A Trolleybus Named Desire
Someone in comments quipped sarcastically when he read I was going to be in Geneva that he was looking forward to jejune commentary on Geneva public transit. I don’t really know what jejune means, but it doesn’t sound good. At any rate, as this alert fellow noticed, I don’t like to go anywhere without offering uninformed remarks on local transit issues.
So as for Geneva, let’s start with the trolleybus. There seem to be quite a lot of these around, and I also saw a bunch in Nizhny Novgorod and a few (but only a few) in the Boston area but I think they’re generally rare in the United States. The idea is that you take a bus (albeit in Geneva a long articulated bus) and power it by electricity rather than gas or diesel. The electricity is supplied not via an awesome new engine/battery technology, but rather by an overhead wire à la a streetcar. This combination gives you the low emissions of a streetcar, the low operating costs of a streetcar, and much of the air of permanence of a streetcar but with fewer of the fixed startup costs of a streetcar. In other words, it’s some pretty useful technology that would probably be worth considering in many cities for the most popular bus routes.
That said, whenever I see a low emissions modification of a bus (trolley bus, bus powered by natural gas, etc.) I worry that forests are getting missed for the trees. Even if you take the dirtiest bus imaginable, two dozen people taking the bus to work every day creates much less pollution than two dozen people driving two dozen cars. And the availability of a good bus commuting option for some of your city’s citizens also reduces the volume of car ownership per capita which has further pollution-reduction effects. In other words — getting people to take the bus, any bus, rather than drive is a big win for the environment.
Under the circumstances, the precise environmental quality of your buses should be a distinctly secondary consideration. Your primary concern, even in strictly environmental concerns, shouldn’t be trying to reduce the footprint of individual buses it should be trying to make the bus a more appealing option. Spending marginal dollars on increasing the frequency and overall cleanliness/appeal of your buses and bus shelters can have major environmental impacts. So can creating and enforcing key stretches of dedicated bus lanes. Better maps to help sporadic users and new residents come to understand their bus network are nice. And using modern technology to allow shelters to provide digital readouts showing how soon the next bus is coming (as the DC Metro does for trains, and as a few of the shelters here in Geneva seem to do) makes the whole enterprise lower stress.
176 Responses to “A Trolleybus Named Desire”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 10th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Dictionary.com is a wonderful thing.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:00 am
What? You’ve never been to San Francisco? The electrified bus has been in SF as long as I can remember.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:03 am
We’ve gotten the longer, articulated buses here in Cleveland, though they’re electric-diesel hybrids, not wired.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:07 am
I saw these in Rome, and thought basically the same thing. It must be easy to put up the wires, making a nice, affordable, semi-permanent lane for electric buses, but they have to stay in that lane with other traffic, which makes them less appealing than, say, light rail.
It would be interesting to see this idea integrated with a bus rapid transitway.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:15 am
If you are interested in innovative Swiss transport solutions, check out http://www.mobility.ch. I was a member when I was living in Geneva, it is an utterly fantastic car sharing scheme, that has been running for more than 20 years. There were a half dozen cars available to rent by the half hour within walking distance of my flat, with each one containing a little computer than knew about the reservation times etc. by SMS. Fantastic.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I believe that Dayton, Ohio still runs some trolleybus lines… in Chicago we got rid of ours in the late 1960’s, which, considering that the oil shocks came just a few years later, was awesome timing.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:19 am
I remember seeing them in Dayton, Ohio when I was a kid. No idea if they are still there. It seems to me that one of the other major problems with such vehicles in that the wires really, really ugly up the streetscape. That may seem like a trivial concern, but if one of the objectives of mass transit is to make a city more liveable for people who might be inclined to contribute to suburban sprawl, the ugliness does have some impact on quality of life.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Seattle seems to have a ton of these buses.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:21 am
These are all over San Francisco.
The electric wires are ugly as hell. Especially when you hit an intersection.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Geneva’s bus system has a good ticket-buying interface: you buy a time-stamped slip from a machine at the bus stop, board the bus through any door. You risk a fine if a ticket inspector comes along and you don’t have the appropriate slip. (I’ve taken these buses a few dozen times and never encountered an inspector.)
Combine this with wide doors, very low floors (no steps), etc., and it’s possible to get 20 people on and off the bus in about ten seconds. I view this as just as important as dedicated lanes, etc.—on most US buses I’ve been on, you spend just as much time waiting for people to board (and pay, and count change) at the stops as you do driving.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:22 am
I grew up in Seattle where these are also well used and have lived in a few places in Eastern Europe where they are also popular.
You have a fair point about the emissions, but I don’t think that carbon emissions are generally regarded as the main advantage. In hilly cities like Seattle and San Francisco, these buses can operate much easier, especially in stop and go traffic. The second advantage relates not to CO2 pollution, but to the poor air quality that diesel buses produce. In that case, these vehicles address a separate environmental concern.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:24 am
I personally think the electric wires here in San Francisco give the city a gritty industrial look that I kind of like.
But I’m weird.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Seattle dug a tunnel, like for a subway, but instead runs electrified buses through the tunnel. No emissions underground, avoids traffic. The buses still have internal combustion engines, so when they leave downtown they lower the pantograph and they’re plain old diesels.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:27 am
At the risk of strengthening my argument by drawing Mixner’s opprobrium, the quicker we can get our transit system electrified the better, because we’re looking at declining net exports of crude oil already and this will be added to potentially large overall production declines that are coming down the pike in the next five to ten years. And then there’s climate change too, so it’s really a no-brainer to get started on these kinds of trolleys asap.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:33 am
I hear ya, Matt, but sometimes the issue is not aggregate emissions so much as localized emissions at idling stops and (especially) at depots. For example, the incidence of asthma amongst NYC children has been strongly correlated to proximity to bus depots:
http://www.weact.org/Publications/GISMaps/tabid/258/Default.aspx
So while any ol’ public transportation is probably an net plus environmentally in the broad sense, there is definitely a value in trying to pursue lower-emissions technology wherever possible.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Your important point is the “lets focus on investments that significant boost transit ridership rather than wasting a lot of time fighting over secondary details”. Trollybus economics are almost always negative compared to alternate urban transit solutions. The huge cost of building/maintaining electricity distribution (substations, all those poles and catenary lines) almost always outweighs raw energy savings. (Some exceptions in places like SF and Seattle where difficult terrain magnify the energy savings) Philadelphia (like Geneva) uses trollybuses only because the distribution infrastructure was already in place (from early 20th Century trollys). Trollybuses can only serve a fraction of the ridership of a modern light rail system where the energy infrastructure costs can be spread over a much larger base. And they can’t provide the flexibility that US transit needs–routes cant be extended or rerouted to serve that new office complex/shopping center.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Vancouver’s got a ton of these too. They’re great.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:43 am
We have these in Seattle. As to missing the forest for the trees, do you really think so? Buses run all day, whereas if people drive, their car is generally parked most of the time. So, I’m not sure I’d go so far as to say that multiple cars (that are then parked) are better than a regular gas-powered bus, I will say that I think there’s significant value in having the vehicles that operate the most be eco-friendly.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Someone has watched Annie Hall once too often….
November 10th, 2008 at 11:48 am
The local-emissions virtue of trackless trolleys (as they’re known in Boston) is a good one, but the availability of modern ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel and thus the ability to put catalytic converters on diesel buses eats away considerably at that advantage.
It’s worth noting that in Boston, at least, they replaced street-running trolley lines (with the exception of the new Silver Line dual-mode stuff) when streetcars were becoming unfashionable and it was desirable to make the streets more generally rubber-tire-friendly. They’re also one of those products that is uncommon enough in the US to cost an annoying premium over what a more mass-produced vehicle would cost (even for the limited values of “mass production” that applies to regular city buses).
November 10th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Trolley buses *replaced* rail-based trolleys. They exist *because* the wires were already there, they weren’t put up new. They’re an intermediate step: cheaper than trolleys, but less flexible than buses. All the minuses without most of the pluses.
Hey. That rhymes.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
In San Francisco, the MUNI Metro lines are trolly buses that run underground. It’s a brilliant idea.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
I actually lived in Geneva for a year (well, in Ferney-Voltaire, which is in the French suburbs of Geneva), and I lived without a car (the Geneva public transit F bus ran to Ferney-Voltaire). I think that the main thing I noticed about the Geneva transit system was that, in addition to the virtues mentioned in previous comments (good ticket vending, wide doors, low buses), the system ran on time. This was due to a variety of engineering solutions (dedicated lanes and traffic signals on busy streets, etc), and it made a huge difference to the usability of the system (also the fact that there were copious maps and schedules — basically every stop had a schedule for all the buses which stopped there). The fact that you could not only expect the bus to arrive at a given time and get you to another stop by a given time, but that you could expect to make connections between lines reliably, was huge.
