Comments on: The Obama Plan:Fiasco Potential is High http://gregor.us/policy/the-obama-planfiasco-potential-is-high/ Energy and Economics Mon, 08 Mar 2010 04:43:23 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: pregnancy symptoms http://gregor.us/policy/the-obama-planfiasco-potential-is-high/comment-page-3/#comment-438 pregnancy symptoms Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:26:49 +0000 http://gregor.us/?p=537#comment-438 I wish to wish all pregnant women of good mood, easy pregnancy and natural sorts! Good luck also are happy! Give birth easily and independently! Let not doctors give birth for you, and you! Also adjust itself on chest feeding of the kid! Read the necessary information! Be, lovely pregnant mums and expecting posterities of the daddy, are healthy and wise! I wish to wish all pregnant women of good mood, easy pregnancy and natural sorts! Good luck also are happy! Give birth easily and independently! Let not doctors give birth for you, and you! Also adjust itself on chest feeding of the kid! Read the necessary information! Be, lovely pregnant mums and expecting posterities of the daddy, are healthy and wise!

]]> By: Bryan Long http://gregor.us/policy/the-obama-planfiasco-potential-is-high/comment-page-2/#comment-376 Bryan Long Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:36:18 +0000 http://gregor.us/?p=537#comment-376 Sorry, forgot to put in the links:<br>The Richmond VA vehicle occupancy report is at <a href="http://cli.gs/XX6jn1" rel="nofollow">http://cli.gs/XX6jn1</a><br>O'Toole's so called "research" report is at <a href="http://cli.gs/VEqNWS" rel="nofollow">http://cli.gs/VEqNWS</a><br>The 2001 Census survey is at nhts.ornl.gov/2001/pub/STT.pdf<br>And in 3rd sentence in prior comment I meant to say "I highly suspect", not "Highly suspect"... Sorry, forgot to put in the links:
The Richmond VA vehicle occupancy report is at http://cli.gs/XX6jn1
O'Toole's so called “research” report is at http://cli.gs/VEqNWS
The 2001 Census survey is at nhts.ornl.gov/2001/pub/STT.pdf
And in 3rd sentence in prior comment I meant to say “I highly suspect”, not “Highly suspect”…

]]> By: Bryan Long http://gregor.us/policy/the-obama-planfiasco-potential-is-high/comment-page-2/#comment-1886 Bryan Long Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:36:18 +0000 http://gregor.us/?p=537#comment-1886 Sorry, forgot to put in the links:<br>The Richmond VA vehicle occupancy report is at <a href="http://cli.gs/XX6jn1" rel="nofollow">http://cli.gs/XX6jn1</a><br>O'Toole's so called "research" report is at <a href="http://cli.gs/VEqNWS" rel="nofollow">http://cli.gs/VEqNWS</a><br>The 2001 Census survey is at nhts.ornl.gov/2001/pub/STT.pdf<br>And in 3rd sentence in prior comment I meant to say "I highly suspect", not "Highly suspect"... Sorry, forgot to put in the links:
The Richmond VA vehicle occupancy report is at http://cli.gs/XX6jn1
O'Toole's so called “research” report is at http://cli.gs/VEqNWS
The 2001 Census survey is at nhts.ornl.gov/2001/pub/STT.pdf
And in 3rd sentence in prior comment I meant to say “I highly suspect”, not “Highly suspect”…

]]> By: gregor.us http://gregor.us/policy/the-obama-planfiasco-potential-is-high/comment-page-2/#comment-1885 gregor.us Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:36:10 +0000 http://gregor.us/?p=537#comment-1885 Yes. I have read enough now at <a href="http://reason.org" rel="nofollow">reason.org</a> and especially <a href="http://americandreamcoalition.org/RD2005.pdf" rel="nofollow">O'Toole's study Rail Disasters</a> to conclude that his study is absurd. As one Tweeter pointed out yesterday, not only was O'Toole's 2005 study contorted and wrong in 2005, but it became spectacularly wrong over the next 3 years.<br><br>As I have said elsewhere, I feel favorable towards the Libertarians but they fall into ditches as they heroically wave ideological banners. Public Transport has always been a blind spot for the Libertarians. They fall down starting with the public review land-taking process, and then go even more wobbly from there on in.<br><br>It's as though Libertarians have no conceptual way to handle the history of public works in Western history. <br><br>G Yes. I have read enough now at reason.org and especially O'Toole's study Rail Disasters to conclude that his study is absurd. As one Tweeter pointed out yesterday, not only was O'Toole's 2005 study contorted and wrong in 2005, but it became spectacularly wrong over the next 3 years.

