Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: WorldTransport Forum Re: [NewMobilityCafe] "the next Jane Jacobs"??? - Road to hell is paved with public transit

Expand Messages
  • Craig Townsend
    The Canadian Urban Transit Association CUTA) is apparently preparing an official response to the opinion column by Neil Reynolds, who is not just any journo
    Message 1 of 5 , May 22, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      The Canadian Urban Transit Association CUTA) is apparently preparing an
      official response to the opinion column by Neil Reynolds, who is not just
      any "journo" but has been the editor in chief in two of Canada's larger
      city newspapers, and has run as a politician for the Libertarian Party. It
      is, however, just an opinion column.

      What I see as problematic in the column (and we shouldn't be attacking the
      individuals) is that 1. O'Toole is being presented as someone with more
      credibility (and I believe credentials, but I may be wrong about this)
      than he actually has; 2. the source of the data is not presented so we
      can't analyze it, 3. the reported findings are based on US transport
      system data which is so extremely high in terms of personal automobile use
      and so extremely low in terms of transit vehicle loadings that the
      findings could plausibly be true, even if it is true it wouldn't hold for
      other places, including across the border in Canada, and 4. it neglects to
      mention walking or cycling as a mode of transportation. I can see other
      flaws that are likely inherent to the paper, but rather on commenting on
      something I have not read, I'll restrain myself.

      I'm counting on CUTA to come up with a strong, reasoned response to
      Reynolds' column. If you feel strongly, I would recommend sending letters
      to the editor of The Globe and Mail newspaper, which is Canada's largest
      and most respected national newspaper. I can't find the address from the
      electronic edition and I don't currently have a print edition, but if
      anyone feels motivated and would like that address please email me
      off-list and I can find it for you.

