Re: Do bicycles and cars mix?

[Dr Engelbert Buxbaum]

Pete wrote:


> The German Autobahn system works...in Germany. Transplant that system here,
> and the crash and fatality rate would, IMO, skyrocket. Why? Training, road
> smoothness, attitude for a start. For instance...very, very rare are the
> German drivers going 60 in the fast lane. Here, it is a common occurance.
> Mix 85mph and 60 mph traffic in the same lane, and guess what...more
> crashes.

Thats just a question of training and enforcement of the law, not of
nationality. Whenever things change, it takes time for people to get
used to the new rules. That, in itself, is no reason not to change the
rules, if there are benefits to be had.


> The bike lane system in Holland works..in Holland.

And in many other places.

> Transplant that system
> here, and you'd end up with unusable bike lanes, crowded with all sorts of
> other users (runners, bladers, parked cars), and many, many restrictions and
> compromises...rendering it useless for bike transportation. And that is just
> one of the myriad cultural and attitudinal differences between here and
> there.

A lot of bike lanes are also used by roller bladers, dog walkers and the
like in Europe. With a little bit of common courtesy, thats no issue.
Cars parked on the bike lane are simply towed at the owners expense
(about US$ 300, all included). Usually that prevents repetition.

> Lived and rode in Holland for two years. Also Germany, Spain, England.
> Look at that lane construct closely. Now go look at a local road. Where
> would that 8' wide space (16' if you count both sides) come from? Either
> take out a car lane, or take out some of the sidewalk, or move the buildings
> back.

What would be so bad about having narrower or fewer lanes for cars?
After all, more people using bikes means fewer cars.

> Also, that picture does not show an intersection. What happens there? How
> does that cyclist make a left turn?

Depends on the situation. On small roads with little traffic, simply
filter into car traffic and make a normal left turn, similar to a car on
a multi-lane road. On major crossings, use the traffic lights for
pedestrian/cycle traffic. Since the cyclist can cross a road together
with pedestrians, no additional waiting times are necessary.

The real problem are cars making a short (that is right, in most places)
turn across a cycle path. Again, the legal situation is absolutely
clear, a vehicle turning across another lane has to give way to traffic
on that lane. But it takes some education of car drivers to point that
fact out to them, including legal pressure applied over a number of
years. I had some "close encounters" 20 years back, now this is much
better. By the way, the same problem also exists on roads without bike
lanes.

>How does a car exiting a parking lot
> negotiate this? Stop before the lane? Stop on the lane? Where?

A car exiting from a parking space has to give way to traffic moving on
the road, so he waits in the parking space until the road is free.
Nothing new here, the bike lane is just an additional lane on the road,
all traffic laws apply.

> And the monetary costs to retrofit existing roads would be huge. Is the
> political will there to expend billions on a small minority? Evidently not,
> as evidenced by a routine rejection of light rail and other alternative
> transport solutions.


This reminds me of the situation in England, where I used to work for a
couple of years. They had an extensive system of tram ways, which was
disassembled in the late '60s because everybody had a car and the costs
of public transport seemd unnecessary. They actually had a royal
commision, headed by some lord or such thing which determined this.

As a result, people drove their cars more, and traffic in the cities
collapsed, with concomittant environmental problems. Now they are
placing the rails back in to make traffic more manageble (Manchester
beeing but one example), of course at huge expense. That's what happens
if myopic fools disregard the question of sustainability.

[John David Galt]

Dr Engelbert Buxbaum wrote:
> What would be so bad about having narrower or fewer lanes for cars?
> After all, more people using bikes means fewer cars.

Only it doesn't. The tiny trickle of people using bikes could increase
by a factor of 100 and they'd still be less than 1% of traffic, hardly
enough to justify robbing the majority of even a single lane.

> Depends on the situation. On small roads with little traffic, simply
> filter into car traffic and make a normal left turn, similar to a car on
> a multi-lane road. On major crossings, use the traffic lights for
> pedestrian/cycle traffic. Since the cyclist can cross a road together
> with pedestrians, no additional waiting times are necessary.

So cyclists are allowed to ride in crosswalks in Europe? In the US this
is illegal (unless they dismount first) but commonly done anyway, often
by pulling out in front of cars as if the biker had the legal status of
a pedestrian (which he does not).

> The real problem are cars making a short (that is right, in most places)
> turn across a cycle path. Again, the legal situation is absolutely
> clear, a vehicle turning across another lane has to give way to traffic
> on that lane. But it takes some education of car drivers to point that
> fact out to them, including legal pressure applied over a number of
> years. I had some "close encounters" 20 years back, now this is much
> better. By the way, the same problem also exists on roads without bike
> lanes.

I take it that Europe does not allow the car driver to take the bike
lane a few metres before the intersection, thus preventing this
conflict? (In California this is not only allowed, it is compulsory.)

> This reminds me of the situation in England, where I used to work for a
> couple of years. They had an extensive system of tram ways, which was
> disassembled in the late '60s because everybody had a car and the costs
> of public transport seemd unnecessary. They actually had a royal
> commision, headed by some lord or such thing which determined this.
>
> As a result, people drove their cars more, and traffic in the cities
> collapsed, with concomittant environmental problems. Now they are
> placing the rails back in to make traffic more manageble (Manchester
> beeing but one example), of course at huge expense. That's what happens
> if myopic fools disregard the question of sustainability.

Sustainability my ass. That's what happens when NIMBYs stop the process
of expanding the road system (which of course needs to go on permanently
as long as population is growing) and then blame drivers for the resulting
congestion.

[Marc]

John David Galt > wrote:

>I take it that Europe does not allow the car driver to take the bike
>lane a few metres before the intersection, thus preventing this
>conflict? (In California this is not only allowed, it is compulsory.)

Why bother to call it a bike lane if cars are required to drive in it?

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

[John David Galt]

> John David Galt > wrote:
>> I take it that Europe does not allow the car driver to take the bike
>> lane a few metres before the intersection, thus preventing this
>> conflict? (In California this is not only allowed, it is compulsory.)

Marc wrote:
> Why bother to call it a bike lane if cars are required to drive in it?

The same reason the smoking section of a restaurant (in places that still
allow such a thing) is open to nonsmokers. The point of a bike lane is
to improve traffic flow by keeping bikes in, not cars out.

[Dr Engelbert Buxbaum]

John David Galt wrote:

> The tiny trickle of people using bikes could increase
> by a factor of 100 and they'd still be less than 1% of traffic, hardly
> enough to justify robbing the majority of even a single lane.

That is your claim, but observation, at least here in Europe, shows
otherwise. Number of people riding to work, school or shopping is high,
up to 2/3 of all travels in some regions.

> So cyclists are allowed to ride in crosswalks in Europe? In the US this
> is illegal (unless they dismount first) but commonly done anyway, often
> by pulling out in front of cars as if the biker had the legal status of
> a pedestrian (which he does not).

This would happen on crossings with traffic lights. These have symbols
for pedestrians, cycles and "other traffic", and you do what the lights
tell you. Within cities bike paths are more often than not segregated
parts of the sidewalk, thus the cyclist quite naturally behaves a little
like a pedestrian.

> I take it that Europe does not allow the car driver to take the bike
> lane a few metres before the intersection, thus preventing this
> conflict? (In California this is not only allowed, it is compulsory.)

No, cars have nothing to do on a cycle path over here. In many cases,
construction of cycle paths make such behaviour impossible, too.

> > That's what happens
> > if myopic fools disregard the question of sustainability.
>
> Sustainability my ass. That's what happens when NIMBYs stop the process
> of expanding the road system (which of course needs to go on permanently
> as long as population is growing) and then blame drivers for the resulting
> congestion.

This sort of red neck car driver attitude does not get you anywhere.
First of all, population is shrinking, not growing in most western
societies, only the number of cars is growing.

Second, experience shows that building new roads does not solve the
problem of congestion, because as soon as a new road opens, it gets
clogged by additional traffic. Streets claimed in the '60s and '70s to
solve traffic problems "until the turn of the century" were clogged 2
days later (London being one example, the "Ruhrstauweg" another).

Thirdly, appart from financial considerations there are other limits on
road building. Pollution levels and land use for roads can not be
increased indefinetly, in particular in the densely populated areas of
Europe.

[Mitch Haley]

Dr Engelbert Buxbaum wrote:
>
> ...experience shows that building new roads does not solve the
> problem of congestion, because as soon as a new road opens, it gets
> clogged by additional traffic. Streets claimed in the '60s and '70s to
> solve traffic problems "until the turn of the century" were clogged 2
> days later (London being one example, the "Ruhrstauweg" another).

I've heard it said that building roads to relieve congestion is like
buying looser clothes to cure obesity.

[John David Galt]

>>> That's what happens
>>> if myopic fools disregard the question of sustainability.

>> Sustainability my ass. That's what happens when NIMBYs stop the process
>> of expanding the road system (which of course needs to go on permanently
>> as long as population is growing) and then blame drivers for the resulting
>> congestion.

> This sort of red neck car driver attitude does not get you anywhere.
> First of all, population is shrinking, not growing in most western
> societies, only the number of cars is growing.

Not true in "most western societies", just backward old Europe.

I laugh as the EU tries to federalize more and more functions in a
pathetic attempt to imitate the economic success of the USA, when it
can never work as long as the residents of Europe insist on clinging
to its two biggest trade impediments: its high degree of socialism
and its multiple languages. But I digress.

> Second, experience shows that building new roads does not solve the
> problem of congestion, because as soon as a new road opens, it gets
> clogged by additional traffic.

This only shows that the roads built were too few and too late. You
need to build enough to catch up with all the pent-up demand. So do
we, lately; the Greens are starting to ruin the US as they have
already ruined Europe.

> Thirdly, appart from financial considerations there are other limits on
> road building. Pollution levels and land use for roads can not be
> increased indefinetly, in particular in the densely populated areas of
> Europe.

Road space can be increased indefinitely without expanding land use
simply by stacking them up several levels high, as in Chicago's Loop
district. Or all of your obsolete, pre-automotive cities can start
making room for needed roads by taking a good dose of wrecking-ball
therapy (which should happen naturally, as a result of downtown
businesses closing for want of customers in places where driving and
parking there is too difficult).

As for pollution, the bureaucrats who plan land use should figure out
that causing congestion by not building enough roads only worsens
pollution. If I can drive straight to my destination and park, I
pollute a lot less than if I have to sit in traffic with my engine
idling for an extra hour.

It simply isn't reasonable to insist that people walk or bike. It's
needless work, and anyone with a brain will move, or break the law,
rather than comply.

[DTJ]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 11:00:41 -0400, Mitch Haley >
wrote:

>I've heard it said that building roads to relieve congestion is like
>buying looser clothes to cure obesity.

Well if you listen to environmentalists without using any critical
thinking skills, I could see that.

Environmentalidiots say this all the time. What they ignore is the
growth of the population. Our roads do not get busier simply because
we build more roads. They get busier because more people are driving
as more people get their licenses. This is due to growth from births
and from immigration.

It amazes me how stupid their argument is, yet people tend to believe
most things the media tells us without thinking about it. How could
more cars appear simply by building a road? Uh, aren't there people
in those cars? They can't drive on two roads at once...

[George Conklin]

"DTJ" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 11:00:41 -0400, Mitch Haley >
> wrote:
>
> >I've heard it said that building roads to relieve congestion is like
> >buying looser clothes to cure obesity.
>
> Well if you listen to environmentalists without using any critical
> thinking skills, I could see that.
>
> Environmentalidiots say this all the time. What they ignore is the
> growth of the population. Our roads do not get busier simply because
> we build more roads. They get busier because more people are driving
> as more people get their licenses. This is due to growth from births
> and from immigration.
>
> It amazes me how stupid their argument is, yet people tend to believe
> most things the media tells us without thinking about it. How could
> more cars appear simply by building a road? Uh, aren't there people
> in those cars? They can't drive on two roads at once...
>
Traffic volume does increase faster than population, which is what
environmentalists say. But that is because people like to travel, and use
their income for that purpose. The more radical environmentalists have
published letters in our local newspaper saying that the goal of the
enviromental movement is to STOP TRAVEL or at least make it expensive and to
minimize all travel. This is no different from the old British nobles who
were against railroads because it would encourage the peasants to move
around too much. No difference today. Environmentalists are white elitists.

[Rick]

"DTJ" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 11:00:41 -0400, Mitch Haley >
> wrote:
>
> >I've heard it said that building roads to relieve congestion is like
> >buying looser clothes to cure obesity.
>
> Well if you listen to environmentalists without using any critical
> thinking skills, I could see that.
>
> Environmentalidiots say this all the time. What they ignore is the
> growth of the population. Our roads do not get busier simply because
> we build more roads. They get busier because more people are driving
> as more people get their licenses. This is due to growth from births
> and from immigration.
>

Right, the population keeps increasing. Does expanding the roads improve
congestion? Experiments in cities have proven that they don't. LA, San Jose,
San Diego, and other large cities in California are the prototypical cities
where such exapnsion has failed to keep pace with demand. There is no reason
to believe that it will work anywhere else, either.

The analogy does have some real life examples that support it.

> It amazes me how stupid their argument is, yet people tend to believe
> most things the media tells us without thinking about it. How could
> more cars appear simply by building a road? Uh, aren't there people
> in those cars? They can't drive on two roads at once...
>

It happens for all of the following reasons:

- some folks who were using alternative transportation opt to drive
- folks give up alternative routes and use the major arterials (not a bad
thing, but...)
- city planners close previously used routes or add "traffic calming" (speed
bumps being the prime example) on surface streets which makes them
unattractive for commuting
- folks move to the area now that one of their primary complaints, urban
congestion on the roads, has been addressed
- folks give up the inconveniences associated with carpooling and ride
sharing because they perceive that conditions have improved
- city workers must return to the previously used roads and perform long
delayed maintenance, hence rendering these roads useless for 1 to 2 years
- the new roads (supposedly maintained by those same workers) are ignored
during this period because they are fixing the old ones. They deteriorate
rapidly and what happens becomes a series of alternating road/lane closures
that reduce the effective width of the new roads back to what they were
prior to expansion

Hence, when I-280 was expanded through San Jose, things were nice for a
couple of months. Then they added Rte. 85 and things improved again, for a
short time. Before 6 months passed, however, it was again faster to cycle to
work than it was to drive (most days, though there were some rare exceptions
when I could drive and beat my cycle/shower time).

It amazes me who stupid their argument is, yet people tend to believe most
things the media tells us without thinking about it. How could traffic
improve just because a road was built? Uh, aren't there people who make new
choices when alternatives are offered? Doesn't this add to the road/traffic
burden in an urban area?

Rick

[Bill Z.]

"George Conklin" > writes:


> minimize all travel. This is no different from the old British nobles who
> were against railroads because it would encourage the peasants to move
> around too much. No difference today. Environmentalists are white elitists.
^^^^^
It would appear the George Conklin is a racist: you don't have to be
from any particular ethnic group to be an environmentalist.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[George Conklin]

"Automator" > wrote in message
...
> Someone who has given up on real change wrote:
> > Well if you listen to environmentalists without using any critical
> > thinking skills, I could see that.
> >
> > Environmentalidiots say this all the time. What they ignore is the
> > growth of the population. Our roads do not get busier simply because
> > we build more roads. They get busier because more people are driving
> > as more people get their licenses. This is due to growth from births
> > and from immigration.
>
> How about your critical thinking skills. You've looked at a single
> dimention: "More people MUST mean more traffic, so we need more roads!"
>
> Go to your local library (how about riding a bike there?) and grab five
> books on traffic planning. Maybe even one of your locality's
transportation
> plans. Get a variety, not just ones written by pro-roadies. Look up the
term
> "generated traffic".
>
>
The generated traffic term was made up to justify the fear that as people
have become more affluent, they like to travel more. This goes all the way
back to the British aristocrats who said the same thing about railroads:
they were opposed to railroads because the peasants would move around too
much. Nothing has changed, except transit advocates don't want today's
peasants moving around so much....like YOU.

[Marc]

"George Conklin" > wrote:

>Environmentalists are white elitists.

But the conservatives are white elitists. And conservatives don't seem to
be environmentalists, and environmentalists don't seen to be conservative
(at least the current political definition).

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

[Dr Engelbert Buxbaum]

DTJ wrote:


> Environmentalidiots say this all the time. What they ignore is the
> growth of the population. Our roads do not get busier simply because
> we build more roads. They get busier because more people are driving
> as more people get their licenses. This is due to growth from births
> and from immigration.
>
> It amazes me how stupid their argument is

Before you accuse people of stupidity, you should get your facts right.
In most western societies, population is not only not increasing, it is
actually shrinking. Population growth is now mainly a problem of 3rd
world countries, and even there in many cases at least the growth rates
are going down.

Increase in traffic in western countries over the last couple of decades
is due to two factors:

1) More cars exist in a given population. Increased income means that
many families now have two or even more cars, were one used to suffice.

2) More milage per car. This is an effect that is accelerated by road
building programs. As I mentioned before there are a couple of examples
were motorways were build to relieve traffic congestions in neuralgic
areas. These had been calculated to allow traffic increase for 2-3
decades at observed rates. What actually happend was that these new
motorways were clogged after a few days by people doing journeys for
which public transport had been used before.

Interestingly, reducing available roads actually has the opposite
effect, as was shown in London (England) recently. An important bridge
had to be closed, and it was feared that this would increase traffic
problems on other bridges. What actually happend was that car numbers in
the inner city decreased.

So the solution for traffic problems is not to build new roads, but to
close existing ones, counterintuitive but experimentally proven.

[Dr Engelbert Buxbaum]

John David Galt wrote:

>
> > This sort of red neck car driver attitude does not get you anywhere.
> > First of all, population is shrinking, not growing in most western
> > societies, only the number of cars is growing.
>
> Not true in "most western societies", just backward old Europe.

If you look at the statistics published by the UN, population is
shrinking in most western societies. The US are in so far an exception
as the decline in birth rate is slightly overcompensated by immigration.

If one looks at recent developments one could argue that it is the US
that are backward, but that is OT.


> I laugh as the EU tries to federalize more and more functions in a
> pathetic attempt to imitate the economic success of the USA, when it
> can never work as long as the residents of Europe insist on clinging
> to its two biggest trade impediments: its high degree of socialism
> and its multiple languages. But I digress.

Very few countries in Europe are socialist any more, this economic
theory has been discredited 10-15 years ago. Maybe some US citizens,
with their well documented interest in international affairs, have
failed to notice.

>
> > Second, experience shows that building new roads does not solve the
> > problem of congestion, because as soon as a new road opens, it gets
> > clogged by additional traffic.
>
> This only shows that the roads built were too few and too late. You
> need to build enough to catch up with all the pent-up demand. So do
> we, lately; the Greens are starting to ruin the US as they have
> already ruined Europe.

If that were the correct explanation, shutting down roads should
increase traffic problems. Experience however shows that it improves the
situation (for examle London).

>
> > Thirdly, appart from financial considerations there are other limits on
> > road building. Pollution levels and land use for roads can not be
> > increased indefinetly, in particular in the densely populated areas of
> > Europe.
>
> Road space can be increased indefinitely without expanding land use
> simply by stacking them up several levels high, as in Chicago's Loop
> district.

At considerable expense. Goverments should spend their money on more
useful things than megalomanic traffic projects, which only increase the
problems (see above).


> Or all of your obsolete, pre-automotive cities can start
> making room for needed roads by taking a good dose of wrecking-ball
> therapy .

This would be an act of barbaric vandalism. You should actually travel
to some of those cities with medeval core, and see the character and
living quality they have, especially those were motorised traffic has
been reduced. Then you can come back here.


> As for pollution, the bureaucrats who plan land use should figure out
> that causing congestion by not building enough roads only worsens
> pollution. If I can drive straight to my destination and park, I
> pollute a lot less than if I have to sit in traffic with my engine
> idling for an extra hour.

As we have demonstrated above, building more roads does not reduce
congestion, instead you get more cars ideling around, hence more
pollution.

> It simply isn't reasonable to insist that people walk or bike. It's
> needless work, and anyone with a brain will move, or break the law,
> rather than comply.

This may be true for a small minority of brain-amputated red necks, but
the vast majority of people will enjoy the environment thus created. My
suggestion would be that you spend a week or two in one of those cities
that have limited car traffic and encouraged cicling and public
transport (Muenster/Germany comes to mind), and see for yourself.

[Steven Goodridge]

Dr Engelbert Buxbaum > wrote
> As we have demonstrated above, building more roads does not reduce
> congestion, instead you get more cars ideling around, hence more
> pollution.

I wouldn't agree with that; more roads connecting the same nearby
destinations tends to disperse traffic without increasing it. This
improves conditions for drivers of all vehicles, be they bicycles or
cars.

Some urban arterial projects designed to move cars long distances may
induce traffic by making geography less relevant to people's travel
habits, but this is of little concern to cyclists.

> > It simply isn't reasonable to insist that people walk or bike. It's
> > needless work, and anyone with a brain will move, or break the law,
> > rather than comply.
>
> This may be true for a small minority of brain-amputated red necks, but
> the vast majority of people will enjoy the environment thus created.

Not everybody wants to travel by bicycle, and not everybody wants to
travel by car. Fortunately, we live in a free country where we are at
liberty to choose the travel mode that works best for us, and the
traffic laws are written to allow safe sharing of roadways by a
diversity of vehicle types. I believe that cyclists' interests are
best served by jointly celebrating this freedom with drivers of every
other type of vehicle and building understanding of one another's
needs. Mutual respect is the foundation of safe, lawful, and efficient
roadway sharing.

- Steven Goodridge
Bicycle Commuter
NC Coalition for Bicycle Driving
http://humantrasport.org/bicycledriving/

[Dr Engelbert Buxbaum]

John David Galt wrote:

>
> > This sort of red neck car driver attitude does not get you anywhere.
> > First of all, population is shrinking, not growing in most western
> > societies, only the number of cars is growing.
>
> Not true in "most western societies", just backward old Europe.

If you look at the statistics published by the UN, population is
shrinking in most western societies. The US are in so far an exception
as the decline in birth rate is slightly overcompensated by immigration.

If one looks at recent developments one could argue that it is the US
that are backward, but that is OT.


> I laugh as the EU tries to federalize more and more functions in a
> pathetic attempt to imitate the economic success of the USA, when it
> can never work as long as the residents of Europe insist on clinging
> to its two biggest trade impediments: its high degree of socialism
> and its multiple languages. But I digress.

Very few countries in Europe are socialist any more, this economic
theory has been discredited 10-15 years ago. Maybe some US citizens,
with their well documented interest in international affairs, have
failed to notice.

>
> > Second, experience shows that building new roads does not solve the
> > problem of congestion, because as soon as a new road opens, it gets
> > clogged by additional traffic.
>
> This only shows that the roads built were too few and too late. You
> need to build enough to catch up with all the pent-up demand. So do
> we, lately; the Greens are starting to ruin the US as they have
> already ruined Europe.

If that were the correct explanation, shutting down roads should
increase traffic problems. Experience however shows that it improves the
situation (for examle London).

>
> > Thirdly, appart from financial considerations there are other limits on
> > road building. Pollution levels and land use for roads can not be
> > increased indefinetly, in particular in the densely populated areas of
> > Europe.
>
> Road space can be increased indefinitely without expanding land use
> simply by stacking them up several levels high, as in Chicago's Loop
> district.

At considerable expense. Goverments should spend their money on more
useful things than megalomanic traffic projects, which only increase the
problems (see above).


> Or all of your obsolete, pre-automotive cities can start
> making room for needed roads by taking a good dose of wrecking-ball
> therapy .

This would be an act of barbaric vandalism. You should actually travel
to some of those cities with medeval core, and see the character and
living quality they have, especially those were motorised traffic has
been reduced. Then you can come back here.


> As for pollution, the bureaucrats who plan land use should figure out
> that causing congestion by not building enough roads only worsens
> pollution. If I can drive straight to my destination and park, I
> pollute a lot less than if I have to sit in traffic with my engine
> idling for an extra hour.

As we have demonstrated above, building more roads does not reduce
congestion, instead you get more cars ideling around, hence more
pollution.

> It simply isn't reasonable to insist that people walk or bike. It's
> needless work, and anyone with a brain will move, or break the law,
> rather than comply.