As for electric buses vs streetcars or other light-rail: I’m not sure the argument “the wires were already there” applies (at least not in San Francisco, where I live now). The light rail requires only 1 wire over the center of the vehicle, while the electric buses require 2 wires which are a couple of feet apart over the vehicle. I’m pretty sure that most of the wires currently strung for SF electric buses were put there for the current system and are not legacy wiring from the older system.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
“JeJune…have you seen Wally and the Beaver?”
November 10th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
The thing is, here in Geneva they really are trying to replace diesel buses with electric vehicles. Route de Meyrin – that where CERN is – used to be the widest, straightest, best friggin road here, and then about a year ago they started methodically destroying it in order to replace buses with a friggin tram. It’s totally friggin destroyed now. Bastards.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
I’ve spent the last 10 years dividing my time between Grand Rapids, MI, Lansing, MI, Washington, DC, and Binghamton, NY (all of which have some sort of municipal bus system) and I have to admit that I’ve taken a bus once in that entire time. I love the Metro in DC, but I really resist buses. I think the reason comes from the very flexibility of bus systems. If you don’t already know what’s going on (routes, stops, etc.) buses are much more of a mystery. The rigidity and the concentration created by the structure of a subway/train system takes away a lot of the confusion. When in doubt, you can just follow other people. Being the only person at a bus stop wondering if the bus is ever coming or if, when it does, it’s going where you need to go is not a great feeling. It reminds me of highway signage around most big cities: the only way they make any sense is if you already know where you’re going. I don’t know what municipalities could do to make their bus systems more intuitive, but they probably won’t get my business until they do.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
@23 – good ticket vending? You’ve gotta be kidding. Vending machines size of a friggin refrigerator don’t give change. How is that good?
November 10th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I live in Dayton and yes we do have a bunch of them. Although lately I’ve seen several very new, very shine diesel busses on those routes, so I wonder if they’re being replaced.
Plusses are lack of diesel fumes, cool zinging sounds coming from the wires when busses go by, and lots of sparks. But the wires are extremely ugly and the trees lining the streets have to be hacked to pieces to make room, which is aesthetically very unfortunate.
We had that hurricane windstorm sweep through several weeks ago, which laid waste to those wires. Even once the streets were cleared up, the busses were inoperable because of all the repair work needed for the damaged wires.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
From my experience living in San Francisco, electric busses provide some major benefits you’re not catching. Most significantly, they’re really quiet, so you can have their routes go through residential areas without getting neighborhood groups upset. That seemed to lead to more comprehensive coverage than I’ve seen elsewhere, which I’m willing to bet meant more bus usage.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
“What? You’ve never been to San Francisco? The electrified bus has been in SF as long as I can remember.”
And the are the SUXXOR when they turn a corner/hit a pothole too hard and the contacts bounce off the wires and the trollybus comes to a grinding halt, and the driver has to takes 5-10 minutes to get the contacts back on the wires. Meanwhile, traffic is backed up behind them, because those trolleybuses are large, people.
Never seen the contact problem happen with a MUNI train, though.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I laughed when I read this. Yes, it’s jejune. As others have pointed out, electric buses are hardly unknown in the United States. They are a mixed bag. Quieter, but the overhead “tracks” are eyesores, vulnerable to the elements, and inflexible (to alter a route, you must build new overhead tracks, which isn’t always easy) and therefore have generally been eliminated over the years.
An electric bus isn’t any different in its basic nature than a diesel bus. Oh, and we had electric buses with overhead lines in Milwaukee, where I grew up. I remember when they were replaced, first with gasoline powered buses, and then with diesel.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
One of these runs up and down my street constantly. Every morning when I walk to work, the driver is out in the street tugging on the tension cables trying to put one or both of the trolley bars back onto its wire, while about a quarter mile of Škodas filled with pissed off commuters muttering “do prdele” backs up behind it. My experience is also that they are as loud as the diesel buses, which I find difficult to understand.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
the wired buses are probably significantly more efficient than a diesel/hybrid bus. There is a real problem with in street track: it can be lethal to cyclists.
I remember seeing the trolley buses in Dayton in the mid-80’s. I was surprised.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Seattle and Vancouver both have the trolleybus. And the Russian band Kino had a great song called Trolleybus.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Most of Seattle’s electrified busses run where there were real trolleys 80 years ago. That’s why you find them in unlikely low density areas like Queen Anne and Mount Baker. Those were the old streetcar suburbs. They’re also pretty hilly.
They’re great because they’re a lot quieter, especially going up hills. Diesel busses are LOUD!
November 10th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
> You have a fair point about the emissions, but
> I don’t think that carbon emissions are generally
> regarded as the main advantage. In hilly cities
> like Seattle and San Francisco, these buses can
> operate much easier, especially in stop and go traffic.
If that incredibly advanced 1920s technology is used the brakes are actually connected to a generator and dump electricty back into the wire when going downhill (google Milwaukee Road electricfication for a detailed explanation), which improves the overall fuel economy quite a bit.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Trolley buses may make sense on some routes, but in general the future of transit buses is CNG or hybrid-electric motor buses.
But buses of all kinds will most likely continue to lose market share to autos for reasons already discussed at length—time, convenience, comfort and flexibility. Buses also have a social stigma that makes them even less attractive to most people than rail transit. Bus travel in the United States is associated with the poor, the disabled and the elderly.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Philadelphia (like Geneva) uses trollybuses only because the distribution infrastructure was already in place (from early 20th Century trollys). Trollybuses can only serve a fraction of the ridership of a modern light rail system…
Ah, but Philadelphia cleverly solves this problem by making its whole system of public transportation so incompetent and useless that very few people have any desire to use it.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Dano, SF Muni Metro line is not a trolley bus system. They are fixed rail lines (I don’t know if you can technically call them light rail but it’s similar if not the same), powered by overhead electric like the bus you see in the photo, and all over SF. In the tunnels the electric lines remain overhead.
Sadly, no third rail to electrify yourself on.
I don’t know that 5-10 minutes is really the time it takes to fix a trolley bus that has lost it’s power. It’s usually about 60 seconds. Possibly you’re just anxious when you’re in the car behind the bus, but it’s certainly not that big of a deal. Likely any new system would not have the problems SF’s aging fleet has, with it’s dilapidated lines and buses, and likely a union of drivers who drive too fast for the guides to stay connected. More time fixing bus guides, more pay.
Just sayin’…
November 10th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
> Buses also have a social stigma that . . .
Mixner, come to San Francisco, and take the 1BX / 1AX lines from Presideo Heights to the Financial District, see all the suits on their Blackberrys, and we’ll talk about poort, disabled elderly folks on the bus.
(Yes, the BX / AX lines are diesel – but are express buses that run dedicated lines on high use corridors. And other lines in SF are hybrid-electric types, and those tend to run in areas where overhead electrification would not be sensible for reliability reasons – coming off the wires on turns. )
November 10th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Even if you take the dirtiest bus imaginable, two dozen people taking the bus to work every day creates much less pollution than two dozen people driving two dozen cars.
Yes, but after that bus has delivered those two dozen people to work it’ll probably be mostly empty as it returns to the start of its route. And it’ll also probably be running mostly empty during the rest of the day too, except for the one-way reverse commute in the evening. And it’ll probably also be mostly empty when it’s running at night and on weekends. Which is why the overall pollution from bus transportation is no better than for car transportation.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
The lack of flexibility is a plus, not a minus. No one will invest based on public transportation, only to find one morning that the bus route was moved two blocks over.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Mixner, come to San Francisco,
I remember the last time I was in San Francisco taking a bus I overheard a woman chatting on a cell phone with a friend about when to spend time on their yacht, and whether or not to fly down to L.A. and get tickets to the Lakers’ playoff game that weekend.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
it’ll also probably be running mostly empty during the rest of the day too, except for the one-way reverse commute in the evening.
Or not, given that when a city has a well-established bus service along major, well-thought-out routes, using the bus outside commuting hours for trips into town or to stops along the way becomes an actual option. Overlaying existing car-centric patterns on mixed transit is dumb, and your personal revulsion towards semi-close contact with human beings is entirely your own problem.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Hi Greg,
Are you still in Binghamton? The Bus system here isn’t too shabby. And it’s cheaper than paying $200 a year for parking at SUNY B. Between the city buses and SUNY Binghamton’s Blue buses, one can get around town. It also helps to have 3 hubs in Binghamton, SUNY B, and Endicott. My only real criticisms are the frequency (15 minute headway would be great!), lack of a straight express between Binghamton and Endicott, and the lack of real connections with Tioga County Transit and Tompkins County Transit. Tioga does run a connector from Owego to Binghamton at odd hours. And Tompkins county does run a bus from Ithaca to Newark Valley at odd hours. There’s no reason why they couldn’t put together a cheap daisy chain between Binghamton, Owego, Ithaca, Sayre, Elmira and Cortland.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Matt, you’ve once again highlighted the lacuna in your Weltanshaung resulting from never having visited Seattle, veritable land of the trolley bus.