      Craig Townsend
      Montreal, Quebec, Canada




      > Too often these types of stories appear to be the
      > almost inevitable result of lazy journos copying
      > press releases ... long gone are the days when
      > the journos or "hacks" can do in depth critical
      > investigatory journalism ... with of course, some welcome exceptions.
      >
      > Presumably the best strategies for those who
      > disagree with (t)his article will involve
      > discrediting the two authors ... primarily Mr
      > Reynolds for not checking other sources and "experts".
      >
      > In fact it might be useful to see if Mr Reynolds
      > will pass over the source(s) of his references.
      >
      > The most obvious indicator in articles with
      > contentious or problematic topic or content
      > material is an article that only cites one source
      > .... and there can be no doubt that this is not a
      > contentious or problematic topic.
      >
      > It would appear this article seems to fit that model well.
      >
      > In the interim, it might be useful to consider
      > how much more road and parking space is needed as
      > each bus load of passengers decides to use a car instead of the bus.
      >
      > And talking of hatchet jobs ... have a look at this ...
      >
      > <http://>http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/melbourne-uni-demotes-transport-dissident/2008/05/19/1211182704265.html
      >
      >
      > It is also worth having a GOOGLE to see some of
      > the articles and interviews involving Paul.
      >
      > MY......................
      >
      > At 06:59 PM 22/05/2008, Eric Britton wrote:
      >
      >>This is a despicable hatchet job from the rabid
      >>right. What is unforgivable is not the tilted
      >>argumentation -- fair enough that is to be
      >>expected from these well known quarters -- but
      >>the gall of labeling O’Toole, as having
      >>“impeccable environmental credentials” or, can
      >>you believe it?, as "the next Jane Jacobs"???.
      >>What do you think Mr. Reynolds (pic just below
      >>and address right here: nreynolds@...)
      >>was smoking anyway? Strong stuff I would say.
      >>
      >>But it is important that we have this kind of
      >>argumentation fully in our sights. I think it is
      >>useful to hear these voices, because there are
      >>always small hints of truth or valid questions
      >>lurking behind the stark political agenda.
      >>
      >>There has been an excellent private commentary
      >>on this over the last few days which I hesitate
      >>to post her without the approval of the senders.
      >>May I suggest that discussion of this be via the
      >>New Mobility Café, of which the posting address
      >>is
      >> <mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com>NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com.
      >>
      >>Eric Briton
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>Road to hell is paved with public transit
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>Headshot of Neil Reynolds
      >>
      >>
      >>NEIL REYNOLDS
      >>
      >>May 21, 2008
      >>
      >>OTTAWA -- The average public transit bus in the
      >>U.S. uses 4,365 British thermal units, a measure
      >>of energy, per passenger mile and emits 0.71
      >>pounds of carbon dioxide. The average car uses
      >>3,445 BTUs per passenger mile and emits 0.54
      >>pounds of CO{-2}. Whether you seek to conserve
      >>energy or to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
      >>your public policy decision here appears
      >>remarkably obvious. Get people off buses and get
      >>them into cars. The decision to do precisely
      >>this will get progressively easier. By 2020, the
      >>average car will use only 3,000 BTUs per
      >>passenger mile; by 2035, only 2,500 BTUs. By
      >>this time, the car will be - by far - the
      >>greenest option in the 21st century urban transit system.
      >>
      >>Thus calculates Randal O'Toole, an Oregon
      >>economist with impeccable environmental
      >>credentials. Senior economist for a number of
      >>years with the Thoreau Institute (an
      >>environmental think tank in Portland) and
      >>lecturer in environmental economics at Yale and
      >>at the University of California at Berkeley, Mr.
      >>O'Toole has been described as the next Jane
      >>Jacobs, the influential contrarian
      >>environmentalist who ironically worked in more
      >>innocent times to keep cars out of North
      >>American downtowns. Author of provocative books
      >>such as The Vanishing Automobile and Other Urban
      >>Myths and The Best-Laid Plans: How Government
      >>Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Mr. O'Toole
      >>is now a senior fellow at the Cato Institute,
      >>the Washington-based libertarian think tank. He
      >>reportedly cycles to work every day.
      >>
      >>Most public transit systems, Mr. O'Toole says in
      >>a research paper published in April, have never
      >>done the job that governments entrusted to them,
      >>which was to move large numbers of people safely
      >>to work in the morning and to move them safely
      >>back home at night. (On the basis of every
      >>billion passenger miles, he asserts, "light-rail
      >>[public transit] kills three times as many
      >>people as cars on urban freeways.") Judged on
      >>either environmental or economic efficiency, he
      >>says, public transit systems consistently produce diminishing returns.
      >>
      >>New York operates the most energy-efficient
      >>system in the U.S. - but only because its buses
      >>carry an average of 17 passengers, or 60 per
      >>cent more "load" than the 10.7 passengers
      >>carried by the average public transit bus
      >>nationwide. (The average public transit bus has
      >>seats for 39 people and standing room for 20.)
      >>New York keeps losing market share to cars, too.
      >>In 1985, the public transit share of passenger
      >>travel in New York was 12.7 per cent, far ahead
      >>of the No. 2 system (with a 5.2 per cent share)
      >>in Chicago. By 2005, though, the public transit
      >>share in New York had fallen to 9.6 per cent;
      >>Chicago, in the same period, had fallen to 3.7
      >>per cent. At the lower end, Buffalo fell from a
      >>1.2 per cent share of the passenger market to
      >>0.6 per cent; Sacramento fell to a 0.7 per cent share from 0.9 per cent.
      >>
      >>The great boondoggle of the past few years, Mr.
      >>O'Toole says, has been light rail, a fashionable
      >>alternative to heavy rail, the underground subway train.
      >>
      >>"Most heavy-rail systems are less efficient than
      >>the average passenger car and none is as
      >>efficient as a Toyota Prius," Mr. O'Toole says.
      >>"Most light-rail systems use more energy per
      >>passenger mile than an average passenger car,
      >>some are worse than the average light truck and
      >>none is as efficient as a Prius." Curiously, the
      >>Prius delivers exceptional mileage but emits
      >>roughly the same greenhouse gases (per passenger
      >>mile) as the average car and average public transit train.
      >>
      >>Perhaps because they remain market-driven
      >>enterprises, cars and trucks have eclipsed buses
      >>and trains - by a wide margin - in
      >>energy-efficiency advances in the past
      >>generation. Americans drive four times as many
      >>miles as they did 40 years ago but produce less
      >>than half as much automotive air pollution. Some
      >>new cars pollute less than 1 per cent as much as new cars did in the
      >> 1970s.
      >>
      >>Public transit buses are a different story. In
      >>1970, the average bus used 2,500 BTUs per
      >>passenger mile; by 2005, it used 4,300 BTUs, a
      >>70 per cent increase. In 1970, by way of
      >>contrast, light trucks used 9,000 BTUs per
      >>passenger mile; in 2005, they used 4,300 - a
      >>decrease of 50 per cent. The average pickup
      >>truck is now as energy efficient now, per passenger mile, as the average
      >> bus.
      >>
      >>"The fuel economies for bus transit have
      >>declined in every five-year period since 1970,"
      >>Mr. O'Toole says. Why? U.S. public transit
      >>agencies keep buying larger and more expensive
      >>vehicles - and then driving around town with
      >>fewer people in them. In 1982, the average
      >>number of bus occupants was 13.8; by 2006, it was 10.7.
      >>
      >>"Since 1992, American cities have invested
      >>$100-billion in urban rail transit," Mr. O'Toole
      >>says. "Yet no city in the country has managed to
      >>increase [public] transit's share of commuters
      >>by more than 1 per cent. No city has managed to
      >>reduce driving by even 1 per cent. People
      >>respond to high fuel prices by buying more
      >>efficient cars - and then driving more."
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>No virus found in this incoming message.
      >>Checked by AVG.
      >>Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.0/1459
      >>- Release Date: 21/05/2008 5:34 PM
      >
    • Lee Schipper
      As I posted earlier, a good assessment of the data from the US Bureau of Transport Statistics
      Message 2 of 5 , May 22, 2008
      • 0 Attachment

        As I posted earlier, a good assessment of the data from the US Bureau of Transport Statistics

        http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/#chapter_4

        shows that the O’toole apparenetly used only the energy intensity of cars but conveniently forgot

        that about 40% of our cars are light trucks, i.e., 82% of our light trucks are used as cars. They have to be put in the

        average energy intensity, which makes it rise considerably..

        BTS also shows that the energy intensity of city bus travel is about 3400 btu/passenger mile.

        So city buses are lower than the average “car” in the US.

         

         

        Having said that, the points made by Craig are even more important. Remember The “Skeptical Environmentalist” (Lomborg),

        Whose credentials were absent, too.

         

        I already wrote to the Globe and Mail. My parents were from Toronto, so it is an old household item!

