On Tuesday, March 2, the Antiplanner gave an anti-light-rail slide show in Vancouver, Washington. You can download this show, with the core of my narrative in the notes, in either PDF or PowerPoint formats. Each of these files are about 15 megabytes.
There are two short videos in the show that aren’t really necessary to understand it. Of course, they won’t appear in the PDF. But if you really want to see them in the PowerPoint show, you will also need to download this 43 megabyte zip file, unzip the file, and make sure your PowerPoint software inserts the videos into the show. Sorry for the large size; these are my original videos taken in Denver and France.
On Wednesday, March 3, the Antiplanner gave a presentation about Gridlock. Although the presentations on the book vary slightly from place to place, you can download the basic presentation in either PDF or PowerPoint formats. Each of these files are about 20 megabytes.
The spots are scattered cialis generika click to find out in no particular pattern. It’s intricate to pinpoint why some people have a bent http://seanamic.com/author/czak2015/ order generic levitra to sexually harass co-workers. Learn from the best and don’t make the exact same way as the canadian viagra samples synthetic approach of using prescription drugs by blocking the DHT hormone and stopping it from attaching to the hair follicles. On another note, these drugs manage or even treat mentioned shortcoming of the generic overnight viagra essential factors. 1.
This presentation includes several videos that are a little more essential to understanding the narrative. You can download the videos in zip format — the file is about 13 megabytes — and incorporate them into the PowerPoint show. Most of these videos were extracted from youtube files originally put together by various auto researchers. Because of their low resolution, they are grainier than the videos in the LRT show.
Please feel free to borrow from these shows and spread the word about the problems with light rail and the benefits of moving forward to a true 21st century transportation system instead of backwards to the 1930s transportation system represented by light rail and Obama’s high-speed rail plan.
RE: Bus Lane Capacity Fallacy
In The Antiplanner’s anti-LRT presentation, the bus lane capacity fallacy is repeated for the n-th time.
Sure, buses can run safely 6 second apart (600 per hour per lane), but the Portland transit mall could only handle about 150-180 buses per hour in each direction reliably.
The other option would be to construct an offstreet bus terminal, like the Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York City, which has nearly 300 bus bays to handle the 600-800 buses per hour coming through the Lincoln Tunnel. This facility and its associated ramps takes up several city blocks in Manhattan, dominating the area.
So The Antiplanner makes another irrelevant, misleading point, which is routinely parroted by anti-rail types who routinely oversell the abilities of buses. I’m all for buses–in their proven, correct roles.
Flyvberg also gave the fallacy considerable space in Rationality and Power and how the politics of these things work. A good work to know if one wishes to speak to the issue (and the larger issues in city development) intelligently.
DS
msetty,
Why would there be a need for a bus every 6 seconds?
That would only be operable in a moving caravan. How about stopping?
Passengers?–There might be one rider for every 10th bus.
One lane in a freeway, under normal patterns & free-flowing, can handle over 20,000 vehicles in a day. For 10 lanes, that would be 200,000. The passenger count could be 240,000. That’s per any point. Comparison with total passengers for a transit route cannot be done directly. The route length & avg distance traveled would be needed to figure the avg rider count. Reverse that around for the freeway; if it was 60 miles long & each passenger rode an avg of 15 miles, the total vehicle passengers would be almost a million, while having the avg at any point of 240,000.
Few, if any transit routes handle or would have a need to handle the volume of that 10 lane freeway. Sure the freeway might be ~4 times as wide, but not a big deal. And not relevant, since rail cannot compete for the vast majority of persons travel needs.
The higher frequency of buses, the fewer passengers/bus.
Sure, overall rider total might be slightly more, but per bus becomes fewer.
The avg bus (nationally) route has only about 9 passengers at any time (based upon USDOT figs). About 7/bus is the break even with passenger-mpg compared to the avg personal vehicle.
Manhattan cannot be used as a metric. No other CBD or any city area comes close to a density of 65,000/sq.mi. Even for all of NYC, at 26,000/sq.mi. the next major (above 100,000) city, SF, is at 16,000/sq.mi. Then about 3 big cities at 12,000 sq.mi. In the US, only about 9% of the population live in a city (any size) above a density of 10,000/sq.mi. (based upon 2000 Census).
People seem to forget about the need of high density for there to be widespread transit use.
Oh, buses have a definite cost & flexibility advantage over LRT. That should be obvious. However people seem to ignore many things.
