Where is the US economy headed?

@okie,

Quote:

It should be obvious that those buses are not always filled to capacity.

It should be dead obvious to you that the average MPG for cars and trucks in the city sure as hell isn't 35, and it isn't even 25 MPG. But don't let that get in the way of asserting that you were right.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Funny you should use such a word as demagogue; whether it reflects 1994 or any other time, today's world is a changed one that has no resemblance to that period, and what the GOP is doing now to Americans is terrorism against its own people.

Obama has terrorized all of us that have health insurance because we have no idea how we are going to be affected, plus he put plenty of other crap in the bill that makes no sense whatsoever.

Quote:

They are destroying the security of Medicare for seniors, children, and the disabled. They are destroying public unions.

Would you rather the public unions bankrupt the country? I think its high time the taxpayers take back our country.

Quote:

They are cutting government spending to give the wealthy bigger tax cuts, while our national debt increases to be paid for by our children and grandchildren.The wealthy is not the problem. They have been paying almost all the taxes in this country for a good long time, and they will continue to do so. It is time the government grows up and acts responsibly, as it is time for the people that are riding in the wagon instead of helping to pull it.

Quote:
Demagoguery you say!

Yes, I say so, and its true. The Dems will seek to demagogue and scare people over any conservative attempt to cut spending and balance the budget. It is like having a tantrum when they can't get their way.

0 Replies

@okie,

The occupancy for 24 hours? Bus service doesn't run 24 hours in any city I can think of. Is this more of your "common sense" okie?

It would have to average less than 6 passengers per mile to even get close to your 35.

Lets assume....

Buses run 5am to Midnight 7 days a week with 5 days of rush hour and 3 hours per day. Then lets assume those 15 hours per week have 70% ridership. That alone give me almost 6 passenger miles per bus every hour they operate.
BUT.. I have to assume there is no restricted service during non peak hours and I also have to assume that buses are running completely empty at all other times.

Your common sense is looking pretty ridiculous okie. Anyone that has ever ridden a city bus knows that they often are fuller than the number of seats in those buses during rush hour.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Then lets assume those 15 hours per week have 70% ridership. That alone give me almost 6 passenger miles per bus every hour they operate.

You cannot assume that. You need actual data. Obviously some routes do not run very full. I have seen many vacant buses or almost empty buses during hours that you would think would be part of going to work or going home from work times, in more than one city.

3 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

You cannot assume that. You need actual data.

Ah.. I need data.. You don't?

Is that part of your "common sense" strategery okie? Make claims about cars getting 35mpg in the city and then ignoring that no such data exists to support that idiotic claim?

0 Replies

@okie,

Based on the national average of passengers per bus mile of 10.7 it would work out to 64mpg.

1 Reply

@parados,

But then of course if we are going to use the national average for passenger miles, we should also use the national average for bus mpg which is 12.47.
Figures from the Federal Transit Authority

That gives us a mpg per passenger of 133mpg.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

mass transit is efficient

There has to be density in residential area i.e. multi-storey buildings. In small city in Iowa the city bus had only 2 or 3 passengers in a 40-seater bus.

General Motors with Standard Oil stripped all North American cities of rail transport i.e. street cars or trams. Corporations aren't exactly good citizens. Now everyone is dependent on cars and the more cars the quicker the oil disappears and the quicker the oil prices rise.

0 Replies

@parados,

Here is an interesting table from the following website, indicating that mass transit is one of the most inefficient methods of transporting people, buses consuming 4,235 BTUs per passenger mile. In contrast, cars consume 3,512 BTUs and more efficient hybrid cars only consume 1,659 BTUs. Also, according to the table, buses only carry 8.8 passengers on average. It would be common sense to assume that figure might be far less in some cities.

