane-miles of ordinary freeway. Had we done so we would have little or no congestion today.

    The cost of Westside MAX alone would have probably doubled the road capacity from Portland out to Hillsboro and we would have no congestion in that corridor now and for years into the future.

    This shows that the real problem is not so much lack of money, but lack of good judgment to choose things that work instead of grand pork barrel projects.

    Thanks
    JK

  2. JK –

    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.)

    The lowest-of-the-low estimates for replacing Seattle’s Alaskan-Way viaduct (arguably something between a double-decked and a triple-decked freeway) come in at $110,000,000 per lane-mile, and other estimates 50% higher than that!

    Your $2 billion dollars would build about 3 miles of 6-lane viaduct at those prices, while for the same money we constructed over 44 miles of light rail (soon to be 53 miles).

    The viaduct delivers about 110,000 vehicle trips per day at maximum (about 140,000 person-trips), while MAX routinely delivers about 100,000 boarding rides per day (for $2.4 billion vs. $2 billion).

    Doesn’t like like our money was “wasted” on “toy” trains at all.

    Incidentally, JK, you never answered my question about automobile cost-per-passenger mile: What do you drive? What are your costs?

    – Bob R.

  3. The UK uses greenbelts, which are far more restrictive than an UGB.

    And a very large percent (last time I heard it was around 40%) of “the poor” can’t even afford a car/don’t own one, so what’s it to them? I’m totally in favor of taxing people to help pay for more environmentally sound transportation systems that reduce the tailpipe emissions where people live, particularly in regards to benzene and particulate emissions – which are known to cause cancer, asthma, and other respiratory diseases – primarily among the poor, who disproportionately live near freeways.

    And yes, it is true that London has tons of ring-roads, but they have probably the 2nd best transit system in the world to Tokyo; perhaps tied with NYC (but doubtful).

  4. 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: 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,

    Bob R. Says: Your $2 billion dollars would build about 3 miles of 6-lane viaduct at those prices
    JK: No it would build 17 mile of 4 lane ELEVATED. But that would only be needed in a very few places. Most places, like US26 and I205 and I605 could be done for around 10 Mil per lane -mile. That would be about 200 more lane-miles for the cost the toy train. Taking your number of 44 miles of train track, using Trimet’s claim of MAX being equal to 1.2 lanes of traffic and discounting for the fact that 2/3 of the riders would be in buses, MAX is actually delivering about 10 lane-mile of congestion relief for our freeways. Costs about 10 times what roads do for equal capacity: Light rail still Costs too much and does too little.

    Bob R. Says: while for the same money we constructed over 44 miles of light rail (soon to be 53 miles).
    JK: 2 Billion / 44 miles = 45 MILLION pe mile. That is actually more than building an equal number of lane-miles of ELEVATED highway!!!! (if it really is 44 mile of double track, then that is still 2/3 of the way of building the same amount elevated lane-mile. See above.)

    Bob R. Says: Incidentally, JK, you never answered my question about automobile cost-per-passenger mile: What do you drive?
    JK: A classic car.

    Bob R. Says: What are your costs?
    JK: Haven’t figured them. Insurance is low, repairs are low since the car is easy to work on ($60 to replace an alternator last time). Gas is a bit high. (there is no inconsistency here as peak oil is clearly BS, as is the man-guilty part of global warming.)

    Thanks
    JK

  5. Bill Says: The UK uses greenbelts, which are far more restrictive than an UGB.
    JK: Which is actually causing longer commutes as people move beyond the belt and work within it. Just another example of the failure of social engineering by the planners.

    Bill Says: And a very large percent (last time I heard it was around 40%) of “the poor” can’t even afford a car/don’t own one, so what’s it to them?
    JK: How come 78.8% of person-kilometer travel in the EU is by private car? And about 16% is by transit? Transit market share dropped around 20% in the last 20 years while the private car’s share of passenger-kilos went up TO 78.8%.

    Bill Says: I’m totally in favor of taxing people to help pay for more environmentally sound transportation systems
    JK: Translation: tax the other guy because I don‘t like his choice of transportation mode.

    Bill Says: that reduce the tailpipe emissions where people live, particularly in regards to benzene and particulate emissions
    JK: Good ides to start making the bus company pay for its pollution. See: ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/big_rig_cleanup/rolling-smokestacks-cleaning-up-americas-trucks-and-buses.html

    Bill Says: which are known to cause cancer, asthma
    JK: The cause of asthma is unknown, but it does INCREASE as air pollution DECREASES, making air pollution an unlikely cause. Do you have a credible (ie: not asking for your money) source otherwise?

