BMW enters one-way car-sharing market

[Jerry Schneider]

http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/bmw-enters-the-one-way-carsharing-market/

[Roy Reynolds]

http://www.slate.com/id/2287539

[Bruce McHenry]

This article contains:

Amtrak got $2.2 billion in pure subsidies in 2010 and carried 28.7 million people, for around 13 cents per passenger,

It looks like the editors at Slate, like most Americans, turn off their critical faculties whenever millions, billions or trillions are mentioned.  Is it any wonder we do not have sane national policies?

Bruce
Sent from my iPhone, 310 751 4336

On Apr 4, 2011, at 6:41 PM, Roy Reynolds <roy.re...@prtstrategies.com> wrote:

http://www.slate.com/id/2287539

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[Jack Slade]

Yes, it is certainly good that Amtrak did not carry only 22 million passengers. Then the subsidy would have been a whopping $100.00 per passenger.
I wonder why some people figure that This is not good economics?

Jack Slade

--- On Tue, 4/5/11, Bruce McHenry <bruce.a...@gmail.com> wrote:

[eph]

The comments say it's likely a subsidy of 13 cents per passenger mile!

This article looks a bit sub-par for slate.

F.

[Kirston Henderson]

on 4/4/11 9:24 PM, Bruce McHenry at bruce.a...@gmail.com wrote:

This article contains:

Amtrak got $2.2 billion in pure subsidies in 2010 and carried 28.7 million people, for around 13 cents per passenger,

It looks like the editors at Slate, like most Americans, turn off their critical faculties whenever millions, billions or trillions are mentioned.  Is it any wonder we do not have sane national policies?

Bruce,

   That looks like some sort of "fuzzy math" to me.  According to my calculator, a subsidy of $2.2 billion for 28.7 million people carried looks more like $77.65 per passenger.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail® Transportation Systems

[Jack Slade]

--- On Tue, 4/5/11, Kirston Henderson <Kirston....@megarail.com> wrote:

From: Kirston Henderson <Kirston....@megarail.com> Subject: Re: [t-i] Slate (3/8/11): Why do conservatives hate trains so much? To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 2:24 PM

That looks like some sort of "fuzzy math" to me.  According to my calculator, a subsidy of $2.2 billion for 28.7 million people carried looks more like $77.65 per passenger. Kirston Henderson MegaRail® Transportation Systems

Kirston,  I have re-read the Slate article,  and it is probably even worse than that. I think the subsidy figurer has been low-balled. The article states>>>. Amtrak got $2.2 billion in pure subsidies in 2010 and carried 28.7 million people, for around 13 cents per passenger, although some researchers estimate the annual cost at closer to 30 cents. Highways got $42 billion in funds in fiscal year 2010, but far more people use them; the estimate puts cost at between 1 cent and 4 cents per drivers<<<   Notice that it mentions "Pure Subsidies" of 2.2 billion.  Doesn't that mean that Amtrak recieved much more than that,  but only this amount is considered pure subsidy.   I wonder how much more they really recieved.  Also, 2010 was a recession year,  so how do they make out in good times.   Jack Slade

[Kirston Henderson]

on 4/5/11 11:02 AM, Jack Slade at skytr...@rogers.com wrote:

--- On Tue, 4/5/11, Kirston Henderson <Kirston....@megarail.com> wrote:

From: Kirston Henderson <Kirston....@megarail.com>
Subject: Re: [t-i] Slate (3/8/11): Why do conservatives hate trains so much?
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 2:24 PM

  That looks like some sort of "fuzzy math" to me.  According to my calculator, a subsidy of $2.2 billion for 28.7 million people carried looks more like $77.65 per passenger.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail® Transportation Systems

Kirston,  I have re-read the Slate article,  and it is probably even worse than that. I think the subsidy figurer has been low-balled. The article states>>>. Amtrak got $2.2 billion in pure subsidies in 2010 and carried 28.7 million people, for around 13 cents per passenger, although some researchers estimate the annual cost at closer to 30 cents. Highways got $42 billion in funds in fiscal year 2010, but far more people use them; the estimate puts cost at between 1 cent and 4 cents per drivers<<<

Notice that it mentions "Pure Subsidies" of 2.2 billion.  Doesn't that mean that Amtrak recieved much more than that,  but only this amount is considered pure subsidy.

I wonder how much more they really recieved.  Also, 2010 was a recession year,  so how do they make out in good times.

Jack,

   I also seem to remember that the Amtrak item in the Federal Budget has been running a lot more than $2.2 billion per year.

Kirston

[Jack Slade]

I just found the reason for Slate's huge discrepancy.  If you do the formulae backwards,  divide the  subsidy into the passenger number,  it comes to.0013.  Obviously somebody who is terrible at math mistook this for $0.13 , and a whole bunch of other people have similiar math skills....perhaps legislators also, so nobody questioned it.   This may be the real reason behind the apparent public approval of rail.  During the past 40 years math skills in schools have become so bad that most people under 50 can't do enough math to realize how bad the figures are.  The few who do "don't like trains".   Jack Slade

[Kirston Henderson]

on 4/5/11 2:41 PM, Jack Slade at skytr...@rogers.com wrote:

I just found the reason for Slate's huge discrepancy.  If you do the formulae backwards,  divide the  subsidy into the passenger number,  it comes to.0013.  Obviously somebody who is terrible at math mistook this for $0.13 , and a whole bunch of other people have similiar math skills....perhaps legislators also, so nobody questioned it.

