Afternoon Jolt: It Just Keeps Getting Worse

Could Ed Murray’s prediction be wrong? Stay tuned…

Could Ed Murray’s prediction be wrong? Stay tuned…

keep cutting…snip…snip…snip. Maybe the state gov’t will finally be limited to what was laid out in its constitution

You mean like a judiciary and criminal justice system (cops and prisons), a “paramount” obligation to pay for schools, a highway system, management of state lands and waters, a worker’s comp system, a local government structure and authority (including utilities), authority for various tax systems to pay for it all? You mean that stuff (plus lots more)? What is the state doing that’s not “laid out in its constitution”?

Economy is not likely to get lots better, and not for long when it does: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQqDS9wGsxQ

Economy is not likely to get lots better, and not for long when it does: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQqDS9wGsxQ

It’s pretty likely that the entire world economy is going to go down the tubes fairly soon, and stay there for a long time.  Europe is basically bankrupt.  China is coming to the end of its gigantic infrastructure-building bubble, and when that bubble bursts in a year, or two, China is going to be a basket case, also.

So, how is Seattle preparing for the coming economic malaise?  By wasting billions and billions of tax dollars on stupid mistakes like light rail, and a deep-bored tunnel.

Amazing.

Maybe Governor Jennifer Gates will be able to enjoy positive economic growth by 2020.

Actually, Seattle is becoming a booming tech hub, churning out highly-paid workers whose taxes help buy Grover’s supply of Depends. King County revenues seem to have turned the corner — presumably driven by Seattle. It’s all the rest of the state filled with dumb hicks and doddering, incontinent old coots that are drowning. 

so tohave Inslee not favor an income tax leaves us in the straitjacket of the lowlevel demand trapkeynes pointed out…the republican eymanistic plan……defund government so much, to let the rich get more rich, then they can point to government not working as a way to fool workers into thinking it can’t work despite all real world evidence to the contrary including our own history from 1939 to 1981 and all of northern europe such as germany where higher taxes and bigger gummint lead to..well they lead to purty darn good things.  so when we have insles and gregoires afraid to speak up for higher taxes, really, what’s the point in pretending the dmeocratic party is different than the republicans? or has a reason to exist?

“hi, we’re the brach of the republican, let’s cut gummint party that wants equal rights for all people.”  that’s about it.  no economic base to the democratic party any more. 

I agree; “the entire world economy” means the global capitalist system, and it’s hard to see how it cannot unravel in the face of resource limits, population growth, and a reliance on “growth” generally. It’s simply not “sustainable.” The open question is how severe and rapid the transition will be.

However, I disagree that light rail and the tunnel are the same waste of money. The DBT facilitates cars with few passengers, while light rail facilitates, well, light rail. At the moment, wikipedia at a page on relative fuel efficiency of various forms of transportation has a really good data synthesis. Look for “MJ per passenger-kilometre” or “BTU per passenger-mile.” I have repeatedly come to the same rankings, including after digging in the “US Transportation Energy Data Book” itself. High efficiency electric cars can compete with transit; nothing else does except feet and bikes.

As for the tunnel, absolutely: please everyone, be informed vote REJECT the car tunnel, and the boulevard with skinny waterfront park (if that). Accommodate freight, yes, but not with this ridiculous, unaffordable capital project.

Yeah, and that’s why Metro says it needs another tax increase to increase subsidies to bus riders because sales tax in King County is so far below projections, right?

If King County revenues have “turned the corner” then we can cancel the request for increased car tabs for Metro.  They won’t be needing that, will they dumb shit?

“while light rail facilitates, well, light rail.”

Exactly.  Light rail is a colossal waste of money that is being built only because, well…..it’s light rail.  And there are a bunch of people in this area who just love little trains.