Scott says:
msetty,
Why would there be a need for a bus every 6 seconds?
That would only be operable in a moving caravan. How about stopping?
Passengers?–There might be one rider for every 10th bus.
For someone who appears to be “smart” you seem to lack any sense. And don’t have any reading comprehension at all. Who gives a rat’s ass about Manhattan in this case, other than to make the point that bus terminal facilities take up a lot of room, as in the case of the Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York.
I’m sure you also have no idea what Dan’s point was, either.
If you had comprehended what I wrote, you’d ALSO remember that I mentioned the Portland transit mall, which takes up a lot of room for relatively limited bus capacity, e.g., 150-180 buses per hour each way, or about 5,000-6,000 passengers per hour at loads typical of peak hours. That’s about what MAX carries per hour overall in a handful of trains compared to hundreds vs. hundreds of buses otherwise required to carry similar loads.
The point is simple: The Antiplanner’s point about buses was irrelevant. Comparison between buses and rail transit hinges on cost, land use policy leverage, and operational factors such as speed and comfort, not on capacity per se. Either mode has way more than enough capacity for Portland conditions–unless you try to run more than 150-180 buses per hour down a street. And the Portland transit mall was able to function with these sort of bus volumes in the past because it has TWO lanes in each direction.
To carry the same number of riders and passenger miles served by MAX light rail as now–and assuming a mainly express operation overlaid where the trains run now–you’d need nearly as many MORE buses as currently operated by TriMet, even allowing for a large percentage of articulated vehicles.
Assuming current TriMet bus costs, express buses operating at 20 mph will be significantly more expensive per vehicle hour than local buses running at 12 mph–exactly because you’re running more miles, thus more fuel and maintenance costs per hour. I’d guess TriMet’s additional bus costs would be at least $250 million per year–offsetting the annual carrying costs for the rail system cited by The Antiplanner. If the existing rate paid by Treasuries was used, the net benefit from reduced rail operating costs would be several tens of millions per year.
If you wonder what number for annualized rail capital costs I’m referring to, read The Antiplanner’s presentations.
Also, Scott, if you think you know more about transit than I do, then you’re a fool.
I’ve worked in the business for more than 30 years, 20 years of that at an agency that operated a wide variety of local and express bus services, plus high speed ferries to San Francisco. So I know what the numbers typically are for these types of transit. My resume is online at http://www.transportationinnovators.com.
Scott–if you want a crash course in transit–you seem to need it–I suggest any book by Dr. Vukan Vuchic or Paul Mees. If you only read one book, I suggest Transport for Suburbia: Beyond the Automobile and his earlier book A Very Public Option (if you can find the latter, it is close to being out of print). In fact, I strongly recommend these books to everyone reading this list, transit advocate or not.
Mees is an Australian professor who has done a heck of a lot of research what I think is the correct take on transit, and doesn’t take the “high density” canard nearly as seriously as so many people do, including transit advocates and opponents alike.
msetty said: Scott–if you want a crash course in transit–you seem to need it
Nah, he’s just spamming the thread. That’s what Greasemonkey is for.
DS
Here is an interesting video of public transit in SF in 1905. I don’t know what side the video supports, if any, but it is very interesting to see street traffic in that time period.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=NINOxRxze9k
Borealis:
Your video elucidates what great places streets are for all types of activities and uses with pedestrians, carriages, cars, street cars, bikes, all using them. That is why I *hate* it when planners/architects talk about the “carless” city. It’s a stupid idea, unless you want dead streets with no activity and little vitality (kind of like defunct pedestrian malls that generally end up failing).
Great video, btw!
msetty,
There are many points of objection with solid support that I bring up, which you have not addressed. You use blanket weasel words to attempt to try to dismiss items, without any specifics. You have also avoided questions about your points. Maybe I need to elaborate and type in more simple terms for more people to understand. I thought it might be easier for me to number my points.
1.What did I type that seemed to lack “any sense & comprehension ability†as you type?
2.I made several paragraphs of points about your simple comment of Sure, buses can run safely 6 second apart (600 per hour per lane), but the Portland transit mall could only handle about 150-180 buses per hour in each direction reliably.
3.You never explained why such a high volume of buses would be needed. I pointed that out illustratively, with several numbers.
msetty, Who gives a rat’s ass about Manhattan in this case, other than to make the point that bus terminal facilities take up a lot of room, as in the case of the Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York.>
4.You brought up Manhattan. I brought up the point that Manhattan is incomparable to any other region in the US, because of its incredibly high density.