By the way, you can add metropolitan Seattle’s surprisingly strong approval (58-42%) of a major light-rail expansion to your list of progressive electoral triumphs in 2008.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
it’ll also probably be running mostly empty during the rest of the day too, except for the one-way reverse commute in the evening.
Yup. Mixner’s right. Nobody in SF rides buses outside of commute times:
http://www.sfmta.com/cms/rtep/tepdataindx.htm
For example, the CA1 lines only get ~26k boardings a day. The Geary lines only get ~55k boardings a day. With that kind of low ridership, clearly all of those boarding happen during a 2 hour window in the morning and a 2 hour window in the evening.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
While this may be literally true, this is apples and oranges — the analysis is what does it take to serve the same number of total passengers per line per day. Does that aggregate number work out cleaner? That same dirty bus with eight passengers is almost certainly not as good as eight modern cars, but if you’re running four people per bus for most of the day to serve 800 people (200 dirty bus rides) you’re making an argument for more efficient buses. Maybe. Or maybe you’re making an argument for smaller buses, since the 44-passenger diesel workhorse bus, even if efficient is a waste for four to eight passengers on average.
Public transit systems are usually built around taxpayer desires and service employee union structures, rather than the desires of the riders. Where the riders and the taxpayers are more congruent (NYC, SF, Seattle, Portland OR) you may have good results, though one should note examples like SF MUNI’s inefficiency caused by doing things like stopping twice a block on some lines suggest otherwise. Where the riders are a different group than the taxpayers (DC Metro, SF BART) the results don’t seem to be as good and result in amazingly bad decisions that are perhaps “good policy” but don’t get the desired result (SF BART’s extension to the SF airport).
November 10th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Additionally, SFMUNI is savvy enough to run the commute express buses during
. . .
(wait for it)
. . .
COMMUTE HOURS!
And FTW, I can hop on a bus to eat lunch in North Beach when I want to. Joy!
The 2 stops in a block we can blame on local interest groups – nobody likes to walk to a bus stop, especially the elderly and disabled.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
jrc
Yup. Mixner’s right. Nobody in SF rides buses outside of commute times
jrc is attributing to Mixner a claim Mixner never made. jrc needs to read more carefully.
For example, the CA1 lines only get ~26k boardings a day. The Geary lines only get ~55k boardings a day. With that kind of low ridership, clearly all of those boarding happen during a 2 hour window in the morning and a 2 hour window in the evening.
Meaningless. What’s the average load factor of those routes? Of the SF transit bus system in total? How much pollution does it produce per passenger-mile of transportation?
November 10th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Mixner: “What’s the average load factor of those routes?”
Aha! The “magic load factor” makes a triumphant return! Quick, quick! Rip out half the seats on your transit systems and force people to stand instead! Instant 200% Magic Load Factor increase!
November 10th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
The funny thing about web sites, is that when you click on HTML links you often get more information.
For example,
http://www.sfmta.com/cms/rtep/tepdataindx.htm
contains links to:
http://www.sfmta.com/cms/rtep/documents/Route38data.htm
While I might be willing to agree that buses may not be the most popular form of transportation in the US, any insinuation that buses are lightly used in SF (either particular lines or the system as a whole) requires a blanket denial of facts (likely in this case).
November 10th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
I live about 4 hours from Geneva in a college town in the Black Forest of Germany. Tomorrow I’ll be taking a tram, train and bus to my 2 jobs as an english teacher. It’s all within my 40-dollar/month transportation pass. I love not having a car, just a crappy 6-year old beater bike that my ex-girlfriend gave me upon my arrival in europe in january 2003, and public transportation. Overall I would give the system a grade of 85 which is really good. Sometimes you gotta wait but it works out really well. I dig it.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
jrc: “The funny thing about web sites, is that when you click on HTML links you often get more information.”
Oh, but Mixner’s problem with that data is that it’s not in his favored units: passenger-miles. And therefore, the wealth of data provided in that link, detailing the number of boardings and de-boardings over a variety of interesting times is, and I quote him directly, “Meaningless.” This should clue you in on how intellectually dishonest Mixner is.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
“Jer”
Aha! The “magic load factor” makes a triumphant return!
No, not “magic” load factor. Load factor.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
hhoran Says, on November 10th, 2008 at 11:34 am
The flexibility is, of course, a slow suicide pact for the public transport … where a dedicated corridor can draw development to the corridor, increasing the potential riders that can be served by the same route miles, the city bus gets pulled out and out by the subsidies for establishing the new office and shopping center further out, spreading the ridership more thinly across more route miles.
The place for the trolley bus is for routes below the ridership level to support the more capital intensive light rail (of whatever kind).
The worst eyesore impact of trolley buses seems to be at intersections, and that is where battery-trolley buses that can pass through the intersection off the wire seem to be a substantial step in the right direction.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
And, because Mixner seems unable to use “Teh Google”, I’ve found a PDF detailing MUNI system performance, broken down by line, along a variety of metrics, including Mixner’s favorite: Magic Load Factor.
http://www.sfmta.com/cms/rstd/documents/Q4FY08ServiceStandardsAppendixAccessible.pdf
November 10th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
This should clue you in on how intellectually dishonest Mixner is.
Oh…I know. I’m just passing the time while eating lunch. Whenever someone can elicit a reference to the magical load factor, I can’t help but smile.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
“Jer”
Oh, but Mixner’s problem with that data is that it’s not in his favored units: passenger-miles. And therefore, the wealth of data provided in that link, detailing the number of boardings and de-boardings over a variety of interesting times is, and I quote him directly, “Meaningless.” This should clue you in on how intellectually dishonest Mixner is.
Jer’s problem is that he doesn’t understand that “boardings” is meaningless as a measure of energy or pollution efficiency. This should clue you in on how stupid Jer is.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Hi Matt,
In about 2002, I visited friends in Saarbrucken, and we used the trams. The stops had a digital readout hooked up to a GPS so you knew when the tram was coming. Very useful, you knew in a second when it was coming and could plan accordingly.
Also, the trams they had were able to run on the heavy rail systems too. This was very useful for reaching areas outside of the city streets. Since the rest to the rail system is electrified, there is no need to “extend the wires” as some of the commentators note is a disadvantage to electric busses.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
“Jer”
And, because Mixner seems unable to use “Teh Google”, I’ve found a PDF detailing MUNI system performance, broken down by line, along a variety of metrics, including Mixner’s favorite: Magic Load Factor.
There’s nothing in that document about “magic” load factor. What is the average load factor of the SF transit bus system?
November 10th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Jer’s problem is that he doesn’t understand that “boardings” is meaningless as a measure of energy or pollution efficiency. This should clue you in on how stupid Jer is.
Right. Also, boardings have no relation to the “load factor” since people generally board a bus through the front door and then sprint to the back door to get off before the bus leaves. People then go to their cars to drive to their final destination. Only the unlucky or slow actually get stuck on the bus and are forced to bear the indignity of riding public transit.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Additionally, SFMUNI is savvy enough to run the commute express buses during
. . .
(wait for it)
. . .
COMMUTE HOURS!
What they do with those express buses during non-commute hours? Drive them back to the start of their route? Take them out of service and drive them empty to a depot for refuelling and maintenance? Park them downtown for 6 hours until they’re needed for the reverse commute in the evening? Or what?
November 10th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Right. Also, boardings have no relation to the “load factor”
“Boardings” do “have a relation” to load factor. But as I said, “boardings” is meaningless as a measure of energy or pollution efficiency. “Boardings” is a measure of volume, not efficiency.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Mixner: ” What is the average load factor of the SF transit bus system?”
For Motor Coaches, the average Magic Load Factor is 63.86%. For Trolly Coaches (the electric busses to which MY was referring), the MLF is 66.65%. All this data, and more, can be yours with the simple application of reading comprehension and math!
November 10th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
they had trolley busses in Duluth, Mn. way back in the 40s when I grew up, and I’m quite sure they were there before WW2. I have always wondered why they got rid of them
November 10th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
“Jer”
For Motor Coaches, the average Magic Load Factor is 63.86%. For Trolly Coaches (the electric busses to which MY was referring), the MLF is 66.65%.
How did you produce those numbers? And what is “average Magic Load Factor?” How does it differ from average load factor?
November 10th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Mixner, you know nothing about how buses work in San Francisco, and are resistant to learning anyway. Express buses make multiple trips per commute cycle, etc. You may as well ask what school buses do during the day when students aren’t being transported.
Buses also have digital displays that can change the numbers, and be sent to different routes during the day. And there are indeed Muni Depots all over town. And tons of people use the buses during the day. Collage students, tourists, shoppers, …
and many lines run reduced routes during the day, everywhere.
