Oil going way up???

[mranderson]

It's from the Cato Institute -- a conservative/libertarian think tank. Certainly, consider the source. But also, consider the studies they cite. Sure, it would be interesting to know how the studies that they cite were conducted, but as it stands, they make a fairly reasonable case that mass transit as it is is not getting used enough to make it effective.

No matter, it is still brainwashing propiganda. I would rather believe what I have seen with my own eyes than a bunch of biased people trying to brainwash a bunch of people that have not seen the truth in person.

Now I know where Istook gets his lies.

[Midtowner]

Well, as for my own eyes, I have ridden the public transportation in downtown OKC. I do so on a fairly regular basis. I think being 80% vacant would be about right. In fact, that's about right for any public transporation system I've used outside of Paris.

The DART in Dallas is great, but I've never seen a car even remotely close to being full.

Here is more data from the Cato website:
(here is the link)
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?...print=Y&full=1

Check out the link before you tab it as "propaganda". There are some interesting concrete facts there. Such as these:

1. Federal dollars for urban transit have not bought improvements in service levels for commuters; rather, they have generated rapid inflation of costs in the industry. Between 1970 and 1985 public transit operating costs per vehicle mile increased an incredible 393 percent (Figure 1), or roughly twice the rate of general inflation during the same time period and roughly 2.5 times the operating cost increase for similar service in the private bus industry.[14] Public transit costs have increased at a faster rate than costs in any other sector of the economy--even health care (Figure 2). From 1970 to 1989 public transit costs per vehicle mile increased approximately 20 percent more than health care costs.[15]
(see article for further details)

Myth no. 2: Increasing Federal Subsidies Will Attract More Transit Riders

Gross public transit ridership has been consistently falling since World War II. In 1945 ridership was 23.5 billion passengers, whereas in 1989 it was 7.5 billion--or less than one-third the 1945 level and less than half the 1950 level (Figure 4). The drop in ridership occurred despite huge increases in the number of urban commuters between 1945 and 1989. (again, see article for further details)

Myth 4: Public Transit Can Be Successful in the United States Because It Is Successful in Other Industrialized Countries

Advocates of higher taxes for transit constantly point to the far higher levels of transit ridership in Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan to suggest that substantial increases in U.S. transit ridership would occur if only there were much higher levels of public support for public transit.

But there are inconsistencies in that line of reasoning. First, public transit subsidies already are higher in the United States than they are in other developed nations. The extremely high operating costs of public transit in the United States suggest that, with the possible exception of the former communist countries, U.S. public subsidies per passenger may be the highest in the world. Subsidies account for approximately two-thirds of operating costs in the United States, substantially more than they do in nations where ridership is higher. In Europe and Canada subsidies are less than 50 percent, and in Japan subsidies are less than 15 percent.[27](again, there are more details about this in the article).

The above doesn't even represent a small portion of the article. And the article goes on to cite more than 60 sources! This is an excellent piece of research.

[mranderson]

Again with the biased propiganda which I do not believe nor read since I have a lot of experience riding the systems in this world.

Dallas, huh. (LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL) Dallas is but one city and has one of the newest rapid transits in the nation which is not fully developed.

Try London, Paris, Washington DC, Baltimore, Boston, New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego. Just to name a few.

I guess I just have bigger eyes...

Oh. By the way. In those cities, a lot of "full cars."

Your case does not hold water.

[Midtowner]

Please read the study. I've looked at their methodology and it's decent.

By your response, you obviously haven't read the Cato studies. If you'd like to debunk some of their research, please do.

The way it's done is you go do your own research that disproves theirs.

Until you do that you haven't earned the right to say that their case doesn't hold water.