         

        Having said all that, I would counsel people not to glorify either the writer nor the “environmentalist”.  Both will collapse of their own leakiness

        As the hot are dissipates.

         

        Lee Schipper

        Visiting Scholar,

        Univ of Calif Transport Center

        Berkeley CA

        www.uctc.net

        skype: mrmeter

        Office: 510 642 6889

        Cell: 202 262 7476

         

        From: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com [mailto:WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Townsend
        Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 6:27 AM
        To: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: WorldTransport Forum Re: [NewMobilityCafe] "the next Jane Jacobs"??? - Road to hell is paved with public transit

         

        The Canadian Urban Transit Association CUTA) is apparently preparing an
        official response to the opinion column by Neil Reynolds, who is not just
        any "journo" but has been the editor in chief in two of Canada's larger
        city newspapers, and has run as a politician for the Libertarian Party. It
        is, however, just an opinion column.

        What I see as problematic in the column (and we shouldn't be attacking the
        individuals) is that 1. O'Toole is being presented as someone with more
        credibility (and I believe credentials, but I may be wrong about this)
        than he actually has; 2. the source of the data is not presented so we
        can't analyze it, 3. the reported findings are based on US transport
        system data which is so extremely high in terms of personal automobile use
        and so extremely low in terms of transit vehicle loadings that the
        findings could plausibly be true, even if it is true it wouldn't hold for
        other places, including across the border in Canada, and 4. it neglects to
        mention walking or cycling as a mode of transportation. I can see other
        flaws that are likely inherent to the paper, but rather on commenting on
        something I have not read, I'll restrain myself.

        I'm counting on CUTA to come up with a strong, reasoned response to
        Reynolds' column. If you feel strongly, I would recommend sending letters
        to the editor of The Globe and Mail newspaper, which is Canada's largest
        and most respected national newspaper. I can't find the address from the
        electronic edition and I don't currently have a print edition, but if
        anyone feels motivated and would like that address please email me
        off-list and I can find it for you.