Folks really have thought about how to make transit more efficient, and there is still more work to be done. Just look.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
In Vancouver now, all the bus stops are numbered and if you text-message that number to the transit service, they will text you back the next few arrivals at that stop. You can also call in and ask for routes from anywhere to anywhere, or work out a route plan on the Internet. On the buses or trollies themselves, a system is going in that announces each bus stop as you reach it, something I first met in Kyoto more than twenty-five years ago, and an absolute godsend if you’re going somewhere new on a dark, rainy night. Express bus stops have “next bus” displays, but they are still rather unreliable.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
nd what is “average Magic Load Factor?” How does it differ from average load factor?
It’s a delicate way of suggesting that you’re playing fifty-one to the deck, Mixmaster.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
mobius,
Mixner, you know nothing about how buses work in San Francisco, and are resistant to learning anyway. Express buses make multiple trips per commute cycle, etc.
Assuming “multiple trips per commute cycle” is supposed to mean that a bus makes two or more roundtrips on its route during each morning and/or evening commute period, then as I said, the bus is likely to be mostly empty on the “return” leg of each roundtrip. In the morning, it is likely to be mostly empty on the return leg after delivering commuters to work downtown, and in the evening it is likely to be mostly empty on the other leg.
Folks really have thought about how to make transit more efficient, and there is still more work to be done.
Well, yes, they have. And despite all that expertise and experience in managing transit systems, transit buses are on average no more energy-efficient and no cleaner than cars, precisely because the average load factor is so low.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
It’s a delicate way of suggesting that you’re playing fifty-one to the deck, Mixmaster.
And the SFMTA, which reports data on load factor, but not “magic load factor.” Is that also playing fifty-one to the deck, “sunsin?”
November 10th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Ya sunsin, the txt message function of the vancouver translink is pretty sweet. I think the true genius of Vancouver public transit is the u-pass though. Unlimited multi-zone transit for the low low price of around 20/month. And its hidden within the student fees and very difficult to opt out of.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
If by “load factor” you mean the mean number of passengers on the bus per ton of bus, I don’t think it’s a meaningless statistic: the more bus you move to move fewer passengers, the more inefficient your system is. And any particular route or time of day where that ratio is unusually low may be a place you want to reexamine your route/schedule planning.
However, the load factor of an SUV with one occupant is terrible; even a compact car doesn’t compare well to a bus with a small handful of people on it. (That’s assuming no difference in engine efficiency.)
Parking is two more big wins for the bus: a car has to be parked in three high-value places, its owner’s home, its owner’s job, and any business/church/park/etc. frequented by its owner. Buses are only parked at the end of the service day so it doesn’t cost much to put the bus parking lot in an out-of-the-way place. (Even then, they take up less space than a passenger-equivalent number of cars.)
All these parking lots don’t just drive up the cost to build pretty much anything; they also drive down density, extending *everyone’s* transit distances and times (including bus riders’) for *everything*. Count how many parking lots you drive past in a typical suburban trip (but not while you’re driving, you’ll cause an accident). Now think about why people don’t walk more often across those asphalt wastelands.
Finally, the capital costs to buy and maintain the bus are much lower than the equivalent fleet of cars. Bus systems are often subsidized, but even if they weren’t, they’d still be cheap.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Mixner (nee sinsun): “And the SFMTA, which reports data on load factor, but not “magic load factor.” Is that also playing fifty-one to the deck, “sunsin?””
No, just you.
“precisely because the average load factor is so low.”
It is somewhat encouraging to see such perseverance in the face of overwhelming facts. Inspiring even.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
“Jer”
For Motor Coaches, the average Magic Load Factor is 63.86%. For Trolly Coaches (the electric busses to which MY was referring), the MLF is 66.65%.
How did you produce those numbers? And what is “average Magic Load Factor?” How does it differ from average load factor?
November 10th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Chris: “If by “load factor” you mean the mean number of passengers on the bus per ton of bus…
Actually, by “load factor” he means the “the ratio of occupied seats to total seats”. Which is why it is a “magic load factor”: halve the number of seats and suddenly your conveyance is 100% more efficient.
“However, the load factor of an SUV with one occupant is terrible.”
Actually, the Magic Load Factor of, say, a Mazda Miata is very, very good. With only one passenger, it can reach a MLF of 100%. Stuff a passenger in the trunk and you can get a MLF of 200%!
November 10th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
the bus is likely to be mostly empty on the “return” leg of each roundtrip.
If you bothered to look at the links posted you could see exactly how “empty” each bus is on an average return trip.
For example, on the CA-1 lines, the AM outbound routes get about 1700 boardings. The inboard lines (normal and express combined) get about 4300 boardings during that same time period. So yes, fewer people ride outbound in the morning, but it’s hardly “empty.” The AM period is a 3 hour period from 6-9 according to Muni stats, so that’s still over 500 people an hour getting on this line to go outbound if we assume an even distribution over that time period.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
I live in Geneva and although the trolleybuses are very nice, and the trams even nicer, the public transportation system here is slowly but surely in the process of being overwhelmed. The problem is one of sprawl: Geneva, like many European cities, has a rapidly growing belt of suburbs and exurbs that once upon a time had been small farming villages and now are catchment zones for detached or semi-detached single family homes. Public transportation just can’t catch up with this, with the result that in most of these communities, buses are infrequent and people thus have to drive. This disadvantages young and/or middle-income families, since the wealthy can afford to live in the city and there’s a fair amount of subsidized public housing there as well.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
If by “load factor” you mean the mean number of passengers on the bus per ton of bus,
It’s not that. It’s basically the ratio of seats occupied by passengers to total seats. For example, if a bus route averages two occupied seats per ten seats of capacity, then it has an average load factor of 0.2 or 20%.
I don’t think it’s a meaningless statistic: the more bus you move to move fewer passengers, the more inefficient your system is. And any particular route or time of day where that ratio is unusually low may be a place you want to reexamine your route/schedule planning.
There’s tradeoff between load factor and level of service. To improve the load factor on a route, you could run buses on the route less frequently. Or you could shorten the route to its busiest segment. Or you could only operate the route at busy times of the day or busy days of the week. If a route fails to achieve a certain threshold of efficiency, it will probably be eliminated altogether. But the more you cut service on your bus system to improve its efficiency, the less viable it becomes as a general alternative to car travel.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
“Jer”
For Motor Coaches, the average Magic Load Factor is 63.86%. For Trolly Coaches (the electric busses to which MY was referring), the MLF is 66.65%.
How did you produce those numbers? And what is “average Magic Load Factor?” How does it differ from average load factor?
Actually, by “load factor” he means the “the ratio of occupied seats to total seats”. Which is why it is a “magic load factor”: halve the number of seats and suddenly your conveyance is 100% more efficient.
Again I ask, what’s the difference between “magic load factor” and load factor?
November 10th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
jrc,
If you bothered to look at the links posted you could see exactly how “empty” each bus is on an average return trip. For example, on the CA-1 lines, the AM outbound routes get about 1700 boardings. The inboard lines (normal and express combined) get about 4300 boardings during that same time period.
Which link? Which page? Which table?
November 10th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Mixner: “Again I ask, what’s the difference between “magic load factor” and load factor?”
One is a measurement of the ratio of passengers to seats; the other is a measurement of relative efficiency of conveyances.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Mixner: “Which link? Which page? Which table?”
It’s becoming quite obvious that you’re disinterested in “evidence”, “facts”, and “data”. They just get in the way of your presupposed arguments and assertions. The data has been provided. The tables linked to. We’re not here to do your homework for you.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
“Jer”
One is a measurement of the ratio of passengers to seats; the other is a measurement of relative efficiency of conveyances.
Still unclear. Which is the former and which the latter? What is the definition of each phrase? I see data on load factor in the SFMTA document. Where does it report “magic load factor?”
November 10th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
“Jer”
For Motor Coaches, the average Magic Load Factor is 63.86%. For Trolly Coaches (the electric busses to which MY was referring), the MLF is 66.65%.
How did you produce those numbers? And what is “average Magic Load Factor?” How does it differ from average load factor?
The data has been provided. The tables linked to. We’re not here to do your homework for you.
Sorry, it’s not my job to wade through links that may or may not contain data you claim they contain. That’s your job. Where is the requested data? Which link? Which page? Which table?
November 10th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Surpised no one has mentioned another great benefit of electrified buses: they’re much quieter than regular buses.
Not having to deal with bus noise (and exhaust) makes a huge impact on the livability of the neighborhood.
November 10th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Parking is two more big wins for the bus: a car has to be parked in three high-value places, its owner’s home, its owner’s job, and any business/church/park/etc. frequented by its owner. Buses are only parked at the end of the service day so it doesn’t cost much to put the bus parking lot in an out-of-the-way place. (Even then, they take up less space than a passenger-equivalent number of cars.)
Buses obviously have to be parked any time they’re not running, just like cars. And fuel has to be burned driving empty buses to and from those “out-of-the-way” parking places when they’re not in service. Whatever parking costs there may be to owning and operating a car, car owners are obviously willing to pay them.