    Bill Says: And yes, it is true that London has tons of ring-roads, but they have probably the 2nd best transit system in the world to Tokyo; perhaps tied with NYC (but doubtful).
    JK: Got any real data on transit usage in England? How does it compare with the EU numbers above (rapid decline in transit usage, auto at 79% of person-kilos)?

    Thanks
    JK

  6. “Bob R. Says: Incidentally, JK, you never answered my question about automobile cost-per-passenger mile: What do you drive?
    JK: A classic car.

    Bob R. Says: What are your costs?
    JK: Haven’t figured them.”

    So you make 10 billion posts about how you are absolutely certain of an automobile’s cost per passenger mile, and then you say you’ve NEVER FIGURED THE COSTS ON YOUR OWN CAR?

    That’s a little weird coming from the self proclaimed expert on an automobile’s cost-per-passenger-mile.

  7. “Bill Says: which are known to cause cancer, asthma
    JK: The cause of asthma is unknown, but it does INCREASE as air pollution DECREASES, making air pollution an unlikely cause. Do you have a credible (ie: not asking for your money) source otherwise?”

    This is a classic example of how you mislead Jim. You are correct that the cause of asthma is unknown. However, you make the claim that asthma increases as air pollution decreases. Yet, once again, you mislead. Yes, cumulative air pollution has decreased in the United States as a whole. However, extensive peer reviewed studies have indisputabley proved a positve correlation between levels of air pollution (ozone) and rates of asthma. The fact that cumulative ozone levels have decreased in the U.S. is irrelevent (but great news!), what’s far more important is understanding and recognizing this positive correlation and taking action to reduce ozone pollution even more.

    Anyways, here’s a few sources for anyone who’s interested.

    Temporal and Spatial Relationship of Ozone and Asthma, http://www.utc.edu/Faculty/Gary-Litchford/Main/360/PPTs/Ozone and Asthma.pdf

    Primate research shows link between ozone pollution, asthma, http://www-dateline.ucdavis.edu/101300/DL_asthma.html

    Relationship between Summertime Ambient Ozone Levels and Emergency Department Visits for Asthma in Central New Jersey, http://www.ehponline.org/realfiles/members/1995/Suppl-2/weisel-full.html

    Effects of urban air pollutants on emergency visits for childhood asthma in Mexico City, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=7900722

    Ozone: a trigger for hospital pediatric asthma emergency room visits, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=10862161

  8. JK –

    It is indeed 44 miles of double-track (88 track miles). Being that you are such a persistent critic of light rail, I thought you would have known that detail about our existing system.

    MAX is extensively double-tracked throughout the system. (Some very small segments are triple-tracked such as Gateway TC and some very small segments are single-tracked, such as the Red Line tunnel under I-205 or the approach along Airport Way between 82nd Ave. and the terminal).

    – Bob R.

  9. Dan Callaway Says: So you make 10 billion posts about how you are absolutely certain of an automobile’s cost per passenger mile, and then you say you’ve NEVER FIGURED THE COSTS ON YOUR OWN CAR?

    That’s a little weird coming from the self proclaimed expert on an automobile’s cost-per-passenger-mile.
    JK: Not really, I am debunking mis-information about transit by pointing out that the average car costs less than transit. And if you care about energy usage, get a new small car (note that this is a different statement than the previous cost statement.) What is the problem with pointing out facts?

    My personal usage is not relevant.

    Thanks
    JK

  10. JK –

    What is relevant to the discussion is that your supposed cost per passenger-mile for autos doesn’t come close to Federal Government figures or those of large, reputable organizations.

    How are we supposed to discuss the relative costs/benefits of transit and autos if we can’t even agree on this simple, basic, well-tracked and well-publicized statistic?

    Why do you insist on hurting your own cause by using a figure calculated in a way that no mainstream organization does?

    – Bob R.

  11. I am in favor of taxing myself took, JK. I want a decent transit system in Portland.

    Lol, but c’mon, pollution doesn’t cause asthma? Ever heard of diesel particulate matter?