[yoda]You and your personal experiences, a representative sample they do not make[/yoda]

[Patrick]

Midtowner, I think you bring up some good points, as they are based on a valid study. As mranderson suggests, sure a lot of transit systems in these larger cities are probably doing well, but at the same time, there's a lot of smaller cities trying to leap on the commuter rail bandwagon that aren't even close to turning a profit. It seems to be the "fad" now, but unfortunately, in some of these smaller cities, the "fad" isn't being followed up by riders. People still like the luxury of having their own car, and don't like having to depend on someone else for transportation. One only needs to turn to a very close neighbor, El Reno, to see how much of a waste that project was. That's not a very good example to look at, becausr the El Reno trolley is not commuter rail, but it still makes a point.

One only needs to look to Amtrak to see money being spent by the feds to bolster a commuter rail system. I know there are a lot of Amtrak supporters here and across the nation, but when you figure in how much it's costing us for the small percentage of riders that use it, one has to ask if it's worth it. I think Amtrak is a great system, and I don't in any way put it down, or want to see it disappear, but somehow we need to find a way to make commuter rail more profitable.

Anyways, I agree that Oklahoma City isn't even close to the point of needing commuter rail right now. Until our highways start looking like those in some of the cities mranderson listed, we really don't have the need. I think the council has made this point time and time again. But at the same time, as OKC continues to grow, and as gasoline prices continue to rise, it's probably a good idea to at least start looking into commuter rail. I think in the near future it might be a possiblity.

[Midtowner]

I think 20 years from now, Patrick, we will have a light rail system in OKC. I think they will eventually become more popular unless we discover some sort of alternative fuel (something that is also practical).

The Cato institute certainly raises some valid points in my mind. The biggest issue I see with light rail systems is the cost inflation. I can't think of a single reason for the installation cost to be so high other than the influx of federal money. That always seems to goose the price of things a wee bit.

I think that 20 years from now, many will find it more advantageous to seek forms of public transportation. As a result of the increased demand in cities across the US sized similarly to OKC, I think the price will drop as production costs drop since more rails, cars etc. will be in production.

I'm absolutely certain that some rail system is in our city's future. I would just hope that the city leaders are wise enough to wait until there is sufficient demand to keep the project from diminishing over time (like our trolley system having to stop running at 8PM Monday through Wednesday -- makes it tough to catch a baseball game unless I want to pay $10 for parking).

I think that so far, Istook and city leaders have done what's right for OKC.

[mranderson]

So. I have not earned the right to say "their case doe not hold water." Yes. I have. I have riden a lot of rail systems not only in the United States, but in Europe as well. Until you have riden the rails around the globe, then I could say YOU have no right to say my case holds no water.

One thing you said makes absolutley no sense. Light rail does NOT contribute to polution. Most are run by electricity which HAS no polutants. If it did, then we could say by simpally turning on our clock radios we ar poluting the air. If light rail causes more polution even by electricity, then why is the EPA incouraging hybrid vehicles as well as light rail?

Even for the cities that make electricity by coal, it is less polutants. Filteration has covered that.

Try looking at lightrailnow.org or lightrail.com. These sites might surprise you. Especially when you see the cities planning light rail. Many have metro populations MUCH smaller than Oklahoma City.

No. I have EVERY right to say your case holds no water. I do not believe propiganda. If I did, I would beleive everything I was told, no matter what it was. I do not play that game.

[Floating_adrift]

Seems to me that because of the geographical area OKC covers combined with the low population per square mile in comparison to other cities with the same geographical coverage, the cost would be kind of high in relation to the gains.

Wouldn't you have to build many more miles of light railing than other cities with the same population numbers?

[mranderson]

The fact Oklahoma City is wide spread is one of the BEST reasons to build light rail. For some reason, a lot of people in this city do not know what an investment is. Light rail is an investment. No, it will not pay for itself overnight. Rarely does something worthwhile do so.

Patrick said if we do not plan and start building the system now costs will rise dramatically. He is absoultly correct. We need to build now and also have a re-education program to get this Oklahoma City "mass transit is for the poor people" out of the minds of the citizens. That is why ridership of the bus system is lower than most cities our size.