November 10th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Matt, an opportunity like this should never be passed up. I guess I’ll have to do it for you:
Jejune? He has the temerity to say that I’m talking to you out of jejunosity? I am one of the most june people in all of DC!
OK. You can carry on now.
November 10th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Sorry, it’s not my job to wade through links that may or may not contain data you claim they contain. That’s your job. Where is the requested data? Which link? Which page? Which table?
That’s right. Your job is to make claims without any evidence, and then when evidence countering aspects of your claim is provided (usually in the form of statistics with a link to the source), refuse to read it b/c that’s not your job.
Back to your regularly scheduled programming.
November 10th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
jrc,
and then when evidence countering aspects of your claim is provided
Sorry, what “aspects of my claim” are you referring to, and what evidence do you think you have that counters them?
What’s the average load factor of the “CA-1″ lines in SF? What is the average load factor the SF transit bus system in total? How much pollution does it produce per passenger-mile of transportation?
Do you have evidence, or don’t you?
November 10th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
I live in Geneva and although the trolleybuses are very nice, and the trams even nicer, the public transportation system here is slowly but surely in the process of being overwhelmed. The problem is one of sprawl: Geneva, like many European cities, has a rapidly growing belt of suburbs and exurbs that once upon a time had been small farming villages and now are catchment zones for detached or semi-detached single family homes. Public transportation just can’t catch up with this, with the result that in most of these communities, buses are infrequent and people thus have to drive.
Exactly. Europeans have been sprawling and suburbanizing for decades, just like Americans. Old, dense, transit-oriented European cities are hollowing out, just like old, dense, transit-oriented American cities. Transportation in Europe is increasingly dominated by private motor vehicles, just like transportation in the U.S.
November 10th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
One more advantage of trolleybuses over diesel buses: an electric engine provides faster acceleration. That can be critical to good run times in urban traffic with frequent stops. Of course, this is also true of streetcars and LRVs.
November 10th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
trying to make the bus a more appealing option
My chief pleasure, taking the bus from Cornavin to Meyrin, was to watch the cars going more slowly.
But now there is a tram
November 10th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
The Troll Load Factor on this thread (Mixner bullshit / total comments ) is refreshingly low at 21%; starting threads early in EST is clearly recommended to avoid the intellectual bottleneck created by an idiot glibertarian.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Back in the 60s Seattle Transit was going to replace the electric trolleys with diesels (this was at a time when they were giving away appliances to encourage electrical energy use from City Light). A committee of engineers cranked the numbers and established that the electrics would be a lot cheaper to run. Then the people passed a public referendum to force the transit management to keep the trolleys.
They have incredible acceleration and are incredibly quiet. Riding them up a Seattle hill is almost eerie, except, of course, we’re all quite used to them and if you live on a trolley route you think of it as the least that can be done.
In the 70s Seattle started a big underground wiring campaign, based on the idea that wires were unsightly and interfered with our wonderful scenery. Well, it turns out that putting wires underground is really expensive, and then you have a lot of problems maintaining the system, especially where it rains a lot. So most of the electrical supply outside downtown is still strung on poles and adding a few wires for the trolleys isn’t that big a deal.
Most of the trolleys in Seattle go to interesting places, so you can’t go far wrong if you just get on and ride.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Reams of transit data, including annual passenger miles by agency and by particular mode, can be obtained here: http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/archives.htm.
As for Mixner’s question about the average load of trolley coaches in San Francisco, the answer is 98,656,879 passenger miles traveled in Fiscal Year 2006-07, divided by 6,361,762 miles, e.g., 15.5 passenger miles/revenue vehicle mile. Considering that a typical trolley coach in San Francisco consumes about 3 kilowatt hours per mile, this translates into 0.2 kwh/passenger mile, or 681 btu/pass. mile. This is roughly an order of magnitude better than automobiles.
It is important to note that 100% of trolley coach (and streetcar and cable car) power comes from San Francisco’s Hetch Hetchy project, a legacy system that has been in place nearly 90 years. Essentially there are ZERO carbon emissions from the electric-powered transit in San Francisco–and I don’t care about the allegedly inefficiencies of electric power generation because with hydro power, the energy of the falling water would have gone downhill anyway, whether or not humans chose to tap into it.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
As for Mixner’s question about the average load of trolley coaches in San Francisco,
What does the term “trolley coach” refer to, exactly? I asked about the average load factor of SF transit buses.
the answer is 98,656,879 passenger miles traveled in Fiscal Year 2006-07, divided by 6,361,762 miles, e.g., 15.5 passenger miles/revenue vehicle mile.
But what’s the average vehicle capacity of “trolley coach” vehicles? Or more specifically, what’s the value for passenger-miles/revenue seat-mile? And again, what kind of transit vehicles are you referring to here? What table in the NTD database are you getting your numbers from?
November 10th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
If The Mixner wants to dig some to gleem onto transit data for individual lines in San Francisco, it should look at http://www.sfmta.com/cms/mtep/tepover.htm.
I know the people who did most of the work presented at this website, and I think they came up with excellent recommendations for improving the efficiency of the San Francisco Muni.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Most trolley coaches seat around 42-47 persons with up to about 54-56 for the articulated trolley coaches that are roughly 1/3 of San Francisco’s fleet. Based on typical seating capacity, the average load factor for trolley coaches is about 40%. These numbers are similar for their diesel fleet, the data for which you can find on the web link I used in Comment No. 97.
Go download some of the documents on the page I referred you to. There is a summary of statistics for each transit agency that reports to the Feds. I’m not doing any more work than needed for MY OWN comments.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Matt,
You may be interested to know (if you read down to the #100 comment) that China is full of these types of buses. I’ve seen them in many Chinese cities (not all buses, but most).
November 10th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Essentially there are ZERO carbon emissions from the electric-powered transit in San Francisco
Then where’s it all coming from? According to Ed Glaeser, using data from the NTD, EIA and NERC, the emissions from public transportation usage by households in San Francisco average 631 lbs of CO2 per household per year.
And just in case anyone thinks San Franciscans are transit-loving greenies, their average emissions from driving are 23,123 lbs of CO2 per household per year. Only about 12% less than the average CO2 emissions from driving for households in car-loving Houston.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
We have the same kind of trolley buses here in Vancouver, and have for a long time. Also the articulated buses. And we have stops for the express buses that show how long it is until the next bus comes. I think they’re all excellent ideas; coupled with a very, very good transit network, it amazes me that so many people here even bother to drive. (It may have something to do with the unpleasantness of waiting for a bus in the rain, in a city where it rains for about half the year.) I honestly think Vancouver should be the model for any city trying to put together a good transit network.
There’s no reason a city can’t set up a bus system that is both good for the passengers and green in terms of the buses. And it’s a lot easier to set up something like the trolley buses when you’re first getting started on a transit system than once everything is in place. It’s a long-term benefit.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
If The Mixner wants to dig some to gleem onto transit data for individual lines in San Francisco, it should look at http://www.sfmta.com/cms/mtep/tepover.htm.
No, I don’t want to dig that up. I want you to provide clear citations for the numbers you’re presenting. And “clear citation” does not mean “Here’s a link to a homepage. It’s in there somewhere.”
Most trolley coaches seat around 42-47 persons with up to about 54-56 for the articulated trolley coaches that are roughly 1/3 of San Francisco’s fleet. Based on typical seating capacity, the average load factor for trolley coaches is about 40%.
Again, what does “trolley coach” include, exactly? What’s the average load factor for SF transit buses? Show me the data.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
No, I don’t want to dig that up. I want you to provide clear citations for the numbers you’re presenting. And “clear citation” does not mean “Here’s a link to a homepage. It’s in there somewhere.
Trolley coaches are the ELECTRIC-POWERED ones, NOT the fake “trolley” buses you see around tourist sites.
You’re too freakin’ lazy to download any one of a huge variety of FTA documents to double check that I’m not blowing smoke, something that would take two minutes or so? Sheesh!
Just for the record, so Our Precious Little Mixner(tm) don’t have to do a little bit of “Internetin’ ” I have posted the source document at http://www.publictransit.us/ptlibrary/2007transitprofiles.pdf for Mixner’s precious convenience, so he doesn’t have to click more than once with his mouse…
November 10th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Most trolley coaches seat around 42-47 persons with up to about 54-56 for the articulated trolley coaches that are roughly 1/3 of San Francisco’s fleet. Based on typical seating capacity, the average load factor for trolley coaches is about 40%.
By my calculations, the capacity figures you assert above give an average “trolley coach” capacity of about 48 seats. You just claimed “trolley coaches” average 15.5 passenger- miles/revenue vehicle-mile.” So that would yield an average load factor (passenger-miles/revenue-seat-mile) of about 32%, not 40%.
In other words, assuming your unsubstantiated numbers are accurate, on average about 7 out of 10 seats on SF “trolley coaches” are empty.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
You’re too freakin’ lazy to download any one of a huge variety of FTA documents to double check that I’m not blowing smoke, something that would take two minutes or so? Sheesh!