        Craig Townsend
        Montreal, Quebec, Canada

        > Too often these types of stories appear to be the
        > almost inevitable result of lazy journos copying
        > press releases ... long gone are the days when
        > the journos or "hacks" can do in depth critical
        > investigatory journalism ... with of course, some welcome exceptions.
        >
        > Presumably the best strategies for those who
        > disagree with (t)his article will involve
        > discrediting the two authors ... primarily Mr
        > Reynolds for not checking other sources and "experts".
        >
        > In fact it might be useful to see if Mr Reynolds
        > will pass over the source(s) of his references.
        >
        > The most obvious indicator in articles with
        > contentious or problematic topic or content
        > material is an article that only cites one source
        > .... and there can be no doubt that this is not a
        > contentious or problematic topic.
        >
        > It would appear this article seems to fit that model well.
        >
        > In the interim, it might be useful to consider
        > how much more road and parking space is needed as
        > each bus load of passengers decides to use a car instead of the bus.
        >
        > And talking of hatchet jobs ... have a look at this ...
        >
        > <http://>
        href="http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/melbourne-uni-demotes-transport-dissident/2008/05/19/1211182704265.html">http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/melbourne-uni-demotes-transport-dissident/2008/05/19/1211182704265.html
        >
        >
        > It is also worth having a GOOGLE to see some of
        > the articles and interviews involving Paul.
        >
        > MY......................
        >
        > At 06:59 PM 22/05/2008, Eric Britton wrote:
        >
        >>This is a despicable hatchet job from the rabid
        >>right. What is unforgivable is not the tilted
        >>argumentation -- fair enough that is to be
        >>expected from these well known quarters -- but
        >>the gall of labeling O’Toole, as having
        >>“impeccable environmental credentials” or, can
        >>you believe it?, as "the next Jane Jacobs"???.
        >>What do you think Mr. Reynolds (pic just below
        >>and address right here: nreynolds@...)
        >>was smoking anyway? Strong stuff I would say.
        >>
        >>But it is important that we have this kind of
        >>argumentation fully in our sights. I think it is
        >>useful to hear these voices, because there are
        >>always small hints of truth or valid questions
        >>lurking behind the stark political agenda.
        >>
        >>There has been an excellent private commentary
        >>on this over the last few days which I hesitate
        >>to post her without the approval of the senders.
        >>May I suggest that discussion of this be via the
        >>New Mobility Café, of which the posting address
        >>is
        >> <mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com>
        href="mailto:NewMobilityCafe%40yahoogroups.com">NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com.
        >>
        >>Eric Briton
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>Road to hell is paved with public transit
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>Headshot of Neil Reynolds
        >>
        >>
        >>NEIL REYNOLDS
        >>
        >>May 21, 2008
        >>
        >>OTTAWA -- The average public transit bus in the
        >>U.S. uses 4,365 British thermal units, a measure
        >>of energy, per passenger mile and emits 0.71
        >>pounds of carbon dioxide. The average car uses
        >>3,445 BTUs per passenger mile and emits 0.54
        >>pounds of CO{-2}. Whether you seek to conserve
        >>energy or to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
        >>your public policy decision here appears
        >>remarkably obvious. Get people off buses and get
        >>them into cars. The decision to do precisely
        >>this will get progressively easier. By 2020, the
        >>average car will use only 3,000 BTUs per
        >>passenger mile; by 2035, only 2,500 BTUs. By
        >>this time, the car will be - by far - the
        >>greenest option in the 21st century urban transit system.
        >>
        >>Thus calculates Randal O'Toole, an Oregon
        >>economist with impeccable environmental
        >>credentials. Senior economist for a number of
        >>years with the Thoreau Institute (an
        >>environmental think tank in Portland) and
        >>lecturer in environmental economics at Yale and
        >>at the University of California at Berkeley, Mr.
        >>O'Toole has been described as the next Jane
        >>Jacobs, the influential contrarian
        >>environmentalist who ironically worked in more
        >>innocent times to keep cars out of North
        >>American downtowns. Author of provocative books
        >>such as The Vanishing Automobile and Other Urban
        >>Myths and The Best-Laid Plans: How Government
        >>Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Mr. O'Toole
        >>is now a senior fellow at the Cato Institute,
        >>the Washington-based libertarian think tank. He
        >>reportedly cycles to work every day.
        >>
        >>Most public transit systems, Mr. O'Toole says in
        >>a research paper published in April, have never
        >>done the job that governments entrusted to them,
        >>which was to move large numbers of people safely
        >>to work in the morning and to move them safely
        >>back home at night. (On the basis of every
        >>billion passenger miles, he asserts, "light-rail
        >>[public transit] kills three times as many
        >>people as cars on urban freeways.") Judged on
        >>either environmental or economic efficiency, he
        >>says, public transit systems consistently produce diminishing returns.
        >>
        >>New York operates the most energy-efficient
        >>system in the U.S. - but only because its buses
        >>carry an average of 17 passengers, or 60 per
        >>cent more "load" than the 10.7 passengers
        >>carried by the average public transit bus
        >>nationwide. (The average public transit bus has
        >>seats for 39 people and standing room for 20.)
        >>New York keeps losing market share to cars, too.
        >>In 1985, the public transit share of passenger
        >>travel in New York was 12.7 per cent, far ahead
        >>of the No. 2 system (with a 5.2 per cent share)
        >>in Chicago. By 2005, though, the public transit
        >>share in New York had fallen to 9.6 per cent;
        >>Chicago, in the same period, had fallen to 3.7
        >>per cent. At the lower end, Buffalo fell from a
        >>1.2 per cent share of the passenger market to
        >>0.6 per cent; Sacramento fell to a 0.7 per cent share from 0.9 per
        cent.
        >>
        >>The great boondoggle of the past few years, Mr.
        >>O'Toole says, has been light rail, a fashionable
        >>alternative to heavy rail, the underground subway train.
        >>
        >>"Most heavy-rail systems are less efficient than
        >>the average passenger car and none is as
        >>efficient as a Toyota Prius," Mr. O'Toole says.
        >>"Most light-rail systems use more energy per
        >>passenger mile than an average passenger car,
        >>some are worse than the average light truck and
        >>none is as efficient as a Prius." Curiously, the
        >>Prius delivers exceptional mileage but emits
        >>roughly the same greenhouse gases (per passenger
        >>mile) as the average car and average public transit train.
        >>
        >>Perhaps because they remain market-driven
        >>enterprises, cars and trucks have eclipsed buses
        >>and trains - by a wide margin - in
        >>energy-efficiency advances in the past
        >>generation. Americans drive four times as many
        >>miles as they did 40 years ago but produce less
        >>than half as much automotive air pollution. Some
        >>new cars pollute less than 1 per cent as much as new cars did in the
        >> 1970s.
        >>
        >>Public transit buses are a different story. In
        >>1970, the average bus used 2,500 BTUs per
        >>passenger mile; by 2005, it used 4,300 BTUs, a
        >>70 per cent increase. In 1970, by way of
        >>contrast, light trucks used 9,000 BTUs per
        >>passenger mile; in 2005, they used 4,300 - a
        >>decrease of 50 per cent. The average pickup
        >>truck is now as energy efficient now, per passenger mile, as the
        average
        >> bus.
        >>
        >>"The fuel economies for bus transit have
        >>declined in every five-year period since 1970,"
        >>Mr. O'Toole says. Why? U.S. public transit
        >>agencies keep buying larger and more expensive
        >>vehicles - and then driving around town with
        >>fewer people in them. In 1982, the average
        >>number of bus occupants was 13.8; by 2006, it was 10.7.
        >>
        >>"Since 1992, American cities have invested
        >>$100-billion in urban rail transit," Mr. O'Toole
        >>says. "Yet no city in the country has managed to
        >>increase [public] transit's share of commuters
        >>by more than 1 per cent. No city has managed to
        >>reduce driving by even 1 per cent. People
        >>respond to high fuel prices by buying more
        >>efficient cars - and then driving more."
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>No virus found in this incoming message.
        >>Checked by AVG.
        >>Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.0/1459
        >>- Release Date: 21/05/2008 5:34 PM
        >

      • Richard Layman
        One of the problems with the data that conservatives use is what it measures. The most widely used congestion data in the U.S. _only studies freeway
        Message 3 of 5 , May 22, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          One of the problems with the data that "conservatives" use is what it measures.  The most widely used congestion data in the U.S. _only studies freeway congestion_!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          For those of us who use transit, drive little, have jobs-housing-activity destinations balance, and rarely venture onto Interstate and/or local freeways  this data is meaningless. 