Even if we had an extention of Amtrak running the other three directions, it would be a start. Driving from far south Oklahoma City to Edmond is expensive and takes a long time. Thank God I do not have to do that on a daily basis. My vehicle would suffer from it. Too many miles on it.

Yes. Park and rides usually are not free. If they were, some people who are not riding the rail would use them for free parking. I have yet to see a park and ride in this country that charges the ten dollars Midtowner claims. The Park and Ride in New Brunswick, New Jersey is only half that. So is the fare on the New Jersey line from there to Pennsylvania Station. Then the subway is only $1.50 for a daily pass. If you buy a monthly pass, it is less per day.

Fuel savings, savings on wear and tear on vehicles, the fact you do not have to drive and can relax, and time savings on many routes. In time it will pay.

Will we have to build more miles? Probably not. Our main populaus is not as spread as the land the encompuses this city. Plus, for the outlining areas, use Amtrak.

This is part of why I have the edge. I learn these things by actually using the systems in the cities I visit. Many have small lines in the populated areas and use train services for the outlining areas. And some combine fares.

It will work. Again. Overnight? No. Good investments take time to mature. Plus, in the time it will take from yes to opening day, we can re-educate the population. Growing cities have light rail or are getting it. Cities that say "it won't work" lose population. A lot of people do not want to live in a pessimistic society. They usually move to a more optomistic one.

[Midtowner]

anderson,

You are making a false analogy -- comparing two things that are nothing alike. You take a town like London, Paris, NYC and say that because rail works for them, it will work for OKC.

That's about as valid as trying to claim that the Dallas Cowboys would do just as well in Pushmataha County as in Dallas. The population of those each of those cities is around 30 times that of Oklahoma City. And in almost every one of those cities, they are even confined to a smaller area (therefore less miles of track need to be laid to make it something that effectively get them anywhere they want to be). It's clear that you did not read the study because they cite specific data on this and provide the methodology they used to back it up.

Had you read the article, you would have found this:
Myth no. 7: Public Transit Conserves Energy and Improves Air Quality

With its continually declining work trip market share, public transit does not and cannot reduce energy consumption or air pollution. Some transit vehicles are overcrowded during peak hours in high-demand corridors. Yet, most of the time, there is excess capacity. The average public transit vehicle in the United States operates with more than 80 percent of its seats empty.[50] Because of the low average number of passengers per bus, the energy consumption per passenger mile of public transit buses is now greater than that of private automobiles, and it far exceeds that of car and van pools.[51] And unlike automobiles, public buses are becoming less, not more, energy efficient. In 1985 public transit used nearly 55 percent more transit vehicles to provide approximately the same number of rides provided in 1965. Over the same period of time the number of vehicle miles increased by 22 percent even though ridership remained static.[52]

Rail, also because of its low ridership, has not contributed to energy conservation. Rail systems require large amounts of energy for the construction of roadbeds, tunnels, and rolling stock. For example, one study estimated that San Francisco's BART system, which is highly patronized, will never save enough energy to recoup its initial energy investment.[53] That is apparently the case for most urban rail systems. A 1982 Congressional Budget Office study concluded that "under typical conditions rapid rail systems actually waste energy rather than save it."[54]

Boosters of rail and advocates of higher transit taxes contend that air quality will improve as transit subsidies increase. Portland's light rail line is often cited as an example of how transit has produced substantial improvements in air quality since 1972.[55] Other factors are responsible for the improvement in Portland's air quality. Since 1972 automobiles, which account for the overwhelming percentage of travel in Portland (and virtually all other U.S. metropolitan areas), have become 48 percent more energy efficient on average, and the average new car has become 100 percent more energy efficient.[56] Further, the average automobile produces less pollution per gallon of gasoline today than it did in 1972. In addition, the percentage of urban trips taken by public transit in Portland was lower in 1989 than in 1980.