This may be the real reason behind the apparent public approval of rail.  During the past 40 years math skills in schools have become so bad that most people under 50 can't do enough math to realize how bad the figures are.  The few who do "don't like trains".

   It occurred to be to try to calculate it in that manner, but it looked too absurd to even try.  They keep telling us that American students are doing so bad in math and this may be an indication.  Perhaps those who are good in math go into engineering those who flunk go into journalism.

Kirston Henderson

[Jack Slade]

--- On Tue, 4/5/11, Kirston Henderson <Kirston....@megarail.com> wrote:

From: Kirston Henderson <Kirston....@megarail.com> Subject: Re: [t-i] Slate (3/8/11): Why do conservatives hate trains so much? To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

If they used the same math to calculate the driver subsidy,  then that figure is wrong also.  Note that when you reverse a formulae in this manner,  then the subsidy/user becomes larger as user #'s increase.   Question:  How does a person with only high school education get to write articles like this for Slate?  You really must have the Land of Opportunity.   Jack Slade

[Kirston Henderson]

On Apr 5, 2011, at 7:29 PM, Jack Slade wrote:

--- On Tue, 4/5/11, Kirston Henderson <Kirston....@megarail.com> wrote:

From: Kirston Henderson <Kirston....@megarail.com> Subject: Re: [t-i] Slate (3/8/11): Why do conservatives hate trains so much? To: transport-...@googlegroups.com Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2011, 9:02 PM on 4/5/11 2:41 PM, Jack Slade at skytr...@rogers.com wrote: I just found the reason for Slate's huge discrepancy.  If you do the formulae backwards,  divide the  subsidy into the passenger number,  it comes to.0013.  Obviously somebody who is terrible at math mistook this for $0.13 , and a whole bunch of other people have similiar math skills....perhaps legislators also, so nobody questioned it. This may be the real reason behind the apparent public approval of rail.  During the past 40 years math skills in schools have become so bad that most people under 50 can't do enough math to realize how bad the figures are.  The few who do "don't like trains".    It occurred to be to try to calculate it in that manner, but it looked too absurd to even try.  They keep telling us that American students are doing so bad in math and this may be an indication.  Perhaps those who are good in math go into engineering those who flunk go into journalism. Kirston Henderson   If they used the same math to calculate the driver subsidy,  then that figure is wrong also.  Note that when you reverse a formulae in this manner,  then the subsidy/user becomes larger as user #'s increase.   Question:  How does a person with only high school education get to write articles like this for Slate?  You really must have the Land of Opportunity.   Jack Slade

My public school teacher wife spotted the error almost instantly and says any of her fifth-grade students would have come up with the corect answer. Kirston Henderson

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group. To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[Jack Slade]

--- On Wed, 4/6/11, Kirston Henderson <kirston....@megarail.com> wrote:

> Well, I guess this guy is somewhere on the wrong side of the learning curve.

Jack Slade

[Richard Gronning]

Did anybody point this out to Slate yet?
Perhaps they should review their hiring practices, up through editors who can't seem to add - subtract either.

Dick

[Jerry Roane]

Kirston

This all makes my head hurt.  I am working on a CO2 presentation for my system because I decided it is time to stab the beast in the heart and the CO2 discussion is quite a beast.  Looking at this train piece with billions and millions and inverted problem solving I see that I will never be able to make a dent in the VMT/CO2 crowd.  Keep in mind the editor of this "paper" missed the mistake not just the blogger dude.  

I have put some thought into how to present the data of relative CO2 output for multi modal transportation but after thinking about this mess of an article I have to conclude I would be wasting my time doing detailed top down analysis of CO2 output for the various choices for home energy, industrial energy and cars.  

In the CO2 world nothing is making any relative sense because the targets of CO2 haters are simply the wrong targets.  The solutions to the major polluters is not to shut down these places but to improve them with respect to CO2 for the most part.  There is a lot implied in the phrase "for the most part" and that gets us back to this train stuff where no one is seeing the picture clear;y enough to know when something is for the most part anything.  Everything is out of proportion and off by orders of magnitude in the minds of many of the players.  For sure they are wanting good outcomes.  I take that on faith except for the occasional arsh hole who takes advantage of the confusion but I think these guys are few and far between for the most part.  

What we are dealing with is a requirement that we be effective teachers and that we start at the fourth grade level to inform people and kids about balance and proportion in many areas of life not just subsidy calculations or CO2 out of any particular CO2 creator.  

