 |
Re: We Need to Electrify As Much Transportation As We Can
Author: BOB2
Date: 04-04-2016 - 20:21
Mouse, please explain to me, why I, as a taxpayer and fare payer, would spend money to wire the 38 for electric buses to reduce CO2? As that would be probably one of the worst investments, in terms of cost per ton, that you could make, if that were your only purpose...when you could achieve significantly more reductions at a fraction of the cost?
It was a minimum range of about one to two million a mile to wire up, the last time I was told to dabble in this. The upper ranges came back at over twice that amount. Now add in the inflation since the mid nineties when I did this. I wouldn't spend that kind of unnecessary money to do this for that level of emission reductions half of which I can achieve, at no infrastructure cost, just from replacing the next generation of existing buses with natural gas hybrids. Which also comes with lower real fuel costs, as well. And, with the money left over, you could pay the Chinese to convert a power plant to natural gas, and save the planet several hundred times the remaining emissions from not electrifying.
Unfortunately, while I personally love trolley buses, the current cost benefit analysis of trolley bus electrification makes the expense of choo-choo electrification look good by comparison.
And Erik, what is this less people using transit nonsense, because of rail? Or did I hear that right? Transit has actually been amazingly steady, even through the recession, with only moderate dips, and slow but steady growth, almost all due to rail, not bus, which has accounted for almost all new growth in net transit trips, over the last twenty years.
Jeez, you can't really believe whatever dubious transit analysis that Bob Poole publishes at the Reason Foundation, even if he does occasionally quote me......when I'm right about something, that he also agrees with.
Has this new ridership translated into greater mode share as population has grown? No, it hasn't, except at the margins, in a few metro areas. So you're right, if you meant that.
The reality is that America spends about 3% of the surface transportation budget (the amount of gross domestic product (GDP) that we spend on all non aviation transportation) on all transit and Amtrak, the last time I calculated it in 2007. And, as a result, we get about 3% of surface transportation trips, from that investment. The other 96.5% of the surface transportation budget is spent on our cars, trucks, roads, freeways, insurance, tires, front end alignments (from the torn up roads...), thirty thousand dollar average parking spaces, then add in paramedics, highway patrol....etc.. This GDP analysis included both public and private costs for both categories, which includes fares, tolls, taxes, gasoline, land values, etc.. And yet, we only got about just over 90%+ of the trips by truck or auto... The miniscule remainder we spent on bikes and sidewalks was the real bargain, with the balance of trips from walking or biking.
So when we complain about these issues and the vast amounts supposedly spent on transit, remember, that we are actually pretty much getting about what we pay for....
It was a minimum range of about one to two million a mile to wire up, the last time I was told to dabble in this. The upper ranges came back at over twice that amount. Now add in the inflation since the mid nineties when I did this. I wouldn't spend that kind of unnecessary money to do this for that level of emission reductions half of which I can achieve, at no infrastructure cost, just from replacing the next generation of existing buses with natural gas hybrids. Which also comes with lower real fuel costs, as well. And, with the money left over, you could pay the Chinese to convert a power plant to natural gas, and save the planet several hundred times the remaining emissions from not electrifying.
Unfortunately, while I personally love trolley buses, the current cost benefit analysis of trolley bus electrification makes the expense of choo-choo electrification look good by comparison.
And Erik, what is this less people using transit nonsense, because of rail? Or did I hear that right? Transit has actually been amazingly steady, even through the recession, with only moderate dips, and slow but steady growth, almost all due to rail, not bus, which has accounted for almost all new growth in net transit trips, over the last twenty years.
Jeez, you can't really believe whatever dubious transit analysis that Bob Poole publishes at the Reason Foundation, even if he does occasionally quote me......when I'm right about something, that he also agrees with.
Has this new ridership translated into greater mode share as population has grown? No, it hasn't, except at the margins, in a few metro areas. So you're right, if you meant that.
The reality is that America spends about 3% of the surface transportation budget (the amount of gross domestic product (GDP) that we spend on all non aviation transportation) on all transit and Amtrak, the last time I calculated it in 2007. And, as a result, we get about 3% of surface transportation trips, from that investment. The other 96.5% of the surface transportation budget is spent on our cars, trucks, roads, freeways, insurance, tires, front end alignments (from the torn up roads...), thirty thousand dollar average parking spaces, then add in paramedics, highway patrol....etc.. This GDP analysis included both public and private costs for both categories, which includes fares, tolls, taxes, gasoline, land values, etc.. And yet, we only got about just over 90%+ of the trips by truck or auto... The miniscule remainder we spent on bikes and sidewalks was the real bargain, with the balance of trips from walking or biking.
So when we complain about these issues and the vast amounts supposedly spent on transit, remember, that we are actually pretty much getting about what we pay for....