Public buses have, on balance, had no favorable effect on air pollution in U.S. cities. Because of low average ridership, buses, on a per passenger basis, often contribute to air pollution because bus emissions are much greater than those of cars or taxis.

Even minute improvements in the fuel efficiency and emission standards of automobiles, which are expected in coming years, or an increase in the number of riders per car would have much more effect on the environment than would massive increases in expensive public transit service.[57] Increased energy efficiency and decreased air pollution could be more efficiently and effectively achieved by the use of high-occupancy-vehicle lanes, the automation of toll collection to speed traffic, and other such reforms.

(Works & Studies Cited)

[50] National Urban Mass Transportation Statistics: Section 15 Annual Report, 1987.

[51] Calculated from National Urban Mass Transportation Statistics: Section 15 Annual Report, 1986; and National Transportation Statistics, 1988.

[52] Data from the National Urban Mass Transportation Statistics: Section 15 Annual Report, various years; and Transit Operating and Financial Statistics, various years.

[53] Data from National Urban Mass Transportation Statistics: Section 15 Annual Report, various years.

[54] Congressional Budget Office "Urban Transportation and Energy: The Potential Savings from Different Modes," 1982, p. 1.

[55] The Renaissance of Rail Transit in America.

[56] In 1972 the average automobile got 13.4 miles per gallon; by 1988 that figure had improved to 20.0 miles per gallon. The average new car achieved 14.4 miles per gallon in 1972 and 28.8 miles per gallon in 1988. Data from National Transportation Statistics Annual Report (Washington: U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration, Transportation Systems Center, 1990)
.

[57] Lave.

[Midtowner]

Following up my own post:

Now, if you want to respond to this, please, I invite you, discredit their sources with other sources besides your non applicable personal experience. Your personal experience riding transit in cities 30 times the size of our own is completely meaningless.

It seems that you're also confusing the scope of the argument. You are arguing for a light rail system in OKC. You think it would be cost effective, save us money in the long run, be better for the environment, etc. I introduce to you a paper that cites 60 other papers and studies that disagree with you. The most you can come up with to discredit these is calling them "propaganda". You've convinced yourself but to convince others, you're going to have to do better than that

Let me give you some hints on how to argue this. I've given you the sources. Go and research them and tell me that they're funded by Haliburton or something (but don't forget to stick to facts and truth). Find that Dick Cheney is pulling the strings behind Cato. Find anything to discredit this paper besides anemic name calling which has been your tactic thus far. I'm trying to help you out here. I enjoy our little discussions, I just think you're capable of bringing more to the table than name calling.

[mranderson]

Very few of the cities inwhich I have riden rail are "30 times as large." We happen to be the 29th largest metro in the country which discredits that staement already. Plus most of the cities inwhich I have riden rail are actually smaller than ours in population (not I said CITIES) and in land mass.

By the way. The "statistics" quoted in the message second away from this are a bunch of brainwashing tactics by a bunch of bleeding heart green peacers.

Try reading the websites I mentioned. Plus. How many rail systems have YOU been on or otherwise seen in person?

This discussion is over.

[Midtowner]

This discussion is not "over". You have failed to prove your point.

You try to discredit Cato by saying that their message is "a bunch of brainwashing tactics by a bunch of bleeding heart green peacers." You really obviously don't know who Cato is.

This is their mission statement from their homepage:

"The Cato Institute seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace. Toward that goal, the Institute strives to achieve greater involvement of the intelligent, concerned lay public in questions of policy and the proper role of government."

Read absolutely anything their site and you'll see how very wrong you are in your evaluation of these "bleeding heart green peacers".

I have ridden rail and transit systems in Paris, Munich, Madrid, Toronto, Washington D.C., Seattle, Dallas, Lisbon, Paris, Orleans, Granada, OKC and others. Yes, OKC has a population of 500-thousand. You listed a few cities. New York City, for example has a metro population of 18,603,110 according to the 2000 census. As for size, OKC has an area of 621 square miles and NYC is 428 square miles (but 35% of that is water). I've seen plenty of rail systems, maybe even more than you.