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb30/Edition30_Chapter02.pdf

Latest edition of Transportation Energy Data Book, chapter 2.  Table 2.12, page 2-14  Energy use in BTU per passenger-mile:

cars: 3,538
transit buses:  4,242
light rail:  3,526 (figure 2.2, page 2-17)

So, the average car in the U.S. in 2009 was far more energy-efficient than transit buses, and just about exactly as energy efficient as the average light rail system in the U.S.  However, the average NEW car in 2011 is far more energy efficient than the average (10-year-old) car was in 2009.  So, the average NEW car in the U.S. is far more energy-efficient than buses or light rail.  And, by law, the energy-efficiency of new cars in the U.S. is going to keep improving dramatically over the next 15 years.  Obama and the car companies just agreed to new fuel-efficiency standards for U.S. cars and light trucks through 2025.  By 2025 the average NEW car sold in the U.S. will be about twice as energy-efficient as light rail.

How are Greece, Itally, Portugal and Spain doing about now?

Germany recently raised its retirement age to 67.  You support that?

time to snip the constitution then.

yes because they are living longer.

already did, along with the veterans levy.

yep becuase seattle and king county mine all those raw materials that let you build all your new TOD mixed used buildings. and KC also generates all its own energy…. oh wait it doesnt it imports everything…..

Hate to burst your bubble, but the reason for increased longevity isn’t that people are living longer it’s that more people aren’t dying young.

Increasing the retirement age only assures more senile, elderly workers taking jobs from younger workers and slowing productivity.

I could say the same about some peoples’ love for their toy cars.

Been through this argument before on another thread. You’re misreading the data. The only “cars” that do better than rail are those with high mileage and lots of passengers. SOVs on freeways, not so much. If you visit urban places around the world, the ones that are the most “livable” are the ones that have good rail (and bus) systems, both inter and intra city. Also, missing from your analysis is the cost of cars in terms of resources to construct and maintain them and their infrastructure, as well as their impact on subjective quality of life. Don’t you just love Seattles’ sidewalk cafes after work at rush hour? Well, those with decks in back away from the cars, yes.

I could say the same about some peoples’ love for their toy cars.

Been through this argument before on another thread. You’re misreading the data. The only “cars” that do better than rail are those with high mileage and lots of passengers. SOVs on freeways, not so much. If you visit urban places around the world, the ones that are the most “livable” are the ones that have good rail (and bus) systems, both inter and intra city. Also, missing from your analysis is the cost of cars in terms of resources to construct and maintain them and their infrastructure, as well as their impact on subjective quality of life. Don’t you just love Seattles’ sidewalk cafes after work at rush hour? Well, those with decks in back away from the cars, yes.

Good luck with that.

Good luck with that.

thanks for asking Grover.  I do support the kinds of tax levels and investment and export policies and policies to maintain employment they have in germany, also the worker councils at the bigger companies, the ones the allies imposed after ww2, the full flower of the new deal so to speak.  i support their policies on leave health care and the like.  i support that they ahve a bigger gummint than we do, higher taxes, and in general the middle class and working class there is better off than ours are, here.  so yes in general we should do lots of the stuff they do.  and if social security needs reforming including rising to age 67 I could supprot that, though i’d have more progressive taxes and contributions and payouts first — it’s ridiculous that a rich dude gets a social security check at all.  For your information, douchebag, I said northern europe meaning scandiavia, germany UK low countries.  FYI this does not include greece italy portuga and spain.  many of those nations have pbroblems in collecting taxes — the rich notorisouly just don’t pay.  rich people shouldn’t illegally avoid taxes, I am sure you agree.  MAny of those nations overpromised financially and need to cut back.  The SOCIALIST government of greece just did that and now Germany thanks to its economic power is thinking about basically bailing out a bunch of eurobanks hold the paper of greece and portugal.  Imagine that, having eonomic power enough to do that.  Maybe america should learn a thing or too from germany, right?  I mean in economics and politics — not food or music.  Alsop I should note that IN GENERAL  italy and spain and greece and portugal are resounding economic success stories if you look at the last 50 years post war and economic union integration and their national gdp growth rates exceed ours and more miportant, their working aclass and middle classes have grown economically in these years despite recent problems while in america our middle class is stagnant since 1981.  so yes, the point remains HIGHER TAXES LEAD TO MORE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND CREATE MORE JOBS though of course your budget can be too big and I have no doubt greece etc. overextended themselves.  but again, lots of that is failure to tax.  Here in America the top 400 families only pay 18% in taxes, I am sure in greece portugal and italy the top 400 families there pay even less or i italy, basically nothing.  Capisce?

