Robert Cote wrote:
> In article <4220BF57.D9AAB69@comcast.net>,
> "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
>
> > Robert Cote wrote:
> > > stang@iweb.net.au (Aidan Stanger) wrote:
> > > > Robert Cote wrote:
> > > > > James Robinson wrote:
> > > > > > Robert Cote wrote:
> > > > > > > James Robinson wrote:
> > > > > > > > Robert Cote wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Okay, I'll bite. Which transit agencies say that they save
> > > > > > > > > fuel and what do they base this upon?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Lots of them do. Just look in the recent Transportation Energy
> > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > Book. Places like Atlanta, Boston, and Chicago do quite well in
> > > > > > > > comparison to cars and light trucks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kinda sorta. I've only been posting the latest TEDB data for a
> > > > > > > decade so maybe I'm still too new at this but
> > > > > > > http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb24/Edition24_Chapter02.pdf
> > > > > > > says differently (BTU/pass-mi):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > autos 3581
> > > > > > > personal trucks 4057
> > > > > > > transit buses 4127
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now that I have more time and motivation to reply, here are some
> > > > > > comments:
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry. Transit math.
> > > > >
> > > > And what is that supposed to mean? IIRC you originally used the phrase
> > > > to refer to the dodgy figures that were being used to make MAX's
> > > > performance look good. More recently you've being using it to refer to
> > > > any figures associated with transit that you don't believe, whether or
> > > > not they're right.
> > > >
> > > > > Ohhhh, you don't like all your "data" snipped? Awww, tooo baaad.
> > > >
> > > > So now "transit math" becomes an excuse for you ignoring a good point
> > > > that James made: that SUVs use 30% more fuel in urban areas, and the
> > > > difference for cars is even higher.
> > > >
> > > > You seem to be becoming like those you set out to criticise: ignoring
> > > > the figures that don't suit you.
> > >
> > > Exactly. You do get it. There's a dual standard.
> >
> > Correct; there is a double standard. Leroy Baxter routinely snips
> > inconvenient FActs from his replies, but posters like JR and AS never
> > complain about that.
>
There's no double standard. I typically ignore Leroy's postings because
he rarely has anything worthwhile to say. There's no point in me
disputing his claims because Robert usually does so, and does a far
better job of it than I ever could. But sometimes Robert is wrong, and
even if Leroy is smart enough to spot his mistakes, he doesn't seem to
be smart enough to explain them.
> The really funny part is that they have the nerve to complain, in
> unison, most loudly the one time I do it for illustration purposes.
Would you prefer it if I failed to point out your error, so you would
continue to repeat it?
I'd hope the answer would be "no", but as you fail to acknowledge the
error when I do point it out, I can only conclude the answer is "yes".
So is there any point in me continuing, IYO?
> The double standard extends to their not even seeing their behavior for
> what it is.
>
I see it for what it really is, not what you assume it to be. Is there
anything wrong with that???
> The original claim was that transit agencies save energy but that was
> disproven with agency data.
Inconclusively, as this is not the first time it has been pointed out
that cars use significantly more fuel on urban roads than on rural ones.
> Then it was equivalent trips or some such
> and then it was commute only then it was commute only in urban areas.
You correctly pointed out why JTW figures are not a useful approximation
for peak time journeys. You tried to make the point with the 0.6 figure
> Every time picking the very most favorable transit and least POV
> favorable data wherever possible. Still no answers on how transit has
> managed to go on an impossible energy efficiency upgrade over the last
> three years.
I didn't answer that because I honestly don't know. You're far better at
hunting statistics than I am.
I can speculate if you like. It could be because buses with old,
inefficient engines, that were significantly less efficient, are being
retired from service. It could be a reduction in average vehicle size.
It's probably a combination of these things and more.
> Bad data, strained comparisons, cherrypicking, questionable methodology
> and the best they can manage is about as good as POVs.
I guess you could call comparing like with like "cherrypicking", but the
figures it produces are far more useful than averages. After all, nobody
is suggesting replacing all POV trips with buses. |