As I have said elsewhere, I feel favorable towards the Libertarians but they fall into ditches as they heroically wave ideological banners. Public Transport has always been a blind spot for the Libertarians. They fall down starting with the public review land-taking process, and then go even more wobbly from there on in.

It's as though Libertarians have no conceptual way to handle the history of public works in Western history.

G

]]> By: Bryan Long http://gregor.us/policy/the-obama-planfiasco-potential-is-high/comment-page-2/#comment-375 Bryan Long Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:26:41 +0000 http://gregor.us/?p=537#comment-375 Agree. First of all, you have to be skeptical of anything published on EcoWorld, as editor Ed Ring is a global warming critic who generously seeds anti-green propaganda into legit green news collected from elsewhere. Highly suspect carbon fuels industry funds this site. And naturally Car & Driver is a little biased, but at least that is up front in their title! O'Toole, the author of these articles, is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, which also gets a lot of funding from the carbon boys. The articles don't cite sources, and that makes me suspicious. Linking back to O'Toole's Cata Institute report, we find that he gets his average car occupancy rate from a 2001 census survey, and bases his "calculations" of energy & CO2 comparisons with mass transit on that. What's wrong with that? Well, the census table he references breaks it down by type of trip, not by mile. For commuting, the survey says 1.14 persons/car. Social and Recreational trips have 2.03 people/car, and shopping is in between. The average by type of trip is the 1.6 per/car O'Toole uses, not the average by mile. And that's all based on just asking people what they think, not actual measurements. Good stats are a little hard to find, but a 2008 comprehensive direct observation measurement in the Richmond, VA district shows an average of 1.14 persons/car for all types of trips! I think it likely that what is true in Richmond is true in most of the rest of the country. So, clearly, O'Toole is picking stats and making his own "calculations" to get the results he wants, and passing it off as research. Agree. First of all, you have to be skeptical of anything published on EcoWorld, as editor Ed Ring is a global warming critic who generously seeds anti-green propaganda into legit green news collected from elsewhere. Highly suspect carbon fuels industry funds this site. And naturally Car & Driver is a little biased, but at least that is up front in their title! O'Toole, the author of these articles, is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, which also gets a lot of funding from the carbon boys. The articles don't cite sources, and that makes me suspicious. Linking back to O'Toole's Cata Institute report, we find that he gets his average car occupancy rate from a 2001 census survey, and bases his “calculations” of energy & CO2 comparisons with mass transit on that. What's wrong with that? Well, the census table he references breaks it down by type of trip, not by mile. For commuting, the survey says 1.14 persons/car. Social and Recreational trips have 2.03 people/car, and shopping is in between. The average by type of trip is the 1.6 per/car O'Toole uses, not the average by mile. And that's all based on just asking people what they think, not actual measurements. Good stats are a little hard to find, but a 2008 comprehensive direct observation measurement in the Richmond, VA district shows an average of 1.14 persons/car for all types of trips! I think it likely that what is true in Richmond is true in most of the rest of the country. So, clearly, O'Toole is picking stats and making his own “calculations” to get the results he wants, and passing it off as research.

]]> By: Bryan Long http://gregor.us/policy/the-obama-planfiasco-potential-is-high/comment-page-2/#comment-1884 Bryan Long Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:26:41 +0000 http://gregor.us/?p=537#comment-1884 Agree. First of all, you have to be skeptical of anything published on EcoWorld, as editor Ed Ring is a global warming critic who generously seeds anti-green propaganda into legit green news collected from elsewhere. Highly suspect carbon fuels industry funds this site. And naturally Car & Driver is a little biased, but at least that is up front in their title! O'Toole, the author of these articles, is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, which also gets a lot of funding from the carbon boys. The articles don't cite sources, and that makes me suspicious. Linking back to O'Toole's Cata Institute report, we find that he gets his average car occupancy rate from a 2001 census survey, and bases his "calculations" of energy & CO2 comparisons with mass transit on that. What's wrong with that? Well, the census table he references breaks it down by type of trip, not by mile. For commuting, the survey says 1.14 persons/car. Social and Recreational trips have 2.03 people/car, and shopping is in between. The average by type of trip is the 1.6 per/car O'Toole uses, not the average by mile. And that's all based on just asking people what they think, not actual measurements. Good stats are a little hard to find, but a 2008 comprehensive direct observation measurement in the Richmond, VA district shows an average of 1.14 persons/car for all types of trips! I think it likely that what is true in Richmond is true in most of the rest of the country. So, clearly, O'Toole is picking stats and making his own "calculations" to get the results he wants, and passing it off as research. Agree. First of all, you have to be skeptical of anything published on EcoWorld, as editor Ed Ring is a global warming critic who generously seeds anti-green propaganda into legit green news collected from elsewhere. Highly suspect carbon fuels industry funds this site. And naturally Car & Driver is a little biased, but at least that is up front in their title! O'Toole, the author of these articles, is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, which also gets a lot of funding from the carbon boys. The articles don't cite sources, and that makes me suspicious. Linking back to O'Toole's Cata Institute report, we find that he gets his average car occupancy rate from a 2001 census survey, and bases his “calculations” of energy & CO2 comparisons with mass transit on that. What's wrong with that? Well, the census table he references breaks it down by type of trip, not by mile. For commuting, the survey says 1.14 persons/car. Social and Recreational trips have 2.03 people/car, and shopping is in between. The average by type of trip is the 1.6 per/car O'Toole uses, not the average by mile. And that's all based on just asking people what they think, not actual measurements. Good stats are a little hard to find, but a 2008 comprehensive direct observation measurement in the Richmond, VA district shows an average of 1.14 persons/car for all types of trips! I think it likely that what is true in Richmond is true in most of the rest of the country. So, clearly, O'Toole is picking stats and making his own “calculations” to get the results he wants, and passing it off as research.