It’s not MY job to hunt down citations for YOUR numbers. That’s YOUR job. And “citation” here means a clear reference to the source of the data. Not “Here’s a link. I promise it’s in there somewhere. Find it yourself.”
November 10th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Congratulations, Mixner: for your 250th demand to have source texts read to you like a bedtime story, while producing no evidence yourself, you win a lifetime bus pass.
Learn to read and do math.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
It’s not MY job to hunt down citations for YOUR numbers.
It’s HIS job to be a whining, tedious, repetitive troll. $1.25/hr plus tips.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
In other words, assuming your unsubstantiated numbers are accurate, on average about 7 out of 10 seats on SF “trolley coaches” are empty.
This one point data trend, so what, by itself?
And about 85% of seats in a 9-passenger SUV are typically empty, and about 70% of your garden variety 5-passenger automobile, given the typical 1.5 passenger average load for automobiles. Oh, let’s not forget the typical 1.1 or 1.2 passengers per automobile during commuter periods? Most people are quite familiar with these auto-related numbers, so, since I’m just responding to a blog post and not writing a term paper or research article, go look up the FHWA source data yourself.
BTW, you quoted an Ed Glaeser number, what is YOUR specific citation, e.g., what paper and where can it be found on the Internet? Hey, tit for tat, bub.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
It’s HIS job to be a whining, tedious, repetitive troll. $1.25/hr plus tips.
Well, The Mixner is WAY overpaid for the actual value it adds to the debate.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:16 am
This one point data trend, so what, by itself?
So, even in supposedly transit-friendly San Francisco, the average load factor of transit is low and transit is very inefficient.
And about 85% of seats in a 9-passenger SUV are typically empty, and about 70% of your garden variety 5-passenger automobile, given the typical 1.5 passenger average load for automobiles.
The average occupancy of passenger cars and light trucks is about 1.6. Many cars and trucks only seat 2, of course. But load factors are not directly comparable between private and transit vehicles as measures of efficiency anyway. Transit vehicles are built for strength, durability and accessibility, not fuel-efficiency. BTS and EIA data show that transit overall is at best only slightly more energy efficient and only slightly cleaner than autos. Transit buses on average are less efficient and dirtier than cars. There is no serious argument for expanding transit on energy efficiency or pollution grounds.
BTW, you quoted an Ed Glaeser number, what is YOUR specific citation, e.g., what paper and where can it be found on the Internet? Hey, tit for tat, bub.
Sorry, until you provide citations for your own numbers, I am under no obligation to provide any for mine. Bub.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Mixner: “Sorry, until you provide citations for your own numbers, I am under no obligation to provide any for mine.”
He did. You’re just too intellectually lazy (and dishonest) to read them.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Mixner: “Transit buses on average are less efficient and dirtier than cars. There is no serious argument for expanding transit on energy efficiency or pollution grounds.”
We’re talking about Trolly busses, a concept you seem still unable to grasp.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Mixner: “Then where’s it all [electrical power for the trolly cars] coming from?”
This is precious. The very sentence before the one Mixner quoted has the answer to his question. He’s moved beyond refusing to read citations, and is now refusing to read comments.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:31 am
“Jer”
We’re talking about Trolly busses, a concept you seem still unable to grasp.
You haven’t produced any data on the energy efficiency of trolley buses or any other kind of bus. You haven’t even produced average load factor data for trolley buses in San Francisco, let alone for trolley buses in general. The only numbers relating to trolley bus load factor that anyone has provided are unsubstantiated and self-contradictory.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:32 am
“Jer”
This is precious. The very sentence before the one Mixner quoted has the answer to his question.
No it doesn’t. You can’t read.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Michael D. Setty: “It is important to note that 100% of trolley coach (and streetcar and cable car) power comes from San Francisco’s Hetch Hetchy project”
Mixner: “Then where’s it all coming from?”
I rest my case.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Here in Dayton the transit authority tried to switch to all diesel busses 10-15 years ago but had to back down after finding out the locals liked the electric busses, unsightly wires and all. Only a handful of U.S. cities still operate electric trolley busses so we have come to regard them as a sort of local treasure.
Electric bus positives: smaller carbon footprint (no idling diesel engine), better acceleration, MUCH quieter (I live on a bus route).
Negatives: visual clutter, system maintenance, route inflexibility (the bus cannot maneuver around an obstruction). Oh, and ice storms – a real light show when the arcing melts the ice on the overhead wires.
Note to Hieronymus Bosch’s Poodle (#28): you have spotted the first of the new diesel fleet – conventionally powered but with nice amenities.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:59 am
I rest my case.
Brilliant. You rest your case that all the emissions are coming from a zero-emissions power source. Just as I think you can’t write anything more stupid than you already have, you outdo yourself.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:59 am
“My ass isn’t on fire. You haven’t produced any evidence for it. No, the flames and burning smell doesn’t count. So there.”
November 11th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Mea culpa. On a re-reading of Mixner’s comment, I’ve realized the “it” he was referring to was “the CO2 which San Francisco generates through public transit”, not “the electricity used to power SFs public transit”.
Of course, since San Francisco uses both electric powered trolly busses, as well as diesel powered conventional busses, the answer to his question is still blindingly obvious.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Mea culpa. On a re-reading of Mixner’s comment, I’ve realized the “it” he was referring to was “the CO2 which San Francisco generates through public transit”, not “the electricity used to power SFs public transit”.
Well done, “Jer.” You finally reached a first-grade reading level.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Time for your meds again, D.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:15 am
Mixner: “Well done, “Jer.” You finally reached a first-grade reading level.”
Thanks, I couldn’t have done it had you not provided me with such a profuse amount of first-grade writing level material.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:31 am
Seeing things again? We are legion, and we hate you.
Catch you when you roll out of bed in your sprawl-belt basement to begin another worthless day of your empty, lonely existence. Make sure your mom keeps those razor blades and painkillers locked up.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Mixner Says, on November 10th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Energy efficiency and pollution are determined by multiple factors. Load factor, technology, and distribution of origins and destination are three big ones.
A trolley bus has technology that has for decades been able to deliver the energy efficiency of electric traction, as well as the energy efficiency of regenerative braking, without the energy inefficiency of carting heavy batteries around. It also, since it involves a dedicated route, is the least capital intensive way to establish a dedicated transport route, and attract development to a transport route, improving the energy efficiency the distribution of origins and destinations.
The worst transport energy efficiency results, of course, from heavily subsidising sprawl development, which substantially disadvantages those who cannot drive, which generates a demand for bus routes as a “welfare” service, which tend to operate to a minimal effective service standard that tends to imply running buses reasonably full during peak ridership and nearly empty most of the rest of the day, with a sparse route network and a low frequency schedule that means that taking buses off the road off-peak will only lose ridership.
Of course, increasing the systemic fuel efficiency of a transport system including these kinds of bus routes can be done by establishing a dedicated route system, so that for a significant share of their riders, the city buses provide a door to stop portion of a trip, and allows the car to stay parked out home, reducing the external cost of acreage required per car for parking, allowing destinations to be located more closely together. Carrying a passenger for, say, 1/5 of a trip at a load factor that leaves the bus with the same fuel efficiency as a car, with the balance of the trip provided on an electrified dedicated transport line with two to ten times the fuel efficiency of a car, is an obvious energy efficiency win.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:28 am
This is easy to calculate, but not very useful. A bus with six passengers out of 30 seats and a car with one person out of five seats [note that the driver of a car is usually also a passenger, i.e. someone who wants to get to the destination, while the driver of a bus is not] both have the same “load factor” (thus defined) of 20%, but their actual energy usage per passenger-mile may be very different (let alone their contribution to traffic, need for parking, etc.) Passengers per ton comes closer to addressing these issues and providing a better basis for comparison across vehicle types (although even that is inferior to actual fuel usage statistics if you have them, since the latter take differing engine efficiencies into account).
Load factor as you define it is too easily manipulated: an SUV driven by one person has a load of 20-25% (worse if it has a third row of seats), but a pickup of the same mass and fuel efficiency driven by and for the same one person has a load of 33-50% (depending on whether it has a solid front seat or, like most modern trucks, bucket seats). Any measure of efficiency by which taking the removable seats out of your minivan improves its “efficiency” as a mode of transport is rather suspicious, IMO.
If you are going to use that measure of load, however, it’s important (IMO) to note that buses can exceed 100% load in extraordinary traffic spikes such as concerts and football games (by having people stand in the aisles), while cars cannot (indeed, may not increase their load per car at all under these conditions) and instead form traffic jams that slow cars and buses and drive down the fuel efficiency of both.
The end result is that cars do better only when traffic is very sparse, or exhibits no noticeable clustering (i.e. many people wanting to go to/from the same or nearby locations).