          Anecdotally, although I have a decent empirical orientation, I see tremendous fall off on traffic within DC at most times of day, except in certain key commuter or through-traffic routes (some DC surface roads, since the city doesn't have freeways for the most part, function as through routes from MD to VA).

          One of the ways I test this is by running red lights on my bike, which I don't do with any oncoming traffic.  And I can do this on major outbound routes, during evening rush, in many places of the city.

          And this is true downtown as well, at least during evening rush hour.  (I don't get to downtown much during morning rush.)

          I attribute this to the dense and rich transit system in the city as well as the recognition that it is difficult and expensive to park, especially because with one major exception, there are no large surface parking lots in the Central Business District, and structured parking costs a lot more.

          The other problem with data is that it is national and averaged.  Of course, places like Cleveland don't have the transit efficiency of places like DC  DC's top 4 bus lines move 60--75% of the equivalent ridership of the Dallas DART light rail.  And DC bus utilization is nothing like San Francisco or Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens.  (But for the most part, DC's Metrobus lines have much greater ridership than lines in VA or MD.)

          In short, you have to compare like places to similar places, and similar transit systems to comparable systems.  Generally, that doesn't happen in these kinds of articles.

          RL

          Craig Townsend <townsend@...> wrote:
          The Canadian Urban Transit Association CUTA) is apparently preparing an
          official response to the opinion column by Neil Reynolds, who is not just
          any "journo" but has been the editor in chief in two of Canada's larger
          city newspapers, and has run as a politician for the Libertarian Party. It
          is, however, just an opinion column.

          What I see as problematic in the column (and we shouldn't be attacking the
          individuals) is that 1. O'Toole is being presented as someone with more
          credibility (and I believe credentials, but I may be wrong about this)
          than he actually has; 2. the source of the data is not presented so we
          can't analyze it, 3. the reported findings are based on US transport
          system data which is so extremely high in terms of personal automobile use
          and so extremely low in terms of transit vehicle loadings that the
          findings could plausibly be true, even if it is true it wouldn't hold for
          other places, including across the border in Canada, and 4. it neglects to
          mention walking or cycling as a mode of transportation. I can see other
          flaws that are likely inherent to the paper, but rather on commenting on
          something I have not read, I'll restrain myself.

          I'm counting on CUTA to come up with a strong, reasoned response to
          Reynolds' column. If you feel strongly, I would recommend sending letters
          to the editor of The Globe and Mail newspaper, which is Canada's largest
          and most respected national newspaper. I can't find the address from the
          electronic edition and I don't currently have a print edition, but if
          anyone feels motivated and would like that address please email me
          off-list and I can find it for you.