    Here’s anecdotal evidence: my friend has bad asthma. Everytime he visits Tokyo, BAM. He’s using his inhaler 4,5 times a day. Japan passed stringent rules mandating cleaner fuel and cleaner burning engines. He went back 2 years later to Tokyo, BAM. Air is many times cleaner, no more asthma.

    This is such a waste of time to argue with you when you’re that hard-headed on a basic issue such as ‘pollution is bad.’ I assume you don’t believe that glasswool & asbestos caused lung cancer, either?

    I’m not surprised that the EU auto share increased as they invested billions into their auto & freeway networks from the 50’s onwards. However, right now in Europe there are over 100 new rail networks under construction. Many cities are converting their central areas to be carfree (London decreased auto usage by their congestion zone). So in 20 years, the auto share will probably have decreased considerably.

    And nope, I don’t have any data on transit splits in London. Not even sure where to go get it; been pretty busy lately doing research on other stuff. However, I do know that the London Underground by itself has over 400 km of double-track metro line, and has 2.67 million passengers/day. In a metro area of 8 million.

    There are what, 12 major railway stations in the city??? Several of which are ‘international,’ and connect to France AND Belgium (soon to add service to Switzerland and the Netherlands). London’s a pretty bad example, however – it compares much closer to NYC.

  12. Bob R. Says: What is relevant to the discussion is that your supposed cost per passenger-mile for autos doesn’t come close to Federal Government figures or those of large, reputable organizations.
    JK: What is your problem? My figure is REAL DATA. Has real data somehow suspect because it disrupts some pet theories? I hope you noticed that the REAL DATA that I use is actually a little higher than the number you theorized for a new KIA?

    Bob R. Says: How are we supposed to discuss the relative costs/benefits of transit and autos if we can’t even agree on this simple, basic, well-tracked and well-publicized statistic?
    JK: Just start using real data.

    Bob R. Says: Why do you insist on hurting your own cause by using a figure calculated in a way that no mainstream organization does?
    JK: Why don’t you suggest some other real data that you prefer (not theoretical like the AAA uses?)

    Thanks
    JK

  13. What is your problem? My figure is REAL DATA.

    Your “real data” is based on your own calculations using summary values from two different studies from two different agencies, with no analysis of what might be missing.

    On top of that, the very documents you cite offer 2005 figures but you choose to use the 2001 figures.

    For example, you cite a “user-operated transportation” total of 818.3bn when the 2005 column in the very same table lists 988.2bn. That’s 20%+ difference right there! Further, these Bureau of Economic Analysis tables are not raw data, they are summaries of analysis. You don’t know (or don’t state) what has been lost in the translation, and yet you are using those conclusions in combination with other data as though you were dealing with raw data.

    But that’s not your biggest error: In your FHA statistics for person-miles-of travel, you are including travel by bus, truck, and all other vehicle types which are not necessarily included in the BEA user-operated-travel analysis.

    You quote a 2001 value of 4,432,327e6 person-miles-travelled from all modes! The table clearly has a column for “PASSENGER CARS AND OTHER 2- AXLE 4-TIRE VEHICLES”, but you chose to use “ALL MOTOR VEHICLES”. Even the “4-tire vehicles”

    If you use the 2005 figure from the “passenger cars and other…” column, the value is 4,507,133e6. Using your method of analysis (which I still maintain is beyond incorrect), the per-passenger-mile figure comes out about 20% higher.

    And here’s another thing: You lump together all travel miles whether they are urban or rural, even though the tables break them out. Transit is clearly a primarily urban service, and yet you are comparing combined urban/rural automobile usage to urban transit. (34% of VMT is rural.)

    So, no, JK, I don’t buy your “REAL DATA” conclusions.

    And you still haven’t named one new car which achieves your 18.5 cent “average”.

    – Bob R.

  14. Bob R. Says: [babble…babble…] So, no, JK, I don’t buy your “REAL DATA” conclusions.
    jk: Wow, 325 words and you still didn’t answer the key question:
    What real data would you suggest in place of the data I used?

    Bob R. Says: And you still haven’t named one new car which achieves your 18.5 cent “average”.
    jk: Yes I did – your KIA example. It is a 15.x cent number when you use the national average occupancy just like the 18.5 cent number.

    Thanks
    JK

  15. JK scribbled: “Wow, 325 words and you still didn’t answer the key question: What real data would you suggest in place of the data I used?”

    I already told you before, twice, in two different threads.

    The Bureau of Transportation Statistics has already compiled this information and provides a nice summary here.

