Editor’s Note: The following was originally posted to the Oregon Transportation Reform Activists Network (OTRAN) email list (you can subscribe here).
Executive Summary
In order to actually meet targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Oregon must do the math to determine that proposed steps will be sufficient. I offer the “Basic Equation of Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions” as a tool for examining the interplay of the five major factors: overall reduction target, share attributable to the transportation sector, population growth, changes in technology, and changes in travel behavior. Under reasonable assumptions, I find that in order to meet the targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, statewide vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per person will need to be reduced 18% by the year 2020, 33% by the year 2035 and 62% by the year 2050. Note that the first two benchmarks are within the planning horizons of regional transportation plans (RTPs) for Oregon’s six metropolitan areas, none of which are planning for anywhere near these kinds of reductions. A future post will discuss what making such needed reductions in VMT would actually mean for Oregon’s transportation system.
Warning: Math at the sixth grade level ahead!
Dear OTRAN friends,
Last December in “Framework Part 1: The New Direction for Oregon” (12/5/07), I proposed:
The New Direction for Oregon: All proposed, laws, rules, plans, policies and other actions must be judged in terms of how effectively they keep Oregon on track reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Proposed efforts taking us in the wrong direction must be rejected. Efforts that don’t go far enough must be strengthened to keep us on track. Every year and at every level, Oregon must assess how well it is doing compared to the House Bill 3543 targets, and make adjustments as necessary.
More recently in “Gov. Kulongoski re transportation and climate change: Part 2—glass half empty or half full?” (4/17/08), I challenged Governor Kulongoski and other state leaders to “show us the numbers that explain in detail how Oregon can move from business-as-usual to where we need to go.”
But it is easy to challenge others, and even easier to set ambitious goals. Instead, we need to roll up our sleeves, take out our slide rules,1 and begin the critical work of re-engineering the Oregon’s future to meet Oregon’s ambitious, but essential, targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in particular, from the transportation sector.2
Basic Equation of Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The starting point for re-engineering Oregon’s future is what I term the “Basic Equation of Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions”:
(Total Emissions) × (Transportation Sector) = (Population) × (Technology) × (Behavior)
Before I explain in detail each factor in this equation, which involves only simple multiplication, I’ll point out that there are many solutions to this equation—and even more non-solutions. This equation does not dictate a single future, but merely reflects the fact that numbers don’t lie. For example, we can’t propose taking baby steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and expect these will add up to meeting the ambitious House Bill 3543 (2007) reduction targets.
I’ll also note that the equation involves five factors, each measured relative to today’s values. The factors will assume different values at different points in time, for example, today, the year 2020, the year 2035 or the year 2050.
In particular, one trivial solution to the equation is where we are today with all the factors equal to 1:
1 × 1 = 1 × 1 × 1 (year 2008)
As we look to re-engineer the future, we can adjust each of these five factors—think of turning each of five knobs up or down—subject to the constraint that the equation remain true.
Let’s look at each factor in detail…
Total Emissions
The Total Emissions factor in the Basic Equation represents the total annual emissions from all sectors relative to today’s emissions.
Today in 2008, Oregon’s total greenhouse gas emissions are roughly 70 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2E) per year. In 1990, the figure was 55.5 MMTCO2E per year.3
For purposes of illustration, I am going use the year 2035 as a medium-term point in the future, far enough away to begin seeing real changes but not so far away that there is too much uncertainty. In particular, the Metro Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) currently under development goes out to the year 2035.4 The RTPs for other metro areas will also need to plan out to roughly that year. Thus the year 2035 is within the timeframe of current transportation planning processes.
Oregon’s greenhouse gas reduction targets set in House Bill 3543 (2007) call for reducing emissions by the year 2020 to roughly 50 MMTCO2E per year (= 10% below the 1990 level) and by the year 2050 to roughly 13.9 MMTCO2E per year (= 75% below the 1990 level).5
As the year 2035 is halfway between 2020 and 2050, if we are to stay on target, Oregon’s total greenhouse gas emissions in 2035 should be halfway between the 2020 and 2050 targets, i.e., roughly 32 MMTCO2E per year.
Recalling that today’s emissions are roughly 70 MMTCO2E per year, the Total Emissions factor for the year 2035 is (rounded to two decimal places):
(Total Emissions) = (32 MMTCO2E) / (70 MMTCO2E) = 0.46 (year 2035)
In plain English, Oregon needs to cut total greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2035 to just 46% of today’s level in order to stay on track.
Transportation Sector
The Transportation Sector factor in the Basic Equation represents the fraction of the total annual emissions attributable to the transportation sector relative to the fraction today.
According to the Governor’s Climate Change Integration Group (CCIG), the transportation sector accounted for 36% of Oregon’s total greenhouse gas emissions in 1990 and 34% in 2004.6
In theory, one could imagine a future in which the transportation sector accounted for anywhere between 0% and 100% of total emissions.
In practice, as Oregon looks to meet its targets, there will be some political negotiation around how much each sector must do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If one sector does less, other sectors will have to do more.
A reasonable policy decision is to plan for each sector to continue to account for the same fraction of emissions as it does today, in particular, that the transportation sector continue to account for 34% of all emissions. Under this policy decision, the Transportation Sector factor for the year 2035 is:
(Transportation Sector) = (34%) / (34%) = 1.00 (year 2035)
But an argument can be made that other sectors, in particular, residential, commercial and industrial uses, should be required to reduce emissions relatively more than the transportation sector: It is more practical to have low- or zero-carbon sources of energy for uses at fixed locations connected by a network of electrical power lines than for millions of personal motor vehicles traveling all over the place. In this case, the Transportation Sector factor would actually be larger than 1, reflecting that the sector’s share of emissions is increasing. We will return to this policy option below.
Population
The Population factor in the Basic Equation represents the population relative to today’s population.
Today in 2008, the population of Oregon is roughly 3.75 million people.7 By the year 2035, the population is projected to grow to roughly 5.15 million people.8
At least for the purposes of this discussion, we don’t have much control over population and it is just a fact of life. Thus the Population factor for the year 2035 is (rounded to two decimal places):
(Population) = (5.15 million) / (3.75 million) = 1.37 (year 2035)
In plain English, by the year 2035 the population is projected to grow to 137% of its current level.
Technology
The Technology factor in the Basic Equation represents the effect of technological changes on greenhouse gas emissions relative to technology today.
This factor subsumes all factors affecting the greenhouse gas emissions per vehicle mile traveled: vehicle fuel efficiency, fuel cleanliness and/or carbon content, transportation system changes to increase the experienced fuel efficiency of travel, etc.
Indeed, this factor subsumes three of the four specific ideas Governor Kulongoski highlighted in his recent speech to the Oregon Environmental Council Forum for Business and the Environment:
* low carbon fuels;
* vehicle technology improvement, including the shift to plug-in and electric cars; and
* improving transportation system efficiency.
Now it is notoriously difficult to predict where technology will be, say, 25+ years in the future. One can optimistically assume that technology will save us, even if that technology isn’t widely available and affordable today. Or one can pessimistically assume that there will be no improvement in technology, at least until it is actually commonplace.
Today, the fleet average fuel efficiency for cars and light trucks sold in the United States is just 25 miles per gallon (mpg). The Bush administration recently proposed rules that would mandate this figure rise to 35 mpg by the year 2020, a 40% increase.9 (Of course, just because the federal government proposes something doesn’t necessarily make it so.)
In comparison, a Toyota Prius, the best-selling hybrid in America, gets an estimated 51 mpg, even in the city.10 But currently all hybrids make up only 2.2% of the U.S. auto market, barely a drop in the bucket.11 Even once improved technology is available, it can take years or even decades for it to be widely adopted.
In trying to gaze into and re-engineer the future, I suggest a middle approach. In particular, I suggest taking the proposed new federal fuel efficiency rules for 2020 at face value. But I also suggest that this 40% increase in fuel efficiency be assigned to the year 2035, as it does take years for people to replace older cars with new.
Now increasing fuel efficiency by 40% translates to reducing fuel consumption, hence emissions, all other factors being equal, by 29%.12
In addition, I generously suggest that all other technological improvements, including further improvements in fuel efficiencies beyond the proposed 2020 targets, the increased use of hybrids and fully electric vehicles, non-carbon fuels and cleaner carbon fuels, and transportation system changes that result in greater operational efficiencies, account for an additional 21% decrease in emissions.
In plain English, I suggest that as a result of all technological changes, vehicle emissions in 2035 can be cut to just half of what they are today, mile for mile:
(Technology) = 0.50 (year 2035)
Behavior
Last but not least, the Behavior factor in the Basic Equation represents the effect of behavior changes on greenhouse gas emissions relative to behavior today.
The Behavior factor subsumes factors related to how much people choose travel, as measured in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per person. Thus it incorporates the effects of trip lengths, frequency, carpooling, mode splits, and so on.
Indeed, this factor subsumes the fourth specific idea Governor Kulongoski highlighted in his recent speech to the Oregon Environmental Council Forum for Business and the Environment:
* reducing the vehicle miles traveled.
We could argue about what sorts of changes in behavior are likely or desirable. But the magic of numbers not lying, i.e., of the Basic Equation of Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions, is that any four factors determine the fifth.
In particular, given our settings for the other four factors, it is necessary that:
(Behavior) = 0.67 (year 2035)
If this is the case, then the Basic Equation holds true:
(0.46) × (1) = (1.37) × (0.5) × (0.67) (year 2035)
In plain English, by the year 2035 each person needs to travel, on average, just two-thirds as much as they do today.
Put another way, VMT per person needs to decrease on average by 33% by the year 2035.
I recall that years ago the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule called for metropolitan areas to reduce VMT per person by 5%, 10% or even 20% over a period of decades. But such targets were amended by the Land Conservation and Development Commission, under pressure from the metropolitan areas, to require only more achievable steps towards reducing VMT.13
For example, the recently adopted regional transportation plan (RTP) for the Eugene-Springfield-Coburg metropolitan area plans for a slight increase in VMT per person between now and the year 2031.14
Thus the idea of reducing VMT per person by 33% by the year 2035, given recent history, is farfetched to say the least.
But the numbers don’t lie and a 33% reduction by the year 2035 is exactly what will be required, assuming the other four factors are as specified.
Other Scenarios
As I noted above, the Basic Equation does not predict the future nor does it have a single solution. The Basic Equation is merely a useful tool for exploring different possible futures, for asking “what if?” questions.
If we continue to focus attention on the year 2035, and if we take the Total Emissions and Population factors as fixed, then we can adjust the Behavior factor if we also adjust the Transportation Sector and/or the Technology factor.