But as I said earlier, your own personal experience doesn't count as much as researchers who have made serious in depth studies for commerical and governmental purposes into mass transit ridership. Your experience and mine mean absolutely nothing compared to theirs. What you see with your own eyes is immaterial. These guys have data that shows ridership every minute of every day since the beginning of mass transit. How do you combat these facts? You haven't even begun to.

How can this discussion be over if you haven't replied to a single thing I've said in any manner besides calling it a lie? How do you know? Where are your facts? I have mine.

[mranderson]

I do not need to "prove" something the majority of the population knows is fact. Plus I cited two websites that say exactly what I have said.

And yes. I mentioned "a few" places. Not all of the places I have riden rail.

And yes. This discussion IS over. Now. get over it and move on!

[Midtowner]

Anderson, you're citing industry studies. Here's a research clue: When you're looking for less biased information, stick to government statistics.

However, these studies' numbers basically correspond with what I'm talking about.

Let's take the case of the Minneapolis light rail system.

Demographics, Minneapolis' city-limits population is not as high as OKC. It's 361 thousand or thereabouts. However, OKC covers 691 square miles. Minneapolis covers 54.9 square miles. Obviously you can already see that there's a HUGE difference in population density.

On the opening day, the light rail system in Minneapolis had 52000 riders according to lightrailnow.org (one of your websites). Let's say that's capacity (although I seriously doubt that to be the case). Since then, ridership has dwindled to 16,000 average users per day. That would be right in line with my numbers in stating tha assuming 52000 is capacity for the system, it is around 70% empty.

With 16000 riders per day on that particular system, that means that around 16 out of 360 people ride the system per day in that city. As the Cato article suggested, it's making virtually no impact whatsoever on anything.

In the hierarchy of studies and their credibility, industrial studies are at the very bottom of the ladder. Lightrail.com and lightrailnow.org are industry sites that are made to do nothing other than promote their products. However, as above, careful and critical reading of their articles tells the same story that the Cato study did.

[Patrick]

Hey guys, you both have good arguments. Midtowner's comes from actual studies while mrandersons's comes from personal experience and a couple of website of his own. I doubt you'll try to pursuade eachother on this one, so it might just be a good idea to agree to disagree. Anyways it's been a good topic, and you've both brought some interesting discussion to life. I think in all of the discussion of facts, you guys might be missing the overall theme.....rail will be a reality for Oklahoma City someday, just not now. We're jsut not a large enough city right now to make a profit with rail transit. And our heavy dependence on cars doesn't help that any. There's really no incentive around here to help make a commuter rail system profitable. Why would people ride a train downtown when they can easily drive the freeways to work and easily park their vehicles. Until parking becomes tougher downtown, and until crowded interstates become an issue, rail transit just isn't going to be profitable in Oklahoma City. As I said, rising oil prices might helps some, but they're gonig to have to rise a lot more than what they're at now to encourage people to consider rail transit. By the way, floating_adrift, the info. you state is the same logic our city leaders are using for deciding to hold off on rail transit for now.

I did say that we should start building now because it would be cheaper, but maybe I need to re-think that a little. I can't see building something that no one will support at the moment. Our city tried park and ride systems for years (the Norman/Moore one allowed people to park at Crossroads), and it jsut really didn't get used. I think results like this really work against a successfully used rail system, at least in the eyes of city leaders. Anyways, I think maybe we should start planning a light rail system, but it's still probably a little too early to start building one.

Anyways........

The original point of the thread was to mention that oil prices were continuing to go up. They peaked out above $55 a barrell today. Amazing! We control all of the oil in Iraq, you'd think prices would go down. But I guess with how unstable things are over there, it drives up the prices.

Let's go a different direction now. You guys think oil will hit $100 a barrel in the next 5 years? That would sure make for some expensive gasoline.