Public Comment
Alternative odor control technologies exist
“Clearing the Air” (October 2003) was very accurate regarding odor control problems at biosolids facilities, but it was not complete. There is another odor control technology available that the author did not discuss: regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO). This type of unit operation has traditionally been considered a volatile organic compound (VOC) control, but some plants are using RTOs to control odors. An RTO raises the polluted air to approximately 1500 F. At this temperature, more than 99 percent of organics present are destroyed assuming that the unit was properly designed for the VOC load. The gases sent up the stack are CO2 and H2O. Additionally, if any sulfide species are present, SO2 will be formed. This means that all odor causing compounds are destroyed. Therefore an odor-free plant is possible. With the cost of an RTO now reasonable and the promise of destruction of all malodorous compounds in the RTO, this type of odor control technology promises to continue to gain further acceptance as time passes.
— Jim Eldridge, Lantec Products
Light rail does not reduce congestion
For the many years I have read American City and County, I have considered it to be very professional. Your article on light rail (“All aboard,” December 2003), however, crosses the line into the realm of dogma. No light rail system anywhere has reduced traffic congestion. The advocates for light rail know this and cover themselves by making sure the factual evidence is scarce. The false assertions had become so outrageous that Congress directed the GAO to look at it. I was interviewed by phone by four of the auditors who worked on the project. They asked about factual data in Denver, and, when I said there was none, they inadvertently revealed their frustration that they were discovering the same thing all over the U.S. The GAO report (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01984.pdf) was not anti-light rail. Rather it was a quantitative comparison of light rail (LRT) versus bus rapid transit (BRT). The bottom line is BRT beats LRT in every way: less expensive, more flexible, faster, better service. What the GAO report does not cover is the fact that light rail ridership is 80 percent to 90 percent former bus riders. So, if light rail attracts 10 percent or 20 percent new transit riders, is that bigger or smaller than the number of former bus riders? Irrespective of whether the net ridership number is positive or negative, it is negligible. Stating that light rail reduces traffic congestion in bigger type does make it so.
— Dennis Polhill, Senior Fellow, Independence Institute
Kudos for ‘Don’t get scrooged’ editorial
I received my February issue in the mail this morning and, as usual, turned to your editorial page first. I truly appreciate what you wrote. I have lived through owning a business in a small town when Wal-Mart came to town (I said I lived through it, the business didn’t), and I have lived through the numerous accusations that “The City” has stopped Wal-Mart from coming to town here in Rawlins. The fact is we don’t have the customer demographics to interest Wal-Mart. Our customer base, not counting the traffic on the Interstate, is about 12,000. Ironcally, I was in Casper, Wyo., [recently] and went to both Sams and Wal-Mart. It was interesting to see how many Carbon County license plates were on the cars in the parking lot. I have taken the liberty of faxing your article to the publisher of our local newspaper who is a driving force in the community and a great supporter of local businesses. I think he knows the score, but we’ll see if he shares your op-ed piece with his readers. Thanks again for the good piece.
— Bruce Florquist, Public Works Director, Rawlins, Wyo.