November 11th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Forgot one more piece of Mixner-ism:
No, they’re not. With a few exceptions, they demand, and get, employer-provided parking as a perk of almost all jobs (non-drivers don’t get an amount equivalent to the cost added to their paycheck) and business-provided parking for businesses they patronize. The only times parking costs are paid by the car owner are in inner cities that have pay-to-park, and when the owner buys a house with attached parking (the cost of which is included in the house – it is sometimes possible to avoid paying for parking you aren’t going to use when renting an apartment). The rest of the time they’re yet another externality of cars.
In order for private car ownership to be value-neutral to society, car and gas taxes would have to be *much* higher. Non-car-owners are forced to subsidize car owners because the latter have more political power (regardless of how perverse this situation is wrt global considerations).
November 11th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Re: Non-car-owners are forced to subsidize car owners because the latter have more political power
Non-car owners also benefit car and truck usage: the goods they consume are transported by vehicle. Hence they should be subsidizing the system too. Very few people do not benefit from the internal combustion engine. Maybe the stricter Amish types and a few survivalists in Alaska, but no one else.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
This is easy to calculate, but not very useful.
On the contrary, it is probably the single most useful measure of service capacity utilization. That’s why it’s a standard measure of transit system efficiency.
A bus with six passengers out of 30 seats and a car with one person out of five seats [note that the driver of a car is usually also a passenger, i.e. someone who wants to get to the destination, while the driver of a bus is not] both have the same “load factor” (thus defined) of 20%, but their actual energy usage per passenger-mile may be very different
Yes, it’s not very useful for cross-modal efficiency comparisons. That’s why I said “But load factors are not directly comparable between private and transit vehicles as measures of efficiency anyway.”
Load factor as you define it
It’s not “my” definition. It’s the standard definition used in transit efficiency literature. (The usual technical definition is passenger-miles per revenue-seat-mile).
If you are going to use that measure of load, however, it’s important (IMO) to note that buses can exceed 100% load in extraordinary traffic spikes such as concerts and football games (by having people stand in the aisles), while cars cannot
Of course they can. You can (and people often do) squeeze more people into a car than its official seating capacity. But I’m not sure why you think this observation is important anyway.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
With a few exceptions, they demand, and get, employer-provided parking as a perk of almost all jobs (non-drivers don’t get an amount equivalent to the cost added to their paycheck) and business-provided parking for businesses they patronize.
Employee parking costs are reflected in lower wages and benefits. Business parking costs are reflected in higher prices to customers.
In order for private car ownership to be value-neutral to society, car and gas taxes would have to be *much* higher.
Er, transit receives massively higher government subsidies per passenger-mile of transportation than roads and highways. That’s why transit fares are so cheap and in most metropolitan areas you can buy an unlimited-use monthly transit pass for around $50-80. The monthly cost of running a car is on the order of ten times higher.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Mixner: “On the contrary, it is probably the single most useful measure of service capacity utilization. That’s why it’s a standard measure of transit system efficiency.”
Transit system efficiency != Transit system energy efficiency. Load factor is useful only for responding to customer demand.
Your freakish desire to use Magic Load Factor as a substitute for energy efficiency is completely unfounded.
“Of course they can. You can (and people often do) squeeze more people into a car than its official seating capacity.”
Not legally. There is no way (in states with seat belt requirements) to legally squeeze more people into a car than its official seating capacity.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Transit system efficiency != Transit system energy efficiency. Load factor is useful only for responding to customer demand.
No, load factor is a measure of efficiency, not demand.
Your freakish desire to use Magic Load Factor as a substitute for energy efficiency is completely unfounded.
What is “magic load factor?” How does it differ from load factor? Your freakish use of the word “magic” demonstrates that you have no clue what you’re talking about.
Not legally. There is no way (in states with seat belt requirements) to legally squeeze more people into a car than its official seating capacity.
How many states have rear seat-belt laws? In any case, your observation is irrelevant. Whether it’s legal or not, the fact remains that people can and do exceed the official seating capacity of their cars and trucks.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Mixner: “No, load factor is a measure of efficiency, not demand.”
No, it’s not. Efficiency, in this case, does not mean what you want it to mean. Load factor is a measure of Transit Efficiency: how efficiently transit systems are serving customer demand. And high load factors are inefficient, not efficient. A bus running at 100% of seating/standing capacity cannot pick up more passengers, and is thus not serving customer demand efficiently. This is why the SFMTA sets a 85% load factor cap target during peak hours.
“What is “magic load factor?””
Your freakish use of the ratio of occupied to total seats as a measurement of energy efficiency.
“How many states have rear seat-belt laws? In any case, your observation is irrelevant.”
Thirty three. And your declarations of irrelevance are meaningless in the face of fact and reason.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
No, it’s not.
Yes, it is.
Efficiency, in this case, does not mean what you want it to mean.
Yes, it does.
Load factor is a measure of Transit Efficiency:
Thank you for confirming what I just said.
And high load factors are inefficient, not efficient. A bus running at 100% of seating/standing capacity cannot pick up more passengers, and is thus not serving customer demand efficiently.
This is nonsense. The higher the load factor, the higher the efficiency. There are reasons to sacrifice some efficiency for other purposes, but that doesn’t alter the fact that the fewer empty seats there are on a transit vehicle the more efficiently it is operating. It’s wasting less fuel hauling around empty seats.
Your freakish use of the ratio of occupied to total seats as a measurement of energy efficiency.
The ratio of occupied to total seats is most definitely a measurement of energy efficiency. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Thirty three.
So your claim that people cannot legally exceed the official seating capacity of their cars because of seat belt laws is false.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Mixner: “This is nonsense. The higher the load factor, the higher the efficiency.”
So? Many things “relate” to efficiency. But Magic Load Factor is not a measurement of energy efficiency. Given two busses with the same characteristics, the one with half the number of seats is not twice as efficient as the other. This is why it’s a Magic Load Factor, and why your freakish use of it as a measurement of energy efficiency is so fundamentally wrong.
“So your claim that people cannot legally exceed the official seating capacity of their cars because of seat belt laws is false.”
No, it’s very much not. Read it again.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
So?
There is no “so.” The higher the load factor, the higher the efficiency.
But Magic Load Factor is not a measurement of energy efficiency.
You’re really tying yourself in knots, “Jer.” You just defined “magic load factor” as “the use of the ratio of occupied to total seats as a measurement of energy efficiency.” So your latest freakish assertion is “the use of the ratio of occupied to total seats as a measurement of energy efficiency is not a measurement of energy efficiency.” I agree. The use of that ratio in that way is not a measurement of energy efficiency. But the ratio itself is a measurement of energy efficiency.
Given two busses with the same characteristics, the one with half the number of seats is not twice as efficient as the other.
You obviously don’t know that. In any case, it’s irrelevant. Load factor is not used to compare the efficiency of a transit vehicle with and without seats. It’s used to compare the efficiency of the same or similar transit vehicles across different routes, systems and times.
No, it’s very much not.
Yes, it most definitely is. Perhaps you meant to say “In some cases, not legally.” But you didn’t say that. You said “not legally.” Your assertion is false.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Mixner: “But the ratio itself is a measurement of energy efficiency.”
It is no more a measurement of energy efficiency than “weight” is a measurement of energy efficiency.
“Perhaps you meant to say “In some cases, not legally.” “
Hmm, perhaps I did say that.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Mixner: “You obviously don’t know that.”
I quite obviously do.
“In any case, it’s irrelevant.”
No, it’s not.
“Load factor is not used to compare the efficiency of a transit vehicle with and without seats.”
It’s not? Oh good, I’ll remind you of that next time you bring up automobile Magic Load Factors.
“It’s used to compare the efficiency of the same or similar transit vehicles across different routes, systems and times.”
Again, “efficiency” does not mean what you want it to mean.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
It is no more a measurement of energy efficiency than “weight” is a measurement of energy efficiency.
Congratulations. You’ve now talked yourself into the absurd assertion that a bus runs no more efficiently when all its seats are occupied by passengers than when it’s completely empty.
Hmm, perhaps I did say that.
There’s no perhaps about it. You didn’t say that.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
I quite obviously do.
No, you quite obviously don’t. It would depend on all sorts of other variables, such as the weight of the seats.
No, it’s not.
Of course it is.
It’s not?
No, of course it’s not. If you doubt this, please produce an example of a transit efficiency study that uses load factor to compare the efficiency of a vehicle with and without seats.
Again, “efficiency” does not mean what you want it to mean.
Yes it does.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Mixner: “Congratulations. You’ve now talked yourself into the absurd assertion that a bus runs no more efficiently when all its seats are occupied by passengers than when it’s completely empty”
You’re changing your units. Now you’re apparently measuring passengers and not the ratio of passengers to seats. Was the Magic Load Factor not measuring what you wanted it to measure?
November 11th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Mixner: No, you quite obviously don’t. It would depend on all sorts of other variables, such as the weight of the seats.”
I had no idea that seats were heavy enough to halve the fuel efficiency of a 40,000 pound bus. Perhaps we should replace all those solid gold bus seats with something lighter.