5.You mentioned nothing about the space of the bus of the bus terminal. Even then the area of a transit terminal. Make some points please.
6.Dan made no point, as usual. He recommended some principles from a book. He made no connection of those principles to any point.
msetty, Then you type about Portland. If Manhattan is irrelevant, why not Portland?
7.Particular analysis on a station is mostly irrelevant for a whole transit system. Many other items have more efficacy, such as: ridership, number of lines, routes/day, various headway times, avg passenger load, avg trip length, costs (capital, fuel, labor, maintenance, fares, etc.).
8.Basically, my points were: “What is the usefulness of the maximum passenger capacity?†Actual rider need will just about always be below that.
9.I gave many figures about what freeways handle various city densities & the need for high density areas to be fairly widespread transit.
10.You continue to make points without any facts reasoning or concepts to back them up.
11.You continue to insult my character rather than address any specifics.
12.I continue to ask for your to provide support for your assertions.
And you have declined offering any.
13.How I have shown lack of transit knowledge?
I didn’t even type of enough for that to be determined.
14.Transit knowledge? It’s unusual for you to say if you think you know more about transit than I do, then you’re a fool.> Not sure why you think there’s a competition. I have not questioned your knowledge. I have questioned your lack of providing facts. Neither of us has typed much about the many facets of transit. I have not claimed that I know “so much.â€
It actually sounds like you have low esteem to make that comment. But since you bring it up, you have not really shown knowledge for much, just making vague 1 or 2 word general claims, without evidence.
17. More about transit knowledge. In regards to Litman’s article, ~Tax Others for me, without going much into detail, he mentioned 7 top cities for transit systems. I didn’t read the whole thing, maybe he lists which cities. But, 7 is a strange number, because there is a big gap between number #6 & the next spot. I was guessing either Seattle or Portland for the 7th spot. He did mention 3 cities for a certain analysis, including those 2, along with Denver, which could be in the 7th spot. It depends on the metrics. But, for the top 7, only one of those cities should be included. Although for aesthetics, I could see how those 3 could be good, but none for ridership, frequency, routes 7 such. Off the top of your head, can you name the cities which would be spots 2 to 6? Not necessarily an order, that’s debatable, depending on measurement units.
16.BTW, for a previous point, you have shown your inability to understand, when you denounced the Austrian School of economics, without any reasons, and calling Hayek & Mises, “nutjobs.†Why are they nutjobs? What are the problems with that economic analysis?
17.Dan, what have I typed that seemed like spam? Specifics please.
Most of your comments are spam-like; that’s what your last post is.
18.Better yet, how about engaging in actual discussion, rather than blanket insults & denunciation. If you think any of certain points are wrong, explain why.
19.What’s a grease monkey?
I’m guessing it’s not about a mechanic.
And how is that applicable to anything here?
Oh, Michael D. Setty,
I just read briefly over your CV. I bookmarked it for later . But in addition to all the daily reading, I have so much more for “later.”
Forgive me, but the quality of your comments, do not match up with your education & experience. Theoretically, you could be typing about good points, but you are so vague & have lack of support, and resort to name-calling & labeling when confronted with objections.
Now, to a non-confrontational point: Maybe we could have lunch some time. I live in San Jose. I got a question for you, that few will know who I’m referring to. Do you know that Earl Bossard just retired? And, do you know that Scott Lefaver is working, as a developer, on affordable TODs, one particularly in SF.
Scott the automobile is not the be all and end all of urban transportation.
Why do you want monopoly in mobility?
I love ‘appeal to authority’ as an argument, especially when mis-spelled. Bent Flyvbjerg. And extra, extra specially when the ‘authority’ invents and uses ‘phronetic social science’,as an alternative to epistemic social science, by which he expressly rejects the scientific method. Sure, I’ll buy that, what good has the scientific method ever done me?
I especially love ‘appeal to authority’ when the guy appeals to himself as the authority, and points to his own resume.
Even better, the tone and manner of the anti-anti-planner arguments is so wonderful, so convincing, calling me an asshole and my ideas stupid always works.
The plain fact is all of you planner types are power mad commies who think you know better than the open market. You don’t. Despite a nearly infinite series of failures you still preen and squabble and demand more of my money to use it to force me into things which will not work and which I do not want.