This may be true for a small minority of brain-amputated red necks, but
the vast majority of people will enjoy the environment thus created. My
suggestion would be that you spend a week or two in one of those cities
that have limited car traffic and encouraged cicling and public
transport (Muenster/Germany comes to mind), and see for yourself.

[Dr Engelbert Buxbaum]

George Conklin wrote:

> The more radical environmentalists have
> published letters in our local newspaper saying that the goal of the
> enviromental movement is to STOP TRAVEL or at least make it expensive and to
> minimize all travel. This is no different from the old British nobles who
> were against railroads because it would encourage the peasants to move
> around too much. No difference today. Environmentalists are white elitists.


The issue never was to stop travel, that would be nonsense. The idea
must be to use the right mode of transportation for each journey at
hand. For short (up to about 20 km) trips of a healthy single person
without heavy luggage, this is the bike. This is probably the most
comman type of trip.

For other journeys, it may be bus, train, ship or plane. And for some
journeys, it's the car. Even I get into situations were I use a car,
about once a month on average. Of course I do not keep a car for that,
but call a taxi.

The problem is not travel per se, but the missuse of an inappropriate
mode of transportation.

And certainly it has nothing to do with race.

[Dr Engelbert Buxbaum]

DTJ wrote:

>YOU MORON.

> Idiot.

With such phrases you exclude yourself from the discussion of educated
people. Only those who do not have no real arguments need to resort to
shouting and name calling.

[Tanya Quinn]

Dave Head > wrote in message

> Damn, I live just about that far from work. 24 miles of biking per day? I
> don't think so. Not only would I kill someone to avoid that sort of
> imposition, it would also waste about 2 hours per day, not including the
> necessary shower after each ride. I get to work and home in about 22 minutes
> with the car.

Obviously there is a limit that varies from person to person. In some
cases people would have faster trips by bicycle than car given the
current level of congestion where they live. And in cases where they
don't many people do not see it as a "waste of time", its also
exercise which is good for you. And if someone is driving to work and
then drives to the gym to work out for an hour, they've saved their
work out time by biking.

> Plus, on the roads around here with the blind corners and sharp hill crests,
> biker would get killed. I see _nobody_ biking these roads. No one is that
> stupid.

That just points to the fact that better road design is needed to
accomodate a variety of users.

> >For other journeys, it may be bus, train, ship or plane.
>
> Fatal flaw on all these: They run on a schedule. That means you have to wait
> for them to get to where you are in order to ride them. Efficiency of travel
> would go down, as would our overall productivity. Recreational travel would
> probably be nearly completely discouraged.

I don't see how this is diminishing productivity. Its not so hard to
plan your schedule around the transport schedule so you aren't wasting
time "waiting" but there when you need to be. Often they are faster
than the car as well so the time you give up waiting is made up for
the time you save travelling. More eficient then.

> >And for some
> >journeys, it's the car. Even I get into situations were I use a car,
> >about once a month on average. Of course I do not keep a car for that,
> >but call a taxi.
>
> Last taxi I took was from the airport in Indianapolis to home, across town.
> $50. I am not that rich! Fortunately, it was for work, and they paid for it.

Most taxi trips are cheaper than that, and if as the OP says they only
need to use a car about once a month its much cheaper to use the taxi
than to pay maintenance, insurance etc on the car. (not to mention it
is depreciating in your driveway)

> >The problem is not travel per se, but the missuse of an inappropriate
> >mode of transportation.
>
> Anything you have to wait for in order to ride is "inappropriate", in my
> opinion.

Is it so terrible to have to wait five minutes while reading a paper
or book to get on a vehicle where you can then continue to read since
you don't have to pay attention to the road, and depending on the mode
of transportation avoid getting stuck in a traffic jam?

> Want to get public transport actually accepted in this country? Build it so
> you don't have to wait for it. See the "personal rapid transit" mode of

I'm not sure what you have against waiting so much since I'm sure you
do a lot of it at stop lights. :)

[Dave Head]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 11:09:49 GMT, > wrote:

>
>Dave Head > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:04:56 +0200, Dr Engelbert Buxbaum
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >George Conklin wrote:
>> >
>> >> The more radical environmentalists have
>> >> published letters in our local newspaper saying that the goal of the
>> >> enviromental movement is to STOP TRAVEL or at least make it expensive
>and to
>> >> minimize all travel. This is no different from the old British nobles
>who
>> >> were against railroads because it would encourage the peasants to move
>> >> around too much. No difference today. Environmentalists are white
>elitists.
>> >
>> >
>> >The issue never was to stop travel, that would be nonsense. The idea
>> >must be to use the right mode of transportation for each journey at
>> >hand. For short (up to about 20 km) trips of a healthy single person
>> >without heavy luggage, this is the bike. This is probably the most
>> >comman type of trip.
>>
>> Damn, I live just about that far from work. 24 miles of biking per day?
>I
>> don't think so. Not only would I kill someone to avoid that sort of
>> imposition, it would also waste about 2 hours per day, not including the
>> necessary shower after each ride. I get to work and home in about 22
>minutes
>> with the car.
>>
>> Plus, on the roads around here with the blind corners and sharp hill
>crests,
>> biker would get killed. I see _nobody_ biking these roads. No one is
>that
>> stupid.
>>
>> >For other journeys, it may be bus, train, ship or plane.
>>
>> Fatal flaw on all these: They run on a schedule. That means you have to
>wait
>> for them to get to where you are in order to ride them. Efficiency of
>travel
>> would go down, as would our overall productivity. Recreational travel
>would
>> probably be nearly completely discouraged.
>>
>> If this is the goal of "environmentalism", I'll oppose such
>environmentalism
>> with all my strength as long as I'm alive.
>>
>
> The whole goal of making people live in modern mill towns is to cut down
>ALL travel. At least our local radicals admit that, while planners hide
>their hand and spout fumes.

Yep - deception is part of the environmentalist's strategy, esp. at higher
levels. I mostly don't believe a word they say.



>> >And for some
>> >journeys, it's the car. Even I get into situations were I use a car,
>> >about once a month on average. Of course I do not keep a car for that,
>> >but call a taxi.
>>
>> Last taxi I took was from the airport in Indianapolis to home, across
>town.
>> $50. I am not that rich! Fortunately, it was for work, and they paid for
>it.
>
> Taxis are an imposition on the public, put there because we cannot
>make private deals with ordinary drivers to take us where we want to go for
>a fee we both agree upon. Environmentalists know this, but their goal is to
>discourage travel.

Yep.

>> >The problem is not travel per se, but the missuse of an inappropriate
>> >mode of transportation.
>>
>> Anything you have to wait for in order to ride is "inappropriate", in my
>> opinion.
>>
>> Want to get public transport actually accepted in this country? Build it
>so
>> you don't have to wait for it. See the "personal rapid transit" mode of
>> operation as elaborated on the website www.taxi2000.com, and other places.
>> Trains, both inside cities and between cities, could adopt this model.
>Buses
>> would have a problem with it, but the trains would be so ubiquitous, you
>> wouldn't need the buses anyway

> How about saying, "Tripple your taxes?"

Maybe, maybe not. If the thing were _useful_ 24/7, then it might actually make
money.

If you could get up at 4 AM on Sunday morning, and drive across town with NO
traffic whatsoever in 45 minutes, or take a personal rapid transit and get
there in 10 minutes, how would you go? What would you pay for it? Suppose its
11 AM Sunday, and you're going to the Football stadium, and it would take you
45 minutes by car, plus parking time, plus $10 to park the car, or you could
get there in 10 minutes by personal rapid transit? I know how I'd get there,
and it would be worth something significant to do it.

Dave Head

[Daniel J. Stern]

On 7 Aug 2003, Tanya Quinn wrote:

> I don't see how this is diminishing productivity. Its not so hard to
> plan your schedule around the transport schedule

Irrelevant. In a free society, people justifiably demand the freedom to go
exactly where they want, exactly *when* they want.

> Most taxi trips are cheaper than that, and if as the OP says they only
> need to use a car about once a month its much cheaper to use the taxi
> than to pay maintenance, insurance etc on the car. (not to mention it is
> depreciating in your driveway)

Fortunately, it's not your decision to make for anyone but yourself.

> Is it so terrible to have to wait five minutes while reading a paper
> or book

Yes! It's not the degree of the wait, its likelihood or its frequency --
it's putting oneself at the mercy of the vagaries of somebody else's
schedule. It's the principle.

DS

[Pete]

"Dave Head" > wrote

[snip]
>
> All for now. Gotta get on the road.
>

All this merely points to a poor implementation of non-car transport.

It *can* be done. The US public merely lacks the will or desire to do it.
For a variety of reasons. Mainly, I think, because we don't *want* to.

Pete

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Dave Head wrote:

> A much better transit system than Indianapolis is Washington, DC.
> considerable distance to the platform, got on after about a 10 minute
> wait, transferred to another train that was about a 15 minute wait...
> Now, the trains run 60 mph at top speed, but they aren't at top speed
> very much. They stop... and stop... and stop... Average speed is
> pretty low, actually. Then you add the waiting when changing trains.

I was in DC last winter for the National Academy of Sciences
Transportation Research Board meeting. No fewer than *SIX consecutive
times* one evening, a train pulled into a major station, doors opened,
lots of passengers got on, doors closed, doors opened, and an announcement
came on the PA: "This train is now going out of service. All passengers
please exit." At one train every ten minutes, it took me an hour *just to
get on a train*. And this on one of the world's (generally justifiably)
renowned transit systems.

> As for waiting on transit, _nobody_ likes to wait. On anything. But
> waiting on a train is generally done in the weather, no matter if it is
> raining, snowing, -20 degrees or 105 degrees. Its done in the rain, and
> in the sun. Throw in an occasional mosquito for good measure. Then
> there's the exposure to the criminal element,

....and the microbiological element. And the alcoholic element. And the
screaming-baby element. And the gangbanger playing yo-yo-bitches-yo rap at
cochlea-rending volume element. And the gaggle of teenagers whose every
other word is "****" element. And the panhandler element. And the "Is that
**** I smell?" element.

DS

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Baxter wrote:

>>> I don't see how this is diminishing productivity. Its not so hard to
>>> plan your schedule around the transport schedule

>> Irrelevant. In a free society, people justifiably demand the freedom to
>> go exactly where they want, exactly *when* they want.

> "Beam me up, Scotty" - because THAT's what people want.

Well, certainly, Baxter, but since this is the real world and not Star
Trek, we want the highest degree of "where and when we want" we can get,
and that's private auto transport.

DS

[The Real Bev]

Pete wrote:
>
> "Dave Head" > wrote
>
> [snip]
> >
> > All for now. Gotta get on the road.
>
> All this merely points to a poor implementation of non-car transport.
>
> It *can* be done. The US public merely lacks the will or desire to do it.
> For a variety of reasons. Mainly, I think, because we don't *want* to.

This is the USA. That's good enough.

If you want to get people out of their cars, devise something that does
the same thing as cars but better.

--
Cheers,
Bev
[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []
If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.
--Revolution Books, New York, New York

[Marc]

Dave Head > wrote:

>Yep - deception is part of the environmentalist's strategy, esp. at higher
>levels. I mostly don't believe a word they say.

Deception is a part of the anti-environmentalist's strategy. They lied
when they said that there isn't such a thing as acid rain. They've lied
about the pollutants dumped into then environment. Most of the
anti-environment people are corporations that are as truthful as Enron, or
when Phillip Morris kept insisting that cigarettes are safe and
non-addictive. I've seen some cool adds from the 50s or so that claim they
are doctor recommended to relieve coughs.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

[Pete]

"Scott in Aztlan" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 02:43:33 GMT, "Pete" > wrote:
>
> >All this merely points to a poor implementation of non-car transport.
> >
> >It *can* be done. The US public merely lacks the will or desire to do it.
> >For a variety of reasons. Mainly, I think, because we don't *want* to.
>
> I fully understand why.
>
> I live approximately 3 miles from my office. It takes me less than 9
minutes
> door-to-door to drive there.

I live 3 miles away from work as well. It takes me 12-14 minutes by bike,
10-12 by car.

Lest you think I'm a 'bike nazi', I ride when I feel like it. Doesn't have
to be *every day*. But I've found commuting by bike allows a 2 car family to
be a one car family.

Think about it. At least one car in a two car family sits around almost ALL
the time. In the parking lot at work, or at home, when you're driving the
other one.

18 minutes/day use is not good economics.

Pete
And that's time I don't have to spend in the gym

[Matthew Russotto]

In article >,
Pete > wrote:
>
>
>Think about it. At least one car in a two car family sits around almost ALL
>the time. In the parking lot at work, or at home, when you're driving the
>other one.
>
>18 minutes/day use is not good economics.

Time used per day has nothing to do with economics. If driving
became twice as fast, my car does not lose half its value. The value
in driving is in the distance taken, not the time.
--
Matthew T. Russotto
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

[Tanya Quinn]

Dave Head > wrote in message > >exercise which is good for you. And if someone is driving to work and
> >then drives to the gym to work out for an hour, they've saved their
> >work out time by biking.
>
> Well, right now I can't seem to exercise every evening, (I usually use a
> LifeStep 9500 machine, if you're familiar with gym equipment), or my knees get
> sore. I don't think I'd have much better luck on the bike.

Hi Dave,
Have you tried biking? Its actually a form of exercise that is least
harsh on the knees, definitely more so than stair climbing. I find my
knees get sore (as my legs are a bit uneven in length) if I walk for
too long and with stairs. If you get sore knees cycling you may just
need to adjust the height of the seat.

You don't have to bike a real long distance, short trips to the store
occasionally save wear and tear on your car and can be fun.

> in other states, but they are all "State Highways" here. They're terribly
> dangerous for the _cars_, too. I point it out, and they say its too expensive
> to change. I say that's what dynamite is for...

Yup dynamite would be good :)

> Firstly, I don't want to give up the luxury of not having to plan things. I'm
> sure I'm not alone, so that will hurt ridership on that basis.

There's two types of travel: travel within the city, that you do on a
frequent basis. For this, yes, ideally you should not have to plan
your life around the transit schedule. In a city with enough demand,
vehicles should come by frequently enough that you don't have to check
the schedule (say every 5 minutes)

Travel between cities - usually this happens on a less frequent basis,
and the trips take a longer time. For this it is reasonable to plan
for a less frequent schedule. Obviously once a day would be
inconvenient, but hourly trains between major centers should not be so
much of a problem for this type of travel. You go to the station close
to the departure time, and ideally the trains run ON TIME.

> Second, in order for transit to be _really_ accepted, it has to be faster than
> a car, door to door, at all times of the day and night. That way, it can be
> making money 24 / 7. Its no wonder the mass transit is so expensive, when it's
> built such that it can only be used "efficiently" when the alternative is
> totally hosed by congestion.

The main time when there is traffic congestion in any place is during
"rush hour", where everyone is trying to get to work at more or less
the same time. Commuting accounts for a large portion of personal
travel. If people used transit to go to work but cars for pleasure it
would still have many benefits for all. If you want to make the
transition to car-free you need to have competitive service at all
times of day and night, I don't think transit necessarily has to
always win, but to win some of the time, and not be too much of a
penalty at other times would be ideal.

> As for waiting, it often isn't a short time. I tried to take the bus in
> Indianapolis to get from a car dealer back home after dropping off the car. I
> _waited_ for that bus, which was _scheduled_ to come 1/2 hour from the time I
> got to the bus stop, but that one never came. I had to wait for the next one,
> an hour later.

This obviously is not a place then where public transit is a viable
option. (for most people) If buses showed up every 10 minutes like
clockwork, you would be waiting on average for 5 minutes unless you
just missed one.

> A much better transit system than Indianapolis is Washington, DC. I decided to
> go to an inventor's meeting on the north side of DC. I hate to drive _in_ DC,
> so I parked at Springfield on the south side, walked a considerable distance to
> the platform, got on after about a 10 minute wait, went downtown, transferred
> to another train that was about a 15 minute wait (this was in the evening), got
> off at the closest station, and spent 15 minutes or so hiking up to the
> facility where the meeting was. I had GPS to pinpoint the building, so I
> didn't walk too far out of the way, but it was a pretty lengthy walk.

Where buildings are designed around the automobile and providing a lot
of parking, it is going to not be so convenient to take transit, as it
will be a long walk to most points from a rapid transit station. Its
hard to change the design of a city :)

I'm fortunate (transit-wise) in that I live in Toronto. Subway trains
come every 90 seconds during the peak periods, and 5-6 minutes in the
slowest periods up til about 1:30 a.m. These waits are very reasonable
for going places and many destinations are easily accessible from the
subway stations. Parking is also scarce and expensive in the downtown
so its quicker to take transit than drive AND park.

> Now, the trains run 60 mph at top speed, but they aren't at top speed very
> much. They stop... and stop... and stop... Average speed is pretty low,
> actually. Then you add the waiting when changing trains. Its crawling,
> door-to-door.

Because of stops subways and rapid trains within a city are usually
slower than a car could circle the city on an expressway. On city
streets traffic lights cause about as many stops as the train would
stop. For intercity travel though high speed trains that can travel up
to 4 times faster than cars become a very competitive option when
going somewhere that would be a 4 hour drive.

> I could have easily _circled_ the city, and beat that train. The transit
> system _has_ to go to the personal rapid transit model, with no stopping of
> rail vehicles from start to stop, or it is never going to be competitive with
> cars.

I don't believe that is necessary - it can be competitive when it has
its own right-of-way where cars are congested (and as population grows
traffic will become more congested), it can be competitive on price
where time is not too bad - if parking is scarce and expensive, it can
be competitive even if its slightly slower if its more comfortable
(not often, but room for improvement) or enjoyable (can do something
else at the same time)

> technology is here, with personal rapid transit, if someone will just go ahead
> and build it. People would likely still have to drive to a PRT terminal, at
> least until the system is built out to basically "everywhere", but PRT would
> win the competition, and then people would _pay_ to ride it. Beginning of the
> end of highway congestion, I think.

I'm trying to envision how this would work. It will take a lot of
space to implement this and I can only see it working fairly well on
expressways - otherwise how does all the stopping, starting and
turning that happens on local streets take place? It may be better
than a high-speed train in that it eliminates waiting but it would
seem that it would necessarily be a huge consumer of space, with a lot
of empty vehicles constantly going by. While our current culture seems
to value personal space it takes up a lot more valuable real estate
than a train would. I actually enjoy the aspect of transit where I can
run into an acquaintance and have a conversation.

> As for waiting on transit, _nobody_ likes to wait. On anything. But waiting
> on a train is generally done in the weather, no matter if it is raining,
> snowing, -20 degrees or 105 degrees. Its done in the rain, and in the sun.
> Throw in an occasional mosquito for good measure. Then there's the exposure to
> the criminal element, an acutal concern in some regions. One's car is a means
> of rapid escape, with the capability of being a deadly weapon if necessary.

I think people are too highly paranoid about safety in general. But
lets ignore that and concentrate on your other points. Of course
nobody likes to wait. I don't like to wait. That's why I spend more of
my time riding my bicycle for transportation than I do taking public
transportation. I can get out my door and go, not walk to a stop and
wait and wait. Without adequate funding transit can't hope to come up
with efficient schedules.

When its snowing and you want to drive, you have to shovel your
driveway to get your car out, spend a few minutes waiting for the car
to warm up and get the ice and snow off the vehicle. If the roads
haven't been plowed yet its not fun trying to drive through either.
While many people have the luxury of a garage and space heater at home
these aren't often available at the other end - where they've parked.
When its snowing and I want to take transit, I dress appropriately
including boots, I walk, and its not so cold by dressing properly and
walking to the transit stop. If its a subway I'm waiting indoors. If
its a bus I'm waiting for there's usually a bus shelter where I can
stay out of the wind and not get snowed on.

If its raining I carry an umbrella. Really I think people are far too
spoiled somehow that they think getting a little wet or slightly
chilled is going to kill them.

> But how about my upcoming shopping trip? I have to get to several outdoor
> stores to do my shopping, then to a haircut, probably to Radio Shack, and
> almost certianly a movie before or after. I can barely get that done in a car.
> If there is a 10 - 15 minute wait for a bus to show up each leg of the trip,
> it'll take 2 trips, minimum. Plus - I'm on my way to a movie as soon a I
> finish this - 10:05 PM movie. Find me a train - or bus - at that hour. Ain't
> happening...

I'm assuming these stores aren't in different cities. What I would do?
Bring my bike and a backpack and/or panniers depending on how much
stuff I had to buy. I also can bungee things to the rear rack - like
when I bought a heavy wooden stool. I attached a large crate to the
rack when I went shopping for a flat of pansies for my garden, and
didn't obviously want them to get squished in a backpack. (If I was
buying a whole carful of stuff it would be a rare rare shopping trip
and likely an excuse to need to rent one) Ride to each store, lock up
my bike right at the door (no looking for parking spots, or feeding
meters!) - though its a bit of a pain to take the panniers off each
time to make sure the stuff doesn't get stolen in the meantime. Where
I live a 10:05 movie or when it gets out would not be a problem on
transit, but I enjoy biking at night in the summer - there is a nice
breeze. If I had time I'd go home and dump my stuff first, then go
back on my bike with some lights. Lock it up well, enjoy the movie,
come back out, and enjoy the peacefulness of coming home when traffic
has really gotten light.

:) Tanya

Scott in Aztlan > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 02:43:33 GMT, "Pete" > wrote:
>
> >All this merely points to a poor implementation of non-car transport.
> >
> >It *can* be done. The US public merely lacks the will or desire to do it.
> >For a variety of reasons. Mainly, I think, because we don't *want* to.
>
> I fully understand why.
>
> I live approximately 3 miles from my office. It takes me less than 9
minutes
> door-to-door to drive there. If I take the bus, that trip becomes 45
minutes,
> primarily because the bus that comes closest to my house takes me 6 miles
in the
> opposite direction before I can transfer to the bus that drops me off near
my
> office. Alternatively, I can take a different bus and walk about a mile;
this
> version of the trip takes about 30 minutes. I could also ride my bike, but
there
> are no showers in my office building, and going through the workday
reeking of
> sweat typically isn't the best career move. :)
>
> If these are our choices, we will NEVER pry people out of their cars.
>

Those are the tradeoffs you get with public transit.

[Tanya Quinn]

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message >...
> On 7 Aug 2003, Tanya Quinn wrote:
>
> > I don't see how this is diminishing productivity. Its not so hard to
> > plan your schedule around the transport schedule
>
> Irrelevant. In a free society, people justifiably demand the freedom to go
> exactly where they want, exactly *when* they want.

Well I'd like to exactly where I want and when I want too, but I don't
think that the car is the way to do it. By car, I can *leave* when I
want to go *where* I want, but I don't necessarily get there *when* I
want. At many times of day and many places automobile traffic is too
congested to get people where they want to go when they want. If they
choose to take public transit that has to compete on the same roadway
space as the car, they aren't going to get where they want when the
want either. But if for instance, one lane of a multi-lane road was
physically only usable by transit, then people that want to get where
they want faster could actually use it. People that wanted to have the
comfort of their cars but didn't care about how fast could do that
too. Problem is people that drive the cars whine too loudly about
taking away some of the space that is now theirs to use for people
that want to get places quickly by taking 50+ single occupancy
vehicles and putting their occupants in one slightly larger vehicle.

> > Most taxi trips are cheaper than that, and if as the OP says they only
> > need to use a car about once a month its much cheaper to use the taxi
> > than to pay maintenance, insurance etc on the car. (not to mention it is
> > depreciating in your driveway)
>
> Fortunately, it's not your decision to make for anyone but yourself.

Nope, but I was just pointing out the economics. People complain that
cabs are too terribly expensive, but they don't consider the fixed
costs of the automobile if they use that automobile extremely
infrequently. If they still prefer the car that's their choice but
they can hardly say its because of money.

> > Is it so terrible to have to wait five minutes while reading a paper
> > or book
>
> Yes! It's not the degree of the wait, its likelihood or its frequency --
> it's putting oneself at the mercy of the vagaries of somebody else's
> schedule. It's the principle.

I don't see how this is any different from having to wait in a traffic
slowdown. If you live somewhere where your car trip is consistent in
timing every time well good for you then but most places there is
something called traffic. And that's the main problem with automobiles
- while cars give you freedom to go where you want when you want, once
too many people start enjoying the freedom, nobody goes anywhere at
all, the steel boxes just crawl along like little ants.