For example, if we allow the transportation sector to grow from 34% of all emissions today to, say, 50% by the year 2035, then this growth would allow us to keep VMT per person constant, and thereby to avoid having to make significant changes in behavior. But doing so would be at the expense of all other sectors, requiring them to reduce their emissions not to 46% of today’s level but even further to 35% of today’s level.15 It would have to be a policy decision, heavily affected by politics and what is technologically feasible, to impose less ambitious targets on the transportation sector while imposing more ambitious targets on other sectors.
Another possibility would be to rely more heavily on technology, planning for emissions mile for mile to be cut not merely in half but actually to one-third of today’s levels. For example, this could be accomplished by increasing average fuel efficiencies from 25 mpg today to 75 mpg in 2035, or by a combination of technological measures. But it would be foolhardy today to plan for technology to improve so dramatically and thus to forgo opportunities to change behavior, i.e., to reduce reliance on motor vehicles.
The Years 2020 and 2050
Rather than focusing on the year 2035, we can also look to the year 2020 or 2050.
As a shortcut, one can set the other four factors using reasonable values and then solve the Basic Equation for the needed Behavior factor:
(Behavior) = (Total Emissions) × (Transportation Sector) / (Population) / (Technology)
For the year 2020, we get:16
(Behavior) = (0.71) × (1) / (1.16) / (0.75) = 0.82 (year 2020)
In plain English, under reasonable assumptions, by the year 2020 we need to see people driving just 82% of what they do today, in other words a reduction of 18%.
For the year 2050, we get:17
(Behavior) = (0.2) × (1) / (1.6) / (0.33) = 0.38 (year 2050)
In plain English, under reasonable assumptions, by the year 2050 we need to see people driving just 38% of what they do today, in other words a reduction of 62%.
Conclusion
I don’t intend the discussion above as a prediction of the future nor as detailed policy recommendations.
Rather my main point is that numbers don’t lie and if Oregon is going to actually meet our targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we need to think like engineers and determine how to make the numbers work out.
I’ll also note that the RTPs for Oregon’s six metropolitan areas are not planning for anywhere near the kinds of reductions in VMT per person that are needed: 18% by the year 2020 and 33% by the year 2035. In a future post, I’ll discuss what these kinds of reductions in VMT per person might mean for Oregon’s transportation system.
Oregon has many great engineers, trained at Oregon State University and elsewhere. Today, if you want to, say, build a highway from Point A to Point B handling × average daily traffic (ADT), the engineers can pull out their “Highway Capacity Manual” and tell you exactly what kind of highway is needed to get from here to there.
Moving forward, a bigger challenge than moving traffic from here to there will be moving from where we are today to a future with far less greenhouse gas emissions. The state’s engineers, including many good people with the Oregon Department of Transportation, need to begin retooling and rethinking to figure out in detail how to solve the challenges of this century, not the last.
But what do you think? The Basic Equation offers a framework for exploring the future. Using it, what kind of future do you see? How do transportation proposals we are hearing fit into this framework, and do the numbers add up?
Coming up…
Framework Part 3: Leadership, Commitment and Accountability
Thanks,
Rob
P.S. To learn how some other engineers, in this case from Princeton, propose to re-engineer the future, not only for the transportation sector of Oregon but for the entire world, listen to a National Public Radio story about the “Wedge Game.” In brief, to reduce greenhouse gases worldwide to acceptable levels by the year 2050, it will be necessary to adopt seven specific policy actions—”wedges”—from a menu of 15 possible actions. The first two possible “wedges” relate to transportation: doubling transportation efficiency and halving VMT, i.e., the Technology and Behavior factors we have been discussing.
Footnotes
1 In this age of cheap computers and even cheaper calculators, many might not know what a slide rule is. That’s too bad because the old analog technology offered a simple, concrete, tactile way to learn number sense in a way that the new digital tools don’t. Slide rules made it easy to do multiplication and division—and to see tangibly how the magnitudes of different numbers compare. One could even argue that a lack of number sense underlies the difficulty current society has in facing many important problems.
2 The term “re-engineering” is meant loosely. According to Wikipedia, “re-engineering is the radical redesign of an organization’s processes, especially its business processes. Rather than organizing a firm into functional specialties (like production, accounting, marketing, etc.) and looking at the tasks that each function performs, we should, according to the reengineering theory, be looking at complete processes from materials acquisition, to production, to marketing and distribution. The firm should be re-engineered into a series of processes.”
3 See Figure 11 in Appendix A of the Final Report to the Governor: A Framework for Addressing Rapid Climate Change, Governor’s Climate Change Integration Group, January 2008
5 Oregon’s greenhouse gas reduction targets
6 See Figures 18 and 19 in Appendix A of the Final Report to the Governor: A Framework for Addressing Rapid Climate Change, Governor’s Climate Change Integration Group, January 2008
7 See 2007 Oregon Population Report, Portland State University Population Research Center, March 2008
8 See Forecasts of Oregon’s County Populations and Components of Change, 2000-2040, Oregon Office of Economic Analysis, April 2004
9 “Update 1: US DOT wants autos to average nearly 32 mpg by 2015,” Reuters, April 22, 2008
10 “Guide to Choosing a Vehicle,” Oregon Environmental Council
11 “US hybrid sales up 38 percent in 2007; Prius leads the pack,” Associated Press, April 21, 2008
12 For example, a vehicle traveling 175 miles uses 7 gallons of gas at 25 mpg but only 5 gallons of gas at 35 mpg, a reduction of 2/7 or 29% (not 40%, as one might naively suppose). Mathematically, fuel efficiency and fuel use are inversely related, so raising the fuel efficiency by a factor of 1.4 lowers the fuel use by a factor of 1/1.4 = 0.71, i.e., by 29%.
13 The text of the Transportation Planning Rule is available online. For a history of the TPR, see “The Politics of Implementation: Oregon’s Statewide Transportation Planning Rule—What’s Been Accomplished and How,” by Martha J. Bianco and Sy Adler, November 1998
14 See Table 8, “Summary of Key Performance Measures” in Chapter 4, Central Lane Regional Transportation Plan, Lane Council of Governments
15 If the transportation sector continues to account for 34% of all emissions, then it will need to reduce emissions from 23.8 MMTCO2E/year (= 34% × 70 MMTCO2E/year) to 10.9 MMTCO2E/year (= 34% × 32 MMTCO2E/year), i.e., to 46% of today’s levels: the same percentage as for reducing overall emissions. On the other hand, if the transportation sector grows to account for 50% of all emissions, then it will need to reduce emissions only to 16 MMTCO2E/year (= 50% × 32 MMTCO2E/year), i.e., to 67% of today’s levels. But the flip side of giving the transportation sector a break is that other sectors, which currently account for 66% of all emissions, will need to reduce emissions from 46.2 MMTCO2E/year (= 66% × 70 MMTCO2E/year) to 16 MMTCO2E/year (= 50% × 32 MMTCO2E/year), i.e., to 35% of today’s levels.
16 The Total Emissions factor is (50 MMTCO2E/year) / (70 MMTCO2E/year) = 0.71. We set the Transportation Sector factor to 1, assuming that transportation will continue to account for 34% of emissions. Oregon’s population in 2020 is projected to be roughly 4.35 million people, resulting in a Population factor of (4.35 million) / (3.75 million) = 1.16. Finally, we assume that technological improvements by the year 2020 will result in a 25% reduction in emissions, mile for mile, i.e., a Technology factor of 0.75.
17 The Total Emissions factor is (13.9 MMTCO2E/year) / (70 MMTCO2E/year) = 0.20. We set the Transportation Sector factor to 1, assuming that transportation will continue to account for 34% of emissions. Extrapolating trends, Oregon’s population in 2050 will approach 6 million people, resulting in a Population factor of (6 million) / (3.75 million) = 1.6. Finally, we assume that technological improvements by the year 2050 will result emissions being cut in third, mile for mile, i.e., a Technology factor of 0.33.
77 responses to “Basic Equation of Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions”
So George Monbiot (look him up) says that it takes 7 years for fuel economy rules to trickle down to the average car, not the 15 assumed in the post. (He also says that we need to do a 90% reduction by 2050, not the 75% required by state law to avoid major damage to the planet.) However, I would also assume that the ~$200M that the car makers spent lobbying congress last year about the fuel economy rules says that the rules really do represent the best they can do, (hybrid included.) As for low carbon fuels, most of them, (i.e. Biofuels, not Natural Gas,) are actually higher carbon fuels once you include the land use [deforestation], so I’d actually assume your technology figure is too aggressive…
But that doesn’t change your point/question: How do we very aggressively reduce VMT in the next 30 years? Streetcars, a lot of streetcars, a whole city of them. Spend the $4.2B that we are thinking about spending on the CRC, (that we haven’t even found a source for most of it,) on streetcars. That would pay for 200+ miles worth, and I’m looking at 130.7 miles worth, (right here (PDF)) so we should just put them in, and then we can go from there…
statewide vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per person will need to be reduced
JK: Simpler, better way:
1. Get every person a, plug-in hybrid car.
2. Replace all coal plants with nukes.
End of problem. And nobody has to change their lifestyle back to 1910.
Only problem is that planners lose the opportunity to dictate how others should live. (BooHooHoo)
Oh, the second problem is that it is likely that the Earth may need all the warming we can muster as, based on solar cycles, we may be heading into a big time cold spell. Already we have cooled for 10 years since 1998, which is tied with 1934, as the warmest year since the end of the little ice age, according to the world’s most respected temperature record, the USHCN. (Yeah, I know some crappier data still shows warming, but more & more is showing cooling)
The Argo system of ocean buoys and satellite data also show level/cooling.
Thanks
JK
Has someone sent this to Rex Burkholder at Metro?
Time for the CRC bridge proposal to die.
The following are some excerpts from an opinion piece that appeared in today’s Oregonian:
Many Portlanders assume that spending more money on public transportation will help save energy. But in 1979, a University of California at Irvine economist by the name of Charles Lave showed in an article published in The Atlantic Monthly that persuading people to buy more fuel-efficient cars saves more energy than trying to get them to ride mass transit.
Today, advocates argue that we need to build more rail transit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as save energy. But Lave’s point is more valid than ever.
…
Even if transit attracted people out of their cars, it would not save much energy. The average TriMet bus today consumes as much energy and emits as much greenhouse gas, per passenger mile, as the average car.
While Portland’s light-rail operations are more energy efficient, the energy cost and greenhouse gas emissions from building rail lines are huge. Metro has estimated that Portland’s North Interstate light-rail line would require 172 years of operational savings to make up for the energy cost of construction. Highway construction also consumes energy, but because highways are more heavily used than rail, their energy cost per passenger mile is far lower.
Portland’s light rail generates less greenhouse gas than buses because the trains are powered by hydro and other renewable sources of energy. But Portland could save even more with electric-powered trolley buses, which require far less energy to build than light rail.