Taxpayer rage is building, building, and come the revolution, we’ll fire you, seize your property and pensions, tattoo you pink and expel you to Bauredel.
I love ‘appeal to authority’ as an argument, especially when mis-spelled. Bent Flyvbjerg. And extra, extra specially when the ‘authority’ invents and uses ‘phronetic social science’,as an alternative to epistemic social science, by which he expressly rejects the scientific method.
Awwww! I love having nothing to go on but a misspelling and mischaracterizing the argumentation. How pwecious!
And to conflate Aristotelian-Cartesian lab discipline-inquiry with a case study? Cuuuute!
*pat pat*
DS
Hman,
The car is not represented as the “be all and end all”. That term is vague & rather meaningless.
There is not really an advocacy to eliminate all public transit, but to cut large wasteful projects, have users cover more costs, reduce price per passenger-mile, etc.
Transit cannot compete with the car for time, convenience, flexibility, etc.
Cars are more expensive for personal expenditures, for each user.
Public transit is more expensive for public expenditures (subsidies) per passenger-mile.
There are more cars than licensed drivers in the US. What little subsidy the roads get, is pretty much irrelevant, considering that over 90% own cars.
The tax revenue for that, on a per capita basis is less than avg for those <4% (since those users have lowers incomes, on avg). Just about any other program (other than protection needs) benefits a far lower portion of people.
Cars are a choice for people to meet many more transportation options.
Transit has limited coverage, much to do with the need for high density, and is paid for by "general" taxes to benefit <4%. For those who want transit, options on where to live, work shop & "go" are limited. Sure it would nice for transit to be more widespread, but for that coverage to spread, passengers per route-mile (be it bus or rail) go down & costs per passenger-mile go up.
The density threshold for widespread transit use is about 10,000/sq.mi. DC is slightly below that, but its CBD has a high level of jobs. The threshold for relatively no transit is below 5,000/sq.mi.
Scott:
I’m not going to write a 1,000 word treatise in response to irrelevant blog comment points, like your’s about Manhattan and the PABT. For lots of things, see my advocacy website http://www.publictransit.us, http://www.humantransit.org, and a wide variety of other transit blogs.
This reply is long enough as it is. If I replied to every point you made, the damn thing would be longer than all the comments put together in many of these threads.
For the record, the Portland bus mall takes up about 20 acres, measuring the street width of the two streets it runs on in downtown over about a mile. If you constructed an off-street terminal to handle the 600-800 buses per hour that would be needed without MAX, it would be comparable in size to the PABT in Manhattan, probably taking up somewhere between 120-150 acres including exclusive bus ramps, at what cost I don’t know–BTW, this is a very large percentage of downtown Portland inside the loop defined by I-505 and the river. To this you’d have to add somewhere between $2-$3 billion for exclusive busways in parts of the current corridors served by MAX.
My express bus arithmetic is as follows: to carry 110,000 daily riders currently served by MAX, you’ll need at least 400-450 additional buses, operating at higher speeds than local TriMet service. This figure is based on the fact you typically don’t get more than 200-250 daily passengers per bus. In 2008, TriMet buses cost around $120 per hour (ignoring the fact that much of this high cost service could be contracted out–that’s a tangent issue). Based on the higher average operating speeds of express bus services, I’d predict somewhere between $150 and $180 per vehicle hour. Assuming provision of midday and weekend service comparable to MAX, you’ll need to provide around 1.5 million additional annual vehicle hours, in addition to the 1.8 million annual bus vehicle hours or so TriMet currently operates. For source data, see http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/cs?action=profileSrch.
Thus the math totals $225-$270 million additional annual operating expenses, plus the carrying cost of downtown bus terminal expansions and a few dozen miles of exclusive busways. Given that MAX operating expenses were $84 million in Fiscal Year 2008, based on my figures the rail capital investment is well justified, not including other benefits such as eliminating the need for dramatic increases in freeway capacity.
————
I’m also not going to waste time repeating the case against Rand, Von Mises et al since–in my opinion–Mike Huben at his “Critiques of Libertarianism” site, and many others, have done a much better job than I in that task–you seem to be assuming I’m not familiar with those viewpoints–I am, but I’m not going to argue them here–it’s a waste of time when good references like Huben are available. And I’m not going to play along with the traditional obsfucating tactic of many like you of throwing out tons of irrelevant points, and then cherry-picking new nitpicks from the latest response.