[DTJ]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 01:24:40 GMT, (PC) wrote:

>If by that you mean you never log off or reboot, save for once a week,
>then yeah.. Otherwise, what on earth are you saying?

Pete is a moron.
Cops are the cause of everyone's problems.
My actions does not give them any right to break the law.
Their illegal actions are the result of their idiocy.
Their life is not my fault.
If you can't handle being a cop, find a real job.

Tanya Quinn > wrote in message
om...
> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
>...
> > On 7 Aug 2003, Tanya Quinn wrote:
> >
> > > I don't see how this is diminishing productivity. Its not so hard to
> > > plan your schedule around the transport schedule
> >
> > Irrelevant. In a free society, people justifiably demand the freedom to
go
> > exactly where they want, exactly *when* they want.
>
> Well I'd like to exactly where I want and when I want too, but I don't
> think that the car is the way to do it. By car, I can *leave* when I
> want to go *where* I want, but I don't necessarily get there *when* I
> want. At many times of day and many places automobile traffic is too
> congested to get people where they want to go when they want. If they
> choose to take public transit that has to compete on the same roadway
> space as the car, they aren't going to get where they want when the
> want either. But if for instance, one lane of a multi-lane road was
> physically only usable by transit, then people that want to get where
> they want faster could actually use it. People that wanted to have the
> comfort of their cars but didn't care about how fast could do that
> too. Problem is people that drive the cars whine too loudly about
> taking away some of the space that is now theirs to use for people
> that want to get places quickly by taking 50+ single occupancy
> vehicles and putting their occupants in one slightly larger vehicle.
>
> > > Most taxi trips are cheaper than that, and if as the OP says they only
> > > need to use a car about once a month its much cheaper to use the taxi
> > > than to pay maintenance, insurance etc on the car. (not to mention it
is
> > > depreciating in your driveway)
> >
> > Fortunately, it's not your decision to make for anyone but yourself.
>
> Nope, but I was just pointing out the economics. People complain that
> cabs are too terribly expensive, but they don't consider the fixed
> costs of the automobile if they use that automobile extremely
> infrequently. If they still prefer the car that's their choice but
> they can hardly say its because of money.
>

People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do nothing
around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?

[Jordan Bettis]

> writes:

> > Nope, but I was just pointing out the economics. People complain that
> > cabs are too terribly expensive, but they don't consider the fixed
> > costs of the automobile if they use that automobile extremely
> > infrequently. If they still prefer the car that's their choice but
> > they can hardly say its because of money.
> >
>
> People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do nothing
> around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?

Home depot dosen't deliver large items? I'd go somewhere that does.

--
Jordan Bettis <http://www.hafd.org/~jordanb>
The truth is more important than the facts.
-- Frank Loyd Wright

[Peter]

Jordan Bettis wrote:

> > writes:
>
>
>>>Nope, but I was just pointing out the economics. People complain that
>>>cabs are too terribly expensive, but they don't consider the fixed
>>>costs of the automobile if they use that automobile extremely
>>>infrequently. If they still prefer the car that's their choice but
>>>they can hardly say its because of money.
>>>
>>
>> People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do nothing
>>around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?
>
>
> Home depot dosen't deliver large items? I'd go somewhere that does.

At least in our area they provide delivery services and also offer trucks
for rent.

[Mitch Haley]

wrote:
> People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do nothing
> around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?


People who post drivel like the above...
Can you really justify a year's worth of truck payments
to have it handy for a couple of trips to the home improvement
store? Makes as much sense as paying $200 a sheet for plywood.
On second thought, you ARE paying $200 a sheet for plywood.
Mitch.

[Jack May]

"Tanya Quinn" > wrote in message
om...
> Problem is people that drive the cars whine too loudly about
> taking away some of the space that is now theirs to use for people
> that want to get places quickly by taking 50+ single occupancy
> vehicles and putting their occupants in one slightly larger vehicle.

How often do 50+ people want to start at one place and go to same place.
The answer is very very seldom. If you are going to pick them up and let
the off along the way then the trip takes about four times as long. Where
time is expensive, that is obviously a non-solution.


> Nope, but I was just pointing out the economics. People complain that
> cabs are too terribly expensive, but they don't consider the fixed
> costs of the automobile if they use that automobile extremely
> infrequently. If they still prefer the car that's their choice but
> they can hardly say its because of money.

My experience is that a cab tends to run about $1.50 to $2.00 per mile
(including tip) compared to about 35 cents per mile for a car. You
typically have to wait about 30 minutes for a cab to arrive which is about
$18 for a typical income of $75K per year where I live. So the people are
making a wise economic decision using a car and a terrible decision to use a
cab except for a few circumstances.

Why is there a fixed cost for a car. If you use a car less, it cost less
per year. Since most people these days drive a car until it is worn out,
the cost is mainly a function of mileage (including insurance). There are
some time fixed cost, but a large part is mileage based.

> And that's the main problem with automobiles
> - while cars give you freedom to go where you want when you want, once
> too many people start enjoying the freedom, nobody goes anywhere at
> all, the steel boxes just crawl along like little ants.

Crawl along like little ants every where, every time? That is nonsense for
most places. There are obviously traffic jams, but people still use cars
because they are still faster than transit.

A large part of the congestion is caused by excessive spending on transit
and gross under spending on roads. For example in Silicon Valley the
amount of money to get 1K people out of their cars into transit is running
at about the same as the money it would take to add capacity for an
additional 100K people.

Obviously the more you spend to try to get people out of cars into transit,
the more congestion you are going to produce.

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003, Mitch Haley wrote:

> Can you really justify a year's worth of truck payments to have it handy
> for a couple of trips to the home improvement store?

You're still barking up the wrong tree, here, Mitch. It doesn't make a
particle of difference if the expenditure wouldn't pass even the laxest
cost-benefit analysis. Y'see, in a free society, no individual has to
"justify" his purchases and expenditures to anyone but himself, 'cept
maybe his spouse.

DS

[Dave Head]

On 8 Aug 2003 14:35:58 -0700, (Tanya Quinn) wrote:

>Dave Head > wrote in message > >exercise which is good for you. And if someone is driving to work and
>> >then drives to the gym to work out for an hour, they've saved their
>> >work out time by biking.
>>
>> Well, right now I can't seem to exercise every evening, (I usually use a
>> LifeStep 9500 machine, if you're familiar with gym equipment), or my knees get
>> sore. I don't think I'd have much better luck on the bike.
>
>Hi Dave,
>Have you tried biking? Its actually a form of exercise that is least
>harsh on the knees, definitely more so than stair climbing. I find my
>knees get sore (as my legs are a bit uneven in length) if I walk for
>too long and with stairs. If you get sore knees cycling you may just
>need to adjust the height of the seat.

Hi Tanya,

I used to bike, but have several problems with it now.

One is biking _around here._ I'd have to load up the bike and take it
someplace safe. Starting out from the house, with the way these roads are, is
too dangerous for me. The roads have lots of curves and sharp crests. A few
months ago, a guy in my office came over one of these crests and plowed into
traffic stopped for a school bus. A bike wouldn't have a chance around here.

Also, I've developed a situation where my hands go numb when gripping anything
continuously. It happens when gripping the heart monitor contacts on the step
machine, too, but I can continue with that while leaving go of those contacts,
but you can't ride a bike and let go of the handlebars, at least not
continuously or safely. I think I'm not going to be doing much biking any
more.

>You don't have to bike a real long distance, short trips to the store
>occasionally save wear and tear on your car and can be fun.

>> in other states, but they are all "State Highways" here. They're terribly
>> dangerous for the _cars_, too. I point it out, and they say its too expensive
>> to change. I say that's what dynamite is for...
>
>Yup dynamite would be good :)
>
>> Firstly, I don't want to give up the luxury of not having to plan things. I'm
>> sure I'm not alone, so that will hurt ridership on that basis.
>
>There's two types of travel: travel within the city, that you do on a
>frequent basis. For this, yes, ideally you should not have to plan
>your life around the transit schedule. In a city with enough demand,
>vehicles should come by frequently enough that you don't have to check
>the schedule (say every 5 minutes)

I've developed a real liking for the idea of the personal rapid transit system.
If built up in the air, on "stilts", it wouldn't take up any significant real
estate, and would be a "no waiting" solution that people would enjoy riding.

>Travel between cities - usually this happens on a less frequent basis,
>and the trips take a longer time. For this it is reasonable to plan
>for a less frequent schedule. Obviously once a day would be
>inconvenient, but hourly trains between major centers should not be so
>much of a problem for this type of travel. You go to the station close
>to the departure time, and ideally the trains run ON TIME.

And doesn't get so full you can't get on it, and have to wait another hour for
the next train. People ride the trains up and down the east coast on a daily
basis, if they have an office in, say, New York City. I expect its a pleasant
trip - I actually like riding trains, although DC to NYC is something on the
order of 2.5 hours, each way, so isn't something I'd want to do every day.

>
>> Second, in order for transit to be _really_ accepted, it has to be faster than
>> a car, door to door, at all times of the day and night. That way, it can be
>> making money 24 / 7. Its no wonder the mass transit is so expensive, when it's
>> built such that it can only be used "efficiently" when the alternative is
>> totally hosed by congestion.
>
>The main time when there is traffic congestion in any place is during
>"rush hour", where everyone is trying to get to work at more or less
>the same time. Commuting accounts for a large portion of personal
>travel. If people used transit to go to work but cars for pleasure it
>would still have many benefits for all. If you want to make the
>transition to car-free you need to have competitive service at all
>times of day and night, I don't think transit necessarily has to
>always win, but to win some of the time, and not be too much of a
>penalty at other times would be ideal.

With transit usually being in the position of bleeding money, I think it has to
win 100% of the time, so that people will ride it enough so the fares can be
reasonable and the system still make money. I think that just about the only
way to do that any more is the personal rapid transit, which could be built to
be so fast, door to door, that people would think it a "no brainer" to hop on
and get where they're going in, say, half the time, or 1/3rd the time, of their
car.

A personal favorite idea of mine is to go the extra mile and make personal
rapid transit big enough so you can drive your car onto a railcar, and have the
railcar run at much higher speed than would be safe to drive in a car. Then,
when arriving, you could drive the rest of the way whever you're going. A
system like that would not need to be built "all at once". Just the 1st 2
terminals could be completed, and then system would then be open for travel
between them. The farther its built, the more useful it becomes. The fares
from the operating part could be used to help finance the further development
of the system. Plus, cars could then be made to "run on electricity," as the
system would use it to move the railcars.

>
>> As for waiting, it often isn't a short time. I tried to take the bus in
>> Indianapolis to get from a car dealer back home after dropping off the car. I
>> _waited_ for that bus, which was _scheduled_ to come 1/2 hour from the time I
>> got to the bus stop, but that one never came. I had to wait for the next one,
>> an hour later.
>
>This obviously is not a place then where public transit is a viable
>option. (for most people) If buses showed up every 10 minutes like
>clockwork, you would be waiting on average for 5 minutes unless you
>just missed one.

Yes, its a common failing that bus systems are set up to go downtown, no matter
if you want to go 2 miles tangent to the circle centered on downtown. Also a
common failing is not enough buses so you have to wait too long.
>
>> A much better transit system than Indianapolis is Washington, DC. I decided to
>> go to an inventor's meeting on the north side of DC. I hate to drive _in_ DC,
>> so I parked at Springfield on the south side, walked a considerable distance to
>> the platform, got on after about a 10 minute wait, went downtown, transferred
>> to another train that was about a 15 minute wait (this was in the evening), got
>> off at the closest station, and spent 15 minutes or so hiking up to the
>> facility where the meeting was. I had GPS to pinpoint the building, so I
>> didn't walk too far out of the way, but it was a pretty lengthy walk.
>
>Where buildings are designed around the automobile and providing a lot
>of parking, it is going to not be so convenient to take transit, as it
>will be a long walk to most points from a rapid transit station. Its
>hard to change the design of a city :)

If the transit system was built to move your car rapidly, without congestion
while doing it...

>I'm fortunate (transit-wise) in that I live in Toronto. Subway trains
>come every 90 seconds during the peak periods, and 5-6 minutes in the
>slowest periods up til about 1:30 a.m. These waits are very reasonable
>for going places and many destinations are easily accessible from the
>subway stations. Parking is also scarce and expensive in the downtown
>so its quicker to take transit than drive AND park.

Yep - the world needs transit that works faster than a car.

>> Now, the trains run 60 mph at top speed, but they aren't at top speed very
>> much. They stop... and stop... and stop... Average speed is pretty low,
>> actually. Then you add the waiting when changing trains. Its crawling,
>> door-to-door.
>
>Because of stops subways and rapid trains within a city are usually
>slower than a car could circle the city on an expressway. On city
>streets traffic lights cause about as many stops as the train would
>stop. For intercity travel though high speed trains that can travel up
>to 4 times faster than cars become a very competitive option when
>going somewhere that would be a 4 hour drive.

Unfortunately, even our high speed trains aren't even twice as fast as a car.
Maybe 1.5X, and they are really rare, too. Regular trains in some areas of the
country, mainly the plains in the west and midwest, do about 80 mph. That's
still real close to my car when I'm driving that area, and my car doesn't stop
as often, at least until I have to get a motel <G>.

>> I could have easily _circled_ the city, and beat that train. The transit
>> system _has_ to go to the personal rapid transit model, with no stopping of
>> rail vehicles from start to stop, or it is never going to be competitive with
>> cars.
>
>I don't believe that is necessary - it can be competitive when it has
>its own right-of-way where cars are congested (and as population grows
>traffic will become more congested), it can be competitive on price
>where time is not too bad - if parking is scarce and expensive, it can
>be competitive even if its slightly slower if its more comfortable
>(not often, but room for improvement) or enjoyable (can do something
>else at the same time)

If transit is going to make money, I think it is necessary that it beat cars
even when the cars have optimal conditions for travel. I think the PRT scheme
is the only thing that has a chance of doing that. Car-carrying PRT would be
the ideal situation, I think.

>> technology is here, with personal rapid transit, if someone will just go ahead
>> and build it. People would likely still have to drive to a PRT terminal, at
>> least until the system is built out to basically "everywhere", but PRT would
>> win the competition, and then people would _pay_ to ride it. Beginning of the
>> end of highway congestion, I think.
>
>I'm trying to envision how this would work. It will take a lot of
>space to implement this and I can only see it working fairly well on
>expressways - otherwise how does all the stopping, starting and
>turning that happens on local streets take place? It may be better
>than a high-speed train in that it eliminates waiting but it would
>seem that it would necessarily be a huge consumer of space, with a lot
>of empty vehicles constantly going by. While our current culture seems
>to value personal space it takes up a lot more valuable real estate
>than a train would. I actually enjoy the aspect of transit where I can
>run into an acquaintance and have a conversation.

You'd have to build it up in the air. A people-only version, where people ride
it instead of my favorite concept of the PRT carrying a car, could do that
fairly easily. A car-carrying PRT would be fairly difficult to build up in the
air, but probably is still doable, like the "el" was doable in Chicago.

>> As for waiting on transit, _nobody_ likes to wait. On anything. But waiting
>> on a train is generally done in the weather, no matter if it is raining,
>> snowing, -20 degrees or 105 degrees. Its done in the rain, and in the sun.
>> Throw in an occasional mosquito for good measure. Then there's the exposure to
>> the criminal element, an acutal concern in some regions. One's car is a means
>> of rapid escape, with the capability of being a deadly weapon if necessary.
>
>I think people are too highly paranoid about safety in general.

When you read about the criminal activity in the paper every day, its rather
hard to ignore.

> But
>lets ignore that and concentrate on your other points. Of course
>nobody likes to wait. I don't like to wait. That's why I spend more of
>my time riding my bicycle for transportation than I do taking public
>transportation. I can get out my door and go, not walk to a stop and
>wait and wait. Without adequate funding transit can't hope to come up
>with efficient schedules.

Unless transit can be made to turn a profit, so it doesn't _need_ outside
funding that comes on the whim of politicians, it doesn't have a prayer of
becoming widespread, I think. That's one of the reasons I think it has to win
against a car on a 24 - 7 basis.

>When its snowing and you want to drive, you have to shovel your
>driveway to get your car out,

Only with the heaviest snows... I have a Jeep! <G>

>spend a few minutes waiting for the car
>to warm up

They keep telling us we don't need to do that... I still think its a good
idea tho.

>and get the ice and snow off the vehicle.

Car comes out of the garage, where the previous ice and snow has already melted
all over the floor... <G>

>If the roads
>haven't been plowed yet its not fun trying to drive through either.

It is in the Jeep! <G>

>While many people have the luxury of a garage and space heater at home
>these aren't often available at the other end - where they've parked.
>When its snowing and I want to take transit, I dress appropriately
>including boots, I walk, and its not so cold by dressing properly and
>walking to the transit stop. If its a subway I'm waiting indoors. If
>its a bus I'm waiting for there's usually a bus shelter where I can
>stay out of the wind and not get snowed on.
>
>If its raining I carry an umbrella. Really I think people are far too
>spoiled somehow that they think getting a little wet or slightly
>chilled is going to kill them.

Ya just have to satisfy what people want, and the spoiled ones, which are about
99% of the population, want cars. They want to do be able to do all the things
they can't do on transit - listen to the radio (you can't get AM or FM in the
subway tunnels, and Led Zeppelin just ain't the same on headphones), eat,
drink, and even sing. They want privacy.

>> But how about my upcoming shopping trip? I have to get to several outdoor
>> stores to do my shopping, then to a haircut, probably to Radio Shack, and
>> almost certianly a movie before or after. I can barely get that done in a car.
>> If there is a 10 - 15 minute wait for a bus to show up each leg of the trip,
>> it'll take 2 trips, minimum. Plus - I'm on my way to a movie as soon a I
>> finish this - 10:05 PM movie. Find me a train - or bus - at that hour. Ain't
>> happening...
>
>I'm assuming these stores aren't in different cities. What I would do?
>Bring my bike and a backpack and/or panniers depending on how much
>stuff I had to buy. I also can bungee things to the rear rack - like
>when I bought a heavy wooden stool. I attached a large crate to the
>rack when I went shopping for a flat of pansies for my garden, and
>didn't obviously want them to get squished in a backpack. (If I was
>buying a whole carful of stuff it would be a rare rare shopping trip
>and likely an excuse to need to rent one) Ride to each store, lock up
>my bike right at the door (no looking for parking spots, or feeding
>meters!) - though its a bit of a pain to take the panniers off each
>time to make sure the stuff doesn't get stolen in the meantime. Where
>I live a 10:05 movie or when it gets out would not be a problem on
>transit, but I enjoy biking at night in the summer - there is a nice
>breeze. If I had time I'd go home and dump my stuff first, then go
>back on my bike with some lights. Lock it up well, enjoy the movie,
>come back out, and enjoy the peacefulness of coming home when traffic
>has really gotten light.

That would probably work, although being 20 miles out in the country, I'd still
have to put the bike on the roof of the car for a while... <G> Would need some
way to lock up the bike, tho, and there aren't bike racks most places around
here.

Dave Head

>
>:) Tanya

[Dave Head]

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 23:19:23 -0400, "Daniel J. Stern" >
wrote:

>On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Dave Head wrote:
>
>> A much better transit system than Indianapolis is Washington, DC.
>> considerable distance to the platform, got on after about a 10 minute
>> wait, transferred to another train that was about a 15 minute wait...
>> Now, the trains run 60 mph at top speed, but they aren't at top speed
>> very much. They stop... and stop... and stop... Average speed is
>> pretty low, actually. Then you add the waiting when changing trains.
>
>I was in DC last winter for the National Academy of Sciences
>Transportation Research Board meeting. No fewer than *SIX consecutive
>times* one evening, a train pulled into a major station, doors opened,
>lots of passengers got on, doors closed, doors opened, and an announcement
>came on the PA: "This train is now going out of service. All passengers
>please exit." At one train every ten minutes, it took me an hour *just to
>get on a train*. And this on one of the world's (generally justifiably)
>renowned transit systems.

Yeah - a transit system has to be reliable and predictable, too.
>
>> As for waiting on transit, _nobody_ likes to wait. On anything. But
>> waiting on a train is generally done in the weather, no matter if it is
>> raining, snowing, -20 degrees or 105 degrees. Its done in the rain, and
>> in the sun. Throw in an occasional mosquito for good measure. Then
>> there's the exposure to the criminal element,
>
>...and the microbiological element. And the alcoholic element. And the
>screaming-baby element. And the gangbanger playing yo-yo-bitches-yo rap at
>cochlea-rending volume element. And the gaggle of teenagers whose every
>other word is "****" element. And the panhandler element. And the "Is that
>**** I smell?" element.

Yes, people want their privacy that only comes with driving a car. My personal
dream is a personal rapid transit that carries cars, preferably at high speed.
Inside cities at not so high speed, or running across the plains at 150 mph,
people would _choose_ it over driving, which is the all important criterion.
If people will choose it every time, then it can make money.

Dave Head

>DS

[Dave Head]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 02:43:33 GMT, "Pete" > wrote:

>
>"Dave Head" > wrote
>
>[snip]
>>
>> All for now. Gotta get on the road.
>>
>
>All this merely points to a poor implementation of non-car transport.

Yep.

>It *can* be done. The US public merely lacks the will or desire to do it.

Engineers and business people need to come up with something that people _want_
to ride. That would be something that offers privacy and is faster than a car
door-to-door. Build that, and transit will flourish.

>For a variety of reasons. Mainly, I think, because we don't *want* to.

Right - but this is also a business, and "the customer is always right."

Dave Head

>Pete
>

[Dave Head]

On 09 Aug 2003 17:40:05 -0500, Jordan Bettis > wrote:

> writes:
>
>> > Nope, but I was just pointing out the economics. People complain that
>> > cabs are too terribly expensive, but they don't consider the fixed
>> > costs of the automobile if they use that automobile extremely
>> > infrequently. If they still prefer the car that's their choice but
>> > they can hardly say its because of money.
>> >
>>
>> People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do nothing
>> around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?
>
>Home depot dosen't deliver large items? I'd go somewhere that does.

Yes they do, but they do it on Tuesdays an Saturdays. You either have to take
off work to meet the truck on Tuesday, or possibly put off a trip to something
fun on Saturday, plus wait 'til Saturday. Its much more satisfying to have
your 4' X 8' sheets of plywood on the roof of the Jeep the same night, with no
waiting.

Dave Head

Jordan Bettis > wrote in message
...
> > writes:
>
> > > Nope, but I was just pointing out the economics. People complain that
> > > cabs are too terribly expensive, but they don't consider the fixed
> > > costs of the automobile if they use that automobile extremely
> > > infrequently. If they still prefer the car that's their choice but
> > > they can hardly say its because of money.
> > >
> >
> > People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do
nothing
> > around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?
>
> Home depot dosen't deliver large items? I'd go somewhere that does.
>
> --
Surely you are making a joke, right?

Peter > wrote in message
news:aReZa.107275$YN5.73282@sccrnsc01...
> Jordan Bettis wrote:
>
> > > writes:
> >
> >
> >>>Nope, but I was just pointing out the economics. People complain that
> >>>cabs are too terribly expensive, but they don't consider the fixed
> >>>costs of the automobile if they use that automobile extremely
> >>>infrequently. If they still prefer the car that's their choice but
> >>>they can hardly say its because of money.
> >>>
> >>
> >> People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do
nothing
> >>around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?
> >
> >
> > Home depot dosen't deliver large items? I'd go somewhere that does.
>
> At least in our area they provide delivery services and also offer trucks
> for rent.
>
>
$20 for 75 minutes. You would have to have a huge order of lumber for
delivery, and where I hear most stuff, they will not deliver at all. Most
trucks also could not get in there.

