The Antiplanner

Fuel-Friendly Autos, Not Rail

1st May 2008

Fuel-Friendly Autos, Not Rail

posted in Follow up |

This morning, the Seattle Times published the Antiplanner’s op ed about rail transit, energy, and greenhouse gases. But where did they get that deer-caught-in-the-headlights photo?

The Oregonian published an abbreviated version of the same op ed (san photo) last week.

Someone named Jake thinks he found a flaw in my study. As he points out in his comments on the Responsible Transportation blog, I based my auto energy efficiencies on the average of city and highway driving, when he thinks I should have used just city driving.

As I point out in response, hybrids like the Toyota Prius actually get better mileage in cities. So his point does not change my main argument that we can save more energy and reduce more greenhouse gases by encouraging people to drive more fuel-efficient cars and reducing the energy wasted in congestion than by building rail transit.

This entry was posted on Thursday, May 1st, 2008 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Follow up. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 8 responses to “Fuel-Friendly Autos, Not Rail”

Please feel free to submit comments. Constructive debate is welcome. Ad hominem attacks and name-calling will reveal the shallowness of the author. Foul language may be deleted. Your first comment will require moderation; after that, all comments will be approved unless they contain too many links in which case the software may hold them for approval as potential spam.

  1. 1 On May 1st, 2008, D4P said:

    we can save more energy and reduce more greenhouse gases by encouraging people to drive more fuel-efficient cars

    Antiplanner: “Hey people: please drive more fuel-efficient cars.”
    People: “OK.”

    Might as well encourage them to stop murdering, raping, stealing etc. too while you’re at it.

    posted on May 1st, 2008 at 1:03 pm

  2. 2 On May 1st, 2008, hkelly1 said:

    I’m still waiting for that sudden wave of benevolence by both the car companies and the people of the U.S. I’m sure it’ll magically happen one of these centuries.

    posted on May 1st, 2008 at 5:13 pm

  3. 3 On May 1st, 2008, prk166 said:

    Funny…. looks like people are choosing do this? Or are there some anti-SUV and anti-truck laws that were recently enacted forcing people to change.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/ford-sales-drop-122-truck/story.aspx?guid=%7BFADDA8CB-1826-47A9-A36D-8B8D9F90D726%7D&dist=msr_5

    “The Hummer brand took the hardest hit, with sales down 29.6% to 12,243 vehicles.”

    “Ford sales retreated 12.2% to 200,727 cars and trucks from 228,623 a year ago. Truck sales plunged 18.3% to 120,814 vehicles while cars, due to a planned cut in sales to rental-car companies, fell 1% to 79,913.”

    The F-Series pickup, long the best-selling vehicle in the United States, reported a 21% decline. Ford is banking on a redesign of its flagship truck, the industry leader for more than three decades, to help boost sales even with the brutal economic climate.
    The company said that higher gas prices are accelerating the shift from trucks and SUVs to crossovers and cars, with SUV sales at Ford down 36% and trucks off 19%.
    The new Focus compact provided a bright spot in the report, with sales up 43.5% from a year ago to 23,850 cars. Fusion sedan sales rose 22.4% to 15,059.

    posted on May 1st, 2008 at 5:36 pm

  4. 4 On May 2nd, 2008, Kevyn Miller said:

    Jake is quite correct. But does it really invalidate your conclusions? That still leaves one-quarter of transit systems that are worse than cars. That is a fact that should make energy analysis or carbon benefit/cost analysis as basic to scheme assessments as economic benefit/cost analysis.

    However the choice shouldn’t simply be between more transit or more fuel efficient cars. You have hinted at a third solution when you discuss hybrid buses. More fuel efficient transit. Hybrid buses and trolley buses are two good ways to do that. Retrofitting existing electric trains with regenerative braking systems is a third option. In theory it should be easier to double transit’s fuel efficiency than the auto fleet’s simply because there are fewer decision makers to persuade. Unfortunately those decision makers are all politicians and bureaucrats who are more interested in solutions that expand their feifdoms.

    posted on May 2nd, 2008 at 4:37 am

  5. 5 On May 3rd, 2008, the highwayman said:

    Jake is right, the A.P’s numbers are off, then again he’s being paid by anti-market entities(Reason, Cato & etc.) to produce this crap or else he’d have to find a real job.

    The A.P. produces stuff more for the benefit of politics, than for any other thing.

    posted on May 3rd, 2008 at 6:28 pm

  6. 6 On May 5th, 2008, JimKarlock said:

    D4P said: we can save more energy and reduce more greenhouse gases by encouraging people to drive more fuel-efficient cars

    Antiplanner: “Hey people: please drive more fuel-efficient cars.”
    People: “OK.”

    Might as well encourage them to stop murdering, raping, stealing etc. too while you’re at it.
    JK: Time after time the planners show how out of touch they are with reality. This planner thinks people should drive more fuel efficient cars because planners desire it, or some government asks it.

    The reality is that people make choices based on many factors. Including many that planners consider irrelevant or didn’t even think of.

    Of course, the unstated, message here is that planners, through the force of government, should FORCE people into the planner’s set of actions to achieve the planner’s goals, which are different than those of the average person.

    IOW: the planners want to dictate how people should live to achieve some imagined higher good. I suggest that they study the results, in human misery, of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Che…, and of course that ultimate social engineer, Hitler.

    And, based on many blog battles, make no mistake, some of the planning class would, in an instant, establish a dictatorship to accomplish their, delusionary, goals for all of mankind. No matter what the cost, in human misery.

    A primary example is the global warming delusion. But a little problem cropped up – the earth has not been following their predictions, so they have come up with plan B: A new playstation level, computer model, purporting to show, that Global warming has been suspended for about 10 years. But fear not, per Richard Woods of the Hadley center, it will start up again in 10 years to give us our just punishment for our sins of living well.

    It was published in, the peer reviewed, Nature 453, 43 and Science 317, 796, so we all know it is the truth, don’t we?

    Thanks
    JK

    posted on May 5th, 2008 at 4:30 am

  7. 7 On May 5th, 2008, johngalt said:

    http://www.southtownstar.com/business/926796,0505AutoDownsizing.article

    Small car sales are way up. Is it because planners told consumers to buy them? Is it because of the huge spending on rail transit? Is it the mandates for front porches and rear-loaded garages? Is it the condo construction?

    posted on May 5th, 2008 at 10:13 am

  8. 8 On July 4th, 2008, used toyota pickup trucks said:

    used toyota pickup trucks

    Sounds interesting but not for every one.

    posted on July 4th, 2008 at 6:08 am

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.