          Craig Townsend
          Montreal, Quebec, Canada

          > Too often these types of stories appear to be the
          > almost inevitable result of lazy journos copying
          > press releases ... long gone are the days when
          > the journos or "hacks" can do in depth critical
          > investigatory journalism ... with of course, some welcome exceptions.
          >
          > Presumably the best strategies for those who
          > disagree with (t)his article will involve
          > discrediting the two authors ... primarily Mr
          > Reynolds for not checking other sources and "experts".
          >
          > In fact it might be useful to see if Mr Reynolds
          > will pass over the source(s) of his references.
          >
          > The most obvious indicator in articles with
          > contentious or problematic topic or content
          > material is an article that only cites one source
          > .... and there can be no doubt that this is not a
          > contentious or problematic topic.
          >
          > It would appear this article seems to fit that model well.
          >
          > In the interim, it might be useful to consider
          > how much more road and parking space is needed as
          > each bus load of passengers decides to use a car instead of the bus.
          >
          > And talking of hatchet jobs ... have a look at this ...
          >
          > <http://>http://www.theage. com.au/news/ national/ melbourne- uni-demotes- transport- dissident/ 2008/05/19/ 1211182704265. html
          >
          >
          > It is also worth having a GOOGLE to see some of
          > the articles and interviews involving Paul.
          >
          > MY.......... ......... ...
          >
          > At 06:59 PM 22/05/2008, Eric Britton wrote:
          >
          >>This is a despicable hatchet job from the rabid
          >>right. What is unforgivable is not the tilted
          >>argumentation -- fair enough that is to be
          >>expected from these well known quarters -- but
          >>the gall of labeling O’Toole, as having
          >>“impeccable environmental credentials” or, can
          >>you believe it?, as "the next Jane Jacobs"???.
          >>What do you think Mr. Reynolds (pic just below
          >>and address right here: nreynolds@xplornet. com)
          >>was smoking anyway? Strong stuff I would say.
          >>
          >>But it is important that we have this kind of
          >>argumentation fully in our sights. I think it is
          >>useful to hear these voices, because there are
          >>always small hints of truth or valid questions
          >>lurking behind the stark political agenda.
          >>
          >>There has been an excellent private commentary
          >>on this over the last few days which I hesitate
          >>to post her without the approval of the senders.
          >>May I suggest that discussion of this be via the
          >>New Mobility Café, of which the posting address
          >>is
          >> <mailto:NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com>NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com.
          >>
          >>Eric Briton
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>Road to hell is paved with public transit
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>Headshot of Neil Reynolds
          >>
          >>
          >>NEIL REYNOLDS
          >>
          >>May 21, 2008
          >>
          >>OTTAWA -- The average public transit bus in the
          >>U.S. uses 4,365 British thermal units, a measure
          >>of energy, per passenger mile and emits 0.71
          >>pounds of carbon dioxide. The average car uses
          >>3,445 BTUs per passenger mile and emits 0.54
          >>pounds of CO{-2}. Whether you seek to conserve
          >>energy or to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
          >>your public policy decision here appears
          >>remarkably obvious. Get people off buses and get
          >>them into cars. The decision to do precisely
          >>this will get progressively easier. By 2020, the
          >>average car will use only 3,000 BTUs per
          >>passenger mile; by 2035, only 2,500 BTUs. By
          >>this time, the car will be - by far - the
          >>greenest option in the 21st century urban transit system.
          >>
          >>Thus calculates Randal O'Toole, an Oregon
          >>economist with impeccable environmental
          >>credentials. Senior economist for a number of
          >>years with the Thoreau Institute (an
          >>environmental think tank in Portland) and
          >>lecturer in environmental economics at Yale and
          >>at the University of California at Berkeley, Mr.
          >>O'Toole has been described as the next Jane
          >>Jacobs, the influential contrarian
          >>environmentalist who ironically worked in more
          >>innocent times to keep cars out of North
          >>American downtowns. Author of provocative books
          >>such as The Vanishing Automobile and Other Urban
          >>Myths and The Best-Laid Plans: How Government
          >>Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Mr. O'Toole
          >>is now a senior fellow at the Cato Institute,
          >>the Washington-based libertarian think tank. He
          >>reportedly cycles to work every day.
          >>
          >>Most public transit systems, Mr. O'Toole says in
          >>a research paper published in April, have never
          >>done the job that governments entrusted to them,
          >>which was to move large numbers of people safely
          >>to work in the morning and to move them safely
          >>back home at night. (On the basis of every
          >>billion passenger miles, he asserts, "light-rail
          >>[public transit] kills three times as many
          >>people as cars on urban freeways.") Judged on
          >>either environmental or economic efficiency, he
          >>says, public transit systems consistently produce diminishing returns.
          >>
          >>New York operates the most energy-efficient
          >>system in the U.S. - but only because its buses
          >>carry an average of 17 passengers, or 60 per
          >>cent more "load" than the 10.7 passengers
          >>carried by the average public transit bus
          >>nationwide. (The average public transit bus has
          >>seats for 39 people and standing room for 20.)
          >>New York keeps losing market share to cars, too.
          >>In 1985, the public transit share of passenger
          >>travel in New York was 12.7 per cent, far ahead
          >>of the No. 2 system (with a 5.2 per cent share)
          >>in Chicago. By 2005, though, the public transit
          >>share in New York had fallen to 9.6 per cent;
          >>Chicago, in the same period, had fallen to 3.7
          >>per cent. At the lower end, Buffalo fell from a
          >>1.2 per cent share of the passenger market to
          >>0.6 per cent; Sacramento fell to a 0.7 per cent share from 0.9 per cent.
          >>
          >>The great boondoggle of the past few years, Mr.
          >>O'Toole says, has been light rail, a fashionable
          >>alternative to heavy rail, the underground subway train.
          >>
          >>"Most heavy-rail systems are less efficient than
          >>the average passenger car and none is as
          >>efficient as a Toyota Prius," Mr. O'Toole says.
          >>"Most light-rail systems use more energy per
          >>passenger mile than an average passenger car,
          >>some are worse than the average light truck and
          >>none is as efficient as a Prius." Curiously, the
          >>Prius delivers exceptional mileage but emits
          >>roughly the same greenhouse gases (per passenger
          >>mile) as the average car and average public transit train.
          >>
          >>Perhaps because they remain market-driven
          >>enterprises, cars and trucks have eclipsed buses
          >>and trains - by a wide margin - in
          >>energy-efficiency advances in the past
          >>generation. Americans drive four times as many
          >>miles as they did 40 years ago but produce less
          >>than half as much automotive air pollution. Some
          >>new cars pollute less than 1 per cent as much as new cars did in the
          >> 1970s.
          >>
          >>Public transit buses are a different story. In
          >>1970, the average bus used 2,500 BTUs per
          >>passenger mile; by 2005, it used 4,300 BTUs, a
          >>70 per cent increase. In 1970, by way of
          >>contrast, light trucks used 9,000 BTUs per
          >>passenger mile; in 2005, they used 4,300 - a
          >>decrease of 50 per cent. The average pickup
          >>truck is now as energy efficient now, per passenger mile, as the average
          >> bus.
          >>
          >>"The fuel economies for bus transit have
          >>declined in every five-year period since 1970,"
          >>Mr. O'Toole says. Why? U.S. public transit
          >>agencies keep buying larger and more expensive
          >>vehicles - and then driving around town with
          >>fewer people in them. In 1982, the average
          >>number of bus occupants was 13.8; by 2006, it was 10.7.
          >>
          >>"Since 1992, American cities have invested
          >>$100-billion in urban rail transit," Mr. O'Toole
          >>says. "Yet no city in the country has managed to
          >>increase [public] transit's share of commuters
          >>by more than 1 per cent. No city has managed to
          >>reduce driving by even 1 per cent. People
          >>respond to high fuel prices by buying more
          >>efficient cars - and then driving more."
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >>No virus found in this incoming message.
          >>Checked by AVG.
          >>Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.0/1459
          >>- Release Date: 21/05/2008 5:34 PM
          >




        • ablair@region.waterloo.on.ca
          I was going to note to people that Neil Reynolds is known for these type of views to readers of Canada s The Globe & Mail newspaper - note that he typically
          Message 4 of 5 , May 22, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            I was going to note to people that Neil Reynolds is known for these type of
            views to readers of Canada's The Globe & Mail newspaper - note that he
            typically writes as part of the Report on Business section. The other week
            he argued for the car as having a smaller carbon footprint than those who
            walk (provoking a letter to the editor from the institute he was quoting
            and noting that he was taking their data out of context). The current
            column has resulted in a couple of letters challenging his points.
            His column for tomorrow will tell us "How to get rid of traffic congestion
            and get rapid transit" which should be an interesting read.

            Blair Allen
            Waterloo, Canada



            "Craig Townsend"
            <townsend@alcor.c
            oncordia.ca> To
            Sent by: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
            WorldTransport@ya cc
            hoogroups.com
            Subject
            Re: WorldTransport Forum Re:
            22/05/2008 09:26 [NewMobilityCafe] "the next Jane
            AM Jacobs"??? - Road to hell is paved
            with public transit

            Please respond to
            WorldTransport@ya
            hoogroups.com











            The Canadian Urban Transit Association CUTA) is apparently preparing an
            official response to the opinion column by Neil Reynolds, who is not just
            any "journo" but has been the editor in chief in two of Canada's larger
            city newspapers, and has run as a politician for the Libertarian Party. It
            is, however, just an opinion column.

            What I see as problematic in the column (and we shouldn't be attacking the
            individuals) is that 1. O'Toole is being presented as someone with more
            credibility (and I believe credentials, but I may be wrong about this)
            than he actually has; 2. the source of the data is not presented so we
            can't analyze it, 3. the reported findings are based on US transport
            system data which is so extremely high in terms of personal automobile use
            and so extremely low in terms of transit vehicle loadings that the
            findings could plausibly be true, even if it is true it wouldn't hold for
            other places, including across the border in Canada, and 4. it neglects to
            mention walking or cycling as a mode of transportation. I can see other
            flaws that are likely inherent to the paper, but rather on commenting on
            something I have not read, I'll restrain myself.

            I'm counting on CUTA to come up with a strong, reasoned response to
            Reynolds' column. If you feel strongly, I would recommend sending letters
            to the editor of The Globe and Mail newspaper, which is Canada's largest
            and most respected national newspaper. I can't find the address from the
            electronic edition and I don't currently have a print edition, but if
            anyone feels motivated and would like that address please email me
            off-list and I can find it for you.