Dave Head > wrote in message
...
> On 09 Aug 2003 17:40:05 -0500, Jordan Bettis >
wrote:
>
> > writes:
> >
> >> > Nope, but I was just pointing out the economics. People complain that
> >> > cabs are too terribly expensive, but they don't consider the fixed
> >> > costs of the automobile if they use that automobile extremely
> >> > infrequently. If they still prefer the car that's their choice but
> >> > they can hardly say its because of money.
> >> >
> >>
> >> People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do
nothing
> >> around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?
> >
> >Home depot dosen't deliver large items? I'd go somewhere that does.
>
> Yes they do, but they do it on Tuesdays an Saturdays. You either have to
take
> off work to meet the truck on Tuesday, or possibly put off a trip to
something
> fun on Saturday, plus wait 'til Saturday. Its much more satisfying to
have
> your 4' X 8' sheets of plywood on the roof of the Jeep the same night,
with no
> waiting.
>
> Dave Head
>
>
That was the problem with the old-fashioned urban delivery systems. Women
would put on their white gloves, take the trolley downtown, and then have to
be there on Tuesdays or Saturdays when delivery would take place. It
assumed an upper class lifestyle where women stayed home all day or the maid
took delivery for you.

Plywood on the roof? Dangerous. I put it inside.

Mitch Haley > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
> > People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do
nothing
> > around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?
>
>
> People who post drivel like the above...
> Can you really justify a year's worth of truck payments
> to have it handy for a couple of trips to the home improvement
> store? Makes as much sense as paying $200 a sheet for plywood.
> On second thought, you ARE paying $200 a sheet for plywood.
> Mitch.
>
People don't drive a truck only to Home Depot. The F150 is the most
popular vehicle in the nation, and for good reasons. I have to hit home
depot several times a week. And now that home updating is on the schedule,
probaby every day.

Jack May > wrote in message
et...
>
> "Tanya Quinn" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Problem is people that drive the cars whine too loudly about
> > taking away some of the space that is now theirs to use for people
> > that want to get places quickly by taking 50+ single occupancy
> > vehicles and putting their occupants in one slightly larger vehicle.
>
> How often do 50+ people want to start at one place and go to same place.
> The answer is very very seldom. If you are going to pick them up and let
> the off along the way then the trip takes about four times as long. Where
> time is expensive, that is obviously a non-solution.
>
>
> > Nope, but I was just pointing out the economics. People complain that
> > cabs are too terribly expensive, but they don't consider the fixed
> > costs of the automobile if they use that automobile extremely
> > infrequently. If they still prefer the car that's their choice but
> > they can hardly say its because of money.
>
> My experience is that a cab tends to run about $1.50 to $2.00 per mile
> (including tip) compared to about 35 cents per mile for a car. You
> typically have to wait about 30 minutes for a cab to arrive which is about
> $18 for a typical income of $75K per year where I live. So the people are
> making a wise economic decision using a car and a terrible decision to use
a
> cab except for a few circumstances.
>
> Why is there a fixed cost for a car. If you use a car less, it cost less
> per year. Since most people these days drive a car until it is worn out,
> the cost is mainly a function of mileage (including insurance). There are
> some time fixed cost, but a large part is mileage based.
>
> > And that's the main problem with automobiles
> > - while cars give you freedom to go where you want when you want, once
> > too many people start enjoying the freedom, nobody goes anywhere at
> > all, the steel boxes just crawl along like little ants.
>
> Crawl along like little ants every where, every time? That is nonsense
for
> most places. There are obviously traffic jams, but people still use cars
> because they are still faster than transit.
>
> A large part of the congestion is caused by excessive spending on transit
> and gross under spending on roads. For example in Silicon Valley the
> amount of money to get 1K people out of their cars into transit is running
> at about the same as the money it would take to add capacity for an
> additional 100K people.
>
> Obviously the more you spend to try to get people out of cars into
transit,
> the more congestion you are going to produce.
>
>
>
1% of transit riders get 17% of funds.

[Dave Head]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 12:11:47 GMT, > wrote:

>
>Dave Head > wrote in message
...
>> On 09 Aug 2003 17:40:05 -0500, Jordan Bettis >
>wrote:
>>
>> > writes:
>> >
>> >> > Nope, but I was just pointing out the economics. People complain that
>> >> > cabs are too terribly expensive, but they don't consider the fixed
>> >> > costs of the automobile if they use that automobile extremely
>> >> > infrequently. If they still prefer the car that's their choice but
>> >> > they can hardly say its because of money.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do
>nothing
>> >> around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?
>> >
>> >Home depot dosen't deliver large items? I'd go somewhere that does.
>>
>> Yes they do, but they do it on Tuesdays an Saturdays. You either have to
>take
>> off work to meet the truck on Tuesday, or possibly put off a trip to
>something
>> fun on Saturday, plus wait 'til Saturday. Its much more satisfying to
>have
>> your 4' X 8' sheets of plywood on the roof of the Jeep the same night,
>with no
>> waiting.
>>
>> Dave Head
>>
>>
> That was the problem with the old-fashioned urban delivery systems. Women
>would put on their white gloves, take the trolley downtown, and then have to
>be there on Tuesdays or Saturdays when delivery would take place. It
>assumed an upper class lifestyle where women stayed home all day or the maid
>took delivery for you.

> Plywood on the roof? Dangerous. I put it inside.

Not inside a Jeep Cherokee, I think.

Dave Head
>

[Marc]

> wrote:

> People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do nothing
>around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?

Yes. I see people do it all the time.

I guess you are more worried about appearances than actual functionality.
There are people that manage to do without cars. Though, I'd imagine that
it is easier for someone that has never had a car to continue without one
than have someone that had driven since they were 16 to give it up after
years of driving.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

[Jordan Bettis]

Marc > writes:

> My toothbrush sits unused for more than 99% of the time as well.
> However, I think that is a good purchase, even if it is only used
> for a short time every day. The same goes with cars for most people
> as well.

How much of your income does your toothbrush consume? How about your car?

If the internet has taught me one thing it's how to recognize bad
anologies.

--
Jordan Bettis <http://www.hafd.org/~jordanb>
Such as it is, the press has become the greatest power within the
Western World, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and
judiciary. One would like to ask: by whom has it been elected, and to
whom is it responsible?
-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

[Jack May]

> wrote in message
hlink.net...

> 1% of transit riders get 17% of funds.

Ha! Our California transportation fools are much more foolish than your
fools. Our Northern California fools spend 75% of their funds on 3%
transit riders.

[John David Galt]

Krist wrote:
> I do think that it is possible to create a transit system that allows a
> large fraction of the population this type of choice. The place I live in
> proves that. Some places in the States.
>
> In some other places it might not be possible...
> But then, the role of transit is not te force people out of their car, the
> role ought to be to offer choice where offering choice makes sense.

I totally agree. But "makes sense" is defined economically. If it takes
taxpayer subsidies for transit to exist at all, offering it doesn't make
sense.

[Keith F. Lynch]

John David Galt > wrote:
> I totally agree. But "makes sense" is defined economically. If it
> takes taxpayer subsidies for transit to exist at all, offering it
> doesn't make sense.

So we should close all the roads and highways? That's where most of
the transportation-related tax money goes.

Next we should close all the airports? That's where most of the rest
of the transportation-related tax money goes.

Once users of those modes all have to pay their own way, I think mass
transit will be very competitive, and will no longer need subsidies.

Metro in the median of I-66, for instance, can carry more people
faster, more efficiently, while using less energy, in less space,
more safely, while producing less pollution, more quietly, than the
surrounding highway. And passengers can read or work, rather than
giving their full attention to driving. Nor do they have a massive
upfront capital cost, or the need to carry what amounts to an internal
passport, or the need to find and pay for a parking space at both ends
of every trip.

Also, Metro can carry everyone. Millions of people are unable to
drive cars for medical, financial, legal, age, or temperamental
reasons.

If you don't generate your own electricity, sew your own clothes,
build your own house, or grow your own food, why should you drive
your own vehicle? Specialization just makes sense.

(Yes, I know what Heinlein said. It's good to be *able* to drive a
car, swim, send morse code, survive in the wilderness, fly a plane,
repair a CD player, etc, but unless that's your profession or a hobby
you enjoy, why do it every day?)

The only reason why cars are so common is because of distortions in the
economy caused by various government policies, taxes, and subsidies.
--
Keith F. Lynch - - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.

[Jack May]

"Keith F. Lynch" > wrote in message
...

> So we should close all the roads and highways? That's where most of
> the transportation-related tax money goes.

Its also where the transportation taxes come from that more than pay for the
roads and some of the transit.

> Next we should close all the airports? That's where most of the rest
> of the transportation-related tax money goes.

Also where a lot of the taxes come from which are part of the price you pay
for a ticket.

> Once users of those modes all have to pay their own way, I think mass
> transit will be very competitive, and will no longer need subsidies.

Transit receives large subsidies and does not contribute much in taxes
unlike road and airlines. You are not even in the ballpark of being correct


> Metro in the median of I-66, for instance, can carry more people
> faster, more efficiently, while using less energy, in less space,
> more safely, while producing less pollution, more quietly, than the
> surrounding highway.

All theoretical but reality is far different and not very pretty for
transit.

The rest of your post is good for a laugh, but it mainly shows you are
living in a fantasy world instead of reality.

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Krist wrote:

> But then, the role of transit is not te force people out of their car,
> the role ought to be to offer choice where offering choice makes sense.

YES! That's why politicians' and self-proclaimed environmentalists'
determination to "get people out of their cars" is a bassackward way of
addressing the issue. Lane restrictions, fuel taxes, and other punitive
measures aimed at "getting people out of their cars" will never work as
well as offering a true alternative that works. If they build it, I will
come.

DS

Dave Head > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 12:11:47 GMT, > wrote:
>
> >
> >Dave Head > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 09 Aug 2003 17:40:05 -0500, Jordan Bettis >
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > writes:
> >> >
> >> >> > Nope, but I was just pointing out the economics. People complain
that
> >> >> > cabs are too terribly expensive, but they don't consider the fixed
> >> >> > costs of the automobile if they use that automobile extremely
> >> >> > infrequently. If they still prefer the car that's their choice but
> >> >> > they can hardly say its because of money.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do
> >nothing
> >> >> around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?
> >> >
> >> >Home depot dosen't deliver large items? I'd go somewhere that does.
> >>
> >> Yes they do, but they do it on Tuesdays an Saturdays. You either have
to
> >take
> >> off work to meet the truck on Tuesday, or possibly put off a trip to
> >something
> >> fun on Saturday, plus wait 'til Saturday. Its much more satisfying to
> >have
> >> your 4' X 8' sheets of plywood on the roof of the Jeep the same night,
> >with no
> >> waiting.
> >>
> >> Dave Head
> >>
> >>
> > That was the problem with the old-fashioned urban delivery systems.
Women
> >would put on their white gloves, take the trolley downtown, and then have
to
> >be there on Tuesdays or Saturdays when delivery would take place. It
> >assumed an upper class lifestyle where women stayed home all day or the
maid
> >took delivery for you.
>
> > Plywood on the roof? Dangerous. I put it inside.
>
> Not inside a Jeep Cherokee, I think.
>
> Dave Head
> >
>
>
That is one reaerson why my wife and I compromised on a Suburban: big
enough for plywood and not open to the elements, so the dogs can travel in
comfort. Otherwise, a sedan and a pickup would have been in order, both
4-wheel drive, however, due to the remote location of the place we live 6
months a year. Very remote.

John David Galt > wrote in message
.. .
> Krist wrote:
> > I do think that it is possible to create a transit system that allows a
> > large fraction of the population this type of choice. The place I live
in
> > proves that. Some places in the States.
> >
> > In some other places it might not be possible...
> > But then, the role of transit is not te force people out of their car,
the
> > role ought to be to offer choice where offering choice makes sense.
>
> I totally agree. But "makes sense" is defined economically. If it takes
> taxpayer subsidies for transit to exist at all, offering it doesn't make
> sense.
>

Research Triangle Park in NC does not fit modern urban planning models.
It was set up to be a PARK, with 18% of the land not covered in trees or
ponds. It worked. But no one lives there. Planners say, "Redevelop it."
Durham's long-range plan calls for 'compact' business development where
people live. In short, in Durham RTP has been soundly repudiated by the
planners, but a huge economic success. Why? People do not want to live in
1900 houses.
So now we have buses to take people to RTP. They get back 11% of the
costs in fares. Is that good economic sense? Planners say YES. The rest
of us say NO.

Marc > wrote in message
...
> > wrote:
>
> > People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do nothing
> >around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?
>
> Yes. I see people do it all the time.
I have never seen a taxi at a Home Depot, and I got 3 times a week and
for years on end. You cannot carry anything in a taxi.

[Tanya Quinn]

> wrote in message .net>...
> Mitch Haley > wrote in message
> ...
> > wrote:
> > > People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do
> nothing
> > > around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?
> >
> >
> > People who post drivel like the above...
> > Can you really justify a year's worth of truck payments
> > to have it handy for a couple of trips to the home improvement
> > store? Makes as much sense as paying $200 a sheet for plywood.
> > On second thought, you ARE paying $200 a sheet for plywood.
> > Mitch.
> >
> People don't drive a truck only to Home Depot. The F150 is the most
> popular vehicle in the nation, and for good reasons. I have to hit home
> depot several times a week. And now that home updating is on the schedule,
> probaby every day.

Sounds like you don't plan out your projects very well if you have to
hit home depot every day.

[Matthew Russotto]

In article >,
Jordan Bettis > wrote:
>Marc > writes:
>
>> My toothbrush sits unused for more than 99% of the time as well.
>> However, I think that is a good purchase, even if it is only used
>> for a short time every day. The same goes with cars for most people
>> as well.
>
>How much of your income does your toothbrush consume? How about your car?
>
>If the internet has taught me one thing it's how to recognize bad
>anologies.

Apparently it's taught you badly; the internet is good at that.

Percentage of time used is not a good metric for determining whether
something makes economic sense or not. The toothbrush analogy shows
that.


--
Matthew T. Russotto
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

[Matthew Russotto]

In article >,
Keith F. Lynch > wrote:
>John David Galt > wrote:
>> I totally agree. But "makes sense" is defined economically. If it
>> takes taxpayer subsidies for transit to exist at all, offering it
>> doesn't make sense.
>
>So we should close all the roads and highways? That's where most of
>the transportation-related tax money goes.

Oops, but also where most of the transportation-related tax money
comes from.

>Next we should close all the airports? That's where most of the rest
>of the transportation-related tax money goes.

But lots of transportation-related tax money comes from airlines too.

No transportation-related tax money comes from transit.
--
Matthew T. Russotto
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

[Tanya Quinn]

> People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do nothing
> around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?

I own a house but do not own a car. I do improvement projects around
the house. I try to shop locally where possible instead of Home Depot.
For many projects items can be carried. Although perhaps some people
might have thought I was a nut carrying a 2x6x8 down the sidewalk, who
knows. For bigger things there is the store that delivers, a taxi (no
I haven't taken lumber in a taxi but for instance when buying a large
rug I took a taxi), or borrowing a vehicle from friend or family (or
riding with them if they are helping me with the project) The latter
is still using a car but I if I only need to use a car a few times a
year I see no justification to actually need to buy one. Major urban
centers often also have car-sharing programs where you pay based on
usage so if you are "car-lite" it is cheaper than owning your own.
Cars are useful tools but not necessary for the vast majority of trips
they are used for.

[wrob]

wrote:

> Research Triangle Park in NC does not fit modern urban planning models.
> It was set up to be a PARK, with 18% of the land not covered in trees or
> ponds. It worked. But no one lives there. Planners say, "Redevelop it."
> Durham's long-range plan calls for 'compact' business development where
> people live. In short, in Durham RTP has been soundly repudiated by the
> planners, but a huge economic success. Why? People do not want to live in
> 1900 houses.

That's funny, go tell that to your nearest realtor agent. He will laugh at you.
Our 1900 house has sextupled in value since the late 1970s because (a) it is
historic, and (b) it is within walking distance of transit, schools and parks.
Those are the only reasons generally cited. Same is true in *every* other
historic neighborhood that has transit access in the US. Like I said, talk
to your realtor, ask him what the average value/sqf of an older house within
walking distance of a transit station vs. a newer home elsewhere. The main
urban planning problem is keeping prices *affordable* near rail transit, so
it can remain useful to middle-income-and-under families.

[wrob]

wrote:

> Keith F. Lynch > wrote in message
> ...
> > John David Galt > wrote:
> > > I totally agree. But "makes sense" is defined economically. If it
> > > takes taxpayer subsidies for transit to exist at all, offering it
> > > doesn't make sense.
> >
> > So we should close all the roads and highways? That's where most of
> > the transportation-related tax money goes.
> >
> > Next we should close all the airports? That's where most of the rest
> > of the transportation-related tax money goes.
> >
> >
> Airports are cash cows my friend. They make money unless they try very
> very hard not to. They could pay taxes and still make profits. Ticket
> taxes pay for airports, as do PFCs (in the USA). ATC is a profit-maker in
> Canada, and should be in the USA too. It is also a profit-maker in
> Switzerland.

ATC a profit-maker eh? Then I guess transit systems with dedicated
sales taxes are profit-makers too... especially ones like DC Metro where
the economic impact of building the system is greater than the entire
system cost... go visit Ballston or Bethesda if you don't believe me.

-BER

[Tanya Quinn]

John David Galt > wrote in message >...
> >> Irrelevant. In a free society, people justifiably demand the freedom to go
> >> exactly where they want, exactly *when* they want.
>
> > Well I'd like to exactly where I want and when I want too, but I don't
> > think that the car is the way to do it. By car, I can *leave* when I
> > want to go *where* I want, but I don't necessarily get there *when* I
> > want. At many times of day and many places automobile traffic is too
> > congested to get people where they want to go when they want.
>
> This is largely deliberate on the part of planning bureaucrats who hate
> the car, and therefore is not to be blamed on drivers.

No its a function of how much space a typical vehicle occupies. While
granted you can build more roads, usually in a city space has already
been allocated to different uses. What are you going to do, raze a
neighbourhood to make more roads, that will soon become more congested
too as people see that driving is now easier, and drive more often?

> > too. Problem is people that drive the cars whine too loudly about
> > taking away some of the space that is now theirs to use for people
> > that want to get places quickly by taking 50+ single occupancy
> > vehicles and putting their occupants in one slightly larger vehicle.
>
> Not comparable for several reasons. Transit doesn't go everywhere,
> doesn't run all the time, and cannot be trusted for either safety or
> reliability compared to one's own car.

If you look at the accident rates for buses, subways and the like as
opposed to cars I think you'll find that the death rate of transit
occupants is much lower than that of car occupants. How is transit
less safe? As far as reliability goes, that's why I was making the
argument that for transit to be more reliable it needs to have right
of way over single occupancy traffic.
can hardly say its because of money.

> You have it backwards. For most people, the car is a necessity because
> the job can't be reached (sufficiently easily and reliably) without it.
> Thus the fixed cost goes under necessities, and the relevant comparison
> for the rider is the incremental cost of driving vs. the bus ticket.
> (The relevant comparison for public policy is the same except that the
> tax subsidy to the transit system has to be counted in its cost.)

In large urban areas with sufficient density either transit provides a
way to reach the job for the vast majority of people, or it is
economically and practically feasible to do so, but perhaps the
political will is not there. In smaller places with less density
transit does not become as practical to implement. In these places
where home and work are relatively close, a bicycle commute may often
be the most economical and practical (in terms of time) choice.

In instances where people work in one town or city and live in another
one - and where it isn't where enough people are going to make a
commuter train practical - then they really don't have much choice
other than to drive to work. But they do have choice of where to live
and where they work and if they choose to commute a huge distance -
then they should bear the costs of doing so. As driving is currently a
highly subsidized activity then they are not paying the full costs.

> > something called traffic. And that's the main problem with automobiles
> > - while cars give you freedom to go where you want when you want, once
> > too many people start enjoying the freedom, nobody goes anywhere at
> > all, the steel boxes just crawl along like little ants.
>
> Again, that is not a problem with automobiles. It only becomes a problem
> when city planners prevent enough roads from being built to catch up to
> traffic demand. The solution is to abolish the planning bureaucracies and
> privatize the transportation industry completely.

So would you like your neighbourhood to be razed to make room for
another expressway? Aside from the fact that building more roads
hardly ever solves traffic congestion to begin with:
http://www.nmpirg.org/traffic/cexesum.html

What the majority of people want with their automobiles is increased
mobility. If planning means that someone can live in the neighbourhood
they want, take a quick train to work, walk to their gym, walk to the
bakery, etc. then they have high mobility without the necessity of the
automobile. They may still choose to own an automobile for driving to
their cottage or other locations, but they do not have to use their
car all the time because they have true freedom of mobility.

Tanya

[Tanya Quinn]

John David Galt > wrote in message >...
> Krist wrote:
> > I do think that it is possible to create a transit system that allows a
> > large fraction of the population this type of choice. The place I live in
> > proves that. Some places in the States.
> >
> > In some other places it might not be possible...
> > But then, the role of transit is not te force people out of their car, the
> > role ought to be to offer choice where offering choice makes sense.
>
> I totally agree. But "makes sense" is defined economically. If it takes
> taxpayer subsidies for transit to exist at all, offering it doesn't make
> sense.

Well as 100% of car driving costs are not borne by the drivers then it
doesn't make sense to offer it either by that logic.

Besides when you have efficient transit, you have less cars on the
road, and this makes drivers happy too when they have less traffic to
contend with :) You also have more mobility among the population,
making it easier for people to get to work and be economically
productive and add to the overall economy of the city. You can build
new dense developments which bring in new taxpayers because you have a
way to move them around without impossibly congesting roads - oh but
wait you didn't notice because you had to outlay some extra subsidy
out front. Hmm.

Tanya Quinn > wrote in message
om...
> > wrote in message
.net>...
> > Mitch Haley > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > wrote:
> > > > People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do
> > nothing
> > > > around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?
> > >
> > >
> > > People who post drivel like the above...
> > > Can you really justify a year's worth of truck payments
> > > to have it handy for a couple of trips to the home improvement
> > > store? Makes as much sense as paying $200 a sheet for plywood.
> > > On second thought, you ARE paying $200 a sheet for plywood.
> > > Mitch.
> > >
> > People don't drive a truck only to Home Depot. The F150 is the most
> > popular vehicle in the nation, and for good reasons. I have to hit
home
> > depot several times a week. And now that home updating is on the
schedule,
> > probaby every day.
>
> Sounds like you don't plan out your projects very well if you have to
> hit home depot every day.
>

It is cheaper to pick up what you need, unless you are a contractor with
a huge storage area. You have obviously never done anything practical.

Tanya Quinn > wrote in message
m...
> > People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do
nothing
> > around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?
>
> I own a house but do not own a car. I do improvement projects around
> the house. I try to shop locally where possible instead of Home Depot.

I can see it now. Internet poster carrying home 4x8 plywood on her back.
Yes sir.

Tanya Quinn > wrote in message
om...
> John David Galt > wrote in message
>...
> > Krist wrote:
> > > I do think that it is possible to create a transit system that allows
a
> > > large fraction of the population this type of choice. The place I live
in
> > > proves that. Some places in the States.
> > >
> > > In some other places it might not be possible...
> > > But then, the role of transit is not te force people out of their car,
the
> > > role ought to be to offer choice where offering choice makes sense.
> >
> > I totally agree. But "makes sense" is defined economically. If it
takes
> > taxpayer subsidies for transit to exist at all, offering it doesn't make
> > sense.
>
> Well as 100% of car driving costs are not borne by the drivers then it
> doesn't make sense to offer it either by that logic.
>
> Besides when you have efficient transit, you have less cars on the
> road, and this makes drivers happy too when they have less traffic to
> contend with :) You also have more mobility among the population,
> making it easier for people to get to work and be economically
> productive

Tranasit makes it harder for people to get to work. You have to spend a
lot more time, a lot more effort, and you must take a job where transit
happens to be, which is politically determined, NOT where the jobs are.

wrob > wrote in message ...
> wrote:
>
> > Keith F. Lynch > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > John David Galt > wrote:
> > > > I totally agree. But "makes sense" is defined economically. If it
> > > > takes taxpayer subsidies for transit to exist at all, offering it
> > > > doesn't make sense.
> > >
> > > So we should close all the roads and highways? That's where most of
> > > the transportation-related tax money goes.
> > >
> > > Next we should close all the airports? That's where most of the rest
> > > of the transportation-related tax money goes.
> > >
> > >
> > Airports are cash cows my friend. They make money unless they try
very
> > very hard not to. They could pay taxes and still make profits. Ticket
> > taxes pay for airports, as do PFCs (in the USA). ATC is a profit-maker
in
> > Canada, and should be in the USA too. It is also a profit-maker in
> > Switzerland.
>
> ATC a profit-maker eh?