You accuse me of not responding to many of your points, but I haven’t seen any specific debunking by you or your ideological fellow travelers of the Economics 101 point about negative and positive externalities by WS in the previous thread. His point was clear and concise. Those of you who obviously don’t agree certainly can point to various websites and papers on the Net by libertarian or Austrian economists. Of course, that doesn’t mean that those on my side would buy the premises by those economists, or their pretenses that their economics is “science.”
As for my views about a wide variety of transit technical issues, look at the various papers I’ve posted in the last few years at http://www.publictransit.us.
BTW, how do you know Bossard and Lefaver? Earl was really the only one I learned anything from when I got my MUP from the Urban and Regional Planning Department of San Jose State University circa 1980. I didn’t know Lefaver; I think he came aboard there after I was gone.
Perhaps indeed we should go to lunch sometime–I could give you an earful of what’s wrong with VTA just from a service standpoint, let alone other problems that started with Diridon in the 1970’s, the local unions, and the logrolling empire they’ve created, coming up with b.s. projects like the $6-$7 billion BART extension. Send me an email about this, it’s msetty@publictransit.us.
As far as Litman goes, perhaps his opponents like you, Randal, Sam Staley, the Reason Foundation types like Bob Poole, Randal’s associates at Cato, etc. should get together and write a paper or monograph debunking his work, and other work associated with his point of view. At some conference sometime we could have the auto vs. transit advocates equivalent of the WWE. It might be amusing, but probably not practical on short notice in time for Randal’s American Dream Conference. So this idea may have to wait until 2011.
msetty said: As far as Litman goes, perhaps his opponents like you, Randal, Sam Staley, the Reason Foundation types like Bob Poole, Randal’s associates at Cato, etc. should get together and write a paper or monograph debunking his work, and other work associated with his point of view. At some conference sometime we could have the auto lobbyists vs. transit advocates equivalent of the WWE. It might be amusing, but probably not practical on short notice in time for Randal’s American Dream Conference. So this idea may have to wait until 2011.
THWM: Mr.Setty you might as well be trying to reason with Hezbollah & the Klu Klux Klan.
They only want automobiles, they don’t want trains & transit to even exist!
Well, thank you DS for your cogent reply to my point that the lefty arguments here against the anti planner are generally ad hominem or appeal to authority. Your reply definitively proved my point.
You claim I relied on nothing but ‘misspelling and mischaracterizing’ the argument. I sometimes agree with you that pointing out mis-spelling in a blog post or comment is wrong, as the repartee is so quick that typos happen. But not however for a fundamental like the name of a reference or source.
As for mischaracterizing the argument, Whose? Yours? Nah, it’s always nasty, ad hominem, appeals to authority and a stew of the other logical fallacies. Bent Flyvbjerg’s? Nah, even though you complain that I ‘conflate Aristotelian-Cartesian lab discipline-inquiry with a case study’, whatever that means, really it’s a meaningless phrase, Flyvbjerg rejects the scientific method in the majority of his work. Deal with it.
You ended that phase of your logic with ‘How pwecious!’, and finished your comment with ‘Cuuuute!’ and ‘*pat pat*’. Ad hominem for bweakfast, lunchies and din-dins in kid leftie land. See, I can be vewy, vewy pwecious.
And yes, I am cute, sometimes even cuuuute. Gorgeous, hunky too. That really should make you accept my logic as I understood that the left believes that pretty people have better opinions, particularly movie stars opining on things about which they know little, though that’s not me.
Final question: How do the asterisks around ‘pat, pat’ make it more insulting? I agree with you that they do, and should I ever go all ad hominem all the time, I will adopt your worthwhile innovation. *pat, pat*. I like it.
In the meantime I and Scott would like actual answers. Scott is clearly a nicer person than I am, well organized with point form questions and as far as I can see the points he slyly makes go unanswered.
Once again, the anti-planner and his allies have gained the day, though not I hope, like General Taylor.
Hopefully when some get to High School, the NCLB Act will be gone and there will be offered some critical thinking and rhetoric classes. There are those here especially who should take them, but I recommend all K-12 curricula have such of th’ learnin’. That would clean up much of the spam on comment threads and lessen much of the time wasted on small-minority ideology argumentation.
DS
Dan,
It is strange that you mention “critical thinking and rhetoric classes”, when you avoid logical persuasion & such. You like to attack the person, use other fallacious, rarely respond to any particular points & avoid solid content.