            Craig Townsend
            Montreal, Quebec, Canada

            > Too often these types of stories appear to be the
            > almost inevitable result of lazy journos copying
            > press releases ... long gone are the days when
            > the journos or "hacks" can do in depth critical
            > investigatory journalism ... with of course, some welcome exceptions.
            >
            > Presumably the best strategies for those who
            > disagree with (t)his article will involve
            > discrediting the two authors ... primarily Mr
            > Reynolds for not checking other sources and "experts".
            >
            > In fact it might be useful to see if Mr Reynolds
            > will pass over the source(s) of his references.
            >
            > The most obvious indicator in articles with
            > contentious or problematic topic or content
            > material is an article that only cites one source
            > .... and there can be no doubt that this is not a
            > contentious or problematic topic.
            >
            > It would appear this article seems to fit that model well.
            >
            > In the interim, it might be useful to consider
            > how much more road and parking space is needed as
            > each bus load of passengers decides to use a car instead of the bus.
            >
            > And talking of hatchet jobs ... have a look at this ...
            >
            > <http://>
            http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/melbourne-uni-demotes-transport-dissident/2008/05/19/1211182704265.html
            >
            >
            > It is also worth having a GOOGLE to see some of
            > the articles and interviews involving Paul.
            >
            > MY......................
            >
            > At 06:59 PM 22/05/2008, Eric Britton wrote:
            >
            >>This is a despicable hatchet job from the rabid
            >>right. What is unforgivable is not the tilted
            >>argumentation -- fair enough that is to be
            >>expected from these well known quarters -- but
            >>the gall of labeling O’Toole, as having
            >>“impeccable environmental credentials” or, can
            >>you believe it?, as "the next Jane Jacobs"???.
            >>What do you think Mr. Reynolds (pic just below
            >>and address right here: nreynolds@...)
            >>was smoking anyway? Strong stuff I would say.
            >>
            >>But it is important that we have this kind of
            >>argumentation fully in our sights. I think it is
            >>useful to hear these voices, because there are
            >>always small hints of truth or valid questions
            >>lurking behind the stark political agenda.
            >>
            >>There has been an excellent private commentary
            >>on this over the last few days which I hesitate
            >>to post her without the approval of the senders.
            >>May I suggest that discussion of this be via the
            >>New Mobility Café, of which the posting address
            >>is
            >> <mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com>NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com.
            >>
            >>Eric Briton
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>Road to hell is paved with public transit
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>Headshot of Neil Reynolds
            >>
            >>
            >>NEIL REYNOLDS
            >>
            >>May 21, 2008
            >>
            >>OTTAWA -- The average public transit bus in the
            >>U.S. uses 4,365 British thermal units, a measure
            >>of energy, per passenger mile and emits 0.71
            >>pounds of carbon dioxide. The average car uses
            >>3,445 BTUs per passenger mile and emits 0.54
            >>pounds of CO{-2}. Whether you seek to conserve
            >>energy or to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
            >>your public policy decision here appears
            >>remarkably obvious. Get people off buses and get
            >>them into cars. The decision to do precisely
            >>this will get progressively easier. By 2020, the
            >>average car will use only 3,000 BTUs per
            >>passenger mile; by 2035, only 2,500 BTUs. By
            >>this time, the car will be - by far - the
            >>greenest option in the 21st century urban transit system.
            >>
            >>Thus calculates Randal O'Toole, an Oregon
            >>economist with impeccable environmental
            >>credentials. Senior economist for a number of
            >>years with the Thoreau Institute (an
            >>environmental think tank in Portland) and
            >>lecturer in environmental economics at Yale and
            >>at the University of California at Berkeley, Mr.
            >>O'Toole has been described as the next Jane
            >>Jacobs, the influential contrarian
            >>environmentalist who ironically worked in more
            >>innocent times to keep cars out of North
            >>American downtowns. Author of provocative books
            >>such as The Vanishing Automobile and Other Urban
            >>Myths and The Best-Laid Plans: How Government
            >>Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Mr. O'Toole
            >>is now a senior fellow at the Cato Institute,
            >>the Washington-based libertarian think tank. He
            >>reportedly cycles to work every day.
            >>
            >>Most public transit systems, Mr. O'Toole says in
            >>a research paper published in April, have never
            >>done the job that governments entrusted to them,
            >>which was to move large numbers of people safely
            >>to work in the morning and to move them safely
            >>back home at night. (On the basis of every
            >>billion passenger miles, he asserts, "light-rail
            >>[public transit] kills three times as many
            >>people as cars on urban freeways.") Judged on
            >>either environmental or economic efficiency, he
            >>says, public transit systems consistently produce diminishing returns.
            >>
            >>New York operates the most energy-efficient
            >>system in the U.S. - but only because its buses
            >>carry an average of 17 passengers, or 60 per
            >>cent more "load" than the 10.7 passengers
            >>carried by the average public transit bus
            >>nationwide. (The average public transit bus has
            >>seats for 39 people and standing room for 20.)
            >>New York keeps losing market share to cars, too.
            >>In 1985, the public transit share of passenger
            >>travel in New York was 12.7 per cent, far ahead
            >>of the No. 2 system (with a 5.2 per cent share)
            >>in Chicago. By 2005, though, the public transit
            >>share in New York had fallen to 9.6 per cent;
            >>Chicago, in the same period, had fallen to 3.7
            >>per cent. At the lower end, Buffalo fell from a
            >>1.2 per cent share of the passenger market to
            >>0.6 per cent; Sacramento fell to a 0.7 per cent share from 0.9 per cent.
            >>
            >>The great boondoggle of the past few years, Mr.
            >>O'Toole says, has been light rail, a fashionable
            >>alternative to heavy rail, the underground subway train.
            >>
            >>"Most heavy-rail systems are less efficient than
            >>the average passenger car and none is as
            >>efficient as a Toyota Prius," Mr. O'Toole says.
            >>"Most light-rail systems use more energy per
            >>passenger mile than an average passenger car,
            >>some are worse than the average light truck and
            >>none is as efficient as a Prius." Curiously, the
            >>Prius delivers exceptional mileage but emits
            >>roughly the same greenhouse gases (per passenger
            >>mile) as the average car and average public transit train.
            >>
            >>Perhaps because they remain market-driven
            >>enterprises, cars and trucks have eclipsed buses
            >>and trains - by a wide margin - in
            >>energy-efficiency advances in the past
            >>generation. Americans drive four times as many
            >>miles as they did 40 years ago but produce less
            >>than half as much automotive air pollution. Some
            >>new cars pollute less than 1 per cent as much as new cars did in the
            >> 1970s.
            >>
            >>Public transit buses are a different story. In
            >>1970, the average bus used 2,500 BTUs per
            >>passenger mile; by 2005, it used 4,300 BTUs, a
            >>70 per cent increase. In 1970, by way of
            >>contrast, light trucks used 9,000 BTUs per
            >>passenger mile; in 2005, they used 4,300 - a
            >>decrease of 50 per cent. The average pickup
            >>truck is now as energy efficient now, per passenger mile, as the average
            >> bus.
            >>
            >>"The fuel economies for bus transit have
            >>declined in every five-year period since 1970,"
            >>Mr. O'Toole says. Why? U.S. public transit
            >>agencies keep buying larger and more expensive
            >>vehicles - and then driving around town with
            >>fewer people in them. In 1982, the average
            >>number of bus occupants was 13.8; by 2006, it was 10.7.
            >>
            >>"Since 1992, American cities have invested
            >>$100-billion in urban rail transit," Mr. O'Toole
            >>says. "Yet no city in the country has managed to
            >>increase [public] transit's share of commuters
            >>by more than 1 per cent. No city has managed to
            >>reduce driving by even 1 per cent. People
            >>respond to high fuel prices by buying more
            >>efficient cars - and then driving more."
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>No virus found in this incoming message.
            >>Checked by AVG.
            >>Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.24.0/1459
            >>- Release Date: 21/05/2008 5:34 PM
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.