glad you brought up longevity the socialist systems of germany france uk etc. have better outcomes than the usa, including a longer life.  we should move in their direction.  they also only spend half or two thirds of their percentage of gdp on health care, that we spend.  in general they either don’t have private insurance companies or as in germnay they are so fucking regulated like nonprofit trusts they are the blood sucking vampire squid they are here in the glorious USA free market of medical financing where you pay in for years, then get sick and discover (until recently) your policy has a lifetime limit so you will go broke anyway.

You mean no mention of defined payment pensions for state workers? No mention of tenure for teachers? No mention of free health care for illegal immigrants? No mention of free healthcare for anyone? No mention of midnight basketball?

Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem.  The Transportation Energy Data Book is very clear:  the average 10-year-old car in the U.S. in 2009 was far more energy-efficient than buses and just as energy-efficient as light rail.  NEW cars in 2011 are far more energy-efficient than buses or light rail.  That is too complicated for you?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2015764817_apusobamafueleconomy.html

“President Barack Obama and automakers ushered in what could be the largest cut in fuel consumption since the 1970s on Friday with a deal that would save drivers money at the pump and dramatically cut heat-trapping gases coming from tailpipes.

“The agreement pledges to double overall fuel economy to 54.5 mpg by 2025, bringing even greater under-the-hood changes to the nation’s automobiles starting in model year 2017.  Cars and trucks on the road today average 27 mpg.

“When achieved, the 54.5 mpg target will reduce U.S. oil consumption from vehicles by 40 percent and halve the amount of greenhouse gas pollution coming out of tailpipes. It builds on a 2009 deal between the Obama administration and automakers, which committed cars and trucks to averaging 35.5 mpg by model year 2016.”

By 2025 — just 14 years from now — average new cars and trucks in the U.S. will use HALF the energy per passenger-mile that light rail uses.  Right now, you can buy an electric car (Nissan Leaf or Chevy Volt) which usees 1/4 the energy per passenger-mile that light rail uses.
 

Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem.  The Transportation Energy Data Book is very clear:  the average 10-year-old car in the U.S. in 2009 was far more energy-efficient than buses and just as energy-efficient as light rail.  NEW cars in 2011 are far more energy-efficient than buses or light rail.  That is too complicated for you?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2015764817_apusobamafueleconomy.html

“President Barack Obama and automakers ushered in what could be the largest cut in fuel consumption since the 1970s on Friday with a deal that would save drivers money at the pump and dramatically cut heat-trapping gases coming from tailpipes.

“The agreement pledges to double overall fuel economy to 54.5 mpg by 2025, bringing even greater under-the-hood changes to the nation’s automobiles starting in model year 2017.  Cars and trucks on the road today average 27 mpg.

“When achieved, the 54.5 mpg target will reduce U.S. oil consumption from vehicles by 40 percent and halve the amount of greenhouse gas pollution coming out of tailpipes. It builds on a 2009 deal between the Obama administration and automakers, which committed cars and trucks to averaging 35.5 mpg by model year 2016.”

By 2025 — just 14 years from now — average new cars and trucks in the U.S. will use HALF the energy per passenger-mile that light rail uses.  Right now, you can buy an electric car (Nissan Leaf or Chevy Volt) which usees 1/4 the energy per passenger-mile that light rail uses.
 

Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem.  The Transportation Energy Data Book is very clear:  the average 10-year-old car in the U.S. in 2009 was far more energy-efficient than buses and just as energy-efficient as light rail.  NEW cars in 2011 are far more energy-efficient than buses or light rail.  That is too complicated for you?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2015764817_apusobamafueleconomy.html

“President Barack Obama and automakers ushered in what could be the largest cut in fuel consumption since the 1970s on Friday with a deal that would save drivers money at the pump and dramatically cut heat-trapping gases coming from tailpipes.

“The agreement pledges to double overall fuel economy to 54.5 mpg by 2025, bringing even greater under-the-hood changes to the nation’s automobiles starting in model year 2017.  Cars and trucks on the road today average 27 mpg.

“When achieved, the 54.5 mpg target will reduce U.S. oil consumption from vehicles by 40 percent and halve the amount of greenhouse gas pollution coming out of tailpipes. It builds on a 2009 deal between the Obama administration and automakers, which committed cars and trucks to averaging 35.5 mpg by model year 2016.”

By 2025 — just 14 years from now — average new cars and trucks in the U.S. will use HALF the energy per passenger-mile that light rail uses.  Right now, you can buy an electric car (Nissan Leaf or Chevy Volt) which usees 1/4 the energy per passenger-mile that light rail uses.
 

I have a reading comprehension problem? Look at Table 2.12 (and Table A.17) in the 

Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition
30 and explain how 3,500 btu per passenger mile for cars is
better than 2,400 – 2,800 btu per passenger mile for various forms of rail? Only car pooling beats rail by increasing the load factor. Please tell me what I’m missing in this 414 page document.
 

As for the improved CAFE standards; the new ones are just as
bogus as the current ones: article
on CAFE standards in practice. The new standards will improve things
for sure. However, I’m not holding my breath that their actual performance will
be better than rail. Rail will also become more efficient, especially “per
passenger mile” with increased load factors over time (i.e, greater ridership).
And you still haven’t addressed the lifecycle costs of cars v transit,
including infrastructure.

I have a reading comprehension problem? Look at Table 2.12 (and Table A.17) in the 

Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition
30 and explain how 3,500 btu per passenger mile for cars is
better than 2,400 – 2,800 btu per passenger mile for various forms of rail? Only car pooling beats rail by increasing the load factor. Please tell me what I’m missing in this 414 page document.
 

As for the improved CAFE standards; the new ones are just as
bogus as the current ones: article
on CAFE standards in practice. The new standards will improve things
for sure. However, I’m not holding my breath that their actual performance will
be better than rail. Rail will also become more efficient, especially “per
passenger mile” with increased load factors over time (i.e, greater ridership).
And you still haven’t addressed the lifecycle costs of cars v transit,
including infrastructure.

I have a reading comprehension problem? Look at Table 2.12 (and Table A.17) in the 

Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition
30 and explain how 3,500 btu per passenger mile for cars is
better than 2,400 – 2,800 btu per passenger mile for various forms of rail? Only car pooling beats rail by increasing the load factor. Please tell me what I’m missing in this 414 page document.
 

As for the improved CAFE standards; the new ones are just as
bogus as the current ones: article
on CAFE standards in practice. The new standards will improve things
for sure. However, I’m not holding my breath that their actual performance will
be better than rail. Rail will also become more efficient, especially “per
passenger mile” with increased load factors over time (i.e, greater ridership).
And you still haven’t addressed the lifecycle costs of cars v transit,
including infrastructure.

Except for calling Grocer a douchebag, you analysis is spot on.

Except for calling Grocer a douchebag, you analysis is spot on.

Except for calling Grocer a douchebag, you analysis is spot on.

You’re correct; there’s lots of stuff in the RCW (statutes) that is done through the basic power of the sovereign to protect the general health and welfare. And don’t think that these numerous provisions haven’t been challenged as unconstitutional at both state and federal level many times. E.g., states fought to impose minimum wage laws to protect workers and U.S. Supreme Court said they couldn’t through the 20s and early 30s, then changed their mind in a case out of Washington State in 1937 (West Coast Hotels v. Parrish). What the Court said there bears repeating:

“… freedom of contract is a qualified and not an absolute right. There is
no absolute freedom to do as one wills or to contract as one chooses.
The guaranty of liberty does not withdraw from legislative supervision
that wide department of activity which consists of the making of
contracts, or deny to government the power to provide restrictive
safeguards. Liberty implies the absence of arbitrary restraint, not
immunity from reasonable regulations and prohibitions imposed in the
interests of the community.”

As for the specifics (I wondered which ones would get thrown at me): Midnight basketball; what’s that? And where do I sign up to get free healthcare? Free healthcare for “illegals”: you mean at the ER because they take people in without question? I know of no other system that provides health care to that class of people. Regarding pensions, see Article II, Section 25 and Article XXIX.

I like little trains!

BTW, while we are engaged in that discussion, the OFM was put firmly under the governor’s office and just released a report that says the state, cities, and counties will be swimming in money if I-1183, liquor privatization, is passed. It’s kind of odd they are now embracing assumptions previously rejected as pie-in-the-sky.

The idea is to push for privatization, watch it crash and burn (25-40% drop in tax revenue), and the only solution is a 10% state income tax! Gregoire will be canonized in every political Hall of Fame everywhere for finally getting it done when everyone else, including Bill Gates Sr. failed. She’s going for the brass ring!

That is exactly what I said, genius:  light rail has the same energy efficiency as the average 10-year-old car in the U.S!

LOL  you actually got it!

Obviously, new cars are far more energy-efficient than 10-year-old cars, ergo the average new car is far more energy-efficient than light rail!  You actually understand this now?  Or, you still don’t get it?

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html

In 2009, the year of the latest Transportation Data Book figures, the average car in the U.S. fleet got 23.8 mpg.  But in 2009 the average NEW car sold in the U.S. got 32.9 mpg.  Do you even understand that NEW cars get better fuel economy than the U.S. fleet of cars, which is calculated by using a weighted average of all cars being driven in the U.S.?

So, in 2009, light rail had the same energy-efficiency as the average U.S. car on the road at that time, which was 23.8 mpg.  However, the average 2009 model year car sold in the U.S. got 32.9 mpg, which is 38% more energy-efficent than light rail.

This is pretty simple — the average new car sold in the U.S. is far more energy-efficent than light rail.  I don’t believe you are unable to comprehend this.  You just don’t like it, so you pretend it isn’t true.  And new cars in the U.S. will continue to get more and more energy-efficient every year.

Yes, shit head.  I noticed that you ingored the bankrupt countries of Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain.  lol  That is why I pointed out that they are in the shitter because of uncontrolled government spending.

I’m not ignoring anything, except your rudeness.

We’re talking past each other. I’m looking at btu/passenger mile (energy efficiency) and you’re looking at mpg (a proxy for energy efficiency) and a table showing approximate system efficiency in a number of cities. Perhaps you could spend the time to dig around in the cited source data (http://204.68.195.57/ntdprogram/data.htm ). So, I do not agree that “light rail has the same energy efficiency as the average 10-year-old car in the U.S” because it is not clear to me that this is true. Energy Data Book Fig. 2.2 does not explain how the “weighted average” has been calculated, nor tell us what the scope of the data set is (is it just U.S. systems; and if so, how do other countries’ systems compare?). Until you explain and reconcile the Fig. 2.2 conclusion with the Table 2.12 figures (cars = 3,500, rail = 2,400 – 2,800) you have not made a cogent argument.

I’ve dug around a bit on the efficiency issue (I find the mpg proxy data to be much less useful) and have found similar results by a number of analysts:
Public Transportation Webring
Some Guy In New York
OK, Rail Is Not Meeting Its Potential

My conclusion is still: For intra city and commuting rail is generally more efficient than cars. Cars are better if they’re better than average efficiency and have more than one person. Cars are definitely better inter city with a number of passengers.

And you have yet to respond to my questions about life cycle and system costs.

And you totally missed his point that the major problem in Greece et al is poor tax collection and insufficient revenues (“failure to tax”), not too much spending.