    I’m also willing to accept AAA’s conclusions (as I’ve said before) or even the IRS’s. But not yours. For reasons I’ve already expressed in excruciating detail in the 325 words of “babble” which you appear to have chosen to completely ignore.

    JK said: Yes I did – your KIA example.

    I already figured real ODOT passenger occupancy figures into the total and arrived at a figure higher than your 18.5 cents.

    And the Kia is clearly NOT the average car. Get real. You claim 18.5 cents is an average (and the figures on your own web site don’t even back up that number.

    I’ll make it shorter than 325 words this time: You’re using the wrong years from the wrong columns of two incompatible tables.

    Not only are you misconstruing the available data, but your conclusion doesn’t pass the smell test — run the lifetime numbers for any mid-size car or a pickup or a small SUV. The BTS and AAA values hold up just fine, but yours don’t. Period.

    – Bob R.

  16. Bob R. Says: The Bureau of Transportation Statistics has already compiled this information and provides a nice summary here .[http://www.bts.dot.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2004/html/chapter_02/figure_06_02.html]
    JK: Once again you try to pawn off theoretical, instead of real, data. I hope that you noted the little hint: “Data are the cost per mile based on 15,000 miles per year.” Real world data is not based on some milage. It is NOT based on anything, it is simply a report of reality.

    Also note this: “, calculations based on USDOT, BTS, National Transportation Statistics 2003, table 3-14″
    I found table 3-14 which contins the following footnote:

    … The 2003 fuel costs are based on a fourth quarter average price of $1.461 per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline, weighted 20 percent full-serve and 80 percent self-serve. Insurance figures are based on personal use of vehicles driven less than 10 miles to or from work, with no young drivers. Normal depreciation costs are based on the vehicle’s trade-in value at the end of 4 years or 60,000 miles. American Automobile Association analysis covers vehicles equipped with standard and optional accessories including automatic transmission, air conditioning, power steering, power disc brakes, AM/FM stereo, driver- and passenger-side air bags, anti-lock brakes, cruise control, tilt steering wheel, tinted glass, emissions equipment, and rear-window defogger. http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2003/html/table_03_14.html

    Clearly this is theoretical data based on buying a new car every 4 years, not real data. Again: Do you have a preferred source of real data?

    Bob R. Says: I already figured real ODOT passenger occupancy figures into the total and arrived at a figure higher than your 18.5 cents.
    JK: Lets cut through a lot of BS here. You calculated a cost of driving a new KIA at 24.5 cents/vehicle mile. I calculated the cost of the UAS average cost at $0.294 cent per vehicle mile. What are you screaming about – you actually got a lower cost for the KIA than I have been using for the national average. I presume that a used KIA would be substantially less cost to operate.

    Bob R. Says:. . .and the figures on your own web site don’t even back up that number.
    JK: Please explain what “figures on your own web site don’t even back up that number” so that I can correct any errors.

    Bob R. Says: I’ll make it shorter than 325 words this time: You’re using the wrong years from the wrong columns of two incompatible tables.
    JK: What real error do you find – please be specific. What wrong column? How are the table incompatable?

    Bob R. Says: Not only are you misconstruing the available data, but your conclusion doesn’t pass the smell test — run the lifetime numbers for any mid-size car or a pickup or a small SUV.
    JK: Again not relevant. My numbers are for the real USA national average, not some “mid-size car or a pickup or a small SUV”

    Bob R. Says: The BTS and AAA values hold up just fine, but yours don’t. Period.
    JK: The only thing wrong with my numbers is that they tell the truth about transit’s ridiculous cost.

    Thanks
    JK

  17. JK,

    “Once again you try to pawn off theoretical, instead of real, data.”

    JK, you want to “cut through the BS?”

    It would help if you held yourself to the same standards you are trying to hold others do. Your own data is seriously flawed, you fail to respond to challenges to it in meaningful ways and you are constantly on the attack. To be honest, your posts are starting to read like spam instead of thoughtful comments. At the very least I would appreciate it if you would adjust your tone and answer the questions that are put to you.

  18. Hawthorne Says: Your own data is seriously flawed,
    JK: Please provide a list of flaws that I can correct. It would be helpful if you could refer to credible sources of real data, not theoretical calculations like Bob R. keeps suggesting.