Let me repeat: given two busses with identical characteristics, removing half the seats from one does not make it twice as energy efficient as the other.
“If you doubt this, please produce an example of a transit efficiency study that uses load factor to compare the efficiency of a vehicle with and without seats.”
Mixner, September 3rd 2008, http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/.:
November 11th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
You’re changing your units.
No I’m not.
Now you’re apparently measuring passengers and not the ratio of passengers to seats.
No, I’m obviously using the ratio of passengers to seats. If every seat on the bus is occupied by a passenger, the number of passengers per seat is at least one. If the bus is empty, it’s zero.
You’re latest hilariously stupid claim is that the bus is running no more efficiently in the first case than in the second.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Let me repeat: given two busses with identical characteristics, removing half the seats from one does not make it twice as energy efficient as the other.
Let me repeat: You don’t know that, and the assertion is irrelevant anyway, since load factor is not used to compare the efficiency of a vehicle with and without seats.
Mixner, September 3rd 2008, http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/.: Cars and light trucks average about 1.6 passengers (including driver), for an average load factor of about 35%. Much higher than the average load factor of transit vehicles.
This is a complete nonsequitur. You seem to be just randomly quoting things now. You were asked for an example of a study that uses load factor to compare the efficiency of a vehicle with and without seats. Do you have one or don’t you?
November 11th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Mixner: “No, I’m obviously using the ratio of passengers to seats. If every seat on the bus is occupied by a passenger, the number of passengers per seat is at least one. If the bus is empty, it’s zero.”
You’re measuring passengers. Passenger-miles-per-gallon would be a valid measurement of energy efficiency.
“You’re latest hilariously stupid claim is that the bus is running no more efficiently in the first case than in the second.”
No, my claim was that Magic Load Factor is not a measurement of energy efficiency. You apparently lack the reading comprehension necessary to distinguish “not a measurement of energy efficiency” from “measures energy efficiency”.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Mixner: Let me repeat: You don’t know that, and the assertion is irrelevant anyway, since load factor is not used to compare the efficiency of a vehicle with and without seats.
I do know that. Removing half the seats from a bus does not make it twice as energy efficient.
“This is a complete nonsequitur.”
Then you admit you can’t use Magic Load Factor to compare the energy efficiencies of cars and busses?
November 11th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
You’re measuring passengers.
No, I’m measuring passengers per seat.
No, my claim was that Magic Load Factor is not a measurement of energy efficiency.
No, your claim in question was that the ratio of occupied seats to total seats is not a measure of energy efficiency. According to you, a fully-loaded bus is no more energy efficient than an empty one. Your claim is nonsensical.
I do know that. Removing half the seats from a bus does not make it twice as energy efficient.
No, you don’t know it. The effect of removing the seats on energy efficiency would depend on the weight of the seats, among other things.
Then you admit you can’t use Magic Load Factor to compare the energy efficiencies of cars and busses?
You defined “Magic Load Factor” as “the use of the ratio of occupied to total seats as a measurement of energy efficiency.” I already told you I agree that the use of that ratio in that way is not a measurement of energy efficiency. But the ratio itself is a measurement of energy efficiency. Try to follow.
November 11th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Mixner: “No, I’m measuring passengers per seat.”
Yes, you’re measuring that. You’re also measuring passengers per wheel, passengers per window, and passengers per driver. Each of those measurements is exactly as relevant as a measurement of energy efficiency: that is, not at all.
However, from your “passengers per seat” ratio, you can derive an actually useful measurement: number of passengers.
“No, your claim in question was that the ratio of occupied seats to total seats is not a measure of energy efficiency. According to you, a fully-loaded bus is no more energy efficient than an empty one.”
That is not what “not a measure of energy efficiency” means. You’re failing first grade reading. I should know.
“No, you don’t know it. The effect of removing the seats on energy efficiency would depend on the weight of the seats, among other things.”
This is hilarious. I’ll make sure to suggest to my local transit authority that Mixner says removing seats can increase energy efficiency by 100%. What are those other things, I’ll make sure to pass them along too.
“But the ratio itself is a measurement of energy efficiency. Try to follow.”
No, it’s not.
November 11th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Yes, you’re measuring that. You’re also measuring passengers per wheel, passengers per window, and passengers per driver.
No, I’m not measuring any of those other things. Just passengers per seat. Or, more technically, passenger-miles per revenue-seat-mile. That’s called “load factor” and it’s a measure of efficiency.
That is not what “not a measure of energy efficiency” means.
It is obviously a measure of energy efficiency since energy consumption per passenger-mile declines as load factor increases. I don’t know why you can’t understand this.
November 11th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Mixner: “That’s called “load factor” and it’s a measure of efficiency.”
No, it’s not. It’s a measure of how full the bus is.
“It is obviously a measure of energy efficiency since energy consumption per passenger-mile declines as load factor increases.”
Aha, Mixner keyword “obviously” found! Indicates Mixner is “obviously” pulling facts out of thin air!
The exact same argument could be made of a “passenger-per-wheel” measurement: “Passenger-per-wheel is obviously a measure of energy efficiency since energy consumption per passenger-mile declines as PPW increases.” This doesn’t make PPW a valid measurement of energy efficiency any more than Magic Load Factor is a valid measurement of energy efficiency. The fact that there is a relationship between PPW or MLF and energy efficiency is simply a factor of their shared variable: passengers.
November 11th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
No, it’s not. It’s a measure of how full the bus is.
Yes it is. How full the bus is is a measure of efficiency. The more full the bus, the less energy is consumed per passenger-mile. Obviously. I don’t know why you can’t understand this.
November 11th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Mixner: “The more full the bus, the less energy is consumed per passenger-mile.”
Not true. The more passengers on the bus, the less energy is consumed per passenger-mile. The fullness of the bus is incidental.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Thread’s Troll Load Factor: (44 Mixner comments + 2 Mixner sockpuppet efforts) / 155 = 29.7%. Regrettable.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Amit, thanks for the pick-up. I was out of town.
November 12th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Yes, but in both cases, drivers and nondrivers *both* bear the cost, while only drivers receive the benefit. That’s how drivers benefit at the expense of nondrivers.
Transportation costs are included in the costs anyone (car owner or non) pays for a good. So yes, if those truck drivers had to pay higher vehicle taxes, they’d pass on the cost of *value that I actually receive* to retailers who would pass it on to me; but the people who commute to work by car instead of by bus can’t pass the cost of *their personal convenience* on to me. Except through the political system.
Or to put it more simply: nondrivers pay equally for a system that they don’t benefit equally from.
December 11th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Shane says, “they have to stay in that lane with other traffic”. Actually, the “trolley poles” are typically long enough, with enough lateral freedom of movement, to enable a trolleybus to operate (with care) in the lane on either side of a lane over which the power wires are centered. A trolleybus can sometimes get trapped behind triple-parked vehicles, but ordinarily they can pass single-lane obstructions. It’s also possible for there to be branches and corssovers, so that trolleybus routes can join, diverge, or cross between parallel wires. In North America, the best place to see all this is in San Francisco, where most bus traffic is electrified.
January 19th, 2009 at 12:00 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
January 26th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Just an amazing site!
==
http://webuyuglyhousesnow.info/homevestors-join-the-homevestors-team/
January 28th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
What a great site!Thank you
==
http://webuyuglyhousesnow.info/cost-to-change-roof-on-house-from-square-ugly-with-upstairs-windows-set-in-to-a-cape-cod-style-with-dormers/
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Ou-yo-yu what a nice site!
==
http://webuyuglyhousesnow.info/tips-for-buying-dallas-real-estate/
March 1st, 2009 at 6:05 pm
cialis
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:47 am
levitraGreat site. Good info
March 14th, 2009 at 5:10 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
xanax
March 16th, 2009 at 1:35 am
I really liked your blog!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:24 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:05 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:25 am
buy viagra online
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Thank you very much,your site is perfect
==
http://ipod-touch.web-elite.com/site.map.php
March 30th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Very useful information. Thank you!.
I am from Brazil and now study English, give true I wrote the following sentence: “Information for both future airline tickets.”
Thank you very much
. Aine.
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:08 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:05 am
Great site. Good info
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Give please. Write down the advice of him who loves you, though you like it not at present.
I am from Zimbabwe and , too, and now am writing in English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “Site offers online airline and tour reservation, flight schedule, and fares.”
Thanks
. Sadira.
April 19th, 2009 at 8:46 am
ylYxdD tpbppbrjjplc, [url=http://jucbpuolynel.com/]jucbpuolynel[/url], [link=http://kaeywoclaywl.com/]kaeywoclaywl[/link], http://baefttfoczbd.com/
April 20th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Your Site Is Great!, Cheap Phentermine, eoqrru, Buy Xanax, mhfwu, Ativan, 5727, Cheapest Cialis, >:PP, Buy Viagra online, 478529,