At the end of the day, the biggest energy savings would be realized by focusing on the form of transport that people use most: automobiles. As economist Lave noted: “The biggest components matter most,” so improving the transportation mode that carries 95 percent of travel would do far more than improving the mode that carries only 2 percent.
The most important thing Portland can do to save energy is relieve traffic congestion. The Texas Transportation Institute has estimated that Portland congestion wastes 24 million gallons of fuel each year, in turn emitting 235,000 tons of carbon dioxide.
…
Portland planners are making congestion worse by putting barriers in roads and doing other things to reduce roadway capacities.
The Randal O’Toole op-ed which Terry quotes from may be found at this OregonLive Link.
You may find the Orange County Grand Jury report on light rail interesting:
ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/GJLtRail.pdf
It says:
Light rail will have negligible impact on traffic congestion
Light rail is expensive relative to other transit modes
Light rail will not spur development.
Development along light rail corridors is spurred by tax subsidies, not light rail.
Light rail will not improve commuter travel times, energy conservation and safety.
Virtually none of the pollution improvement is attributable to transit.
Public transit is less fuel-efficient than the auto.
Light rail is slower than the auto.
The average auto work trip is about 19 minutes while the average transit work trip is 50 minutes.
Express buses . . . about 60 % faster than light rail’s 16.2 miles per hour.
Light rail offers no advantages over express buses.
Light rail is inflexible
Thanks
JK
Today in 2008, Oregon’s total greenhouse gas emissions are roughly 70 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2E) per year. In 1990, the figure was 55.5 MMTCO2E per year.3
This is obviously complete bunk, as “Greenhouse Gases” simply don’t exist. poof!
I think I’m going to go with jk, Terry Parker, and jk: I will stick my head in the sand and pretend nothing bad is happening. la la la la la de da!
Randal O’Toole: “Portland’s light rail generates less greenhouse gas than buses because the trains are powered by hydro and other renewable sources of energy. But Portland could save even more with electric-powered trolley buses, which require far less energy to build than light rail. ”
Sadly, Mr. O’Toole is simply wrong.
First of all, TriMet acquires its electric needs from both PGE and PacifiCorp. Anyone can take a short jaunt to those two companies’ websites to find that the trains are clearly NOT powered by hydro:
PGE – 42% hydro, 3% biomass, 1% wind & geothermal – 43=6% “green”. 41% coal, 10% natural gas, 3% nuclear.
PacifiCorp – 6.2% hydro, .2% wind – 6.4% “green”. 71.8% thermal (either coal or natural gas). 21.8% purchased on the open market and can be virtually anything. Even if all 21.8% were hydro you’re still talking less than 30% hydro. (Source: http://www.pacificpower.net/File/File46798.pdf)
The “green” factor of TriMet’s electricity is simply because light rail doesn’t directly contribute to emissions – you have to look 150 miles to the east to the Boardman Generating Plant, the single largest contributor towards acid rain and smog in the Columbia Gorge – and a significant part of PGE’s energy supply.
Now, Seattle’s public utilty obtains close to 90% of its power from hydro sources. Seattle also has a substantial trolley bus system which is powered by Seattle City Light. In this respect, Mr. O’Toole is right – trolley busses can provide the same (or better) environmental impact as light rail is claimed to have, without the construction impact.
Addressing Mr. O’Toole’s comments directly about TriMet’s busses, well I have made it perfectly clear that TriMet could easily improve the environmental aspect of its busses – but TriMet chooses not to. Fred Hansen, in a reader viewpoint he himself wrote, downplayed the benefits of hybrid busses – a technology that is becoming widely embraced by transit agencies throughout the globe (including C-Tran’s recent purchase of either 12 or 14 busses) and of articulated busses which can increase capacity and/or reduce the number of 40 foot busses required. TriMet could take some very simple steps to reduce emissions from the bus fleet, but instead it gloats about its particulate filters (which, by the way, aren’t installed on the 200 oldest busses!) and it’s “NASCAR-inspired cooling system” that is being tested on a small number of busses.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece
From The Times
August 4, 2007
Walking to the shops ‘damages planet more than than going by car’
Walking does more than driving to cause global warming, a leading environmentalist has calculated.
Food production is now so energy-intensive that more carbon is emitted providing a person with enough calories to walk to the shops than a car would emit over the same distance. The climate could benefit if people avoided exercise, ate less and became couch potatoes. Provided, of course, they remembered to switch off the TV rather than leaving it on standby.
Walking does more than driving to cause global warming, a leading environmentalist has calculated.
Thanks for the laugh.
Now, can we more directly discuss the original post?
Thanks.
Speaking of the original post, I don’t recall saying anything about driving vs. riding transit vs. bicycling vs. walking, nor did I advance any particular ideology.
My main point is that mere rhetoric isn’t enough but rather we all need to “do the math” to determine if policy proposals can actually achieve stated goals.
In particular, I explicitly allowed for the possibility of doing nothing to reduce VMT per capita between now and 2035. But such an approach would necessitate, in effect, tripling average motor vehicle fuel efficiency from roughly 25 mpg today to 75 mpg in 2035, or else shifting the burden of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to other sectors (or some combination of the two approaches).
As I stated up front, the Basic Equation does not dictate any specific solution, but merely provides a framework for discussing possible solutions.
I invite anyone who is interested to also “do the math” and highlight how different policy approaches match up with the five factors, and what the numbers are.
P.S. Lenny’s point about the energy requirements of public transit per person do raise an important question about transit, as certainly the energy requirements are greater than zero, and if derived from carbon-based fuels do have a greenhouse gas impact. If Lenny or someone else can provide references to research more current than 1979 on this question, that would be helpful.
Rob –
I think you’re referring to Terry’s O’Toole opinion piece, not Lenny’s comments.
Rob Zako My main point is that mere rhetoric isn’t enough but rather we all need to “do the math” to determine if policy proposals can actually achieve stated goals.
JK: OK. I’ll bite. Here is my first try at comparing herding people into transit vs more efficient cars.
Sources:
TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: EDITION 26: (TEDB)
cta.ornl.gov/data/download26.shtml
Hybrid energy consumption: fueleconomy.gov/feg/hybrid_sbs.shtml
The data:
Energy per gallon (TEDB, bottom of Page A-4): Gasolene: 125,000 BTU/Gal; Diesel: 138,700 BTU/Gal.
Hybrid MPG: 46 (From above “fueleconomy.gov” page)
The grade school math
Transit bus energy use, 2005 (TEDB, Table 5-12): 4,230 BTU/Passenger-mile
Transit bus energy use /passenger-mile (IBID) : 37,269 BTU/Vehicle-mile (93.1 e12 / 2,498 e6)
Transit bus average passenger load (IBID) : 8.81 (21,998 / 2,498)
Transit bus average Miles/gal: 3.72mpg (138,700 / 37,269)
Hybrid car energy use per vehicle-mile: 2717 BTU/mile (125,000 / 46)
Hybrid car energy use per passenger-mile 1698 BTU/passenger-mile (2716 / 1.6)
Conclusions:
Bus: …………….4320 BTU/passenger-mile
Hybrid car: ….1698 BTU/passenger-mile
Ratio: 2.49 (bus uses 2 ½ times the energy of a hybrid car)
Conclusion:
What if we improved bus efficiency by increasing transit usage?
Instead of 8.8 passengers lets increase it by 2.49 (to match the energy use of the hybrid): 8.8 x 2.49 = 21.93, call it 22 (around 50% of a bus’s seating capacity). But now buses are stopping more often at more stops to pick up more people, increasing energy usage and running slower, discouraging passengers. And we cannot increase the load during rush hour because the bus is already full at the start of the trip and empties as it travels away from the center. Is it even possible, in the real world, to run an average bus load above 50%, considering that it is SRO in the city center and empty at the end of the line? Then there is the little detail that they MUST run buses 24-7 if people don’t have cars – and that kills efficiency. What is the maximum real world bus efficiency? Average those two together and what is the maximum system bus load?
Policy recommendation: Since CO2 emission follows energy consumption, the best CO2 reduction policy is likely to be to encourage hybrid cars instead of transit. Such a course will be a gentle evolution, instead of a drastic, probably dictated, major change in people’s life style. It has the further advantage of not requiring billions in subsidies to high density, not requiring billions in subsidies to transit on an ongoing basis (cars pay for pay for most of their costs, transit does not). Further this may be just the first step towards a really dramatic reduction in fossil fuel use with plug in hybrids, that reduce fuel use even further, in some cases to zero (depending on driving patterns.) A step that transit may not be able to match for many years without the stringing of many hundreds of miles of expensive overhead wires.
Such a transition to nuclear powered electrical generation will lay the foundation for the elimination of all oil and gas for household heating and a great reduction in industrial and commercial uses of fossil fuels.
Such a scenario may cut CO2 emissions to pre-industrial levels with little sacrifice or change in current personal behavior:
* We will have no reason to be herded into mass transit’s cattle cars.
* We will be able to live where we want, even in the healthier suburbs.
* We will be able to increase our personal travel.
* Our energy costs will go down.
The only thing blocking this vision is the possibility of government interference, especially be forcing people into transit instead of letting the improved car market develop. Unfortunately there are many people who stand to make a lot of money hawking costly, inefficient, second rate mass transit as the solution when it isn’t.
Since the world has been cooling for a number of years and many solar scientists think we are headed into a prolonged global cooling, perhaps we should be spending our precious resources to prepare for a cooling world, instead of trying to force people into a lifestyle dictated by the transit lobby, the carbon traders and their fellow travelers.
If I have time, we can look at cost next — why we can’t really use rail – (Sam values Portland’s streets at 5+ billion, a number that will soon be matched by the toy trains which will still be carrying a single digit percentage of regional travel.)
Thanks
JK
The case that humans are warming the planet has degraded into faux science and frenzied activism by the loyalists.
What about the numbers?
CO2 is 9-26% of greenhouse gases.
Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 gigatonnes per year
Disturbances to the land – through deforestation and agriculture, for instance – also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year.
Total Human 32.3 Gt per year.
The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by rotting emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year,
while respiration by vegetation emits another 220 Gt.
Parts of the oceans release about 330 Gt of CO2 per year
Total 802 Gt per year with humans contributing just 4% of all CO2.
CO2 being an average 17% of Greenhouse gases leaves Humans contributing only .68 % of all greenhouse gases.
The oceans are now soaking up slightly more than they emit
440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesis.
The IPCC also says that About 40% of the human CO2 entering the atmosphere is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans.
The rest is presumed to be boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
This means that the Gore alarmists are saying that humans currently adding a mere 27/100ths of 1 percent to greenhouse gases will lead to global calamity unless sweeping regulations and restrictions are immediately adopted.
Never mind technology continues to advance auto and coal & n gas power plant efficiency but other advances makes this prediction insane.
Then throw in the many misrepresentations including hurricane, global sea ice and polar bear fluctuations and the Hoax is clear.