    Thanks
    JK

  19. JK: Please provide a list of flaws that I can correct.

    You can start with your estimated cost per mile for autos…

  20. Hawthorne Says: You can start with your estimated cost per mile for autos…
    JK: What REAL, credible, not theoretical, data would you like me to use.

    (AAA, IRS and that link you provided earlier are all theoretical)

    Thanks
    JK

  21. JK,
    You are expert at the dodge. The fact is that I have called data into question regarding cost per mile for autos. You have put it out there in a factual manner and only pointed back to your own website for proof. Sorry, that does not cut it. The AAA contends that their data is real and credible. I find them more real and credible than you. If it’s not, please explain why and how it is different than your own.

    Thanks

  22. Hawthorne Says: You are expert at the dodge.
    JK: You are the one who is trying to pretend that REAL DATA ABOUT REAL AMERICANS are less credible than theoretical calculations that conflict with it.

    Hawthorne Says: You have put it out there in a factual manner and only pointed back to your own website for proof. Sorry, that does not cut it.
    JK: My web site is where you find the details of the calculations and links to the original, credible data. Why do you have a problem with being careful and thorough? See DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit.htm

    Hawthorne Says: The AAA contends that their data is real and credible.
    JK: No they don’t – they specify how they calculated their particular version of auto costs. They DO NOT claim that their data is the REAL actual national average cost. My DATA is the REAL COST and if you thought otherwise, I assume you would have mentioned that instead of endlessly trying to point in other directions.

    Why do you insist on using fabricated data (AAA, IRS etc.), instead of simply looking at what real Americans actually do? Perhaps it is because when you look at real data, mass transit looks awful?

    Aside to other readers: I have presented cost of driving data based on actual average USA data, Hawthorne is trying to claim that AAA calculated data based on buying a new car every 5 or so years is more credible than what Americans ACTUALLY DO. I disagree.

    Thanks
    JK

  23. JK,

    You again dodge the question. How is your data more reliable than the data of the AAA. I expect George Bush and right wingers to talk about REAL AMERICANS, not you.

    Again, how is your data better? In what ways? Why is the AAA data so bad?

  24. JK: Perhaps it is because when you look at real data, mass transit looks awful?

    JA: Are you suggesting that, of all organisations, the AAA would willingly use/provide data that make mass transit look good? I find that hard to swallow.

    Aside from an “other reader” to you: I’ve visited your website a few times and I can’t seem to find any contact information or credits. Since you place such importance on professionalism, I find it surprising that you do not have an “about” page for the site with information about who runs it, their credentials, or at the very least an e-mail address. Even the “studies” do not show authors. Very often you invite us to refute your website’s claims, but that’s difficult when we’re not given the means to do so.

  25. Hawthorne Says: You again dodge the question. How is your data more reliable than the data of the AAA.
    JK: Here is the infor on the AAA data:
    It incorporates standardized criteria designed to model the average AAA member’s use of a vehicle for personal transportation over five years and 75,000 miles of ownership.

    AAA data only applies if you:
    1. Have full-coverage insurance
    2. Are depreciating a new car over 5 years at 15,000 miles annually
    3. Buy new car every 5 years at 75,000 miles
    4. Pay 10% down on you loan @ 6%/5 yrs.
    5. buy an average of one of the following cars:
    • Small sedan — Chevrolet Cobalt, Ford Focus, Honda Civic, Nissan Sentra and Toyota Corolla.
    • Medium sedan — Chevrolet Impala, Ford Fusion, Honda Accord, Nissan Altima and Toyota Camry.
    • Large sedan — Buick Lucerne, Chrysler 300, Ford Five Hundred, Nissan Maxima and Toyota Avalon.
    Selected SUV models include Chevrolet TrailBlazer, Ford Explorer, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Nissan Pathfinder and Toyota 4Runner.
    Minivans include Chevrolet Uplander, Dodge Grand Caravan, Ford Freestar, Honda Odyssey and Toyota Sienna.

    (There are several numbers provided, depending on your car and usage, the number that I picked from their chart is the average of all and at their medium annual milage of 15,000 miles)

    So if you fit the above, use the AAA numbers.

    If you want the actual cost of the average American’s driving, use the real number that you get buy using national average Total Rural and Urban miles and national average User-operated transportation

    Again, I assume that you are unable to find errors in my work, so you are trying to change the subject from real data to calculated data for various special cases such as the AAA data tailored towards the typical AAA member, instead of the average American.