Spam is usually considered as commercial email.
Are you using “spam” as gibberish? It’s a shame that you don’t realize that your sentences are mostly that.
I & many others would like serious discussion of issues.
But you statists don’t really offer that.
You usually obfuscate & change topics.
It’s common when the comments about the main advantages of autos cannot be overcome by transit, to go into externalities, which are rather minor (ie vehicle pollution is way down since 1970s). While externalities can be a good issue, please try to stay on the original topics & stop misdirecting. Your technique is like asking, “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
highwayman,
For the nth time. It’s not elimination of transit that is the goal. It’s elimination of taking money from “general funds,” often going to wasteful programs, for the benefit of <4%.
Just look at the public expenditure on a per passenger-mile basis of transit vs highways, and how much is paid by the non-user. Public transit is much more expensive.
Sure for personal expenses, cars cost more, but that is choice.
Keep in mind that for transit to be readily available, there needs to be high density over a large area.
About another $0.50/gallon gas tax would offer money for highway spending to self-sufficient. For transit, that would need about a tripling in fares. That’s not counting the big drop in ridership.
Scott:…It’s common when the comments about the main advantages of autos cannot be overcome by transit, to go into externalities, which are rather minor (i.e. vehicle pollution is way down since 1970s).
Yeah, reduced by “statist” regulation that the auto industry fought every step of the way when they were being proposed.
It would not be too unkind to state there are typically many holes in the logic of the “anti statists” like this old saw about vehicle pollution.
msetty,
You say that comments about Manhattan & Portland are irrelevant, yet you brought them up & then reiterated something about them to make some point. I questioned what the relevance of 2 large bus hubs/stations are.
A basic flaw in pro-transit arguments is in reference to maximum capacity. Sure, it’s true that the same space for rails or lanes for buses, can handle more passengers than drivers, but there is rarely a place where there will be even close to that high volume need. Plus, the balance of pros & cons still exist, in favor of the car, for most people. At higher densities, car use is made more expensive, mainly because multi-level parking structures (varies on property & construction cost) are needed, which can easily cost 20-50 times ground-only parking (in lower densities).
For a big multi-dwelling complex, a multi-level parking space can cost 20-40% of the housing unit cost.
The overall avg cost/passenger-mile can be lower for LRT vs bus, but only for very high ridership. For that cost, it seems like some things are left out, such as interest expense. An indirect cost, for bus & rail, is interference with vehicular traffic, such as removing lanes, left turns, signal timing, etc.
Thanx for the mention of a Libertarian analysis (Huben). I’ll look him up. However, if you cannot just mention a few objections to the Vienna School & some economists, it seems like you don’t really understand & don’t have any cogent objections. People often cannot really form their own analysis & just refer to others.
Oh, Scott Lefaver was a student in Bossard’s first year of teaching. He was probably finished with his MUP, before you started. He later was a planner for Gilroy & got a PhD in public policy. I knew him because he was a lecturer for a private development class, one recent semester. BTW, I’m basically a thesis short of an MUP. Although I’m only about 7 years younger than you.
(Long, irrelevant story why I’m back at school this late.) My BA is also in geography. I had previous majors in econ., arch., & business. Switching is part of the reason for being an off & on full-time student.
Scott:
One of the biggest disdains I have for the so-called “Vienna School” is their disdain for science, e.g., empirical evidence. It is always amusing when someone makes your accusation of “you really don’t understand.” Actually, I’ve read plenty about it, and am aware of the basic precepts–I have read a few of Von Hayek’s books, too.
What I don’t understand is how apparent “true believers” can’t get the idea that different people can look at the same information and come to entirely different conclusions. Your argument is used routinely by Randoids, Scientologists, and all varieties of political extremists and others with cultish mindsets.
Here is one example from Friedman (who I think is mostly, wrong, too,but that’s another thread mostly irrelevant to Randal’s blog):
http://thereisnoaustrianschoolofeconomics.blogspot.com/2004/08/ok-give-it-two-thoughts-on-this-one.html.
“”The Hayek-Mises explanation of the business cycle is contradicted by the evidence. It is, I believe, false.”
Milton Friedman
Friedman analised economic data from the US refering to cyclical activity starting in 1879 untill 1988*. He concludes that there is no solid correlation between the length and intensity of an expansion and the recession held afterwards.
*war cycles and 1945-49 were excluded.