Oops
It’s 40% OF human CO2 that is absorbed by the oceans.
So with CO2 is an average 17% of Greenhouse gases,
Humans then contribute only .68 % of all greenhouse gases.
The IPCC also says that About 40% of the human CO2 entering the atmosphere is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans.
The rest is presumed to be boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
This means that the Gore alarmists are saying that humans are currently adding a mere >4/10ths of 1 percent
I wonder if CO2 emitted at groundlevel is absorbed better than that which is spewed out of jet engines at 30,000 feet?
Uh-oh. I feel a meta-debate coming on. John E’s Times Online article may be written as it is to add a humorous subtext, but the notion behind it is sound. What it does is highlight a very important factor that is being neglected by the mainstream media in the Global Warming debate. If we want to reduce our CO2 emissions, we should consider that our food choices are as important as our transportation choices. This, at least, was the conclusion from a University of Chicago study.
Also, simply reproducing less would be a big help. Especially, mean people should limit their breeding. ;)
John E writes: “Humans then contribute only .68 % of all greenhouse gases.”
William says: I’m neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your figure of .68%, but please check out this wiki entry. If, after reading, you continue to believe that .68% is necessarily a trivial amount, then you have failed your science test for the day. And also your common sense test. Helpful hint: the experiment is concluded when one drop of liquid (typically after many have already been mixed in) is added to the vial of liquid, and the color of the whole changes dramatically.
PS: If you don’t actually believe that .68% is trivial, and are merely being disingenuous when you insinuate that the human contribution is almost certainly of little importance, then my apologies for treating you as though your understanding of science is severely lacking. And, again, YES, the understanding (and application) of some simple concepts that are taught in basic science classes is useful for understanding the pro- and anti- global warming arguments.
I wonder if CO2 emitted at groundlevel is absorbed better than that which is spewed out of jet engines at 30,000 feet?
I have once stated (can’t remember if it was here or at another forum) that maybe Portland should be a leader when it comes towards air travel, and significantly reduce operations at PDX. There is no need for the dozens of short-haul Horizon Air and Skywest flights that could easily be accomodated on a very fuel efficient motorcoach (or in the case of Portland-Seattle, the existing Amtrak Cascades service which also extends south to Eugene); and there is no need for the various Alaska Airlines, Southwest, AND United flights that serve multiple California airports in the same region (i.e. San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, Sacramento in the bay area; Los Angeles, Long Beach, Burbank, Ontario and Orange County in the L.A. Basin) – instead, a smaller number of larger aircraft filled to capacity each, with a higher fare charged to fly the remaining flights – part of which would go to offset the emissions of those aircraft.
The resulting drop in PDX operations would also result in less of a need to develop the area around PDX and allow it to revert back to protected wetlands. It would also allow for less traffic and pollution in the general area, possibly even removing capacity from I-205 north of I-84 (maybe convert one lane in each direction to a BRT lane, including BRT lanes along I-84?)
What kind of emmissions do we get from all these ships come up the river and how does that compare to the cars driven in the area? That is one ship burning bunker fuel is equivilent to how many cars?
MHW
Read closer William,,
and those are not “MY” figures, they ar the IPCC’s.
Yes according to the IPCC humans contribute only .68 % of all greenhouse gases.
Less than one percent.
Moreover, 40% of human CO2 is absorbed by the oceans.
That leaves humans contibuting only .4 % of CO2 production.
4/10ths of one percent.
Yes that is trivial.
Especially when alligned with the other data.
Such as only a .7 degree global temp increase over the past 100 years and humans supposedly causing most but not all of it.
Your suggestion that your test qualifies as evidence of the human contribution being grave and/or warming the planet, you have failed science period.
John E: and yet the pre-industrial level of GHGs were enough to warm the atmosphere about 20 deg C — that it, without them the atmosphere would be 20 C colder. (That’s why they’re called “greenhouse” gases.)
So, you see, these trace gas levels are *not* trivial. Why, therefore, would you expect increases of ~35% to be trivial?
PS: pre-industrial level of CO2 = 275 ppm;
today = 385 ppm
“What kind of emmissions do we get from all these ships come up the river and how does that compare to the cars driven in the area? That is one ship burning bunker fuel is equivilent to how many cars?”
“When the h— are we Liberals going to stop buying cars from Japan and Europe, and support the poor Democrat autoworkers in Michigan?” Sen. Hillary Clinton. (Not really, but I was just trying to make a point)
I do know it takes a lot of fuel to move something through the water. There has been a rail company commercial extolling how fuel efficient it is to move freight by rail. But shipping is taking on some new dynamics–kite sails can help reduce fuel consumption and perhaps moving with the currents would help too. Catamarans are much more fuel efficient. I suppose one could design an electrically propelled catamaran that also uses supplmental natural energies and is powered by an onboard generating system burning clean fuel such as hydrogen.
John E, I didn’t go one way or the other about your numbers. What I did was to suggest that, if our contributions are in the ballpark of what you stated, then they could very well be significant. The wiki article I linked you to was meant to illustrate an extremely simple-to-grasp concept that you seem to be missing; when you have a balanced scale, adding a tiny bit to either side may tip it. Understand?
Also, while you’re at it, try addressing David’s comments.
And don’t forget, further, that man not only ups the contribution of CO2, he also seems to reduce the capacity of Earth to absorb it. Which may be another reason why CO2 levels have risen so greatly in spite of man’s “trivial” contributions. And which may signal bigger problems ahead if much of our favorite CO2 sponge, Earth, has already soaked up much of what it can.
BUT all of this is off-topic. The topic is, essentially, how to “meet targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions”. You seem to want it to be, “man isn’t causing global warming”, but it isn’t. As the moderator requested of you a thread or two back, please stop hijacking.
Anyhow, back on track, in as much as we get energy from food to transport ourselves, our dietary choices make a huge difference. Also, transporting the food to us takes a lot of energy. The government may not be able to mandate (nor should it) that we stop eating hamburgers every day, but I think there’s a general indifference towards the CO2 emissions behind the foods we eat, and where they are transported from. Just changing this attitude could help a lot with our transportation-related CO2 emissions.
Well, I’ll admit one thing for sure:
YOU GUYS ARE TENACIOUS!
David Says: Why, therefore, would you expect increases of ~35% to be trivial?
JK: Because CO2’s green house effect saturated at much lower levels that today’s level.
Bob Carter explains this in the first 10 min, or so, here:
blip.tv/file/791876
(Choose the MP4 option for good quality.)
It is a really good presentation and I was unable to spot any errors (it was made before NASA’s Sept 07 revision, so he says 1998 was warmer than 1934, a NASA revision that lasted a few weeks)
(I’ll deal with the hockey stick error and probable fraud later.)
In the meantime please read: climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf and browse the links on their left sidebar, especially the Wegman report & the Hockey Stick Studies
Here are leads to some peer reviewed lit:
junkscience.com, icecap.us, climateaudit.org, CO2Science.org, science and public policy.org, climate-skeptic.com, WorldClimateReport.com, iceagenow.com. The proper use of all of these sites if for leads to quality journal articles which you then obtain and find out what’s in them. If you actually do this you will see that you have been lied to by the warmer’s – their case is mostly gone.
Thanks
JK
Ships tend to be more efficient in terms of CO2/ton/mile of cargo than rails. (They are also slower and can’t go up hills: A ship at 60 mph would probably burn far more fuel than a train at the same speed on a per ton basis, but the only ships that travel at those speeds are carrying passengers.) But moving the port from Portland to Astoria and using the railroad would be produce more carbon than leaving the port in Portland. This is part of the reason there is a lot of barge traffic on the Columbia, (not the carbon part: the fuel that produces that carbon is what the barge/rail lines are paying for.)
Shipping a car via train from Detroit produces more carbon than shipping it from Japan by ship, even assuming that the parts are made local to the factory that made the car. But given that most of the steel in the world comes from China/Russia anyways…
I don’t want to address the never ending global warming argument, but two other things:
Erik H said: There is no need for so many short haul flights out of PDX…that could be accommodated by a fuel efficient motorcoach.
I agree that the short haul flights are disastrously wasteful, and the perceived travel time on airplanes is deceptive because people don’t consider the time to get to the airport, wait in the airport, get through security, etc. However, buses just aren’t a preferred form of long distance transportation. They’re uncomfortable and slow moving. Even in Europe, where bus travel is more popular because of their lack of cars, you don’t see people doing work or even reading much on a bus because there’s not enough room and it’s too bumpy. I realize these reasons may sound trivial but it is undoubtedly how consumers make their decisions. The only way to get people out of airplanes is to improve long distance rail travel.
I forgot the other half of my comment.
I wanted to share this list of financial supporters of the Cato Institute of which Randal O’Toole is a part:
http://www.cato.org/sponsors/sponsors.html
General Motors! How shocking!
Aside from that, his op-ed is just idiotic. So we’re going to consider the energy emissions from construction costs now? Why don’t we go further up the line and consider construction emissions at the factories that produce the rail vehicles? Do those workers drive hybrids to work? Does the factory have compact flourescent bulbs?!?!?
He also says that reducing congestion is the best way to reduce emissions in Portland. Well, I know one place that has no congestion: The MAX lines. Notice that O’Toole never explicitly says that riding MAX does not save energy, only that “transit has become less efficient as it grows further into the suburbs”. Also, I find it very hard to believe that a TriMet bus that is 1/2 full emits the same amount of CO2 per passenger mile as someone driving alone. Randall O’Toole is full of crap. The link below is just fun reading for everyone.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/environmentandenergy/archive/2008/04/21/highway-bias.aspx
SuSusanaSanJuan Says: Even in Europe, where bus travel is more popular because of their lack of cars . . .
JK: Huh?? Who fed you that crap?
In the EU15, 78% of person-kilometers are by private car and transit has lost about 20% of its market share in the last 20 years (1980-2000).
Here is transit’s performance in Europe (market share:)
Rail = -23%
Bus&Coach = -27%
Tram & Metro = -21.4%
If Europeans are abandoning mass transit, why would any sane person think that Portlanders would embrace transit if they had an other choice?
See: DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/EuroTranistShareLoss.htm
which is based on:
ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/eu_glance/44/en-3.pdf
Thanks
JKanaSanJuan Says: Even in Europe, where bus travel is more popular because of their lack of cars . . .
JK: Huh?? Who fed you that crap?
In the EU15, 78% of person-kilometers are by private car and transit has lost about 20% of its market share in the 20 years (1980-2000).
Here is transit’s performance in Europe (market share:)
Rail = -23%
Bus&Coach = -27%
Tram & Metro = -21.4%
If Europeans are abandoning mass transit, why would any sane person think that Portlanders would embrace transit if they had an other choice?