To put CO2 on the human scale I am thinking that I will use the breath of one human as my units for one day.  Everyone breaths out every day and I think this reporter (questionable as that title may be) will have a feeling of how much his presence on the planet is impacted by his breathing.  Electric power plants of 20 years ago were total crap and the protectionist legislation that was intended by some to save us from high electric prices has really destroyed the ability of power companies to do the right thing even though probably they would not have done the right thing anyway because of human nature and its dark dark side.  Evil aside what is now is a transition industry with burning chambers evolving to be better by a large percentage.  That is the good news is there are simple affordable modifications to power plant hardware that can drastically improve the world.  The bad news for my little paper or semi-study is not every power plant operator has decided to be good and do the right thing with the tools he has at his disposal.  These tools to drastically improve pollution performance have to be chosen and this is the nasty part when we get back to the level of this train reporter and his IQ and ability to understand a subject.  If one power plant is 90% cleaner for a particular gas we do not want how to do talk to people who rail against electric cars based on the evil of a few who happen to control the decisions at the local power generation plant.  

Clearly pure PV solar gets these mindicapped people from attacking air pollution but then they regurgitate that PV solar is "too expensive" devoid of ANY facts to back up that claim.  I happen to have firm fixed quotes for these panels and am in the process of deciding how many to buy in the first order to make the import costs make sense.  Even after my panels get here and are tracking the sun the its too expensive crowd will continue to sing that song.  Second verse same as the first... Facts are the last thing these clingers want to deal with.  They want to remain locked in a time warp of 20 years ago for power plants and never accept that PV solar in the context of the complex world (something we need to explain to the best of our ability as a group) PV solar up front cost is higher but over time PV solar is a deal and a half AND it cuts CO2 to an understandable level for the guys who write train articles about subsidy.  

I am still waiting for the light bulb (or LED) to go off in my head on how to approach the CO2 argument so it is clear.  I am intentionally disregarding what CO2 does or does not do in my presentation so I am breaking my own premise in this effort.  I am separating out CO2 which I have been ignoring, avoiding and walking on the opposite side of the street from because guys like this are concerned about it.  If I can make the case I may pick up more than milk toast support for electric energy for advanced transportation.  A simplistic look gives a much different outcome from a full look at the pollution outputs.  To the casual observer it may look like number fiddling as the eyes roll back in the head.  Truth has to be sought and truth helps if the recipient can follow a thread of thoughts to a conclusion or math answer.  

I will accept others thoughts on which path might work best to explain the electrification of wheel rotation/vehicle movement with respect to CO2.  I am positive I want to leave a void for what CO2 does or does not do just its presence in context.   

Thanks in advance for your thoughts on CO2

Jerry Roane   

[WALTER BREWER]

Jerry,

 

Been there done that. The numerical logical approach we engineers would use is very unlikely to work.

About 1% of our current leader/activist group will understand. The rest don't care.

 

For the transportaion part of the overall CO2/Energy issue at least, you are dealing with a religion.

Harwired in and not to be quwationd is collective transportation and anti-automobile use. It is not clear they don't understanf improvments to personal transportation are feasible, or they do and don't care as long as they can facilitated their beliefs.

Example: Currently a CA Legislature Bill is up for vote that would require mass transit projects to be completed in a corridor before highway ones can start. (If it should pass maybe you could jump on the transit element and claim your system qualifies?)

 

The net result of this Bill would be tons of additional CO2 because of increased congestion on the highways. But most of the Bill talks about saving habitat along the coast.

 

My only thought is to find ways  to make very simple comparisons that cam arouse public opinion to combat the imbedded misleading leadership

Something like: Your system will operate on 1/3rd current CO@/Energy. It will eliminate the need for coal produced electricity.

Result CO2/Enery reduced to ~ 31% of current. (Mass transit carries 2% of travel.)

If mass transit somehow similarly improved, and ridership doubled in same number vehicles; Result CO2/Enery reduces to ~96.7% of current.

Or if in addition personal transportation also reduced 15%; result 81.7%.

 

Maybe that would get at least some queations about how you achieve the improvement.

 

Walt Brewer

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kirston

This all makes my head hurt.  I am working on a CO2 presentation for my system because I decided it is time to stab the beast in the heart and the CO2 discussion is quite a beast.  Looking at this train piece with billions and millions and inverted problem solving I see that I will never be able to make a dent in the VMT/CO2 crowd.  Keep in mind the editor of this "paper" missed the mistake not just the blogger dude.  

 

Etc,etc--------

[Michael Weidler]

Jack it's worse than that! Journalists generally go to college. Those who can do math become engineers. Those who can't become lawyers. Those who can't tell a logic tree from a birch tree become judges. Those who can't find their backside with both hands and a flashlight become politicians. --- On Tue, 4/5/11, Jack Slade <skytr...@rogers.com> wrote:

[Michael Weidler]

How's this for a bumper sticker: Do your part to end global warming - stop breathing. --- On Wed, 4/6/11, Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote:

[WALTER BREWER]

Which reminds me;

 

Does anyone know how much CO2 gets into the atmosphere to support the soft drink industry?

 

Walt Brewer