Milton Friedman, “The Monetary Studies of the National Bureau,” 44th Annual Report, National Bureau of Economic Research (1964), reprinted in The Optimal Quantity of Money and Other Essays (Chicago: Aldine, 1969), pp. 261-84.
Milton Friedman, “The ‘Plucking Model’ of Business Fluctuations Revisited,” Economic Inquiry (April, 1993), pp. 171-77.”
As for the density of Manhattan being irrelevant, I think you still have a problem understanding what I wrote, and apparently are trying to get an arguing point where none exists.
BTW, the discussion was about Portland, so I didn’t say Portland was irrelevant.
Manhattan’s size and density per se had nothing to do with my point regarding Randal’s failure to also mention the terminal capacity needed to effectively handle such large bus volumes.
The original point was that Randal mentioned the high capacity of buses on exclusive lanes to belittle MAX capacity, without also mentioning you also need very high terminal capacity for buses, which would require taking over much of downtown Portland if the same patronage was served by buses rather than MAX. Randal’s theoretical point about a bus every 6 seconds e.g., “600 buses per hour”–in the case of Portland, converging on downtown from a number of corridors–would require a massive terminal, similar in concept to the PABT, perhaps smaller but still massive relative to the compact downtown Portland enclosed by I-505 and the Willamette River. Or taking over many more streets and blockfronts than just the existing transit mall.
Some more Uncle Miltie from the same website quoted earlier:
http://thereisnoaustrianschoolofeconomics.blogspot.com/2004/08/just-give-it-thought-just-one.html.
«That methodological approach, I think, has very negative influences. It makes it very hard to build up a cumulative discipline of any kind.
If you’re always going back to your internal, self-evident truths, how do people stand on one another’s shoulders? … It also tends to make people intolerant.
If you and I are both praxeologists, and we disagree about whether some proposition or statement is correct, how do we resolve that disagreement? We can yell, we can argue, we can try to find a logical flaw in one another’s thing, but in the end we have no way to resolve it except by fighting, by saying you’re wrong and I’m right.
On the other hand, if you take more like a Karl Popperian approach …. I say to you, what facts can I find that will convince you I was right and you were wrong. … Then we go out and observe the facts. That’s how science progresses. …
the fact is that fifty, sixty years after von Mises issued his capital theory … so-called Austrian economists still stick by it. There hasn’t been an iota of progress.»
Milton Friedman
Quoted from an interview published in this Hayek biography, Page 273
Minnesota’s Metro Transit carried @210,000 bus riders in 2009 at a cost of $230 million. I doubt it would cost Portland to carry half as many passengers for the same amount of money with just under 2 million revenue hours for those buses.
Scott be reasonable.
Light rail in Portland OR makes sense, light rail in Blitzen OR makes no sense.
prk166 said:
Minnesota’s Metro Transit carried @210,000 bus riders in 2009 at a cost of $230 million. I doubt it would cost Portland to carry half as many passengers for the same amount of money with just under 2 million revenue hours for those buses.
Almost $4.00 per ride. Ouch!
“Apples and oranges.”
You’re forgetting about average trip length. MAX carries slightly more than half as many passengers as TriMet buses, but the average trip length is nearly twice as long on MAX as on buses, so, MAX carries only slightly fewer total passenger miles as the TriMet local bus network.
And the theoretical replacement express bus service would be very peaked compared to local all-day services, a factor that tends to make unit costs per revenue vehicle hour to skyrocket compared to local buses, which are much less peaked. (e.g., many express buses can only make one or two trips during a peak period, and union drivers want to get paid for 8 hours even if they only work 3-4 hours, like during peaked service).
A 2:1 or 3:1 “peak to base ratio” is not unusual with such express bus networks. Also is is not unusual for many express buses to have significantly lower riders per hour than local buses, but with much longer average trip lengths.
“Hopefully when some get to High School…”
…they will learn capitalization rules.
Dan, if you’re going to call out someone for misspellings, better make sure your grammar is flawless.
Dan, if you’re going to call out someone for misspellings
I’ll keep it in mind if I ever debase myself and do that.
That reminds me, Setty stated recently that the intellectual quality of this blog is declining.
I disagree. The low quality of the familiar usual suspect ideologues was always low. They certainly pull down the quality of the other commenters here, that’s for sure. But declining? Maybe that perception arises due to the sheer number of words from the usual suspects…
DS