See: DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/EuroTranistShareLoss.htm
which is based on:
ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/eu_glance/44/en-3.pdf
Thanks
JK
Jim, that report is for the whole EU which is 27 very different countries. I should have been more specific about which countries I was referring to, principally Spain and France. I’m in Madrid as we speak and I’ve ridden the bus to both Sevilla and Barcelona, which are around 6 hour trips. They have buses leave every hour every day that are completely full. I don’t think this could be found in American cities. Maybe I’m wrong, but it doesn’t change the point I made above.
jim karlock Says:
>> David Says: Why, therefore, would you expect
>> increases of ~35% to be trivial?
> JK: Because CO2’s green house effect
> saturated at much lower levels that today’s
> level.
> Bob Carter explains this in the first 10 min, or
> so, here:
> blip.tv/file/791876
I watched the first 15 minutes of this video and at no point did Carter address this issue or even mention the phrase “saturation.”
Perhaps you can explain what that means. I don’t buy it — CO2 remains a GHG at today’s levels just as it did at previous levels, with atmospheric temperature roughly proportional to its logarithm.
So my original question still stands: why shouldn’t a 35% increase in GHG levels result in a temperature increase, if 275 ppm CO2 warms the atmosphere about 20 C?
Even compounds at low levels can have significant effects. If I put a single grain of ricin in a glass of water, would you drink it?
In any case, this isn’t a rigorous proof, just an indication that you need to think more carefully about the problem. Scientists have.
The key quantity is not CO2’s proportion in the atmosphere, but its radiative forcing and global warming potential. Here are the calculations for the various radiative forcings over the last 250 years:
IPCC 4AR WG1 ch2 FAQ2.1 Fig2 (p 136)
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf
As you can see, the radiative forcings from human-induced activities (and in particular CO2 and other GHGs) dominates the natural ones.
Bob Carter also makes a serious error in his discussion of the Medieval Warm Period about 6 minutes into his presentation.
Most climate scientists believe the MWP was a regional phenomenon confined to a relatively small proportion of the globe near Europe. It was not a global phenomenon, and when you present a truly global mean temperature the graph in no way has the large hump he indicated for the MWP. (The video is too blurry for me to discern his source.)
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
My point about ships really wasn’t complete to say the least. When polution is measured the first thing the “authorities” jump on is automobiles and rant about how much they pollute and blame some guy who drives to work alone. What they don’t look at is the fact the guy driving often has little or no alternative to driving thanks to government regulations that made it difficult if not impossible for a well developed urban transit industry to grow anywhere in the U.S.
Secondly they seldom if ever look at other sources of pollution. If my recall is correct DEQ has a measuring station on Sauvie Island. Well Sauvie Island is in the traffic pattern of the airport and the ship channel both of which contribute significant pollution to the local air.
here’s a bit more on pollution from ships.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/157322_portpollute20.html
” For every day it’s in the harbor, the ship’s smokestacks may be spewing as much nitrogen oxide into the city’s air as 12,500 cars, as much as an oil refinery.”
Just once, I’d like for there to be a thread which discusses some particular aspect about greenhouse gases (in this case, a mode-neutral equation for meeting targets) without the usual chorus of GW-denier flame wars.
Once again (and again and again) everyone who wanted to has had a chance to rant against the idea of GW. Now can we stick more closely to the topic?
Thanks.
Michael, yes, good point. I was thinking GHGs, not localized pollutants. Locomotives have a similar problem, (that I talked about in the electrification thread.) However, the solution for that still isn’t to make the ships unload in Astoria, but to make the ships burn clearer fuels in better engines, (and hook up to shore power when they are in port.)
SusanaSanJuan Says: Jim, that report is for the whole EU which is 27 very different countries.
JK: My data was for the EU15 – generally speaking the auto usage goes up and transit usage goes down as income goes up.
In other words, as soon as people can afford the freedom of a car, they get out of transit. True over most of the world. The transit promoters are really promoting a 1920’s life style. A life of financial hardship and poverty. Make no mistake, much of our high income is due to the automobile.
BTW, you see that here too – recent immigrants tend to use transit, then, as they move up the income ladder, they move to car pools then to individual car ownership. I have often thought that, perhaps, Trimet’s “success” compared to other systems is due to our large number of recent immigrants.
And please don’t confuse your personal experience, especially as a visitor, with that of the typical person.
Thanks
JK
Thank you Bob.
Friday night I heard a presentation that said that by 2035, 65% of building will be either new or renovated, (from now,) and that we could make them all carbon neutral. And if the building related emissions can be reduced that much, then maybe we don’t have to reduce VMT as much. Maybe: the “they could be carbon neutral” is the important thing there. My parents are building a house right now and they are using propane for the hot water fuel source, (which is about $4.50/gallon right now, delivered. And propane is an oil product, so it tracks the price of oil…) There are 28 kwh in a gallon of propane, and the water heater has a EF of .80. So they will be paying 42 cents per (7.5 min, 1.5 gpm) shower. But they don’t want to put in a solar hot water heater because, “it costs too much to install it.” (I put one on my house last year, and I was paying 14 cents per shower, (electric: EF of .96,) and I’m looking at a payback time of 10-15 years assuming constant electrical prices.)
But if I can’t convince my own parents to put in a solar hot water heater when it is already economically in their favor, then having 65% of buildings be carbon neutral by 2035 is not going to happen, and a serious VMT reduction may be the only way to go…
minutes into his presentation.
JK: That is NOT an error – that is just a representation of the data.
David Says: The video is too blurry for me to discern his source.
JK: Nature 366, 1993, pp 552-554 (Greenland Ice Cores)
David Says: See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
JK: Another of your crappy sources – don’t you know that anyone can make entries and that there are accusations that a few zealots are closely guarding against anyone telling the other side of this issue?
Thanks
JK
jim karlock Says:
> minutes into his presentation.
HOW MANY minutes into his presentation?
> JK: That is NOT an error – that is just a
> representation of the data.
WHAT is not an error — please be specific. And what does this mean anyway — it’s scientific jibberish. At what level of CO2 does it “saturate?” Specifically? At what CO2 level does the T~ln(CO2) relation fail?
>> David Says: The video is too blurry for me to
>> discern his source.
> JK: Nature 366, 1993, pp 552-554 (Greenland Ice > Cores)
We’ve had much better data (and four IPCC reports) since then. 15 years is a long time in climate science. Any recent, real data?
>> David Says: See:
>> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
> JK: Another of your crappy sources – don’t you
> know that anyone can make entries and that there > are accusations that a few zealots are closely
> guarding against anyone telling the other side
> of this issue?
In this case, Wikipedia pretty accurately tells the reality of current scientific thinking.
Susana: However, buses just aren’t a preferred form of long distance transportation. They’re uncomfortable and slow moving. Even in Europe, where bus travel is more popular because of their lack of cars, you don’t see people doing work or even reading much on a bus because there’s not enough room and it’s too bumpy. I realize these reasons may sound trivial but it is undoubtedly how consumers make their decisions. The only way to get people out of airplanes is to improve long distance rail travel.
Compare Horizon Air’s route map in Oregon/Washington with a historical railroad map of the same region.
Unless you are proposing a massive, ecologically devastating high speed rail line from Portland to Coos Bay, I’m sure you will agree that even though a bus is “slow” (compared to what? The airplane? Are you justifying a certain level of pollution in the interest of speed? If so, we might as well eliminate this whole public transport debate – cars are faster than ANY mode of public transit!) but is it worth clearing a path through the Coast Range for – COOS BAY?!!!
Not to mention that we’re talking replacing TWO 37 seat turbo-prop airplanes – a bus would provide greater capacity, AND would serve the en-route communities up and down U.S. 101. Or, it could make a run to Eugene (where it would then more logically connect with rail service to Portland).
Same is true with Bend – a rail link takes too long, and high speed rail in the Deschutes Canyon would again scar the canyon beyond existance. Busses running on a regular schedule up and over U.S. 26 would provide the same capacity/service level without bulldozing mountains.
you don’t see people doing work or even reading much on a bus because there’s not enough room and it’s too bumpy
I hope you remember that I RIDE THE BUS EVERY SINGLE DAY unlike some of the so-called “transit advocates” that haunt this forum.
I see plenty of people reading, using their laptops, smartphones, etc.
When I don’t see those people doing that, is when TriMet crams 70 people into a bus because it failed to dispatch a bus on time (thus resulting in two busloads of people on one bus), it failed to maintain its busses resulting in a mechanical failure with the same passenger crush result, or it fails to match capacity with demand (because Fred Hansen doesn’t believe in articulated busses to increase capacity without increasing operating costs, but does believe in gold-plating MAX with all the capacity it needs.)
As for busses being “bumpy”, I can’t say MAX is exactly as smooth as skating on ice behind a Zamboni, as I’ve been jolted plenty of times (especially with the bad wheel-hunt problem west of Washington Park in the tunnel, and particularly in a 100 series car where the sound levels are similar to standing at the end of a runway at PDX while a 747 is on takeoff roll), or the wheel-hunt problem on the curve exiting the east end of the tunnel…and the numerous sharp curves on the Streetcar route (gotta love that insane design for the track underneath the Marquam Bridge). Or the red line leaving (or entering) Gateway to the south.
At least the road on a bus can be repaved. Most of what I described are permanent, and can’t be repaired without spending BIG BUCKS. Unfortunately, all I hear is the Whammy.
So Europeans are abandoning transit, eh? They’ve got a long way to go before they’re at our level, then!
Table 2-2 Travel Mode Split for Urban Trips, Selected Countries, 1995 (Pucher 1999)
Ctry Auto Transit Bike Walk/Other Auto Trips per transit trip
USA..89…2………1……7……………44.5
Can..76…10……..2……12………….7.6
Dmrk.42…14……..20…..24…………..3.0
GB….65…14……..4……17…………..4.6
Frnc..56…13……..5……25…………..4.5
Germ.49…16……..12…..23…………..3.1
Neth..45…7………28…..20…………..6.4
Swed.46…11…….10…..33…………..4.2
Swtz.46…20……..9……26…………..2.3
I can’t believe I put that into txt format.
Original source is here
David Says: HOW MANY minutes into his presentation?
JK: According to your previous message: 6
David Says: WHAT is not an error — please be specific.
JK: Your statement that I was responding to.
David Says: > At what level of CO2 does it “saturate?” Specifically? At what CO2 level does the T~ln(CO2) relation fail?
JK: T ~ ln(CO2)???? DO you know what you are writing??
The very reason that a CO2 increase, from current levels, has a tiny effect on temperature at current levels is because of the ln(CO2). That is saturation (saturation need not be hard limiting to be saturation.)
Bob’s graph at 20:04 in, from Willis Eschenbauch, shows, 6 degree of warming as CO2 goes from zero to 280 PPM and a further 1 degree from 260 to 560 PPM. Only 1 degree for an almost doubling of CO2.