Yes, they turn a profit. Airports are cash cows too. Canada is not a
tax-dedicated system. Just how ignorant are you anyway? Apparently
totally.

[Tanya Quinn]

> wrote in message news:<Z5QZa.6597>
> And the bus consumes for fuel too. They have to return empty, run
> off-hour service, and as a result average about 7 persons. Cars save fuel.

While buses in some places may run inefficiently, in other denser
places they have as much traffic going in one direction as in the
other (especially when you have multi-purpose zoning where there are
both businesses and residents in any one location so rush hour isn't
just taking people from one section to another) Off-hour service is
usually reduced in the schedule as well. Where did you pull the
magical number 7 out of?

[Jordan Bettis]

> writes:

> And the bus consumes for fuel too. They have to return empty, run
> off-hour service, and as a result average about 7 persons. Cars save fuel.

Cars do a ton of dead-heading.

Take the kids to school, deadhead back.

Take the kids to soccer practice, deadhead back.

Take the kids to dance lessons, deadhead back.

Take a friend to the airport, deadhead back.

Etc.

--
Jordan Bettis <http://www.hafd.org/~jordanb>
Debian GNU/Linux: No remote root exploits in the base install for three years!

[Keith F. Lynch]

> wrote:
> Tranasit makes it harder for people to get to work.

If this were true, nobody would ride it to work.
--
Keith F. Lynch - - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.

[Keith F. Lynch]

> wrote:
> Planners refuse to plan using current technology. Rather, they want
> to move backwards into the 19th century using fixed rail transit
> systems.

Or into the 18th century with fixed highways. Just because an idea is
old doesn't mean it is bad.

Rail is more attractive than bus, not just because it has a higher
capacity and ususally runs more frequently, but also precisely because
it is fixed. People are reluctant to choose a home or workplace based
on a bus line, since it could be changed at whim. One of the reasons
why highway transportation is attractive is because the local highway
isn't going to be shut down or moved next month. Rail transit is
attractive for the same reason. DC's Orange line will still be going
to Vienna, Virginia in 2050, same as the I-66 highway. As for the 2T
bus, who knows?
--
Keith F. Lynch - - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Jack May > wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" > wrote:

>> So we should close all the roads and highways? That's where most of
>> the transportation-related tax money goes.

> Its also where the transportation taxes come from that more than pay
> for the roads and some of the transit.

So why did Virginia raise sales taxes by 12% a few years ago? They
claimed it was for "transportation". And why did Northern Virginia
have a proposal on the ballot last year to increase them by another
22%? That too was earmarked for transportation, partly for transit
but mostly for highways. (It was defeated.)

The previous governor ran on a platform of "no car taxes". Last I
heard, those taxes were indeed being phased out. I wonder who makes
up the difference?

>> Next we should close all the airports? That's where most of the
>> rest of the transportation-related tax money goes.

> Also where a lot of the taxes come from which are part of the price
> you pay for a ticket.

The billions of dollars in airline bailouts came from general taxes.

> The rest of your post is good for a laugh, but it mainly shows you
> are living in a fantasy world instead of reality.

In other words, you have no arguments against it. Except that you
find that a car happens to work for you, and you think everyone else
should be forced into the same mold.
--
Keith F. Lynch - - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.

[Marc]

John David Galt > wrote:
>Krist wrote:
>> I do think that it is possible to create a transit system that allows a
>> large fraction of the population this type of choice. The place I live in
>> proves that. Some places in the States.
>>
>> In some other places it might not be possible...
>> But then, the role of transit is not te force people out of their car, the
>> role ought to be to offer choice where offering choice makes sense.
>
>I totally agree. But "makes sense" is defined economically. If it takes
>taxpayer subsidies for transit to exist at all, offering it doesn't make
>sense.

With your "get everyone out of my way, and if they are in my way, they are
breaking the law and driving unsafely and rudely, even if they are stopped
at a red light" stance, I'd have guessed the opposite out of you. Wouldn't
you want to pay $0.10 to get one driver off the road and out of your way?
Wouldn't you like it if more drivers did the same to remove others off the
road?

Considering that if there was no public transport, the people that would
then be forced to seek other means would often drive sub-standard vehicles
without insurance or financial means to take care of any mistakes made, I
see additional benefit to you.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

[Marc]

Jordan Bettis > wrote:
>Marc > writes:
>
>> My toothbrush sits unused for more than 99% of the time as well.
>> However, I think that is a good purchase, even if it is only used
>> for a short time every day. The same goes with cars for most people
>> as well.
>
>How much of your income does your toothbrush consume? How about your car?

Why does it matter if I feel the need for the item?

Both are items that mostly sit unused. Both are items that are relatively
recent inventions (though there were precursors of the modern equivalent
going back thousands of years). Neither is truly a necessity.

And the sum that most people pay for the "small items" that sit unused more
than the car generally exceeds the cost of their car. Yes, any individual
item is greatly below the car in cost, but the sum of the items exceeds
them.

Just singling out the toothbrush was easier than listing thousands of items
people have in their homes that mainly sit unused.

>If the internet has taught me one thing it's how to recognize bad
>anologies.

And nuts that like to tell others what to do.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

[Marc]

"Keith F. Lynch" > wrote:
>John David Galt > wrote:
>> I totally agree. But "makes sense" is defined economically. If it
>> takes taxpayer subsidies for transit to exist at all, offering it
>> doesn't make sense.
>
>So we should close all the roads and highways? That's where most of
>the transportation-related tax money goes.
>
>Next we should close all the airports? That's where most of the rest
>of the transportation-related tax money goes.
>
>Once users of those modes all have to pay their own way, I think mass
>transit will be very competitive, and will no longer need subsidies.
>
>Metro in the median of I-66, for instance, can carry more people
>faster, more efficiently, while using less energy, in less space,
>more safely, while producing less pollution, more quietly, than the
>surrounding highway.

I've heard the same claims about transit systems around the US. When they
cost more than twice the fare in subsidies, take longer door-to-door,
increase the commute distance, run unused enough to not save energy or
pollution over individual modern vehicles, and just plain don't live up to
the hype once in.

If you want me to believe that about yours, you'll have to cite someone
other than the transit authority who substantiates those claims.

>And passengers can read or work, rather than
>giving their full attention to driving.

I can't do either on a train or bus. I've tried.

>Nor do they have a massive
>upfront capital cost, or the need to carry what amounts to an internal
>passport, or the need to find and pay for a parking space at both ends
>of every trip.

I have free parking at both ends. I have at every place I have ever
worked.

It seems that the problem is that the situation for, say, Washington D.C.
is used as an ideal, when it simply doesn't work in Dallas. In D.C., my
sister was renting a place. The only way she could get an assigned spot
would have been to buy it for $15,000. Then, she would have had to pay
over $250 a month for parking at work. For someone wanting basic
transportation, they'd have to pay as much or more to park the car than for
the car itself. She could either afford a car or a place to park it, but
not both.

As for Dallas, parking outside downtown is generally free. There are many
more jobs out of downtown than in it. Often, even downtown jobs will
include parking. I know of no one that has to pay to park at their
residence. But then, there are almost no residences in downtown.

>Also, Metro can carry everyone. Millions of people are unable to
>drive cars for medical, financial, legal, age, or temperamental
>reasons.

Busses can't be that user friendly, either. They are charging less than
they cost to run, so they are trying to assist people that aren't able to
afford it financially. There have been other posters here pointing out
that busses are far from inclusive regarding medical conditions. There
isn't a set minimum age for busses, but I'd expect that there may be some
ages where there would be problems. If a 1 year old that wasn't even
speaking yet stumbled on with bus fare taped to his forehead, I don't
expect that he'd be riding.

I'm not sure of anyone that is *unable* to drive because of temperamental
reasons (should not be driving and unable to drive are separate), but if
someone was so tense over commuting in a car, I can imagine that they could
have similar problems when they have no control of the situation in a bus
as well. I find it frustrating in a bus when the driver parks for 15
minutes because he is getting ahead of schedule, and I have no such
problems in a car.

>If you don't generate your own electricity, sew your own clothes,
>build your own house, or grow your own food, why should you drive
>your own vehicle? Specialization just makes sense.

Well, we ought to just have our teeth removed and have some machine chew
our food for us as well. Teeth cause many health problems, and not having
to use them would be a benefit to society. Heck, why even bother to think,
as everyone (other than Marilyn) can be out-thought by someone else as
well.

Just because it can be automated or outsourced does not mean it is a good
idea to do so.

>(Yes, I know what Heinlein said. It's good to be *able* to drive a
>car, swim, send morse code, survive in the wilderness, fly a plane,
>repair a CD player, etc, but unless that's your profession or a hobby
>you enjoy, why do it every day?)

But what if driving is your hobby? You are posting to a driving group.
One must expect that there would be people in such a forum that would claim
to have driving as a hobby. If it is a hobby you like and you can do it
every day, why would you go out of your way to not do it?

>The only reason why cars are so common is because of distortions in the
>economy caused by various government policies, taxes, and subsidies.

Or the lack thereof. In Europe, there are significant taxes that support
much more than just the auto infrastructure. In the US, the taxes are much
smaller and are more closely tied to the source of the revenue.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

[Tanya Quinn]

Dave Head > wrote in message
> Hi Tanya,
>
> I used to bike, but have several problems with it now.

That's unfortunate, its a fun way to get around.

> One is biking _around here._ I'd have to load up the bike and take it
> someplace safe. Starting out from the house, with the way these roads are, is
> too dangerous for me. The roads have lots of curves and sharp crests. A few
> months ago, a guy in my office came over one of these crests and plowed into
> traffic stopped for a school bus. A bike wouldn't have a chance around here.

There are two problems, one - some places roads are really badly
designed. If you are in a remote area you might not have an alternate
route. Two is a perception problem. Many people perceive bicycling in
traffic to be a lot more dangerous than it actually is.

> Also, I've developed a situation where my hands go numb when gripping anything
> continuously. It happens when gripping the heart monitor contacts on the step
> machine, too, but I can continue with that while leaving go of those contacts,
> but you can't ride a bike and let go of the handlebars, at least not
> continuously or safely. I think I'm not going to be doing much biking any
> more.

Another unfortunate. You might however test-ride a recumbent bicycle.
As you don't have to support your body weight on your hands you might
find it easier on your hands. Gel-padded gloves might also help.

> I've developed a real liking for the idea of the personal rapid transit system.
> If built up in the air, on "stilts", it wouldn't take up any significant real
> estate, and would be a "no waiting" solution that people would enjoy riding.

Wonder why cities are trying to get rid of their elevated expressways?
Things on "stilts" are expensive to keep up in the air :) Not only
that but they are an eyesore to the rest of the city, block out light
etc.

> With transit usually being in the position of bleeding money, I think it has to
> win 100% of the time, so that people will ride it enough so the fares can be
> reasonable and the system still make money. I think that just about the only

If the idea is to offer "public" transit then the system's goal needs
to be to break even not to make money.

> A personal favorite idea of mine is to go the extra mile and make personal
> rapid transit big enough so you can drive your car onto a railcar, and have the
> railcar run at much higher speed than would be safe to drive in a car. Then,

If its big enough that you can drive your car onto it, what the heck
is the point of it? Other than being faster? And fast travel has its
disadvantages to business. Retail stores for instance thrive on
traffic passing by - at a speed you can both see them and stop for
them. This may be riding a streetcar, a bicycle, walking by, or
driving along (at not too outrageous a speed).

> when arriving, you could drive the rest of the way whever you're going. A
> system like that would not need to be built "all at once". Just the 1st 2
> terminals could be completed, and then system would then be open for travel
> between them. The farther its built, the more useful it becomes. The fares
> from the operating part could be used to help finance the further development
> of the system. Plus, cars could then be made to "run on electricity," as the
> system would use it to move the railcars.

If you already are necessitating the car, this is more expensive than
cars + highways, who is going to pay for this? You are perhaps using a
different fuel - electricity vs. gas but you are using much more
energy to move the same distance.

> Yes, its a common failing that bus systems are set up to go downtown, no matter
> if you want to go 2 miles tangent to the circle centered on downtown. Also a
> common failing is not enough buses so you have to wait too long.

For a variety of bus routes and a frequent schedule you need a large
mass of people using the bus, and enough people wanting to travel in a
particular direction at a given point of time. Low density suburban
design does not support this.

> >Where buildings are designed around the automobile and providing a lot
> >of parking, it is going to not be so convenient to take transit, as it
> >will be a long walk to most points from a rapid transit station. Its
> >hard to change the design of a city :)
>
> If the transit system was built to move your car rapidly, without congestion
> while doing it...

I see a noisy blurry city that isn't fun to walk around in at all. If
the main cause of congestion is too many cars this won't solve
congestion.

> Unfortunately, even our high speed trains aren't even twice as fast as a car.
> Maybe 1.5X, and they are really rare, too. Regular trains in some areas of the
> country, mainly the plains in the west and midwest, do about 80 mph. That's
> still real close to my car when I'm driving that area, and my car doesn't stop
> as often, at least until I have to get a motel <G>.

Technology is available for trains that move much faster. High speed
bullet trains in Japan can travel 200 mph. Try doing that in your car
and see what happens in an accident :)

> If transit is going to make money, I think it is necessary that it beat cars
> even when the cars have optimal conditions for travel. I think the PRT scheme
> is the only thing that has a chance of doing that. Car-carrying PRT would be
> the ideal situation, I think.

How can car-carrying PRT beat cars, when it is a car still? And it
takes up far too much space and is far too expensive. Interesting idea
though.

> >I think people are too highly paranoid about safety in general.
>
> When you read about the criminal activity in the paper every day, its rather
> hard to ignore.

Do you read about car accident fatalities in the newspaper too?
There's far more of those than there are random serial killers killing
pedestrians on the street :)

> >and get the ice and snow off the vehicle.
>
> Car comes out of the garage, where the previous ice and snow has already melted
> all over the floor... <G>

But what about at your destination? Are their garages at all the
places you want to go to? :)

> Ya just have to satisfy what people want, and the spoiled ones, which are about
> 99% of the population, want cars. They want to do be able to do all the things
> they can't do on transit - listen to the radio (you can't get AM or FM in the
> subway tunnels, and Led Zeppelin just ain't the same on headphones), eat,
> drink, and even sing. They want privacy.

I've seen people singing on transit <g> But yes cars provide a bubble
to isolate the user from the rest of the world. Whether you think
thats a pro or con depends on your perspective. Transit lets you do
more things - eat, drink, read the newspaper, knit, whatever you want
while you are in journey. Some people think its okay to multitask
while driving (breastfeeding, reading, playing musical instruments)
but they are accidents waiting to happen.You could multitask as a
passenger in a car - and certainly if people are carpooling to work
this is an improvement over single-occupancy vehicles, but generally
the ride is not as smooth as a subway or other fixed-rail vehicle for
reading. Perhaps there are ways of integrating the car comforts better
into transit to make it more attractive.

> That would probably work, although being 20 miles out in the country, I'd still
> have to put the bike on the roof of the car for a while... <G> Would need some
> way to lock up the bike, tho, and there aren't bike racks most places around
> here.

Yes - well country living does prevent challenges to transportation.
Unless you are a really keen biker living remotely usually
necessitates driving places.

But once you get to the city you can park and walk or park and ride
transit or park and bike too. Once a critical number of bicyclists
appear in a given place its easier to get the city or businesses to
install bike racks or ring/posts. There's ring/posts most everywhere I
go but when I happen to venture out into the land of only the
automobile (suburbia) I have to be more creative at locking the bike.
Parking meters, street signs, railings, trees (iffy someone could cut
the tree and you lose bike and a tree), and anything else that looks
relatively immobile work. Some places that have the space don't
actually mind if you bring the bike inside.

Tanya

[Dave Head]

On 11 Aug 2003 23:06:42 -0700, (Tanya Quinn) wrote:

>Dave Head > wrote in message
>> Hi Tanya,
>>
>> I used to bike, but have several problems with it now.
>
>That's unfortunate, its a fun way to get around.

Hi Tanya,

I've found it to be fun recreation, but hate to rely on it for basic transport.
Its just too slow, and I _don't_ enjoy the exercise under the condition of
having to be somewhere at a certain time.

I hated it when I was a kid, and only did it because it was faster and easier
than walking. But ever since I was big enough to consider it, I _always_
wanted to drive to get somewhere. Now that I can, I'm gonna!

>> One is biking _around here._ I'd have to load up the bike and take it
>> someplace safe. Starting out from the house, with the way these roads are, is
>> too dangerous for me. The roads have lots of curves and sharp crests. A few
>> months ago, a guy in my office came over one of these crests and plowed into
>> traffic stopped for a school bus. A bike wouldn't have a chance around here.
>
>There are two problems, one - some places roads are really badly
>designed. If you are in a remote area you might not have an alternate
>route. Two is a perception problem. Many people perceive bicycling in
>traffic to be a lot more dangerous than it actually is.


I perceive that being out on the highway at all, on a bike or in a car, carries
some chance of getting hit. Its just that in a car, I have a much better
chance of surviving the hit. I don't include crashing my car in this, because
I have a much lower than average chance of doing that. Its because I'm single,
and rarely drive with anyone else in the car, therefore having no distraction
of talking to someone.

>> Also, I've developed a situation where my hands go numb when gripping anything
>> continuously. It happens when gripping the heart monitor contacts on the step
>> machine, too, but I can continue with that while leaving go of those contacts,
>> but you can't ride a bike and let go of the handlebars, at least not
>> continuously or safely. I think I'm not going to be doing much biking any
>> more.
>
>Another unfortunate. You might however test-ride a recumbent bicycle.
>As you don't have to support your body weight on your hands you might
>find it easier on your hands. Gel-padded gloves might also help.

Those bikes are expensive, and I don't enjoy it all that much anyway.

>> I've developed a real liking for the idea of the personal rapid transit system.
>> If built up in the air, on "stilts", it wouldn't take up any significant real
>> estate, and would be a "no waiting" solution that people would enjoy riding.
>
>Wonder why cities are trying to get rid of their elevated expressways?
>Things on "stilts" are expensive to keep up in the air :) Not only
>that but they are an eyesore to the rest of the city, block out light
>etc.

You always see those "highways in the sky" when they make futuristic movies.
I think its getting to be time to start with that - It would be a way to take a
road thru a "neighborhood" without destroying the neighborhood. Build these
rails really high - 50 - 100 feet like the overpasses at a lot of highway
interchanges. The distance would help lessen the noise. And since rails don't
have to be near as wide as highways, the visual impact isn't as much.

I expect that it is too expensive, tho. You're probably right there.

>> With transit usually being in the position of bleeding money, I think it has to
>> win 100% of the time, so that people will ride it enough so the fares can be
>> reasonable and the system still make money. I think that just about the only
>
>If the idea is to offer "public" transit then the system's goal needs
>to be to break even not to make money.

What if the idea were to be commercial, and make money? Then we wouldn't have
to wait on the city to do it - businessmen would do it. Things might get built
faster that way.

>> A personal favorite idea of mine is to go the extra mile and make personal
>> rapid transit big enough so you can drive your car onto a railcar, and have the
>> railcar run at much higher speed than would be safe to drive in a car. Then,
>
>If its big enough that you can drive your car onto it, what the heck
>is the point of it?

The point is getting people to ride it at all. People _hate_ losing the
conveniece of their cars. Transit promotors should give up trying to get
people out of their cars, 'cuz in this country, it mostly isn't going to
happen. But those people would ride this, since it offers the privacy they
like plus the flexibility to not have to take it everywhere that it doesn't go
anyway.

>Other than being faster?

Faster (than a car on the road) is extremely significant. Plus, you can do all
those transit things people love like reading newspapers, listening to the
radio at _your_ volume level, playing Quake on the laptop, etc.

>And fast travel has its
>disadvantages to business. Retail stores for instance thrive on
>traffic passing by - at a speed you can both see them and stop for
>them. This may be riding a streetcar, a bicycle, walking by, or
>driving along (at not too outrageous a speed).

Transit won't go everywhere for a really long time. Stores are just going to
have to congregate around the transit terminals like the mini-malls that happen
at some train terminals in DC. You can build terminals several miles apart
like this, without it being an imposition on the rider since he doesn't have to
jump a (slow) bus, or walk a long distance to get where he's going.

>
>> when arriving, you could drive the rest of the way whever you're going. A
>> system like that would not need to be built "all at once". Just the 1st 2
>> terminals could be completed, and then system would then be open for travel
>> between them. The farther its built, the more useful it becomes. The fares
>> from the operating part could be used to help finance the further development
>> of the system. Plus, cars could then be made to "run on electricity," as the
>> system would use it to move the railcars.
>
>If you already are necessitating the car, this is more expensive than
>cars + highways, who is going to pay for this?

People who like to get places quickly without sitting it traffic. Should be
most everybody that breathes.

>You are perhaps using a
>different fuel - electricity vs. gas but you are using much more
>energy to move the same distance.

You use less energy. What happens when you get on this transit system is that
your railcar moves to a point that probably touches the one in front. You get
instant NASCAR-style drafting, with the railcar in front breaking the wind for
all the remaining railcars in the "train". The railcars behind the 1st one may
be traveling 150 mph on 20 horsepower, at least on the level. If not on the
level, the ones going up are going to be using a lot of power, but the ones
coming down can generate some due to dynamic braking that uses the railcar
motors as generators, and the gravity as the source of power.

>
>> Yes, its a common failing that bus systems are set up to go downtown, no matter
>> if you want to go 2 miles tangent to the circle centered on downtown. Also a
>> common failing is not enough buses so you have to wait too long.
>
>For a variety of bus routes and a frequent schedule you need a large
>mass of people using the bus, and enough people wanting to travel in a
>particular direction at a given point of time. Low density suburban
>design does not support this.

You just described why transit, in general, fails the public and is not
anywhere close to the car in popularity.

>> >Where buildings are designed around the automobile and providing a lot
>> >of parking, it is going to not be so convenient to take transit, as it
>> >will be a long walk to most points from a rapid transit station. Its
>> >hard to change the design of a city :)
>>
>> If the transit system was built to move your car rapidly, without congestion
>> while doing it...
>
>I see a noisy blurry city that isn't fun to walk around in at all. If
>the main cause of congestion is too many cars this won't solve
>congestion.

The main cause of congestion is cars on roads going to places and getting in
each other's way. Putting them on rails designed to never cause them to stop
until they get where they're going would solve that. Of course, with these
stations built maybe 3 miles away from each other in the city, there would be
some in-city driving up to maybe 1 1/2 miles, but this would be all local
driving by drivers that intend to terminate in the immediate vicinity, not 5
miles up the road. There's a lot less "terminating" cars than "passing thru"
cars. Getting rid of the passers-thru would see the congestion go way down.

>> Unfortunately, even our high speed trains aren't even twice as fast as a car.
>> Maybe 1.5X, and they are really rare, too. Regular trains in some areas of the
>> country, mainly the plains in the west and midwest, do about 80 mph. That's
>> still real close to my car when I'm driving that area, and my car doesn't stop
>> as often, at least until I have to get a motel <G>.
>
>Technology is available for trains that move much faster. High speed
>bullet trains in Japan can travel 200 mph. Try doing that in your car
>and see what happens in an accident :)

Same thing that would happen to the train riders at 200 mph! But that's
another advantage of putting cars on rails. Not only does it get them off the
highway, easing congestion there, but it greatly lessens the chance of having
an accident.

>> If transit is going to make money, I think it is necessary that it beat cars
>> even when the cars have optimal conditions for travel. I think the PRT scheme
>> is the only thing that has a chance of doing that. Car-carrying PRT would be
>> the ideal situation, I think.
>
>How can car-carrying PRT beat cars, when it is a car still?

Well, you know what I mean. Car-carrying PRT beats cars on ordinary roads.

>And it
>takes up far too much space and is far too expensive. Interesting idea
>though.

Have you considered all the costs, tho? It may _not_ be more expensive. For
instance, an automobile sitting on a railcar is not turning its odometer. You
could maybe keep the same car for 15 - 20 years if you didn't put on all that
mileage to wear it out. I'd probably still have my '93 Jeep and '92 Mitsubishi
Eclipse if they hadn't both started to consume huge quantities of money just to
keep them running. The drive trains were having all the bearings needing
replaced, and you can't walk into a service garage around here without it
costing at least $600, or at least that's the way it seems. I'm just getting a
60,000 mile service today, and that is $500 - $550. Its really just a
glorified tune-up. Then there's the brakes that need done, and a noise coming
from somewhere in the drivetrain - maybe a u-joint in a half-shaft. This is
gonna be expensive. But if I hadn't put on 65,000 miles in just the last 2
years, it might not be costing this much for maybe another 3 years. That's a
savings.

Plus, cars on rails are not cars on highways. Therefore, the cars are not
wearing out the highways, and its not necessary to build more highways.

Plus, what's the cost of all those auto accidents? There would be far fewer
auto accidents if there were far fewer autos on highways.

And, if a rail system could get you to work 60 miles away in 25 minutes, would
you pay for that vs. the 1 hour, under ideal conditions, that it would
otherwise take? Most people would. People could live farther from work, where
the real estate is cheaper, and save money that way.

Plus, you could run your transport system on something besides petroleum, or at
least foreign petroleum if the environmentalists ever let us explore for new
gas sources. Of course there's nuclear and coal solar and wind, too. I read
about a system using coal that sequesters the CO2 in some chemical carbonate,
so no greenhouse gas pollution, and _we_ have _lots_ of coal. What's the price
of dependency in international sources for our energy?

It may not be more expensive when everything is considered. It might even be
cheaper depending on what $$$ you place on people getting killed. Last week,
due to highway construction congestion, a local college student was the last
car stuck in traffic on Interstate 95 just North of Fredericksburg, Va. A
truck plowed into her little car, ran it over, plowed into a tow truck in front
of her with a car in tow and one on a flatbed, pushed that into another truck
owned by the same towing company, and of course killed the college student.
That wouldn't be happening on a rail system.

>> >I think people are too highly paranoid about safety in general.
>>
>> When you read about the criminal activity in the paper every day, its rather
>> hard to ignore.
>
>Do you read about car accident fatalities in the newspaper too?
>There's far more of those than there are random serial killers killing
>pedestrians on the street :)

Yep. They happen mostly to people that aren't paying attention, and to people
that don't have the foggiest idea of what to do when things go wrong. Neither
of those are me.

People lock up the brakes and plow into stopped cars all the time. I release
the brakes and steer around them. I've done it maybe once a year for my
driving career. That is why anti-lock brakes are mostly not an advantage to
me. They say you can steer around obstacles with them, but I can do that
anyway. The difference is that I know to leave up on the brakes a little so
the wheels will turn.

>> >and get the ice and snow off the vehicle.
>>
>> Car comes out of the garage, where the previous ice and snow has already melted
>> all over the floor... <G>
>
>But what about at your destination? Are their garages at all the
>places you want to go to? :)

No, but it rarely snows so much its a great problem. And besides, all that
snow melts off onto the floor of my garage, anyway! <G>

>
>> Ya just have to satisfy what people want, and the spoiled ones, which are about
>> 99% of the population, want cars. They want to do be able to do all the things
>> they can't do on transit - listen to the radio (you can't get AM or FM in the
>> subway tunnels, and Led Zeppelin just ain't the same on headphones), eat,
>> drink, and even sing. They want privacy.
>
>I've seen people singing on transit <g> But yes cars provide a bubble
>to isolate the user from the rest of the world. Whether you think
>thats a pro or con depends on your perspective.

A serious "pro" for me. Remember Colin Furgeson, the Long Island Railway
shooter? Try hitting someone in a car on rails that are carrying them at 150
mph? Try hitting them even at even 60 mph. I don't need the opportunity to
"meet people" like this.

>Transit lets you do
>more things - eat, drink,

That will get you handcuffs in DC. Last year, a cop arrested and handcuffed
(!) a 12 year old girl who had some McDonalds french fries on a DC Metro train.

>read the newspaper,

OK.

>knit,

OK.

>whatever you want

Nope. I want to play the radio and listen to the news, or I want to listen to
Santana and Boston, and I _don't_ want to be fooling around with headphones to
do it. I can do that in my car.

>while you are in journey. Some people think its okay to multitask
>while driving (breastfeeding, reading, playing musical instruments)
>but they are accidents waiting to happen.You could multitask as a
>passenger in a car - and certainly if people are carpooling to work
>this is an improvement over single-occupancy vehicles, but generally
>the ride is not as smooth as a subway or other fixed-rail vehicle for
>reading. Perhaps there are ways of integrating the car comforts better
>into transit to make it more attractive.

Yes, there are. Have the transit system carry the car close (< 3 miles) to
where the driver wants to go anyway.

>> That would probably work, although being 20 miles out in the country, I'd still
>> have to put the bike on the roof of the car for a while... <G> Would need some
>> way to lock up the bike, tho, and there aren't bike racks most places around
>> here.
>
>Yes - well country living does prevent challenges to transportation.
>Unless you are a really keen biker living remotely usually
>necessitates driving places.

>But once you get to the city you can park and walk or park and ride
>transit or park and bike too. Once a critical number of bicyclists
>appear in a given place its easier to get the city or businesses to
>install bike racks or ring/posts. There's ring/posts most everywhere I
>go but when I happen to venture out into the land of only the
>automobile (suburbia) I have to be more creative at locking the bike.

Trees.

>Parking meters, street signs, railings, trees (iffy someone could cut
>the tree and you lose bike and a tree),

Big trees! <G> Ones in my front yard are about 3 feet in diameter. Of course,
I'm out in the country.

Dave Head

>and anything else that looks
>relatively immobile work. Some places that have the space don't
>actually mind if you bring the bike inside.



>Tanya

[Dave Head]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 09:24:24 +0200, Dr Engelbert Buxbaum
> wrote:

>Dave Head wrote:
>
>> 24 miles of biking per day? I
>> don't think so. Not only would I kill someone to avoid that sort of
>> imposition, it would also waste about 2 hours per day, not including the
>> necessary shower after each ride. I get to work and home in about 22 minutes
>> with the car.
>
>And it would take about a good hour to go by bike. Not that much
>difference,

That's a huge difference. 2 hrs per day vs 44 minutes. If I can work
overtime, that's equivalent to maybe an extra $980 / month in my pocket, even
at straight time. If I'm not transporting myself, I could be making some
money. Since it's work-related time anyway, I think I should be able to make
some money at it.

I worked 64 hrs last week. That was done as "comp time", so's I can take off
fishing next month and not hammer my vacation account so badly. But I couldn't
have done that with a bike. Not only am I not crazy enough to ride at night
around here, but I wouldn't have had the extra energy required.

>even if you don't count the time safed on sports club
>visits.

Offset by the time required for the shower.

>> Plus, on the roads around here with the blind corners and sharp hill crests,
>> biker would get killed. I see _nobody_ biking these roads. No one is that
>> stupid.
>
>That is probably in your imagination (I used to live in hilly places),
>but even if the danger were real, the solution would be to build safer
>roads, not to avoids bikes.

I keep telling the road bunch here that straightening and flattening these
roads is what dynamite is for... but they say its too expensive.

>> >For other journeys, it may be bus, train, ship or plane.
>>
>> Fatal flaw on all these: They run on a schedule. That means you have to wait
>> for them to get to where you are in order to ride them. Efficiency of travel
>> would go down, as would our overall productivity. Recreational travel would
>> probably be nearly completely discouraged.
>
>You do not have to wait (long) but plan your journey with the time table
>in mind.

I like the luxury of not having to plan trips, which I can do in my car. I
decide I want to go to Dairy Queen for a cone, I go to Dairy Queen for a cone.
No schedule.

>Where I am living now, we have a train connection to the next
>city, that goes every half hour. I don't wait half an hour, I go to the
>train a few minutes before departure. Just needs a little more thinking
>and planning than your average car journey.

Don't want to do the thinking and planning. Got enough other stuff to think
about and plan for.

>> Last taxi I took was from the airport in Indianapolis to home, across town.
>> $50. I am not that rich! Fortunately, it was for work, and they paid for it.
>
>But you happily pay $ 400 a month (the approximate costs for
>depreciation, road tax, MOT-testing, insurance and the like for a small
>car) to own a car, plus the costs to run it?

I ain't happy about paying for it, just a lot happier than I would be if I had
to keep a schedule, and share space with other people while traveling. I want
to be by myself when I travel. I want complete control of the temperature, and
want to be able to play the radio on the news station or a rock station, at the
volume I choose, and nobody else having any right to say anything about it.
I'm not patronizing anything that doesn't deliver what I want.

>> >The problem is not travel per se, but the missuse of an inappropriate
>> >mode of transportation.
>
>That logic has always astonished me. It happens right now as every year:
>People sitting in 200 km standing traffic to go on holiday, thats ok.

I don't do that. I take the less congested roads when that happens.

Last week, coming back from a road rally I ran in western Pennsylvania, I was
approaching the I-81 interchange on I-70. Traffic stops. I get off and use
US-68 to get to I-81, not a lot of time lost there. Then I travel about 20
miles and _it_ stops too. I get off, use back roads, hop down 2 more
interchanges, and I'm back on, beyond the accident. I think I might have lost
about 1/2 hour, but I sure didn't sit in traffic much.

>But to use a train? Never, they could have to wait for 10 min at the
>station.

And share space with other people on the train, and be courteous, and not get
to set the temperature or play the radio or do much but sit there. Maybe I
want to read the paper, maybe I don't. Once the paper is read, I'm still
sitting there, missing whatever is on the news and definitely not getting to
play my favorite tunes (don't even think about headphones - it ain't happenin'
- I don't like 'em...)

>The (non-)workings of the human mind are truly fascinating.

Yep.

Dave Head

Keith F. Lynch > wrote in message
...
> > wrote:
> > Tranasit makes it harder for people to get to work.
>
> If this were true, nobody would ride it to work.
> --
>
Sure you would. Anything highly subsidized will get some takers.

Tanya Quinn > wrote in message
om...
> > wrote in message news:<Z5QZa.6597>
> > And the bus consumes for fuel too. They have to return empty, run
> > off-hour service, and as a result average about 7 persons. Cars save
fuel.
>
> While buses in some places may run inefficiently, in other denser
> places they have as much traffic going in one direction as in the
> other (especially when you have multi-purpose zoning where there are
> both businesses and residents in any one location so rush hour isn't
> just taking people from one section to another) Off-hour service is
> usually reduced in the schedule as well. Where did you pull the
> magical number 7 out of?
>
There are standare sources on all of this. Transit buses also tear up
the highways, by the way. From Tue Jul 8
12:21:09 1997
Return-Path: >
Received: from jason05.u.washington.edu (jason05.u.washington.edu
[140.142.78.6])
by pagesz.net (8.8.5/8.8.4) with ESMTP
id MAA05971 for >; Tue, 8 Jul 1997 12:21:08 -0400
Received: from dante31.u.washington.edu
[140.142.15.105])
by jason05.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.04/8.8.4+UW97.05) with
ESMTP
id JAA17802 for >; Tue, 8 Jul 1997 09:21:07 -0700
Received: from localhost (arthatte@localhost)
by dante31.u.washington.edu (8.8.4+UW97.04/8.8.4+UW97.04) with
SMTP
id JAA34464 for >; Tue, 8 Jul 1997 09:21:06 -0700
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 09:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Abhay Thatte >
To:
Message-ID:
>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: RO


Author: Gibby-Reed. Dawson-Rebecca. Sebaaly-Peter.
Title: Local urban transit bus impact on pavements.
Source: Journal-of-Transportation-Engineering. May-June, 1996.
v122(n3). p215(3).
Copyright: COPYRIGHT American Society of Civil Engineers 1996
Abstract: Bus transit systems provide a valuable service to many
residents living within urban areas. Like other vehicles,
buses
depend on paved streets and roads for a smooth ride. The
pavement wear due to truck traffic has been monitored
and researched for many years. The effects of urban transit
buses on pavements owned and maintained by local governments
are examined from the following three perspectives: (1)
Pavement design; (2) pavement condition data
analysis; and (3) visual observations. Each of the three
perspectives suggests that significant pavement damage
is caused by transit bus traffic. Another analysis
probed pavements' damage if buses had a third axle. There are
a
number of significant conclusions offered which include the
following: (1) Fully loaded transit buses exceed the
California
legal axle limit; (2) the construction cost to accommodate
transit buses is approximately 5% for arterials and 58% for
collectors; (3) the addition of a third axle will reduce the
pavement damage by approximately three times; and (4)
another approach to reduce pavement damage would be to
use lighter-weight materials in the manufacturing of transit
buses.

Keith F. Lynch > wrote in message
...
> > wrote:
> > Planners refuse to plan using current technology. Rather, they want
> > to move backwards into the 19th century using fixed rail transit
> > systems.
>
> Or into the 18th century with fixed highways. Just because an idea is
> old doesn't mean it is bad.

Rail is massively expensive and went away due to excessive costs.
Trolleys were especially hard to keep going.

[Matthew Russotto]

In article >,
Tanya Quinn > wrote:
>John David Galt > wrote in message >...
>>
>> This is largely deliberate on the part of planning bureaucrats who hate
>> the car, and therefore is not to be blamed on drivers.
>
>No its a function of how much space a typical vehicle occupies. While
>granted you can build more roads, usually in a city space has already
>been allocated to different uses. What are you going to do, raze a
>neighbourhood to make more roads, that will soon become more congested
>too as people see that driving is now easier, and drive more often?

I don't accept the induced traffic hypothesis.

>> Not comparable for several reasons. Transit doesn't go everywhere,
>> doesn't run all the time, and cannot be trusted for either safety or
>> reliability compared to one's own car.
>
>If you look at the accident rates for buses, subways and the like as
>opposed to cars I think you'll find that the death rate of transit
>occupants is much lower than that of car occupants. How is transit
>less safe?

I believe he refers to muggings and other actions by criminals who see
transit systems the way predators see watering holes.

>As far as reliability goes, that's why I was making the
>argument that for transit to be more reliable it needs to have right
>of way over single occupancy traffic.

Which is code for "make driving more difficult and maybe more people
will take transit".

>> You have it backwards. For most people, the car is a necessity because
>> the job can't be reached (sufficiently easily and reliably) without it.
>> Thus the fixed cost goes under necessities, and the relevant comparison
>> for the rider is the incremental cost of driving vs. the bus ticket.
>> (The relevant comparison for public policy is the same except that the
>> tax subsidy to the transit system has to be counted in its cost.)
>
>In large urban areas with sufficient density either transit provides a
>way to reach the job for the vast majority of people, or it is
>economically and practically feasible to do so, but perhaps the
>political will is not there.

There is only one place in the US with sufficient density.

>then they should bear the costs of doing so. As driving is currently a
>highly subsidized activity then they are not paying the full costs.

You claim driving is "highly subsidized", and claim transit is a good
alternative? ROTFL. Transit, which in Philadelphia covers 0% of its
capital expenses and less than 50% of its operating expenses from
user fees. We can argue the subsidy of driving all day, but there's
zero doubt that transit is even MORE subsidized.

>What the majority of people want with their automobiles is increased
>mobility. If planning means that someone can live in the neighbourhood
>they want, take a quick train to work, walk to their gym, walk to the
>bakery, etc. then they have high mobility without the necessity of the
>automobile.

Which it generally does not. At best, it means someone can live in
the neighborhood the planner wants (which will be a dense and crowded
place), take a crowded or infrequent (or both) train to work after a
long walk or bus ride, walk to the gym the planner wants, walk to the
nearby bakery (when the one across town is better), etc, etc.

>They may still choose to own an automobile for driving to
>their cottage or other locations, but they do not have to use their
>car all the time because they have true freedom of mobility.

Once you have the car, it makes sense to use it. Even with the
extreme subsidy transit has, the cost of a transit trip is generally
higher than the marginal cost of an auto trip, except in extremely
dense areas.
--
Matthew T. Russotto
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

[Rick]

George,

No. You are wrong. 1/3 of my house, and every house on every street on which
I've lived has a garage supposedly dedicated to cars (bigger houses simply
have bigger garages nearly in the same proportion in most neighborhoods,
though there are some areas where the size of the house greatly exceeds this
basic rule).

While other stuff often fills said garage, the cars are parked along the
streets, effectively using a significant part of the roadway as well.

Now I know you have no interest in my opinion and I have ceased to enjoy
laughing at your silly and highly selective presentation of "facts" as you
see them. Go away. Far away. Stop cross posting to rec.bicycles.soc. You are
not going to change the mind of anyone about the role of bicycles in society
and and we aren't going to change yours.

Rick


> wrote in message
link.net...
>
> Tanya Quinn > wrote in message
> om...
> > John David Galt > wrote in message
> >...
> > > >> Irrelevant. In a free society, people justifiably demand the
freedom
> to go
> > > >> exactly where they want, exactly *when* they want.
> > >
> > > > Well I'd like to exactly where I want and when I want too, but I
don't
> > > > think that the car is the way to do it. By car, I can *leave* when I
> > > > want to go *where* I want, but I don't necessarily get there *when*
I
> > > > want. At many times of day and many places automobile traffic is too
> > > > congested to get people where they want to go when they want.
> > >
> > > This is largely deliberate on the part of planning bureaucrats who
hate
> > > the car, and therefore is not to be blamed on drivers.
> >
> > No its a function of how much space a typical vehicle occupies.
>
> Space? A well-planned suburb has less space devoted to the car than a
> nicely planned city.
>
>
>

[Matthew Russotto]

In article >,
Tanya Quinn > wrote:
>
>I've seen people singing on transit <g> But yes cars provide a bubble
>to isolate the user from the rest of the world. Whether you think
>thats a pro or con depends on your perspective. Transit lets you do
>more things - eat, drink, read the newspaper, knit, whatever you want
>while you are in journey.

More transit bait-and-switch. Eat and drink? Not permitted in
Philadelphia or Washington D.C. transit (enforced with fines and jail
time in DC). Read the newspaper? There isn't room to open it, so
either you don't read it or you irritate the other riders. Knit?
With all the jouncing and acceleration and deceneration?

On the other hand, in a car one can eat (certain things, anyway) and
drink and smoke, and the only problem you get is a smelly car.

>reading. Perhaps there are ways of integrating the car comforts better
>into transit to make it more attractive.

There are, but you'd be building the Cadillac of transit systems --
and the current Yugos, Hyundais, and Escorts are already enormously
expensive.

>But once you get to the city you can park and walk or park and ride
>transit or park and bike too.

Why? Once you get to the city, you're going to have to pay to park
anyway, so you may as well continue to your destination.
--
Matthew T. Russotto
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

[Kymberleigh Richards]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 19:41:19 -0800, Marc > wrote:

>"Keith F. Lynch" > wrote:

>>And passengers can read or work, rather than
>>giving their full attention to driving.
>
>I can't do either on a train or bus. I've tried.

Everyone is different, of course.

I do a lot of reading while on the bus or the subway. In fact, I go through a couple of
books a week just from casual use of the system (at present, I am off of work on a
disability caused by my work environment countering treatment).

The public library -- another tax-subsidized public service -- gets a lot of use from me.

================================================== ===============================
Kymberleigh Richards
President, Southern California Transit Advocates <http://socata.lerctr.org>
Member, Metro San Fernando Valley Sector Governance Council
Associate Member, California Transit Association
Webmaster, San Fernando Valley Transit Insider <http://www.transit-insider.org>
================================================== ===============================

[DTJ]

On 11 Aug 2003 21:08:57 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" >
wrote:

>So why did Virginia raise sales taxes by 12% a few years ago? They

I wonder how they figured it to be 12%?

Homewood school district tried to more than triple taxes a few years
ago. They claimed it was only a 3% raise. They neglected to tell you
that was on top of the already 1.5% tax rate, and the new total would
be 4.5%. Voters weren't that stupid.
-

Sig for the benefit of Jaybird and other similar cops...

Cops are the cause of everyone's problems.
My actions do not give them the right to break the law.
Their illegal actions are the result of their idiocy.
Their life is not my fault.
If you can't handle being a cop, find a real job.

[Keith F. Lynch]

"Keith F. Lynch" > wrote:
> So why did Virginia raise sales taxes by 12% a few years ago?

DTJ > wrote:
> I wonder how they figured it to be 12%?

They didn't call it that. It was an increase from 4% to 4.5%. They
called it a half percent increase. I called it a twelve and a half
percent increase.

The subsequent proposed 22% increase, 4.5% to 5.5%, they called a
"penny tax". I was tempted to go to city hall, hand them a penny,
and tell them that now that I've paid my tax in full, I never want
to hear from them again.

> Homewood school district tried to more than triple taxes a few years
> ago. They claimed it was only a 3% raise. They neglected to tell
> you that was on top of the already 1.5% tax rate, and the new total
> would be 4.5%. Voters weren't that stupid.

Likewise in Virginia. The proposed 22% increase was defeated.
--
Keith F. Lynch - - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.

[Jordan Bettis]

"Keith F. Lynch" > writes:

> "Keith F. Lynch" > wrote:
> > So why did Virginia raise sales taxes by 12% a few years ago?
>
> DTJ > wrote:
> > I wonder how they figured it to be 12%?
>
> They didn't call it that. It was an increase from 4% to 4.5%. They
> called it a half percent increase. I called it a twelve and a half
> percent increase.
>
> The subsequent proposed 22% increase, 4.5% to 5.5%, they called a
> "penny tax". I was tempted to go to city hall, hand them a penny,
> and tell them that now that I've paid my tax in full, I never want
> to hear from them again.

I can tell that you live in Virginia.

I bet if it weren't for the war of northern aggression, you wouldn't
hav to pay taxes at all!

--
Jordan Bettis <http://www.hafd.org/~jordanb>
C++ will do for C what Algol-68 did for Algol.
-- David L. Jones

[David Jensen]

In misc.transport.urban-transit, Jordan Bettis >
wrote in >:

>"Keith F. Lynch" > writes:
>
>> "Keith F. Lynch" > wrote:
>> > So why did Virginia raise sales taxes by 12% a few years ago?
>>
>> DTJ > wrote:
>> > I wonder how they figured it to be 12%?
>>
>> They didn't call it that. It was an increase from 4% to 4.5%. They
>> called it a half percent increase. I called it a twelve and a half
>> percent increase.
>>
>> The subsequent proposed 22% increase, 4.5% to 5.5%, they called a
>> "penny tax". I was tempted to go to city hall, hand them a penny,
>> and tell them that now that I've paid my tax in full, I never want
>> to hear from them again.
>
>I can tell that you live in Virginia.
>
>I bet if it weren't for the war of northern aggression, you wouldn't
>hav to pay taxes at all!

Right, blame the Revolt of the Slaveholders for taxes 140 years later...

Rick > wrote in message
link.net...
> George,
>
> No. You are wrong. 1/3 of my house, and every house on every street on
which
> I've lived has a garage supposedly dedicated to cars (bigger houses simply
> have bigger garages nearly in the same proportion in most neighborhoods,
> though there are some areas where the size of the house greatly exceeds
this
> basic rule).

Do you expect anyone to take you seriously? A 2,100 foot square house,
the average now, would have to have about 50 or more cars to meet your
criteria.

[Krist]

wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch > wrote in message
> ...
>
> wrote:
>>
>>>Tranasit makes it harder for people to get to work.
>>
>>If this were true, nobody would ride it to work.
>>--
>>
>
> Sure you would. Anything highly subsidized will get some takers.

Unsubsidezed transit does exist, you know...

--
Krist

[Pete]

> wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> Rick > wrote in message
> link.net...
> > George,
> >
> > No. You are wrong. 1/3 of my house, and every house on every street on
> which
> > I've lived has a garage supposedly dedicated to cars (bigger houses
simply
> > have bigger garages nearly in the same proportion in most neighborhoods,
> > though there are some areas where the size of the house greatly exceeds
> this
> > basic rule).
>
> Do you expect anyone to take you seriously? A 2,100 foot square
house,
> the average now, would have to have about 50 or more cars to meet your
> criteria.

Might wanna recheck your math, there, Georgie.

How much space is devoted to a car in the garage? Just the car, nothing
else. An Explorer is 15.5 x 6. Car is only 6' wide, but you gotta open the
doors. Maybe 19 x 12?

1/3 of your "average house" is 700 sq ft.
19x12 = 228 sq ft You can only fit 3 of those in that 700 sq ft. Hey, we
just invented a 3 car garage!

Not "50 or more". What kind of cars are YOU thinking of? Maybe something
that is 8' x 5'? A 60's Mini isn't even that small.