]]> By: Bryan Long http://gregor.us/policy/the-obama-planfiasco-potential-is-high/comment-page-2/#comment-374 Bryan Long Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:27:59 +0000 http://gregor.us/?p=537#comment-374 First paragraph, "roads and bridges and neglected public rail" should read "vs. neglected public rail", right? Part of the problem, no doubt, is the desire to spend quickly. There are many more road and bridge proposals in backlog from years when we didn't see rail as such a priority, and many of these projects are easier to implement, vs. right-of-way expansion issues of rail. That doesn't make it right, tho! First paragraph, “roads and bridges and neglected public rail” should read “vs. neglected public rail”, right? Part of the problem, no doubt, is the desire to spend quickly. There are many more road and bridge proposals in backlog from years when we didn't see rail as such a priority, and many of these projects are easier to implement, vs. right-of-way expansion issues of rail. That doesn't make it right, tho!

]]> By: Bryan Long http://gregor.us/policy/the-obama-planfiasco-potential-is-high/comment-page-2/#comment-1889 Bryan Long Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:27:59 +0000 http://gregor.us/?p=537#comment-1889 First paragraph, "roads and bridges and neglected public rail" should read "vs. neglected public rail", right? Part of the problem, no doubt, is the desire to spend quickly. There are many more road and bridge proposals in backlog from years when we didn't see rail as such a priority, and many of these projects are easier to implement, vs. right-of-way expansion issues of rail. That doesn't make it right, tho! First paragraph, “roads and bridges and neglected public rail” should read “vs. neglected public rail”, right? Part of the problem, no doubt, is the desire to spend quickly. There are many more road and bridge proposals in backlog from years when we didn't see rail as such a priority, and many of these projects are easier to implement, vs. right-of-way expansion issues of rail. That doesn't make it right, tho!

]]> By: JackTar http://gregor.us/policy/the-obama-planfiasco-potential-is-high/comment-page-2/#comment-366 JackTar Tue, 13 Jan 2009 01:37:40 +0000 http://gregor.us/?p=537#comment-366 "that takes into account a fair amount of externalities--like improvement to a city's GDP and air quality--will show that public transport investment is a "very good" investment to make."<br><br>Isn't the quantification of externalities extremely subjective, like "goodwill" on a balance sheet? “that takes into account a fair amount of externalities–like improvement to a city's GDP and air quality–will show that public transport investment is a “very good” investment to make.”

Isn't the quantification of externalities extremely subjective, like “goodwill” on a balance sheet?

]]> By: JackTar http://gregor.us/policy/the-obama-planfiasco-potential-is-high/comment-page-2/#comment-1883 JackTar Tue, 13 Jan 2009 01:37:40 +0000 http://gregor.us/?p=537#comment-1883 "that takes into account a fair amount of externalities--like improvement to a city's GDP and air quality--will show that public transport investment is a "very good" investment to make."<br><br>Isn't the quantification of externalities extremely subjective, like "goodwill" on a balance sheet? “that takes into account a fair amount of externalities–like improvement to a city's GDP and air quality–will show that public transport investment is a “very good” investment to make.”

Isn't the quantification of externalities extremely subjective, like “goodwill” on a balance sheet?

]]>