Did you not bother to watch the whole thing? If so you also missed:
1. The iris effect, a cooling mechanism (a natural air conditioner, so to speak.) (at 18:00 in).
2. The GRL article about the correlation between the sun and climate – it is a better match than CO2(25:29 in).
3. That the world’s best historical temperature data contains much bad data – collected from asphalt parking lots and near air conditioner units!!(26:17 in)
David Says: > We’ve had much better data (and four IPCC reports) since then. 15 years is a long time in climate science. Any recent, real data?
JK: Does any of it contradict the data we are talking of? If so please provide a citation.
Since we are wearing out our host’s welcome here, I will not respond further, especially in view of you apparent lack of reading any of the leads I gave you.
Thanks
JK
David said
“So, you see, these trace gas levels are *not* trivial. Why, therefore, would you expect increases of ~35% to be trivial?
PS: pre-industrial level of CO2 = 275 ppm; Today = 385 ppm”
David and William,
35% increase sounds like a lot. But how do you ignore that it’s only a 35% increasing of man’s less than 1% contribution of all greenhouse gases?
According to the IPCC.
Does that not interest you?
We’re talking about less than 1% of greenhouse gases being increases by 35% AND the results being human’s GHG production remaining at less than 1% of all GHSs.
The IPCC says humans contribute only 0.68 % of all greenhouse gases.
Less than one percent.
Moreover, that 40% of human CO2 is absorbed by the oceans.
That leaves humans contributing only 0.4 % of CO2 production.
Yes that is trivial.
Especially when aligned with the other data.
Such as only a 0 .7 C degree global temp increase over the past 100 years and humans supposedly causing most but not all of it.
Of course that temperature change, even if accurate, is neither historically significant or caused by humans.
Yet from this supposed anomaly of a 0.7 C degree increase we have a steady stream of baseless claims attributing every observation, imaginary or real, to human caused global warming. Changes in bird migration, decline in fish populations, glacial and global sea ice reductions, polar bear losses, ocean dead zones, hurricanes and other weather patterns, wild fires, species extinction, disease and famine on and on and on. And only through a massive reduction in our carbon foot print equaling less than 1% of greenhouse gases will we avert disaster?
So therefore we need more of Metro’s land use and transportation planning?
RE: Reducing PDX activity
I’m in agreement about reducing the number of short-haul flights. Once you factor in check-in, security, and travel times, it’s already pretty-close timewise between flying or amtraking it to Seattle (3.5 hours + 15 minutes wait time on the Cascades; 30 minutes travel, plus 30 minutes in Security, plus 30 minutes for check-in, plus 30 minutes simply waiting, 30 minutes for baggage claim, and another 30 minutes to get from Sea-Tac to downtown Seattle)
—
Anyone who’s read Jared Diamonds extraordinarily reasoned and unpolitical book Collapse will recall the question, when they cut down the last tree on Easter Island (which was completely deforested by its ancient inhabitants), did someone should “Jobs, Not Trees!”?
D’oh. “Shout” (not ‘should’)
“So therefore we need more of Metro’s land use and transportation planning? ”
Metro’s land use and planning theories need to change with the times. I’m not disagreeing that some type of transportation oriented development would not be helpful. We need to have farm land that is close to the urban area and reduce unnecessary transportation of agricultural products. And many people are beginning to favor condos over single family homes. But to expect there to be some mass scale conversion to public transit and away from private vehicles is ridiculous.
Within five years we will have a dazzling array of fuel efficient vehicles –typically compacts, too–to choose from. Nanotechnology within ten years will make most of our present day efforts in mass transit vehicles obsolete. It may even affect air travel by then. This is also why I oppose an excessive “infrastructure rebuilding” campaign. There are some critical, urgent needs. But by the time a lot of projects would have been completed, billions spent and even lives lost in construction accidents, new and better products and concepts may have come along. A “just in time concept” might keep us from trundling down some rabbit trails of waste.
We need to figure out why population growth is outstripping infrastructure that was initially calculated to have a much longer useful life. (Such as by excessive immigration which seems to be part of the new Labor/Liberal/Progressive strategy.)
John E. Says:
> 35% increase sounds like a lot. But how
> do you ignore that it’s only a 35% increasing
> of man’s less than 1% contribution of all
> greenhouse gases?
We’re not ignoring it — you’re missing the point.
GHGs are very potent. It does not take much of them to cause a large effect.
As I wrote about, the pre-industrial level of CO2 in the atmosphere — the “less than 1%” you keep referring to — may seem small in quantity but it has a large effect: it naturally warms our planet by about 20 C.
Without that small 1%, our atmosphere would be 20 C cooler.
Then, this potent chemical’s concentration has been increased by 35%. Regardless of the base value, that’s a large increase and makes one suspect it will have significant causes for the atmosphere and the planet.
“Within five years we will have a dazzling array of fuel efficient vehicles –typically compacts, too–to choose from.”
The Honda Insight went on sale in 1999, (9 years ago) and sales were so low that Honda stopped making them 2 year ago. The Prius has been available in this country since 2001, (7 years ago) and are still less than 2% of the market. So while I have no trouble believing that 5 years from now there could be more fuel efficient cars on the market, (since there were better cars on the market 5 year ago anyways,) I don’t think that that means that they will be driven in large numbers. And the automakers know it, which is why they are unwilling to commit to higher CAFE standards…
“Nanotechnology within ten years will make most of our present day efforts in mass transit vehicles obsolete. It may even affect air travel by then.”
Uhmmm, how so? Are they going to put stain resistant seats in them, or are they going to put smaller computers in them? (Given that MAX weighs 55 tons, I wasn’t aware the the computer size was hurting anything.) But if you think that it is going to float above the track on a little bed of nano wheels, that isn’t going to happen: Nano wheels are very very expensive, and tend to stop working when exposed to air, (not to mention, dust, insects, cigarette butts and chewing gum.)
If the people will quit demanding that politicians “do something” about high gas prices then fuel efficient cars will be here very soon. The thing is, gas is really a very small amount of the cost of driving so it has to be pretty high priced to make much of a difference to most folks.
I, and many others, are willing to spend a couple hundred extra dollars per year to have a larger, safer, higher performing vehicle.
Nanotechnology should be giving us lighter weight basic materials. The Streetcar now weighs about 31 tons and most of the power utilized is pushing this weight—not the passengers. Aside from not getting blown off the track in a windstorm why does it need to weigh so much? If there are breakthroughs in steel fabrication this should bring the weight of the vehicle down, and with it the expense of the railbed to carry it. Also we could eliminate the catenary wires with self propelled biodisel vehicles. Ther is no reason a new rail bed ahould cost $20 million/mi. Just a few million is more like it.
We may be able to design diesel engines that are much more fuel efficient and able to thus run on a more negligible amount of biofuel. We’ve talked a bit about the double decker diesel railbus already on this forum. Pretty much it could be plunked down on existing rails and GO!
So we should be able to design a lighter weight one that would truly be fuel efficient.
Will the market go for fuel efficient private cars? Maybe not so much for the Prius or other hybrids, that is until they go into the next generation.. However, the LOREMO is coming–a 950 lb, 4 passenger car with a 20 hp diesel engine. Honda has a diesel–52 mpg in US but 60mpg in Europe) and with fuel likely to stay high I think there will be much more incentive to buy them. How many people wouldn’t want to save $50-100/week on fuel?
I think you just don’t want to think outside the box. There are many vested interests pushing us into expensive projects. It’s a bunch of PR BS.
The Streetcar now weighs about 31 tons and most of the power utilized is pushing this weight—not the passengers. Aside from not getting blown off the track in a windstorm why does it need to weigh so much? If there are breakthroughs in steel fabrication this should bring the weight of the vehicle down, and with it the expense of the railbed to carry it. Also we could eliminate the catenary wires with self propelled biodisel vehicles. Ther is no reason a new rail bed ahould cost $20 million/mi. Just a few million is more like it.
Comparison between the Skoda/Inkeon model 10T Streetcar and a New Flyer DE60LF hybrid-electric articulated bus:
Streetcar Empty Weight: 63,500 pounds (31.75 tons)
DE60LF Empty Weight: 43,700 pounds (21.85 tons)
Streetcar maximum weight: 85,800 pounds (42.9 tons)
DE60LF maximum weight: 63,880 pounds (31.94 tons)
Streetcar capacity: 30 seated, 127 “normal” standees(6 passengers per square meter) – 157 total
DE60LF capacity: 62 seated, 53 standees – 115 total
Streetcar power output: 460hp (2.93 hp/person)
DE60LF power output: 330hp (2.87 hp/person)
At 50 passenger load –
Streetcar power output: 9.2 hp/person
DE60LF: 6.6 hp/person
I’d much rather see, hear, and smell a bunch of new streetcars or trolleybuses than diesel buses downtown anyday.
In fact, I am very much appreciating the MAX light rail construction along 5th/6th avenues. Those streets are much quieter, even with large construction equipment and jackhammers, than it ever was with Trimet’s buses roaring and grinding their way up/down the street. Does anybody remember when you couldn’t even hold a conversation during rush hour because the damn things are so loud?
Frack diesels, they suck. Period!
“Nanotechnology should be giving us lighter weight basic materials.”
For steel, (which is a lot of the streetcar’s weight,) you can make almost molecular perfect steel right now without nanotechnologies, (and have been able to for about a hundred years.) The only way you are going to make it lighter is to use less of it, (it seems unlikely that they’d be using too much right now,) or redesign the entire thing from the ground up, which doesn’t involve nanotechnologies at all. In any case, using nanotechnologies to make steel would be very very expensive, much more than you’d spend on the track savings.
“biofuels…biofuels…biofuels”
No. Land Use Impacts May Tip Biofuels into the Red
“However, the LOREMO is coming–a 950 lb, 4 passenger car with a 20 hp diesel engine.”
That are always things like that “coming.” When they are actually here, mass produced in large numbers and accepted by the general public, then we can talk. But so far people haven’t actually embraced these sorts of things. The big automakers spend billions on research, and they don’t make these cars because they don’t sell well. As for the LOREMO in particular, they haven’t even figured out where they are going to build the factory that will build the cars, so it may be “coming” for a rather long time…
Honda has a diesel–52 mpg in US but 60mpg in Europe) and with fuel likely to stay high I think there will be much more incentive to buy them. How many people wouldn’t want to save $50-100/week on fuel?”
An Imperial Gallon that they use in Europe is about 20% larger than the US gallon, so of course it gets more miles on one of those. And it isn’t a savings of $50-100/week, it is $13/week. (12,000 miles/year, with a 25 mpg car and gas at $3.50 and diesel at $4.30.) You’d have to drive 45,000 miles a year, (way above average,) or about 2+ hours a day for it to save $50/week…
And you can do that mpg with a Prius on gasoline (which is 80 cents/gallon cheaper,) right now and you could do better than that 9 years ago with an Insight, (except the 4 seats part.) But how many people wanted to do it? Less than 500/month in 2006 when Honda shut the line down.
