Oil, will it be the last straw for America?

... You talk about the times you see busses running with 1, 2, or 3 people in it, but ignore the fact that they also run fully packed during commute hours. ...

Here's another twist in your formula; do you know how much it costs to park a car in downtown San Francisco or New York?

cicerone imposter wrote:

... You talk about the times you see busses running with 1, 2, or 3 people in it, but ignore the fact that they also run fully packed during commute hours. ...

Not only that: if one doesn't follow a bus over the complete distance between the starting station and the last bust stop, you even don't know, if exactly this bus wasn't overcrowded just until two stops before ...

okie, there may be times when busses run with just a few passengers; what matters is the total passengers per day/week/month/year and the total cost vs the number of vehicles it replaces. You talk about the times you see busses running with 1, 2, or 3 people in it, but ignore the fact that they also run fully packed during commute hours. Your one-sided arguments are myopic and short-sighted.

The number does support my conclusion when the estimate of indirect routing is included.

It is an estimate, not made up out of nothing that does not exist.

It is based on real world inefficiency of routing that you agreed did exist in an earlier post, but now you claim does not exist.

The only thing left to argue is what the actual figure would be. Mine is conservative by figuring only an additional 16 to 17% more distance required on average to reach your destination vs driving a car. It could be 25% for all I know, there are no figures on it as far as I know. It really doesn't matter as all we are doing here is figuring out a ballpark figure or estimate, which is not made up, it is based on pretty sound data.

But to make you happy, fine go ahead and take the discount out of the equation, and if everybody that rode a bus in Portland drove a car like Walter's at about 35 mpg, it would still show the bus system as saving no fuel whatsoever vs everybody driving a car like his on exactly the same route the buses take to get where they go, which would also be taking the long way there most likely, but still proves the point that mass transit in some places is likely nothing more than a boondoggle in terms of saving fuel. Perhaps a convenience for some people. An energy saver no.

okie has a one-track mind that ignores all the variables that support the efficiencies of public transportation. He speculates numbers based on his own observations and assumptions that have no basis of support - except in his own imagination.

okie wrote:

The number does support my conclusion when the estimate of indirect routing is included.

And that's where the guesswork enters into the equation.

okie wrote:

It is an estimate, not made up out of nothing that does not exist.

No, it's an estimate based upon nothing but your guess as to how inefficient bus routing might be. You have no data regarding that possible inefficiency, so your estimate is nothing but speculation.

okie wrote:

It is based on real world inefficiency of routing that you agreed did exist in an earlier post, but now you claim does not exist.

You are once again mistaken. I have never denied that there may be inefficiencies, but I dispute that they are of any great consequence in the big picture.

okie wrote:

The only thing left to argue is what the actual figure would be. Mine is conservative by figuring only an additional 16 to 17% more distance required on average to reach your destination vs driving a car. It could be 25% for all I know, there are no figures on it as far as I know. It really doesn't matter as all we are doing here is figuring out a ballpark figure or estimate, which is not made up, it is based on pretty sound data.

Of course it matters. You take a real figure, apply a discount that is based on nothing but pure speculation (as you yourself admit), and then claim that the product proves that buses are inefficient. Your conclusion, however, is as weak as your speculation is groundless.

okie wrote:

But to make you happy, fine go ahead and take the discount out of the equation, and if everybody that rode a bus in Portland drove a car like Walter's at about 35 mpg, it would still show the bus system as saving no fuel whatsoever vs everybody driving a car like his on exactly the same route the buses take to get where they go, which would also be taking the long way there most likely, but still proves the point that mass transit in some places is likely nothing more than a boondoggle in terms of saving fuel. Perhaps a convenience for some people. An energy saver no.

If everybody drove a vehicle that got 35 mpg (in the city), and those vehicles did not waste additional fuel due to added congestion on the roads as the result of eliminating buses, then you might be right. But they don't and they couldn't, so you're not.