    Thanks
    JK

  26. James Aslaksen Says: JA: Are you suggesting that, of all organisations, the AAA would willingly use/provide data that make mass transit look good? I find that hard to swallow.
    JK: No, it appears that the AAA is trying to simulate the habits of their average member, which is different than the average American.

    James Aslaksen Says: Aside from an “other reader” to you: I’ve visited your website a few times and I can’t seem to find any contact information or credits. Since you place such importance on professionalism, I find it surprising that you do not have an “about” page for the site with information about who runs it, their credentials, or at the very least an e-mail address.
    JK: I should do that page.

    James Aslaksen Says: Even the “studies” do not show authors.
    JK: What studies? Everything links to a source document, typically trimet, newspapers or the government. Where simple math is required, that is shown – is that what you are calling a study?

    James Aslaksen Says: Very often you invite us to refute your website’s claims, but that’s difficult when we’re not given the means to do so.
    JK: What means to do so? Everything is linked back to its source and I assume you can read and do arithmetic – that is all that is required.

    Thanks
    JK

  27. By “studies” I was referring to the pages linked off your main page. I realize now that you don’t consider them to be real studies either; I used the term and put it in quotes because I lacked a better descriptor. Neither here nor there.

    As far as your apparent confusion over “the means to do so,” I was referring to the inability of a visitor to your website to contact you to discuss the content or, more important, to report errors. The purpose of publishing one’s work (including self-publication, in your case) is not just to disseminate information, but to put it up to scrutiny, so that others may learn from it but at the same time review it, build off it, or correct it, should it be in error.

    This is why real publications at minimum invite letters and why most professional ones give you the information necessary to contact the authors. Failure to do so suggests that criticism is unwelcome, the information will not stand up to scrutiny, or that the purpose is to proselytize, propagandize, and/or publicize. That is why, as you said, you “should do that page.”

    It is also in your best interest to tell your readers a bit about you. If there’s something in your background that lends your work some authority, tell your readers. Give them a reason to believe you. And if you’re not an authority but simply an interested individual, say as much (it’s far better than saying nothing). And, of course, in the interests of full disclosure, indicate any conflicts of interest.

    The point is: stand behind your work. Inviting discussion buried deep somewhere in the PortlandTransport.com comments archive is hardly doing so.

    “Thanks”
    JA

  28. Jim says:
    AAA data only applies if you:
    1. Have full-coverage insurance

    The reason they make that assumption is because people that don’t carry full coverage need to have a big pile of cash sitting around in case they wreck their car and need to buy a new one. Big piles of cash costs money: about the same as full coverage automobile insurance, (minus a profit margin, of about 8% if I’m remembering the numbers correctly. Insurance companies tend to invest their big piles of money better than I can too, so…)

    2. Are depreciating a new car over 5 years at 15,000 miles annually

    Yes, people that drive less miles/year pay more, so I’m not sure why you’d argue that point though.

    4. Pay 10% down on you loan @ 6%/5 yrs.

    As opposed to what? Pay cash? See my comment about big pies of money, and how that costs money.

    5. buy an average of one of the following cars:
    • Small sedan — Chevrolet Cobalt, Ford Focus, Honda Civic, Nissan Sentra and Toyota Corolla.
    • Medium sedan — Chevrolet Impala, Ford Fusion, Honda Accord, Nissan Altima and Toyota Camry.
    • Large sedan — Buick Lucerne, Chrysler 300, Ford Five Hundred, Nissan Maxima and Toyota Avalon.

    Most people drive one of those. And since most people drive those, how in the world are you claiming that the average is somehow radically different than the number they got?

  29. Most people drive one of those. And since most people drive those, how in the world are you claiming that the average is somehow radically different than the number they got?

    Simply because the REAL DATA shows that the REAL world is different.

    Perhaps because the average car on the road is older than 2 1/2 years. And perhaps people with older cars are less prone to get comprehensive coverage for a 10 year old car. And when you buy used instead of new, you automatically cut a big chunk off of the annual depreciation and finance charges which amount to 43% of AAA’s total.

    Once the car is paid off and you intend to wear it out (ignore depreciation), the AAA cost of 37 c becomes 21 c/mile for a small car which is pretty close to the national average. SURPRISE!! SURPRISE!!

    I suggest that you look up the average age of the USA fleet and compare that with the AAA average of 2 ½ years.

    Thanks
    JK

Leave a Reply to James Aslaksen Cancel reply

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