“I think you just don’t want to think outside the box. There are many vested interests pushing us into expensive projects. It’s a bunch of PR BS.”
You are talking to someone that bicycled a bunch of electrical supplies from North Portland to East [of I-205] Portland to rewire someone’s house last weekend. Thinking outside of the box isn’t my problem, it is PR BS about new cars/technologies/whatever that I’ve got a problem with…
“And it isn’t a savings of $50-100/week, it is $13/week. (12,000 miles/year, with a 25 mpg car and gas at $3.50 and diesel at $4.30.) You’d have to drive 45,000 miles a year, (way above average,) or about 2+ hours a day for it to save $50/week…”
Oh well, I guess those SUV’s all get 25 mpg, then? And suburban commuters only drive 12,000 miles a year? I don’t even live in the suburbs and end up driving 25,000 -30,000 yr. A sizable portion of the people who can use things like bicycles for commuting, such as to downtown jobs, are so tied in with the corporate structure they’re going to go into paroxysms of panic when corporate profits are threatened. Furthermore who said that gas was staying at 3.50 a gallon? Much of it is already above 4.00 elsewhere in this country and higher yet in Europe.
So you think it is inevitable that the lowest price we will come in for any railbed for public transit is 20-25 million/mile? I read a study of railroad co. expenses for replacing rails in 1999–it was $600,000 per mile. This was on existing bed and nine years ago.
I don’t care how and why the Insight failed almost ten years ago. Different time and place. For those of you who were perhaps in diapers in the 1970’s there was a MASSIVE switch to economy and high mpg vehicles back then when OPEC first started putting the squeeze on American consumers by raising oil prices. People switched from Detroit gas hogs getting 10 mpg or less, to small Japanese cars getting 25-30.
“And you can do that mpg with a Prius on gasoline (which is 80 cents/gallon cheaper,) right now and you could do better than that 9 years ago with an Insight, (except the 4 seats part.)”
I can understand if people don’t want to drive something that looks like a dog with a broken back. But keep on bicyclin’–that will help reduce the demand for gas guzzlers.
“You are talking to someone that bicycled a bunch of electrical supplies from North Portland to East [of I-205] Portland to rewire someone’s house last weekend.”
Are you a licensed electrician?
Ron, I said a couple hundred dollars a YEAR
zilfondel wrote: I’d much rather see, hear, and smell a bunch of new streetcars or trolleybuses than diesel buses downtown anyday.
Well, let’s see. There are hybrid busses – in fact I just heard a C-Tran hybrid bus going down 4th Avenue a couple days ago and I could barely hear the thing going by. Nice and quiet, but still has the diesel engine for when it needs it.
Trolley busses provide all the environmental benefits, at a far lesser cost and weight. And don’t involve construction, other than setting down poles (which often already exist) and the overhead wire.
If we’re all concerned about diesel exhaust and noise, then I suggest that those who do not like it take immediate steps to reduce their dependence on such:
1. Do not use UPS, FedEx, or DHL services,
2. Do not use utility services where the company that services the utilities require large diesel trucks,
3. Do not employ any construction that requires the use of diesel trucks and construction equipment,
Apparently there’s a group out there that wants to bash TriMet busses, but has no problem with their daily FedEx and UPS deliveries, with the dozens of dump trucks, front-end loaders and cranes building a building (which make far, far more noise than busses do), and other diesel trucks and equipment. I’ve provided solutions, but apparently the so-called “transit advocates” out there just want more Streetcar and more Light Rail, without improving bus service (including hybrid busses to reduce emissions and diesel consumption), articulated busses (to potentially reduce the number of vehicles needed, and/or to increase capacity), double-decker busses (same as articulated), and trolley busses (100% electric, all the environmental benefits of streetcar/light rail but without the huge expense and construction impacts). And the best argument is “well, streetcar is nice to live by”.
Oh well, I guess those SUV’s all get 25 mpg, then? And suburban commuters only drive 12,000 miles a year? I don’t even live in the suburbs and end up driving 25,000 -30,000 yr.
That’s a pretty broad generalization, and hardly one that is “representative” of suburbia.
I live in what many would call the suburbs, in the Far Southwest neighborhood of Portland, near the Tigard and Lake Oswego city lines.
I am a household of three – myself, my wife and my son. We own one car, a Mazda5. Not a SUV. We drive about 15,000 miles/year (we’re trending a little less this year), in part because we’re doing the driving for two adults in one car (as opposed to spreading out the mileage in two cars). I have long used public transit for commuting to work which reduces my need for the car.
When I drive up and down the street, or go to other suburbian areas, I don’t see row after row of SUVs. Do I see them? Yes, and I see them in the Pearl District too, and in SoWa, and in Sellwood, and in other inner neighborhoods.
I see homes in inner Portland that have two or three cars between them. And I know people in the ‘burbs (my wife has a friend in particular) who are car-less and depend on TriMet’s transit service to get around.
It seems to me that if one is “not living in the suburbs” and is driving 25-35K a year, that someone is EXTREMELY auto-dependent, yet wants everyone else to be taking transit to clear the road for him. How about we initiate change within ourselves – I can do 15K a year for our HOUSEHOLD of three. It seems that Mr. Swaren needs to step up to the plate and start changing his mode of travel to other means.
I live in the burbs, and I take TriMet’s bus service. Why is that a bad thing?
“Oh well, I guess those SUV’s all get 25 mpg, then? And suburban commuters only drive 12,000 miles a year? I don’t even live in the suburbs and end up driving 25,000 -30,000 yr.”
I highly doubt that most SUV drivers are going to go from a 2 ton SUV to a 950 lb car anytime soon, they always have some story about “safety” (which isn’t even true,) or “hauling stuff” (which is at least true for some of them some of the time.) Who you are going to get to switch are the people driving sedans already: 25+ mpg cars.
“A sizable portion of the people who can use things like bicycles for commuting, such as to downtown jobs, are so tied in with the corporate structure they’re going to go into paroxysms of panic when corporate profits are threatened.”
???? What is your point? If they didn’t commute by bicycle, they wouldn’t have that problem?
Furthermore who said that gas was staying at 3.50 a gallon? Much of it is already above 4.00 elsewhere in this country and higher yet in Europe.
It is higher in Europe because of the taxes, although since oil is priced in dollars, it hasn’t risen very much in the last couple years there. In this country, one of the presidential candidates wants to eliminate the gas taxes to make gasoline more affordable. However, I agree that it is going up, but most people don’t, in fact even the oil companies are assuming in the long term that oil will run $60/barrel, (and that is what they are using to make investment decisions.) And if most people don’t think that it will go up, then they aren’t going to rush out and buy more fuel efficient cars…
“So you think it is inevitable that the lowest price we will come in for any railbed for public transit is 20-25 million/mile? I read a study of railroad co. expenses for replacing rails in 1999–it was $600,000 per mile. This was on existing bed and nine years ago.”
??? What is your point? This argument came from the fact that you thought we could make lighter steel with nanotechnologies, and this would somehow result in lighter rails? But in any case replacing rails isn’t the same as building a new line, and replacing rails in a dedicated railroad right of way is very different than having to move utilities, lay track, repave the street, build stations, run wires, (for both power and signals,) and buy vehicles. And that was all done for less than $12M/mile 7 years ago for the streetcar. Back to the point: If the streetcar was lighter, they could use lighter rails in the construction, which might save $100,000/mile, or so. But the steel for the streetcars themselves would be 100 times more expensive because it had been made in a clean room instead of a blast furnace, and so the system would cost much more overall.
“I don’t care how and why the Insight failed almost ten years ago.”
It failed 2 years ago. And you should: “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” -George Santayana
“For those of you who were perhaps in diapers in the 1970’s there was a MASSIVE switch to economy and high mpg vehicles back then when OPEC first started putting the squeeze on American consumers by raising oil prices. People switched from Detroit gas hogs getting 10 mpg or less, to small Japanese cars getting 25-30.”
The first sentence of your post is that people weren’t actually getting 25 mpg right now!!! And my point still stands: People can get better gas mileage than the do right now, but they just don’t want to…
My God! Somehow we have gone from my expressing a general agreement with METRO’s thesis that TOD was a justified strategy–although I would take issue with the extreme it could be carried to–to quibbling about details of what happened several years ago and what might happen in the relatively near future. What is your point? That’s what I think needs explaining here.
Portland scale commuting doesn’t apply in other parts of the country. In Los Angeles there is a saying the “Your next appointment is 100 miles from here!” How many people in the Bay Area have under ten miles to go to their job? In Seattle? In Chicago? When fuel efficient vehicles catch on it will be because of a natinwide demand. No I don’t think there will be a stampede to buy the LOREMO. But it will cause pressure on other vehicle makers to follow.
My point is basically that I don’t think our huge expenditures on light rail are prudent in light of very realistic change waves. We’ve seen them before and will see them again. Concern over petroleum fueled vehicles has no one, single cause; it is a complex sociological phenomenon but I do think we are seeing the death knell. But I don’t think we are going to see a big trend away from the use of personal vehicles, so I think METRO’s enthusiasm for light rail public transport is overblown–and therefore a more conservative spending plan is in order.
If Erik H. and family can limit driving to 15,000/yr a lot of it help to have a regular commute with bus service. A lot of people either can’t do that, or it becomes so time consuming they don’t feel any value. In my case, no I don’t commute to a regular location. I work at one construction site for awhile, often starting at 6 am–and then go somewhere else, Last year I worked at Cannon Beach for almost six months, driving down during the week and staying twenty five miles away from the job because it was cheaper.
Nanotech methods on construction materials ARE expensive. But will they still be ten years from now?
BTW, Matthew didn’t answer my question as to whether he was legally qualified to wire a house. What card do you have, Matt, if you don’t mind me asking. I’m not suggesting that you do this but when people do work under the table it shortchanges our governments, which need money to pay for stuff like MAX trains.
Ron – I think I may have taken your original POV differently than what you are expressing in your last post.
A lot of people either can’t do that, or it becomes so time consuming they don’t feel any value. In my case, no I don’t commute to a regular location
You’re absolutely right. What works for someone doesn’t work for someone else. What I do not appreciate is someone who has the gall to tell me how to live my life, how I should commute, etc., while they don’t follow their own advice.
So, my apologies for misinterpreting your point.
Erik,
I always appreciate your comments–you are definitely the Voice of Experience. I wish I could take public transit to my work, but that is only feasible on rare occasions. And those other commuters who drive? Who is to say they don’t have good reasons—it is just so hard to make a blanket statement.
I do favor public funding for mass transit and encouraging people to use it—but we should be striving to bring it as close to self supporting as possible. Therefore I am not totally libertarian in my thinking; I’m kind of a fiscally conservative moderate!!