The data supports what I have said, that mass transit's supposed efficiency is often a myth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation

Transport mode Average passengers
per vehicle BTU per passenger-mile MJ per passenger-kilometre
Vanpool 6.1 1,322 0.867
Efficient Hybrid 1.57 1,659 1.088
Motorcycles 1.2 1, 855 1.216
Rail (Intercity Amtrak) 20.5 2,650 1.737
Rail (Transit Light & Heavy) 22.5 2,784 1.825
Rail (Commuter) 31.3 2,996 1.964
Air 96.2 3,261 2.138
Cars 1.57 3,512 2.302
Personal Trucks 1.72 3,944 2.586
Buses (Transit) 8.8 4,235 2.776

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

Demagoguery is alive and well, I see

The only demagoguery here is yours.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

You cannot assume that. You need actual data

Hypocrite

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

Also, according to the table, buses only carry 8.8 passengers on average. It would be common sense to assume that figure might be far less in some cities.

Far less? You mean like 10 passengers per mile less?
Ah.. so when you can't find data, you just make it up?
FTA states the average is over 10 passenger per mile on average. This source on wiki states 8.8 but no working link to confirm the source. I'll stick with the official source on an official website.

That plus you are comparing ALL car miles with ONLY bus transit systems. Commuting miles are less fuel efficient compared to all miles. Common sense should tell you that okie.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

okie wants "actual data?" ROFLMAO

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It should be dead obvious to you that the average MPG for cars and trucks in the city sure as hell isn't 35, and it isn't even 25 MPG. But don't let that get in the way of asserting that you were right.

Cycloptichorn

The point is that cars could easily get 35. I have a relative in Scandanavia, who had a VW Lupo, that they claimed got about 70 mpg commuting to her work. I am not sure, but it seemed like the answer to my question "why aren't those cars sold in the U.S? was probably because they did not meet crash test standards or something, which would be another example of regulation killing innovation here. To be perfectly accurate however, I do not know why they were not sold here. That was a few years ago when we were there. It was sort of like a hybrid, but not like a Prius. I believe it had a very economical small 3 cylinder diesel, that shut off while idling and then started automatically when needed. That would beat a city bus that belches pollution into the atmosphere almost every minute of its route. Considering the cost of transit systems, maybe some could buy everyone one of those cars and scrap all of their pollution monster buses.

3 Replies

@okie,

The "point?"
What the hell is that supposed to mean?

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It should be dead obvious to you that the average MPG for cars and trucks in the city sure as hell isn't 35, and it isn't even 25 MPG. But don't let that get in the way of asserting that you were right.

Cycloptichorn

The point is that cars could easily get 35.

Wait a minute; one of the reasons they DON'T, is because your party has consistently fought requirements for them to do so.

You are really changing your argument here.

Quote:

I have a relative in Scandanavia, who had a VW Lupo, that they claimed got about 70 mpg commuting to her work. I am not sure, but it seemed like the answer to my question "why aren't those cars sold in the U.S? was probably because they did not meet crash test standards or something, which would be another example of regulation killing innovation here.

LOL

Do you even know what the VW Lupo is?

Here:

You telling me that Conservatives are going to rush out and buy these? You've been RIDICULING European cars for years!!!

Quote:

To be perfectly accurate however, I do not know why they were not sold here. That was a few years ago when we were there. It was sort of like a hybrid, but not like a Prius. I believe it had a very economical small 3 cylinder diesel, that shut off while idling and then started automatically when needed. That would beat a city bus that belches pollution into the atmosphere almost every minute of its route.

So basically you are saying that if things were completely different here in the US than they currently are, and if Republicans would stop holding up measures to increase efficiency, THEN you would be right. Gotcha.

I don't know why ya can't just say, 'yeah, in retrospect, that was a dumb thing to say.'

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@okie,

The last VW Lupo was produced in 2005.
In 1999, the 1.0 liter engine made 78.6 mpg (US)./.94.3 mpg (British./.2.99l/100km)

Today, it's the VW Fox - four-star EuroNCAP safety rating, btw.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Another bone of contention is that VW sells cars in the US (by the millions). What is holding up sales of the Lupo is a mystery if they can get 70 mpg.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Thanks for the info., Walter. I am a big believer in market forces, so yes, conservatives would buy those cars if they were available here. I would like to know why they are not, if they in fact are not. Ever since our trip to visit relatives in Denmark, I have wonderered about it.

Our local Ford dealer sells Vespas, so I see no reson why they might not consider selling a very efficient car also, to cover all their bases.

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know