Thanks for correcting the link.

The BTS numbers for the average cost of owning an auto are hypothetical. I prefer to use actual numbers, which are the BEA numbers. Planners often use hypothetical numbers and fail to check them against reality.

It is true that vehicle occupancies declined between 1977 and 2001, but you can’t project a continued decline after 2001. All of the decline took place between 1977 and 1996. Between 1996 and 2001 there was almost no change (actually, a slight increase). Vehicle occupancies closely track household sizes (occupancy = household size minus one). Census data show that household sized declined between 1970 and 1990, but did not decline much between 1990 and 2000. So I feel comfortable using 1.6 per vehicle.

Also, the BTS tracks the cost of passenger miles more directly than the method you used; they track the average cost of owning and operating an automobile. They reckon the cost at $.52 per vehicle mile. Assuming your people/vehicle number applies, the cost is more like $.32 ppm for a personal transportation.

The vehicle occupancy rate you cite is for 2001. On average, vehicle occupancy rates declined about 14.2% between 1977 and 2001; extending that trend from 2001 to 2005 would suggest a vehicle occupancy rate of something more like 1.59 passengers per vehicle. This shifts your numbers very slightly, bringing the cost up to $.33 ppm

Your assumption that capital investments will be ongoing at the initial rate strikes me as misguided. Most cities around the country are heavily engaged in capital improvements to their mass transit right now, but there’s no reason to assume that cost will be ongoing. To get an idea of what the cost might be in the future, it’s useful to look at a city that already has a multi-modal system in place, like San Francisco, where capital expenditures are equal to about 25% of operating, versus the current national figure you’re using, where capital costs are equal to about 41% of operating.

No.

That’s only a tiny fraction of the sources [ http://tinyurl.com/2t7nu9 ].

That’s because, once warm, a modern car’s emissions can’t be measured with current equipment.

No.

Surprisingly, that’s incorrect too (full explanation here). BTW, cars sitting in the sun in CA emit significant VOCs from the fuel system, hence parking lot shade regs…

DS

Thanks
JK

Maybe you are only focusing on buses. Focus on rail and vanpool.

DS.

Dan [with wide variation (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/images/facts/fotw221a.gif)] if we’re talking environmental health as a goal (and I’m an environmental health guy, so I am anyway).
JK: Nice chart (fotw221a.gif). I don’t see how it supports you claim – it shows that the transit in highest density region in the country uses more energy than a new small car (2600 BTU for LA transit vs 2,488 for a new KIA) see: http://www.DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/BusVsCarTEDB.htm for details of the KIA. It appears that only four cities in your graph beat the KIA for energy usage and they are not Meccas of high density. Perhaps we should avoid high density to save energy.

Dan And certainly if we start including externalities in market pricing signals, we’ll have to alter how we get around
JK: Yeah, shut down mass transit and encourage small cars. Especially diesel buses and their horrific pollution and light rail and its putting mercury, uranium and thorium in the air.

Dan I can say that many forces don’t want to include full pricing in market signals.
JK: Probably starting with the transit agencies. In Portland, I suspect that Trimet would not want to raise its rates 400% to recover its operational costs. Probably have to increase 600-1000% to also recoup construction costs for the toy trains and road costs for the roads that the buses tear up.

Then there is all that nasty military stuff required to get all the excess fuel that buses use compared to small private cars.

BTW, did you know that in Europe, transit market share dropped around 20% in the last 20 years while the private car’s share of passenger-kilos went up TO 78.8%. Rail, bus & streetcar combined only amount to 16% these days. Time to quit trying to copy Europe! (Actually this is just another example of the planning “profession’s” tendency to lie to get people to behave in certain ways.) See: http://www.DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/EuroTranistShareLoss.htm

Thanks
JK

I’m not a building guy, but at my last town my office was next to the building inspector, and I’d hear his conversations all day. There’s – IIRC – code in the Int’l Bldg Code for whole-house fans but AIUI its up to the states to decide to adopt.

But. It’s not solely internal air, it’s external air too, and age, and overall health, and time of year and allergens that affect asthma exacerbations (which costs us $10Bns a year). That link above has a wide range of findings on the differences, but I don’t think there is consensus yet on what causes what fraction.

Wrt altering how we get around, certainly we as a society can do better at internal combustion emissions. For example, I can’t go back to Sacramento in the summer any more, as I no longer am used to the air quality, because the LL O3 in the air is too much for my lungs, and I’m a bike rider and very fit [I used to ride home from work after dark near the end before I moved, as the AQ was so bad]. So healthy people are affected too.

At any rate, full transit in dense areas is more efficient energy-wise [with wide variation] if we’re talking environmental health as a goal (and I’m an environmental health guy, so I am anyway).

And certainly if we start including externalities in market pricing signals, we’ll have to alter how we get around (this, actually, is my area and bubbles up in my other work. I can say that many forces don’t want to include full pricing in market signals.).

DS