I think the solution to the short-haul plane travel is a truly high speed rail for the Eugene – Vancouver B.C. corridor with an eventual link-up to California’s high speed system which is in the works. Another thing I’ve noticed since I moved to Salem – the freight trains are going much more frequently since I moved here in mid-January. I don’t know why but I am seeing lots of UPS and FedEx trucks on the freight trains. Why can’t they plan the timing of the freight trains so they run more at night and free up the passenger trrains?? Also, I’m curious to know how much fuel both Amtrak trains consume and also freight trains. Does anyone know?
“BTW, Matthew didn’t answer my question as to whether he was legally qualified to wire a house. What card do you have, Matt, if you don’t mind me asking. I’m not suggesting that you do this but when people do work under the table it shortchanges our governments, which need money to pay for stuff like MAX trains.”
How is this related to why people will or will not drive higher mileage cars? More importantly, how does this not violate rule #2?
People are allowed to wire their own house, they don’t need a card to do that, (they do need a permit.) They are allowed to have people help them too, (fishing wires through existing walls is a whole lot easier with two people than with one,) it is just that the person that owns the house needs to know what they are doing.
In particular, I helped a friend ground the plugs in his house. I’ve known this guy since we were in the lighting crew in high school drama, what we did in the off season back then was rewire old/broken equipment to get it to work again so that we could use it (and often times get rid of the asbestos wires,) and he [and the technical director/school electrician] is the person that taught me most of what I know about wiring. But for this project, he did the “skilled” (cutting/attaching wires to the plugs/putting on wire nuts) labor: my job consisted of laying in the crawl space, taking wires that were fed down one hole and feeding it back up other ones, and then stapling those wires up in the crawl space. But I’ve owned a house for 3 years so I’ve collected a pile of tools, and he just bought his first house, so he didn’t own a pile of tools. Also, since he just bought his first house he wasn’t feeling rich enough to go buy a pile of tools either, (strippers/cutters are cheap, it is things like meters, fish tape, and the large package of wire nuts that costs exactly the same amount as the small package of wire nuts even though you only need 3, and the like) hence, the “borrow them from someone else,” who happens to live in N Portland and owns a bicycle trailer. But he got a permit, and he was the one that explained to the inspector how it was done when they inspected it, (and it passed.)
I didn’t get paid for it, (okay, I got a beer afterwards, but I could have gotten that anyways just by showing up at his house and sitting on the couch watching TV,) but he actually helped me do the same thing to my house 2 years ago, so I suppose technically it was a trade, (although there was never any agreement that that would be how it would work out.) I suppose you could argue that I should be paying taxes on that, but it is kind of like going over to someone’s house for dinner: Yes, it is food, and yes, you could have paid for it, but that is what friends do.
And now I’m breaking rule #5…
I can understand Matthew’s arguments that people might be slow to accept highly fuel efficient cars when they are still able, by some means, to buy gasoline or diesel. And that, in a free market economy, is a critical determing factor.
OTOH, there is, in my opinion, a lot of research going into the next generation of personal vehicles. Doesn’t this indicate that a change might be in the works—getting us away from oil and OPEC’s clutches? If you go to a site like greencarcongress.com there are now hundreds of articles about various projects and research.
I just looked: Chevy Volt coming in 2010; BYD in 1 to 2 years; Peugeot Citroen partnering on electric van; Boeing flies first fuel cell small plane; possible Mercedes fuel cell car in 2010; Can’t begin to count em. Volvo has a front wheel drive electric car that probably will come out in five years. If they do, other manufacturers will follow, no doubt.
Do I support the general concept of high density zones linked by public transit? Sure. Do I think that most people are going to want to switch from, at least, frequent use of private motor vehicles to exclusive reliance on alternative transportation. Naah.
We’ve seen argument after argument on this board of why we whould welcome the highly subsidized MAX lines. I’m just not buying it when credible alternatives are already here, including more cost-effective rail proposals. I also know that, within, the galaxy of “progressive” political action there are some blatantly self-serving interests tagging along. We have discussed them in detail previously.
Another thing I’ve noticed since I moved to Salem – the freight trains are going much more frequently since I moved here in mid-January
That’s because Union Pacific had just (in the last couple of weeks) reopened the route between Eugene and Klamath Falls to trains, albeit only at night (trackwork is continuing during daylight hours). That’s why you’re hearing more trains, and only at certain times of day. This trackwork is due to the massive landslide that occurred in the Cascade Mountains severely damaging the track.
When the repairs are finished, trains will be going back to their old schedule (any train, any track, any time). Until then, a number of trains from Oregon to California are still being detoured on the Oregon Trunk line through Bend.
Greg: I’m curious to know how much fuel both Amtrak trains consume and also freight trains
There are figures online for diesel fuel consumed per hour, but it’s extremely variable (how many locomotives? what type of locomotives? age of locomotive? type of terrain? speed? tonnage of the train?) So it’d be very difficult to get a national average for “freight trains” in general.
However a study was done comparing the fuel efficiency of Amtrak, Greyhound, and other similiar medium to long distance transportation, and BUSSES were found to be the most fuel efficient.
The reason Amtrak was not #1 is because Amtrak just can’t attract riders – Amtrak’s systemwide load factor is under 50%. That means that the average Amtrak train hauls around a lot of empty, dead weight without passengers to fill the seats. So that drops Amtrak’s fuel economy down – it takes about the same amount of fuel to haul an empty train as it does a full train. Busses have a better load factor (again, we are talking medium to long haul – transit busses and local rail like light rail (a.k.a. streetcar) were not within the scope of the study and therefore not included) and therefore the fuel consumption per passenger/mile was less.
Ron Swaren: Boeing flies first fuel cell small plane; possible Mercedes fuel cell car in 2010; Can’t begin to count em.
http://www.newflyer.com/index/news-app/story.49?highlight=fuel%20cell
http://www.coastmountainbus.com/news/news_releases/2007/07/17/17_0707170833-875
http://www.coastmountainbus.com/news/news_releases/2006/01/30/17_0601300955-050
The technology is being developed for busses…but…once again, TriMet would rather keep old, polluting busses without particulate traps on the road while other agencies such as Vancouver, BC are taking the lead.
http://www.translink.bc.ca/Projects/Bus_Expansion/default.asp
TransLink will expand the bus fleet by one-third, and upgrade the existing 1300-vehicle transit fleet. Highlights include:
More Bus Service Increase regional bus service by adding 400 more buses to help meet the growing demand for transit services in the Metro Vancouver region.
Largest Bus Fleet Expansion in 31 Years TransLink is adding 94 new vehicles in 2008 to expand the bus fleet, plus another 160 new vehicles to replace older models.
This expansion will help TransLink to provide a 5.9% increase in annualized bus service hours for 2008.
Ridership is expected to grow by 4.8% – an additional 12 million trips per year.
5000 fewer cars will be on the road as a result, creating a 20,000-tonne reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Now, I did submit a post regarding the whopping 10%+ increase in ridership at Snohomish County’s Community Transit in the “open thread for new topics” but that post seems to have disappeared…
TriMet? Two year running bus ridership drop…no mention of bus system improvements other than purchasing 40 some busses which are simply to replace old busses (that should have been retired three years ago), and absolutely no spending to improve the bus experience to encourage new ridership, with a coorelating decrease in auto trips, greenhouse gasses, etc.
One more link:
http://www.translink.bc.ca/Projects/bus_demo.asp
^ Umm, I would say that Amtrak Cascades is not underutilized. I have personally tried to buy tickets on several occasions to go to Seattle, only to find none available that day.
Totally sold out! three different times last year. Go figure, I had to ride Greyhound.
RE: Amtrak Cascades ridership –
It’s well known that ridership PDX-EUG is under-utilized. The average number of boarding passengers on the route is less than 80, for a train that seats over 250.
PDX-SEA is much better utilized, and is frequently sold out on Friday nights, Saturdays and Sundays (typically the morning and evening trains). If you are travelling during peak season (i.e. Spring Break, most holidays, Thanksgiving, Christmas) than yes – Amtrak will be sold out (like most everything else is).
I just purchased tickets for my family to travel to Seattle coming up in a few weeks on a Monday and Tuesday, and our tickets were at the lowest “bucket” fare – suggesting low ridership on those days. The last trip I took was on a Saturday (same day round trip) and both trains were sold out, and my tickets were at or close to the highest “bucket”.
I personally believe that Amtrak would be better serving its customers, if it eliminated the PDX-EUG segment, and offered a 7X round-trip schedule between Portland and Seattle (which would provide serious competition to Horizon Air) – and replace PDX-EUG service with hourly motorcoach service. It should be noted that a motorcoach will easily provide faster service between Portland-Salem, and would provide equal or close to equal service Salem-Eugene.
The Beginning OF The End?
According to a newspaper report, Nature (peer- reviewed and all that – so we KNOW it is absolutely accurate) just published a report that global warming will take a breather for a decade:
Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a “lull” for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
WHAT!!! Where is that in Al Gore’s hockey stick?
What about natural variations in the warming direction? How much of our warming was due to these same natural variations?
The acid test of a theory is the ability to make predictions that come true, if we take a decade lull, the theory is disproven.
The IPCC currently does not include in its models actual records of such events as the strength of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino cyclical warming event in the Pacific, which are known to have been behind the warmest year ever recorded in 1998.
Again WHAT!!! – the models do not include factors that are known to affect the weather? Amazing.
Quotes are from:
telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.xml
Thanks
JK
Make that title:
The Beginning OF The End? (Of a world wide delusion.)
Thanks
JK
Jim, here are some more quotes for you:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j35vT9GC3XD7DZszjy6eSl9XGXUQ
“Climate experts have long warned, though, that warming is unlikely to be a gradual trend, but a movement in stops and starts.”
“The authors of the new study stress that they do not dispute the IPCC’s figures.”
“Fellow author Johann Jungclaus of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, likened the trend to “driving from the coast to a mountainous area and crossing some hills and valleys before you reach the top.””
Matthew Says: Jim, here are some more quotes for you:
JK:
1. Show me the quote about the IPCC expecting a 10 year pause in warming? Or the Al Gore quote. Or the Jim Hansen quote. You will have to go back a few years because, depending on which data set you use, the cooling started in 1999. Obviously, any statements after the cooling started don’t count.
Thanks
JK
“Obviously, any statements after the cooling started don’t count.”
But Jim, that’s the only way they can keep the charade going.
Adjust their story.
And this is so very rich is it not? And so very predictable.
Under this new snow job of a temporary lull they can hoax along for another 20 years always claiming the calamity warming is just around the corner.
I can’t believe people keeping feeding the trolls by throwing comments at the peanut gallery.
For a counterpoint to JK and John E’s arguments, check out this article at ClimateProgress.org…
Excerpt: