Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem with your logic is you are comparing a bus to a car. The thing is buses carry dozens of people. A more apt comparison is 1 bus to 100 cars. In the end it uses much less fuel and does much less damage.
Yeah, I guess our country is bad at math.
A bus does approximately 10,000 as much damage to a road as one car. That means the damage from ten thousand (10,000) cars is equal to one bus, approximately. Also, I've never seen a bus carrying 100 passengers... not that that's even relevant. And buses run on gas. So regardless of the subsidized cost of gas being $8/gallon or not $8/gallon, it still doesn't matter. The fact is the average bus in the United States is less efficient per passenger miles than the average car.
A bus does approximately 10,000 as much damage to a road as one car. That means the damage from ten thousand (10,000) cars is equal to one bus, approximately. Also, I've never seen a bus carrying 100 passengers... not that that's even relevant. And buses run on gas. So regardless of the subsidized cost of gas being $8/gallon or not $8/gallon, it still doesn't matter. The fact is the average bus in the United States is less efficient per passenger miles than the average car.
Buses are converting to natural gas. We have plenty that do in my city. I think it is one third of the fleet at the moment.
Buses are more efficient in many other ways. I done often ride a bus with only nine riders, it is usually several dozen. But buses eliminate the need to build in parking. No one is really sure how many parking spots we have in the US, but it is anywhere from 2-5 per car. That is valuable space that could be used more efficiently.
Also people who use the bus travel less vehicle miles and walk more.
A bus does approximately 10,000 as much damage to a road as one car. That means the damage from ten thousand (10,000) cars is equal to one bus, approximately. Also, I've never seen a bus carrying 100 passengers... not that that's even relevant. And buses run on gas. So regardless of the subsidized cost of gas being $8/gallon or not $8/gallon, it still doesn't matter. The fact is the average bus in the United States is less efficient per passenger miles than the average car.
I agree anyone that thinks a bus is worse than cars in terms of gas and damage is terrible at math.
Anyone who makes this argument against buses is mathematically challenged.
Buses are converting to natural gas. We have plenty that do in my city. I think it is one third of the fleet at the moment.
Buses are more efficient in many other ways. I done often ride a bus with only nine riders, it is usually several dozen. But buses eliminate the need to build in parking. No one is really sure how many parking spots we have in the US, but it is anywhere from 2-5 per car. That is valuable space that could be used more efficiently.
Also people who use the bus travel less vehicle miles and walk more.
I am on my phone, please forgive the typos.
The problem is their logic is flawed. A bus is not meant to transport one person. It carries dozens. One bus removes dozens of cars. When you point this out they get very angry. They get even angier when you point out their are other forms of public transit that dont use roads.
Im not saying people cant drive. I just dont see why people need to bury their head in ignorance when you point out facts they dont like.
And the fact remains that the amount of subsidy for public transportation on a usage basis is much higher than on the car. Roads and waterways (waterways are negligible) account for 43% of total (federal, state and local) transportation spending. Public transportation accounts for 23%. The private automobile accounts for 83% of trips. Mass transit? 4-5%.
So we spend less than twice as much subsidizing the car as transit. And around 20 times as many trips are taken by car than transit. We'd be in serious trouble if transportation usage doubled.
Buses are converting to natural gas. We have plenty that do in my city. I think it is one third of the fleet at the moment.
Buses are more efficient in many other ways. I done often ride a bus with only nine riders, it is usually several dozen. But buses eliminate the need to build in parking. No one is really sure how many parking spots we have in the US, but it is anywhere from 2-5 per car. That is valuable space that could be used more efficiently.
Also people who use the bus travel less vehicle miles and walk more.
I am on my phone, please forgive the typos.
Good point with natural gas, they're much better environmentally, plus if you're one of those rah-rah Apple Pie types, they're good for national security reasons. Personally, I'm not too concerned about Canada invading us or blowing up our buildings, but I understand that many of my Apple Pie compatriots think it's a legitimate concern.
You also live Oakland, right? Public transportation works better and makes more sense in urban areas.
Now, come out here and see how much of an urbanizing force buses are. Better yet, come out here ten years ago before they decided to develop transit corridors (still very much a work in progress). Running uniformly crappy bus service on circuitous routes isn't helping density. You can't have TOD when your providing uniformly bad transit to the entire area, which is why the corridor approach is now the emphasis. We're focusing on four corridors. We'll see how it works, but it can't be less effective that the previous approach.
On the contrary you seem upset that roads are subsidized and dont pay for themselves while public transit does.
It is nothing to be upset about.
You're definitely in an alternate reality.
And yes, I am actually upset that roads don't pay for themselves. Not literally, of course, but user fees should be paying for them. Eg, gas taxes just as transit fares shouldn't be subsidized. Targeted welfare would be more appropriate for those that can't provide for themselves.
The fact remains that cars and driving is much more subsidized than all public transit combined.
Also, that six cents is much less than fuel subsidies. Americans dont understand that the reason gas is so cheap is the government subsidies it. Gas would be around $8 a gallon if not for these subsidies. A 6 cent tax doesnt cover this.
The problem with your logic is you are comparing a bus to a car. The thing is buses carry dozens of people. A more apt comparison is 1 bus to 100 cars. In the end it uses much less fuel and does much less damage.
One of the hidden ways driving is subsidized is the standard mileage rate. If using a car for business you can deduct the standard rate or actual costs. A tax preparer said most of the time the standard rate is higher or equal to actual costs. By contrast, if you use public transit for business you can only deduct actual fares.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