Pete

[Marc]

Dr Engelbert Buxbaum > wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>
>> But the conservatives are white elitists. And conservatives don't seem to
>> be environmentalists, and environmentalists don't seen to be conservative
>> (at least the current political definition).
>
>The word conservative comes from the latin "conservare": to protect, to
>preserve. In that sense, an environmentalist is certainly conservative.

But it has changed since then. Now, a conservative is someone against
personal freedom, but for financial and corporate freedom.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

[Marc]

"Keith F. Lynch" > wrote:
>Marc > wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" >
>>> And passengers can read or work, rather than
>>> giving their full attention to driving.
>
>> I can't do either on a train or bus. I've tried.
>
>So that's a reason to close them down for everyone, forcing everyone
>on the planet to either be a motorist or a recluse?
>
>> In D.C., my sister was renting a place. The only way she could get
>> an assigned spot would have been to buy it for $15,000. Then, she
>> would have had to pay over $250 a month for parking at work. For
>> someone wanting basic transportation, they'd have to pay as much
>> or more to park the car than for the car itself. She could either
>> afford a car or a place to park it, but not both.
>
>I assume she took Metro?

She'd Metro one way and walk the other.

>Cars may be necessary in the countryside,
>but they're out of place in the city. They take up valuable real
>estate, and they travel slower than pedestrians.

That depends on your definition of "city." Houston, Dallas, L.A., San
Diego, San Antonio, Minneapolis, Atlanta, and many others are over a
million strong, but you would be hard pressed to be able to live
comfortably there without having a car. NY, DC, and Boston are about the
only places where large numbers of well to do people opt not to buy cars
because they are unnecessary. Chicago sits on the fence (the purely
downtown dwellers don't need one, but those in the suburbs do).

>> I'm not sure of anyone that is *unable* to drive because of
>> temperamental reasons ...
>
>Anyone who either gets angry easily, or who tends to daydream. No,
>they aren't literally *unable* to drive, but then neither is a blind
>person. They just probably won't get very far before killing someone.

The daydreamers would miss their stop, the angry ones would get mad at the
people on the bus. Instead of curing their problems, you are confining
them in a cage with others and declaring it irrelevant.

>>> If you don't generate your own electricity, sew your own clothes,
>>> build your own house, or grow your own food, why should you drive
>>> your own vehicle? Specialization just makes sense.
>
>> Well, we ought to just have our teeth removed and have some machine
>> chew our food for us as well.
>
>Teeth don't require training for use. Or government licensing. Or a
>large upfront capital expenditure. Teeth don't kill tens of thousands
>of Americans every year.

The question was about specialization. It was not about training. It was
not about licensing. It was not about cost. It was not about safety.

>> Just because it can be automated or outsourced does not mean it is a
>> good idea to do so.
>
>Just because you can do it yourself doesn't mean it's a good idea to
>force everyone else to do it themselves.

I'm not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. You appear to be the
only one with that in mind.

>>> (Yes, I know what Heinlein said. It's good to be *able* to drive a
>>> car, swim, send morse code, survive in the wilderness, fly a plane,
>>> repair a CD player, etc, but unless that's your profession or a
>>> hobby you enjoy, why do it every day?)
>
>> But what if driving is your hobby? You are posting to a driving
>> group.
>
>I'm posting to a transit group. I'm not the one who started
>crossposting this thread.

You are posting to a driving group. You may be posting from a transit
group, but you are most certainly posting to a driving group. If you can't
read your own headers, you are way beyond help.

>What if driving is your hobby? Then drive, if you can do so safely,
>bearing the full costs. But don't try to force everyone else to
>drive.
>
>That's what this is all about. I'm not telling anyone not to drive.
>I'm asking them not to tell me to drive. Maybe bus riding, train
>riding, walking, and cycling are *my* hobbies.

Again, you are the only one bringing up forcing others to your will. With
the current system, you have choices. You can take public transport. You
can go under your own power. You can pilot your own vehicle. You can ride
with others in a non-comercial manner, or you could solicit a ride from a
commercial entity.

That is a lot of choices. Aside from comments regarding funding, no one,
other than you, has mentioned forcing anyone to do anything.

>I'd prefer that there was no government money in transportation at
>all. But as long as there is, every mode ought to get its fair share.
>If anything, there should be preference for modes which kill fewer
>people, which pollute less, which are usable by people with medical
>or financial problems, which take up less valuable urban real estate,
>and which don't require "internal passports".

Are you implying that cars paying for 100% of their costs and 75% of the
costs for mass transit is "fair share" because you see more value in mass
transit? If there isn't the value in mass transit, the massive leaching
from other revenue sources to sustain the non-viable system doesn't seem to
be "fair."

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

[Rick]

Thanks for doing the math, Pete. I was pretty certain that George would lack
the ability to do so. Of course, since I am screening everything he is
posting, I wasn't going to help him with this, either.

Rick

PS: My garage is more than 700 sq. ft. in a 1800 sq. ft. house. While it can
hold 2 cars and stuff, its primary intention was to store cars. That it
doesn't do so is a sad claim to past consumerism, thoug it does protect my
bikes, now.

"Pete" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> >
> > Rick > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> > > George,
> > >
> > > No. You are wrong. 1/3 of my house, and every house on every street on
> > which
> > > I've lived has a garage supposedly dedicated to cars (bigger houses
> simply
> > > have bigger garages nearly in the same proportion in most
neighborhoods,
> > > though there are some areas where the size of the house greatly
exceeds
> > this
> > > basic rule).
> >
> > Do you expect anyone to take you seriously? A 2,100 foot square
> house,
> > the average now, would have to have about 50 or more cars to meet your
> > criteria.
>
> Might wanna recheck your math, there, Georgie.
>
> How much space is devoted to a car in the garage? Just the car, nothing
> else. An Explorer is 15.5 x 6. Car is only 6' wide, but you gotta open the
> doors. Maybe 19 x 12?
>
> 1/3 of your "average house" is 700 sq ft.
> 19x12 = 228 sq ft You can only fit 3 of those in that 700 sq ft. Hey,
we
> just invented a 3 car garage!
>
> Not "50 or more". What kind of cars are YOU thinking of? Maybe something
> that is 8' x 5'? A 60's Mini isn't even that small.
>
> Pete
>
>
>
>

Tanya Quinn > wrote in message
om...
> > wrote in message
.net>...
> > Rick > wrote in message
> > link.net...
> > > George,
> > >
> > > No. You are wrong. 1/3 of my house, and every house on every street on
> > which
> > > I've lived has a garage supposedly dedicated to cars (bigger houses
simply
> > > have bigger garages nearly in the same proportion in most
neighborhoods,
> > > though there are some areas where the size of the house greatly
exceeds
> > this
> > > basic rule).
> >
> > Do you expect anyone to take you seriously? A 2,100 foot square
house,
> > the average now, would have to have about 50 or more cars to meet your
> > criteria.
>
> It is not square footage that matters since a lot is never filled by
> building anyway, but the size of the lots determine how many houses
> you can put in any given area. If a house has 60' frontage (typical
> suburban lot) and 20' of the frontage is taken up by an attached
> double car garage then 1/3 of the space is effectively dedicated to
> cars.

A typical suburban lot (R10) is about 12,000 sqare feet. A car takes up
60-100 square feet. What about 120 on your lot?

Krist > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
> > Keith F. Lynch > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>Tranasit makes it harder for people to get to work.
> >>
> >>If this were true, nobody would ride it to work.
> >>--
> >>
> >
> > Sure you would. Anything highly subsidized will get some takers.
>
> Unsubsidezed transit does exist, you know...
>
> --
> Krist
>
>
It used to.

[Pete]

> wrote
> >
> Garages are used to store crap. Cars sit outside and take up no housing
> space. Few houses even have a garage.

Oh, don't backpedal. Just admit you are wrong, and you pulled that "50 or
more" out of your ass.
Much as quite a lot of your comments.

Pete

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


> wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> >
> Garages are used to store crap. Cars sit outside and take up no housing
> space. Few houses even have a garage.
>
Not everywhere, Georgie Porgie. Not everywhere. You DO have to remember
that other parts of the country have permanent buildings and not just
trailers on blocks.

[Jack May]

"Baxter" > wrote in message
...

> > Garages are used to store crap. Cars sit outside and take up no
housing
> > space. Few houses even have a garage.
> >
> Not everywhere, Georgie Porgie. Not everywhere. You DO have to remember
> that other parts of the country have permanent buildings and not just
> trailers on blocks.

When he says "Few houses even have a garage" he obviously means that they
have a space that is normally called a garage but is really used as a
storage space.

I have my car in the garage instead of using it for storage. People often
comment how rare that is.

My main transportation is a motorcycle which is almost never in the garage,
so the garage is somewhat storage for my least used vehicle. What he said
is well know to be true.

[Matthew Russotto]

In article >,
Keith F. Lynch > wrote:
>
>I assume she took Metro? Cars may be necessary in the countryside,
>but they're out of place in the city. They take up valuable real
>estate, and they travel slower than pedestrians.

ROTFL. The claims just get wilder and wilder.
--
Matthew T. Russotto
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

[dizzy]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 23:31:07 GMT, "Jack May" >
wrote:

>I have my car in the garage instead of using it for storage. People often
>comment how rare that is.

People are idiots, and garages are for cars.

[dizzy]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 18:40:32 GMT, "Rick" > wrote:

>PS: My garage is more than 700 sq. ft. in a 1800 sq. ft. house. While it can
>hold 2 cars and stuff, its primary intention was to store cars. That it
>doesn't do so is a sad claim to past consumerism, thoug it does protect my
>bikes, now.

Don't blame the past. Use the present to get rid of things you don't
use.

[Jack May]

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...

> People are idiots, and garages are for cars.

People are smart, they solve problems with the limited resources available
to them.

People are creative, they are not constrained by rigid, arbitrary
definitions like "garages are for cars"

Pete > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote
> > >
> > Garages are used to store crap. Cars sit outside and take up no
housing
> > space. Few houses even have a garage.
>
> Oh, don't backpedal. Just admit you are wrong, and you pulled that "50 or
> more" out of your ass.
> Much as quite a lot of your comments.
>
> Pete
>
>
>
Actually it was an underestimate. It should have been about 100.

dizzy > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 23:31:07 GMT, "Jack May" >
> wrote:
>
> >I have my car in the garage instead of using it for storage. People
often
> >comment how rare that is.
>
> People are idiots, and garages are for cars.
>
>
They often get turned into spare rooms too.

Matthew Russotto > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Tanya Quinn > wrote:
> >
> >It is not square footage that matters since a lot is never filled by
> >building anyway, but the size of the lots determine how many houses
> >you can put in any given area. If a house has 60' frontage (typical
> >suburban lot) and 20' of the frontage is taken up by an attached
> >double car garage then 1/3 of the space is effectively dedicated to
> >cars.
>
> The "logic" just gets more and more bizarre. I suppose a garage
> with a side entrance thus takes up no space at all?
> --
>
People who hate cars come up with almost anything to prove their points.
ACCESS showed years ago that a well-planned city devotes more space to roads
than suburban areas, for example.

Keith F. Lynch > wrote in message
...
> Marc > wrote:
> > I'm not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. You appear to
> > be the only one with that in mind.
>
> The suggestion has been made, in this thread, that transit should be
> shut down if it requires government subsidies.
>
> I would agree, but only if we shut down *every* transportation mode
> that requires government subsidies, so we get a level playing field.
>

You simply have to know how much subsidy there is per mile. Cars and
airplanes get .02-.04 cents-per-mile. Amtrak gets 22 cents per mile.

[Jack May]

> wrote in message
thlink.net...

> They often get turned into spare rooms too.

Hell, in California a detached garage could be converted into house and sold
for $500K. There is more craziness in California than just politics

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Jack May wrote:

> "Keith F. Lynch" > wrote:

>> Motorists pay a much smaller proportion of the costs of driving than
>> transit riders pay of the costs of transit. Maybe bus rides should cost
>> $3.00 instead of $1.00, but gas taxes should be somwhere around $10.00
>> to $20.00 per gallon if they're intended to cover the full costs of
>> driving. Most of those costs are paid out of general tax revenues.

> Since you are in total disagreement with figures published by the US
> Federal Government, where do you get your data?

They're not "data" at all. They're propaganda. Claptrap belched forth by
one or another of the sky-is-falling groups that counts everything from a
six-year-old kid with the sniffles to the cost of a feather duster for
your venetian blinds as a "cost of driving".

DS

[Pete]

> wrote
> >
> Actually it was an underestimate. It should have been about 100.

You are a funny, funny ....umm....hmm....not quite sure what you are.

But you ARE funny.

Pete

[Daniel J. Stern]

On 13 Aug 2003, Keith F. Lynch wrote:

> gas taxes should be somwhere around $10.00 to $20.00 per gallon if
> they're intended to cover the full costs of driving.

Pfft. Now how 'bout if we complicate things by replacing gasoline with
gasohol (E85), the ethanol in which requires a substantial federal subsidy
to be remotely cost-competitive and the manufacture of which consumes the
energy contained in 1.5 litres of ethanol per litre of ethanol produced.

What then?

DS

[Jack May]

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
...
> They're not "data" at all. They're propaganda. Claptrap belched forth by
> one or another of the sky-is-falling groups that counts everything from a
> six-year-old kid with the sniffles to the cost of a feather duster for
> your venetian blinds as a "cost of driving".

So you have no source for your data, only conspiracy theories. It seems
that your entire belief system would collapse if it had to conform to
reality. I will just remember you in future posts as a person with no
credibility.

[Daniel J. Stern]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Jack May wrote:

> > They're not "data" at all. They're propaganda. Claptrap belched forth by
> > one or another of the sky-is-falling groups that counts everything from a
> > six-year-old kid with the sniffles to the cost of a feather duster for
> > your venetian blinds as a "cost of driving".
>
> So you have no source for your data, only conspiracy theories.

Whoops, Jack, you've made an error. I posted no data -- I merely commented
on the veracity of what somebody else posted. It is not my job to do
others' homework for them, but I do reserve the right to heckle when they
fail to do it and try to bluff their way through instead.

> It seems that your entire belief system would collapse if it had to
> conform to reality.

You know nothing of my "belief system".

> I will just remember you in future posts as a person with no
> credibility.

*shrug* No skin off my back. Suit yourself. I will not apologise for
failing to conform to your pet theories and little beliefs.

DS

[David Jensen]

On 13 Aug 2003 21:42:14 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" >
wrote:

>Marc > wrote:
>> I'm not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. You appear to
>> be the only one with that in mind.
>
>The suggestion has been made, in this thread, that transit should be
>shut down if it requires government subsidies.
>
>I would agree, but only if we shut down *every* transportation mode
>that requires government subsidies, so we get a level playing field.
>
>> Are you implying that cars paying for 100% of their costs and 75%
>> of the costs for mass transit is "fair share" because you see more
>> value in mass transit?
>
>No, I'm stating that those numbers are completely bogus. Motorists
>pay a much smaller proportion of the costs of driving than transit
>riders pay of the costs of transit.

Please provide evidence to support this claim. All of the evidence I
have seen shows that motorists pay between 95%-103% of the cost.


> Maybe bus rides should cost $3.00
>instead of $1.00, but gas taxes should be somwhere around $10.00 to
>$20.00 per gallon if they're intended to cover the full costs of
>driving. Most of those costs are paid out of general tax revenues.

Please identify them.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


> wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> Keith F. Lynch > wrote in message
> ...
> > Marc > wrote:
> > > I'm not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. You appear to
> > > be the only one with that in mind.
> >
> > The suggestion has been made, in this thread, that transit should be
> > shut down if it requires government subsidies.
> >
> > I would agree, but only if we shut down *every* transportation mode
> > that requires government subsidies, so we get a level playing field.
> >
>
> You simply have to know how much subsidy there is per mile. Cars and
> airplanes get .02-.04 cents-per-mile. Amtrak gets 22 cents per mile.
>
Since we're talking vastly different fuel usages, your comparison is bogus.
How about you use subsidy per passenger-mile instead?

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"David Jensen" > wrote in message
...
> On 13 Aug 2003 21:42:14 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" >
> wrote:
>
> >Marc > wrote:
> >> I'm not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. You appear to
> >> be the only one with that in mind.
> >
> >The suggestion has been made, in this thread, that transit should be
> >shut down if it requires government subsidies.
> >
> >I would agree, but only if we shut down *every* transportation mode
> >that requires government subsidies, so we get a level playing field.
> >
> >> Are you implying that cars paying for 100% of their costs and 75%
> >> of the costs for mass transit is "fair share" because you see more
> >> value in mass transit?
> >
> >No, I'm stating that those numbers are completely bogus. Motorists
> >pay a much smaller proportion of the costs of driving than transit
> >riders pay of the costs of transit.
>
> Please provide evidence to support this claim. All of the evidence I
> have seen shows that motorists pay between 95%-103% of the cost.
>
Then you're being deliberately blind. There's plenty of evidence of
subsidies from property tax, General Funds, and other sources.

[Marc]

"Keith F. Lynch" > wrote:
>Marc > wrote:
>> I'm not talking about forcing anyone to do anything. You appear to
>> be the only one with that in mind.
>
>The suggestion has been made, in this thread, that transit should be
>shut down if it requires government subsidies.
>
>I would agree, but only if we shut down *every* transportation mode
>that requires government subsidies, so we get a level playing field.

If that was done, it would leave cars, possibly planes, and eliminate all
forms of mass transit.

>> Are you implying that cars paying for 100% of their costs and 75%
>> of the costs for mass transit is "fair share" because you see more
>> value in mass transit?
>
>No, I'm stating that those numbers are completely bogus. Motorists
>pay a much smaller proportion of the costs of driving than transit
>riders pay of the costs of transit. Maybe bus rides should cost $3.00
>instead of $1.00, but gas taxes should be somwhere around $10.00 to
>$20.00 per gallon if they're intended to cover the full costs of
>driving. Most of those costs are paid out of general tax revenues.

Not from the information I have seen.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

[RJ]

On 10 Aug 2003 22:49:24 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" >
wrote:

>And passengers can read or work, rather than
>giving their full attention to driving.

I have ridden transit in many cities, and have never seen a rush hour
ride where reading or work is a reasonable thing to do. Doesn't work
at all if you're standing, for instance.

---
Bob

Jack May > wrote in message
news:EVB_a.139706$YN5.92376@sccrnsc01...
>
> "Keith F. Lynch" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Marc > wrote:
> > No, I'm stating that those numbers are completely bogus. Motorists
> > pay a much smaller proportion of the costs of driving than transit
> > riders pay of the costs of transit. Maybe bus rides should cost $3.00
> > instead of $1.00, but gas taxes should be somwhere around $10.00 to
> > $20.00 per gallon if they're intended to cover the full costs of
> > driving. Most of those costs are paid out of general tax revenues.
>
> Since you are in total disagreement with figures published by the US
Federal
> Government, where do you get your data?
>
>
>
Urban militants don't believe in data. They just make up the FActs to
suit the theory. Two groups do this: the far left and the far right.

[Mitch Haley]

Marc wrote:
>
> "Keith F. Lynch" > wrote:
> >
> >I would agree, but only if we shut down *every* transportation mode
> >that requires government subsidies, so we get a level playing field.
>
> If that was done, it would leave cars, possibly planes, and eliminate all
> forms of mass transit.

Definitely not planes, and what good are the cars (and bicycles and shoes
for that matter) if all you have are the toll roads and no way to get to
them? You could sit in your car at home and listen to the radio, but that's
not transportation. Of course we could convert all roads to toll roads, and
charge directly for usage, but I'm not sure how many roads we'd want if we
had to pay for them directly.

Mitch.

RJ > wrote in message
...
> On 10 Aug 2003 22:49:24 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" >
> wrote:
>
> >And passengers can read or work, rather than
> >giving their full attention to driving.
>
> I have ridden transit in many cities, and have never seen a rush hour
> ride where reading or work is a reasonable thing to do. Doesn't work
> at all if you're standing, for instance.
>
> ---
> Bob
>
All the years I rode the IRT to school, never once was there an
opportunity to do my homework on the train. You spend your time standing
there and trying not to fall down.

[David Jensen]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:34:30 -0700, "Baxter"
> wrote:

>> You simply have to know how much subsidy there is per mile. Cars and
>> airplanes get .02-.04 cents-per-mile. Amtrak gets 22 cents per mile.
>>
>Since we're talking vastly different fuel usages, your comparison is bogus.
>How about you use subsidy per passenger-mile instead?
>
>
I was under the imression he was.

[Matthew Russotto]

In article >,
Keith F. Lynch > wrote:
>
>No, I'm stating that those numbers are completely bogus. Motorists
>pay a much smaller proportion of the costs of driving than transit
>riders pay of the costs of transit. Maybe bus rides should cost $3.00
>instead of $1.00, but gas taxes should be somwhere around $10.00 to
>$20.00 per gallon if they're intended to cover the full costs of
>driving.

More numbers retrieved from a dark and smelly place (and I don't mean
an underground gas tank).
--
Matthew T. Russotto
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

[Matthew Russotto]

In article >,
Marc > wrote:
>
>Those of us who don't live in mobile homes have attached garages. 1/3 to
>1/4 of the house is a reasonable estimate.

What do you keep in those things, airplanes? My garage might be 1/5th
of my first floor, at most.
--
Matthew T. Russotto
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

David Jensen > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:34:30 -0700, "Baxter"
> > wrote:
>
> >> You simply have to know how much subsidy there is per mile. Cars and
> >> airplanes get .02-.04 cents-per-mile. Amtrak gets 22 cents per mile.
> >>
> >Since we're talking vastly different fuel usages, your comparison is
bogus.
> >How about you use subsidy per passenger-mile instead?
> >
> >
> I was under the imression he was.
>
That is subsidy per passenger mile. As for fuel, only long distances
buses save much fuel in btu's per passenger mile. Transit buses are worse
than cars, and planes only slightly worse than cars.

The accident rate of a business traveler in a full-sized Chevrolet on an
Interstate is low. It means that the business driver would have to drive
800 miles before flying would be safer. You see, most accidents happen when
planes take off or land, so longer trips are safer.

[Pete]

"dizzy" > wrote
>
> Maybe, but IMO, if you're parking outside just because your garage is
> a freaking storage facility for crap, you're an idiot. Especially in
> climates where you have to scrape snow and ice off your windows when
> you park outside.

If you store 'crap', then yes, you're right. If you have other stuff you
value as much as, or more than the car, then why not?

Some garages are just barely big enough for a car. And nothing else.
A car can be locked up tight, other stuff is harder.
A car is relatively waterproof when closed. Other items (that cannot be
stored in the house proper) are not.
Other, smaller items can be maneuvered around a car in the driveway. To use
a car in the garage, you have to move the other stuff in the driveway first.

What's really needed is a good shed/workshop.

Pete
Garages are for bikes, not cars...:)

[Scott Eiler]

In article et>,
the robotic servitors of >
rose up with the following chant:

> The accident rate of a business traveler in a full-sized Chevrolet on an
>Interstate is low. It means that the business driver would have to drive
>800 miles before flying would be safer. You see, most accidents happen when
>planes take off or land, so longer trips are safer.

I gotta ask... what does the size of the Chevy have to do with the accident
rate? I can see how a big gas guzzler might cut down on the *injury* rate,
but otherwise big Chevys are just big targets.

-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- http://www.eilertech.com/ --------

"Do not mistake my childlike appearance for innocence of any kind.
'Form of Boy' is well-known as the most feared battle-shape in Paradise."
-- The angel Asmodel, from "JLA: Paradise Lost" scripted by Mark Millar.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> David Jensen > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:34:30 -0700, "Baxter"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >> You simply have to know how much subsidy there is per mile. Cars
and
> > >> airplanes get .02-.04 cents-per-mile. Amtrak gets 22 cents per mile.
> > >>
> > >Since we're talking vastly different fuel usages, your comparison is
> bogus.
> > >How about you use subsidy per passenger-mile instead?
> > >
> > >
> > I was under the imression he was.
> >
> That is subsidy per passenger mile.

No, georgie porgie - you've made that up entirely.

[Marc]

Mitch Haley > wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" > wrote:
>> >
>> >I would agree, but only if we shut down *every* transportation mode
>> >that requires government subsidies, so we get a level playing field.
>>
>> If that was done, it would leave cars, possibly planes, and eliminate all
>> forms of mass transit.
>
>Definitely not planes,

Why? The gvt considers income tax gained from sales on airport property to
be derived from the airport (they don't physically separate it, but they do
track it) and when such tactics are used, air travel comes close. I don't
know if it manages to pay for itself completely, but it is certainly more
close than "definitely not."

>and what good are the cars (and bicycles and shoes
>for that matter) if all you have are the toll roads and no way to get to
>them? You could sit in your car at home and listen to the radio, but that's
>not transportation. Of course we could convert all roads to toll roads, and
>charge directly for usage, but I'm not sure how many roads we'd want if we
>had to pay for them directly.

The question wasn't about distributing the usage fees according to use
among one transportation method, but between methods.

Thus, the current method of taxing registration and fuel taxes does a
reasonably good job of targeting the vehicles that use the road and paying
for those roads. And, from what I've seen, the fees for registration and
fuel tax (and the other taxes and fees that hit only vehicles or people
that own them) do a reasonable job of covering cost of transportation.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

[Mitch Haley]

Marc wrote:
> And, from what I've seen, the fees for registration and
> fuel tax (and the other taxes and fees that hit only vehicles or people
> that own them) do a reasonable job of covering cost of transportation.

And from what I've seen, they might approximate the road-building grants,
but not the continuing maintenance.
Mitch.

[George Conklin]

"Marc" > wrote in message
...
> Mitch Haley > wrote:
> >Marc wrote:
> >> "Keith F. Lynch" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >I would agree, but only if we shut down *every* transportation mode
> >> >that requires government subsidies, so we get a level playing field.
> >>
> >> If that was done, it would leave cars, possibly planes, and eliminate
all
> >> forms of mass transit.
> >
> >Definitely not planes,
>
> Why? The gvt considers income tax gained from sales on airport property
to
> be derived from the airport (they don't physically separate it, but they
do
> track it)

What are you talking about? The airside must break even by law. The
landside income stays with the local airport authority.

[Marc]

Mitch Haley > wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>> And, from what I've seen, the fees for registration and
>> fuel tax (and the other taxes and fees that hit only vehicles or people
>> that own them) do a reasonable job of covering cost of transportation.
>
>And from what I've seen, they might approximate the road-building grants,
>but not the continuing maintenance.

The feds pay for building, but not maintenance. The locals pick up the
tabs for maintenance. The state picks it up for most of the larger roads,
and the city/county/borough/parish/etc. often pick up some of the smaller
roads. In TX, the locals use registration fees and the state uses gas tax.
The numbers seem to come out pretty even, from what I've seen.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

[Dr Engelbert Buxbaum]

John David Galt wrote:

> > By car, I can *leave* when I
> > want to go *where* I want, but I don't necessarily get there *when* I
> > want. At many times of day and many places automobile traffic is too
> > congested to get people where they want to go when they want.
>
> This is largely deliberate on the part of planning bureaucrats who hate
> the car, and therefore is not to be blamed on drivers.

Ah, the conspiracy theory. You should do a little check: How are
buerocrats going to work? Then you will probably find that most of them
do not hate the car, but use it just as much as you do.


> Not comparable for several reasons. Transit doesn't go everywhere,
> doesn't run all the time, and cannot be trusted for either safety or
> reliability compared to one's own car.

In cities with a well developed transit system, you only walk 3-400
yards between stops. That should be doable for most people. And as to
"all the time", if there is a demand, there is a supply.

The story with reliability reminds me of that Maserati driver I once saw
at the side of the road, hood up, in a snow storm on the evening before
Christmas. Tried to fix his engine.

> For most people, the car is a necessity because
> the job can't be reached (sufficiently easily and reliably) without it.

Then why do they not live closer to work? Whenever I accept a new post,
I move to a flat within cycling distance of it. And so far there always
were nice options available.

> Thus the fixed cost goes under necessities, and the relevant comparison
> for the rider is the incremental cost of driving vs. the bus ticket.
> (The relevant comparison for public policy is the same except that the
> tax subsidy to the transit system has to be counted in its cost.)

Its not necessary at all. Although I got a licence in my shady past, I
haven't had a car for 25 years now, and I still live an active live.
Owning a car is a luxury, not a necessity.

But you are approaching one of the major problems here: Costs of owning
a car are so high compared to actually driving it that once you have
made the decission to have one you are almost forced to use it for
everything. The bus ticket costs extra money, the drive (almost)
doesn't. may be those are the screws that need fixing: Abolish road tax
in favour of higher gas tax, base insurance premiums on milage, don't
sell cars but lease them with rates based on milage and so on.

> Again, that is not a problem with automobiles. It only becomes a problem
> when city planners prevent enough roads from being built to catch up to
> traffic demand. The solution is to abolish the planning bureaucracies and
> privatize the transportation industry completely.

Road building does not lead to less congestion, but to more. This has
been demonstrated over and over again, we have discussed this in this
thread already with references given.

Appart from that the increase in land use, the financial costs of such
road building programs, the resulting increase in pollution and other
social costs would be unsupportable for any society.

[Dr Engelbert Buxbaum]

Jack May wrote:


> My experience is that a cab tends to run about $1.50 to $2.00 per mile
> (including tip) compared to about 35 cents per mile for a car. You
> typically have to wait about 30 minutes for a cab to arrive which is about
> $18 for a typical income of $75K per year where I live. So the people are
> making a wise economic decision using a car and a terrible decision to use a
> cab except for a few circumstances.

So your cab costs 2 bucks a mile. Your journey is, what, 5 miles? Thats
10 bucks each way, 20 bucks total. During waiting time you can do
something else, so that doesn't add to the costs (unless you are bad on
planning, that is).

> Why is there a fixed cost for a car. If you use a car less, it cost less
> per year. Since most people these days drive a car until it is worn out,
> the cost is mainly a function of mileage (including insurance). There are
> some time fixed cost, but a large part is mileage based.

A small car costs about 10,000 $, and lasts, on average, 8 years. Thats
104 $ a month average write-of costs. As most people don't have those
10,000 $ you need to add financing costs: A 3 year 8% credit adds 1600 $
to the price tag, 17 $ per month if spread over the lifetime of the car.
And note, that was just a small car! OK, lifetime is somewhat usage
dependent, but that does not substantially change the calculation.

To that you have to add insurance, road tax, road worthiness testing and
the costs for a garage to put the car in (even if you own one, you could
use it for something else or let it).

I don't know US prices, but here in Germany that's a total of 300-400 $
(or Euro) a month in fixed costs, before you have driven a single mile.
Thats 15 journeys with a taxi, one every second day. Very wise economic
decission!


> A large part of the congestion is caused by excessive spending on transit
> and gross under spending on roads. For example in Silicon Valley the
> amount of money to get 1K people out of their cars into transit is running
> at about the same as the money it would take to add capacity for an
> additional 100K people.

Even if you only include road building that relationship is probably
wrong. Just compare the price of a mile of new road with that of a new
bus.

But what about all the additional costs involved: Environmental damage,
hospitals for accident victims, lost working hours, pensions for widdows
and orphans, separation costs, reduction of living quality along major
roads with consequential reduction of property value,....

Society has not even started to calculate the true cost of car driving,
and those that do are called names.

[Dr Engelbert Buxbaum]

Dave Head wrote:



> I could have easily _circled_ the city, and beat that train. The transit
> system _has_ to go to the personal rapid transit model, with no stopping of
> rail vehicles from start to stop, or it is never going to be competitive with
> cars.

I have never been to WDC myself, but from what I hear about the traffic
there, you'd have needed a 'chopter to do that.



> I think we have to compare the transit system at its best with cars when they
> are at their best, and _win_ with transit. That means the transit system beats
> the car, door to door, at 4:00 AM on Sunday morning, when there is no highway
> traffic. That will be a transit system that will get _ridden_, and the
> technology is here, with personal rapid transit, if someone will just go ahead
> and build it. People would likely still have to drive to a PRT terminal, at
> least until the system is built out to basically "everywhere", but PRT would
> win the competition, and then people would _pay_ to ride it. Beginning of the
> end of highway congestion, I think.

Several flaws in that argument:

1) Most car travels are not made at 4:00 AM on sunday, but at 5 pm on
weekday, in bumper-to-bumper traffic crawling at pedestrian speed. Yet
cars get used. So why would people not use other means of tranportation
even if those involve less discomfort? When I was working in Leicester,
I used to cycle to work (about 30 min ride), on a cycle path network
going through parks most of the way. I had to cross a bridge across a
street packed with waiting cars, and smiled every day.

2) The public transport system you describe would not be used, nobody
could afford it.



> But how about my upcoming shopping trip? I have to get to several outdoor
> stores to do my shopping, then to a haircut, probably to Radio Shack, and
> almost certianly a movie before or after. I can barely get that done in a car.
> If there is a 10 - 15 minute wait for a bus to show up each leg of the trip,
> it'll take 2 trips, minimum. Plus - I'm on my way to a movie as soon a I
> finish this - 10:05 PM movie. Find me a train - or bus - at that hour. Ain't
> happening...

Buying things for a household with 1 or 2 persons on a bike is no
problem, add a trailer and you could even shop for a family. The
occasional big item - that's what the taxi is for. I don't know where
you live, but in those places where I have been shops are fairly close
to each other in shopping districts. Or they are conveniently situated
near my way to work.

But of course there are those who need a car to get a pack of
cigarettes.

[Dr Engelbert Buxbaum]

Dave Head wrote:

> The roads have lots of curves and sharp crests. A few
> months ago, a guy in my office came over one of these crests and plowed into
> traffic stopped for a school bus. A bike wouldn't have a chance around here.

If the guy goes over a crest at a speed that prevents him from stopping
in front of an obstacle, he should be banned.

[Dr Engelbert Buxbaum]

> wrote:


> People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do nothing
> around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?

Oh yes, I have actually done it.

How often do you go to Home Depot? Once a year? No point in keeping a
car for that, is there?

Appart from that, Home Depot (at least the UK version) delivers things
to your doorstep, at a very reasonable fee (waived if the value of your
goods exceeds a cetrtain threshold). Which means you can use your bike,
too.

[Dr Engelbert Buxbaum]

PC wrote:


> But in the end, there is still more to life than money.
>
> The triple bottom line generally applied to public projects measures
> the economic (money), social and environmental cost and benefit of a
> project..

And what about those people who can not drive a car for reason of age or
disability? What about the separation effects of big roads? The health
problems associated with car exhausts? Accident victims? And a lot of
other items in this list.

When I was working in Frankfurt (Germany), there was a local law that a
company has to have parking space for its employees, to reduce parking
problems in the city. However, companies had the choice of buying their
employees annual tickets for the cities bus/tramway/subway system, these
tickets were cheap because heavily subsidised by the town hall. Because
they could be used for private trips as well, they offered real value
for money for the people involved, they just had to agree not to come to
work by car. Win/Win/Win for companies, employees and city, even if some
public money has to be spend on such a system.

Frankfurt is a city with about 600,000 people, but you can traverse it
on bike in less than half an hour, using the "green belt" park system.
Traversing by car, in rush hour traffic, may be 2 hours.

Dr Engelbert Buxbaum > wrote in message
...
> > wrote:
>
>
> > People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do
nothing
> > around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?
>
> Oh yes, I have actually done it.
>
> How often do you go to Home Depot? Once a year? No point in keeping a
> car for that, is there?
>
>
Three times a week, and when in the mountain home, more often than that.
You are obviously a very impractical person who relies on others to do most
of your work for you.

Dr Engelbert Buxbaum > wrote in message
...
> Marc wrote:
>
>
> > >The only reason why cars are so common is because of distortions in the
> > >economy caused by various government policies, taxes, and subsidies.
> >
> > Or the lack thereof. In Europe, there are significant taxes that
support
> > much more than just the auto infrastructure. In the US, the taxes are
much
> > smaller and are more closely tied to the source of the revenue.
>
> A myth, often told but still wrong. I do not kow of any country where
> car related taxes cover the car related costs, if those are honestly
> accounted for.
>
> Here in Germany the Green Party once ordered a study on this subject
> from some scientific institute, in the mid '80s. The result was that gas
> tax would have to be 5 DM per litre (US$ 12 per gallon) to achieve
> that. In todays terms, these costs would probably be higher, but the
> Greens are in goverment now, so they keep quiet about it.
>
> Some (roughly similar) American figures were discussed in a different
> posting of this threat.

Using the same kind of fake and false data, you can show that transit
systems cost $15 a mile to operate.

Dr Engelbert Buxbaum > wrote in message
...
> PC wrote:
>
>
> > But in the end, there is still more to life than money.
> >
> > The triple bottom line generally applied to public projects measures
> > the economic (money), social and environmental cost and benefit of a
> > project..
>
> And what about those people who can not drive a car for reason of age or
> disability?

Then they should be allowed by law to ask any driver to take them where
they want to go for a fee agreeable to both. But that is not legal because
governments do not want any competition from their massively inefficient
transit systems designed to make people travel where it is politically
correct, i.e.downtown to old-fashioned stores no one wants to shop in.

Dr Engelbert Buxbaum > wrote in message
...
> Scott in Aztlan wrote:
>
>
> > I live approximately 3 miles from my office. It takes me less than 9
minutes
> > door-to-door to drive there. If I take the bus, that trip becomes 45
minutes,
> > primarily because the bus that comes closest to my house takes me 6
miles in the
> > opposite direction before I can transfer to the bus that drops me off
near my
> > office. Alternatively, I can take a different bus and walk about a mile;
this
> > version of the trip takes about 30 minutes. I could also ride my bike,
but there
> > are no showers in my office building, and going through the workday
reeking of
> > sweat typically isn't the best career move. :)
>
>
> Reaking of sweat after a 3 mile ride? You should really, really do
> something about your fitness, mate!
>
>
I understand that it is hot in Germany this summer.

[Krist]

wrote:
> Krist > wrote in message
> ...
>
wrote:
>>
>>>Keith F. Lynch > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Tranasit makes it harder for people to get to work.
>>>>
>>>>If this were true, nobody would ride it to work.
>>>>--
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sure you would. Anything highly subsidized will get some takers.
>>
>>Unsubsidezed transit does exist, you know...
>>
>>--
>>Krist
>>
>>
>
> It used to.

It still does.


--
Krist

[David Jensen]

In misc.transport.urban-transit, Krist > wrote in
>:

wrote:
>> Krist > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>>Keith F. Lynch > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Tranasit makes it harder for people to get to work.
>>>>>
>>>>>If this were true, nobody would ride it to work.
>>>>>--
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure you would. Anything highly subsidized will get some takers.
>>>
>>>Unsubsidezed transit does exist, you know...
>>>
>>>--
>>>Krist
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It used to.
>
>It still does.

Any examples?

David Jensen > wrote in message
...
> In misc.transport.urban-transit, Krist > wrote in
> >:
>
> wrote:
> >> Krist > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Keith F. Lynch > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Tranasit makes it harder for people to get to work.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>If this were true, nobody would ride it to work.
> >>>>>--
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure you would. Anything highly subsidized will get some takers.
> >>>
> >>>Unsubsidezed transit does exist, you know...
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>Krist
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> It used to.
> >
> >It still does.
>
> Any examples?

There are no examples.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> Dr Engelbert Buxbaum > wrote in message
> ...
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> > > People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do
> nothing
> > > around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?
> >
> > Oh yes, I have actually done it.
> >
> > How often do you go to Home Depot? Once a year? No point in keeping a
> > car for that, is there?
> >
> >
> Three times a week, and when in the mountain home, more often than
that.
> You are obviously a very impractical person who relies on others to do
most
> of your work for you.
>
"Three times a week"!? to Home Depot? Can't you buy more than one board at
a time? Are you so disorganized?

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> Dr Engelbert Buxbaum > wrote in message
> ...
> > PC wrote:
> >
> >
> > > But in the end, there is still more to life than money.
> > >
> > > The triple bottom line generally applied to public projects measures
> > > the economic (money), social and environmental cost and benefit of a
> > > project..
> >
> > And what about those people who can not drive a car for reason of age or
> > disability?
>
> Then they should be allowed by law to ask any driver to take them
where
> they want to go for a fee agreeable to both. But that is not legal because
> governments do not want any competition from their massively inefficient
> transit systems designed to make people travel where it is politically
> correct, i.e.downtown to old-fashioned stores no one wants to shop in.
>
The hell it ain't legal, george. In fact, 42% of all trips in the Portland
metro area are Shared Rides.

[Jack May]

"Dr Engelbert Buxbaum" > wrote in message
...
> Jack May wrote:

> So your cab costs 2 bucks a mile. Your journey is, what, 5 miles? Thats
> 10 bucks each way, 20 bucks total. During waiting time you can do
> something else, so that doesn't add to the costs (unless you are bad on
> planning, that is).

Ha! You are standing outside waiting for a cab trying to spot them before
they give up trying to find you. They arrive at random times, so there is
no planning

> > Why is there a fixed cost for a car. If you use a car less, it cost
less
> > per year. Since most people these days drive a car until it is worn
out,
> > the cost is mainly a function of mileage (including insurance). There
are
> > some time fixed cost, but a large part is mileage based.
>
> A small car costs about 10,000 $, and lasts, on average, 8 years. Thats
> 104 $ a month average write-of costs. As most people don't have those
> 10,000 $ you need to add financing costs: A 3 year 8% credit adds 1600 $
> to the price tag, 17 $ per month if spread over the lifetime of the car.
> And note, that was just a small car! OK, lifetime is somewhat usage
> dependent, but that does not substantially change the calculation.
>
> To that you have to add insurance, road tax, road worthiness testing and
> the costs for a garage to put the car in (even if you own one, you could
> use it for something else or let it).

It still comes out at officially 35 cents per mile including all those cost.
BTW, cars last much longer than 8 years. Of course the latest results say
that German cars are now of lower reliability than US and Japanese cars.


> I don't know US prices, but here in Germany that's a total of 300-400 $
> (or Euro) a month in fixed costs, before you have driven a single mile.
> Thats 15 journeys with a taxi, one every second day. Very wise economic
> decission!

So what, Europe continually finds ways to screw up their society.

> Even if you only include road building that relationship is probably
> wrong. Just compare the price of a mile of new road with that of a new
> bus.

I was comparing transit to cars. There are also multiple ways of
increasing road capacity without building roads. The alternative road
approaches inside a city are usually cheaper than building roads. The
figures come from a lot of project I have seen as part of the transportation
politics of Silicon Valley. Plus, remember in the US we look towards the
future with innovation instead of living in the past and avoiding change
like Europeans.

> But what about all the additional costs involved: Environmental damage,
> hospitals for accident victims, lost working hours, pensions for widdows
> and orphans, separation costs, reduction of living quality along major
> roads with consequential reduction of property value,....

What are the associated cost of similar items for transit that you forget in
your highly dishonest argument. The environment damage is transit is far
higher. That 100 to one ratio means there will be far more congestion and
thus far more pollution if you spend the money on transit instead of
spending it to reduce automobile congestion. Transit spend in almost all of
the US leads to increased congestion which leads to increased pollution.

The accident and death rate in the US for transit accidents are about the
same as cars (including both people in and out of the transit vehicle).
Again you make a highly dishonest statement that cars are evil and transit
is totally problem free. No way is that true in the real world.

In the US road increase property values and in most places transit decreases
property values. Transit here is mainly for poor people which leads to
more crime and less money to maintain their houses. In Europe the amount
of transit use is inversely proportional to income. I suspect there is a
similar problem there, but since you seem to be unaware of the world around
you, you may not see the effect.

Jack May > wrote in message
news:ieC0b.204149$Ho3.27417@sccrnsc03...
>
> "Dr Engelbert Buxbaum" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Jack May wrote:
>
> > So your cab costs 2 bucks a mile. Your journey is, what, 5 miles? Thats
> > 10 bucks each way, 20 bucks total. During waiting time you can do
> > something else, so that doesn't add to the costs (unless you are bad on
> > planning, that is).
>
> Ha! You are standing outside waiting for a cab trying to spot them before
> they give up trying to find you. They arrive at random times, so there
is
> no planning
>
> > > Why is there a fixed cost for a car. If you use a car less, it cost
> less
> > > per year. Since most people these days drive a car until it is worn
> out,
> > > the cost is mainly a function of mileage (including insurance). There
> are
> > > some time fixed cost, but a large part is mileage based.
> >
> > A small car costs about 10,000 $, and lasts, on average, 8 years. Thats
> > 104 $ a month average write-of costs. As most people don't have those
> > 10,000 $ you need to add financing costs: A 3 year 8% credit adds 1600 $
> > to the price tag, 17 $ per month if spread over the lifetime of the car.
> > And note, that was just a small car! OK, lifetime is somewhat usage
> > dependent, but that does not substantially change the calculation.
> >
> > To that you have to add insurance, road tax, road worthiness testing and
> > the costs for a garage to put the car in (even if you own one, you could
> > use it for something else or let it).
>
> It still comes out at officially 35 cents per mile including all those
cost.
> BTW, cars last much longer than 8 years. Of course the latest results say
> that German cars are now of lower reliability than US and Japanese cars.
>

I keep a car 15 years on the average myself, or about 225,000 miles (not
km). Every now and then we get rid of one sooner. The Mercedes 190D we hav
e is highly trouble prone and is in the shop constantly for multiple
problems. I also find it uncomfortable.




>
> > I don't know US prices, but here in Germany that's a total of 300-400 $
> > (or Euro) a month in fixed costs, before you have driven a single mile.
> > Thats 15 journeys with a taxi, one every second day. Very wise economic
> > decission!
>
> So what, Europe continually finds ways to screw up their society.
>
> > Even if you only include road building that relationship is probably
> > wrong. Just compare the price of a mile of new road with that of a new
> > bus.
>
> I was comparing transit to cars. There are also multiple ways of
> increasing road capacity without building roads. The alternative road
> approaches inside a city are usually cheaper than building roads. The
> figures come from a lot of project I have seen as part of the
transportation
> politics of Silicon Valley. Plus, remember in the US we look towards the
> future with innovation instead of living in the past and avoiding change
> like Europeans.
>
> > But what about all the additional costs involved: Environmental damage,
> > hospitals for accident victims, lost working hours, pensions for widdows
> > and orphans, separation costs, reduction of living quality along major
> > roads with consequential reduction of property value,....
>
> What are the associated cost of similar items for transit that you forget
in
> your highly dishonest argument. The environment damage is transit is far
> higher. That 100 to one ratio means there will be far more congestion and
> thus far more pollution if you spend the money on transit instead of
> spending it to reduce automobile congestion. Transit spend in almost all
of
> the US leads to increased congestion which leads to increased pollution.
>
> The accident and death rate in the US for transit accidents are about the
> same as cars (including both people in and out of the transit vehicle).
> Again you make a highly dishonest statement that cars are evil and transit
> is totally problem free. No way is that true in the real world.
>
> In the US road increase property values and in most places transit
decreases
> property values. Transit here is mainly for poor people which leads to
> more crime and less money to maintain their houses. In Europe the amount
> of transit use is inversely proportional to income. I suspect there is a
> similar problem there, but since you seem to be unaware of the world
around
> you, you may not see the effect.
>
>

[Krist]

David Jensen wrote:
> In misc.transport.urban-transit, Krist > wrote in
> >:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>>Krist > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Keith F. Lynch > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Tranasit makes it harder for people to get to work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If this were true, nobody would ride it to work.
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure you would. Anything highly subsidized will get some takers.
>>>>
>>>>Unsubsidezed transit does exist, you know...
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Krist
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> It used to.
>>
>>It still does.
>
>
> Any examples?

Many of the Japanes railways. Some around Tokyo are _very_ profitable
(farebox recovery rates of 150% - 200% are not uncommon), the Kowloon -
Kanton railway in China, probably others too.

In the UK several light rail systems run without running subsidies if
I'm not mistaken.

--
Krist

[David Jensen]

In misc.transport.urban-transit, Krist > wrote in
>:

>David Jensen wrote:
>> In misc.transport.urban-transit, Krist > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>>Krist > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Keith F. Lynch > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Tranasit makes it harder for people to get to work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If this were true, nobody would ride it to work.
>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure you would. Anything highly subsidized will get some takers.
>>>>>
>>>>>Unsubsidezed transit does exist, you know...
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Krist
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It used to.
>>>
>>>It still does.
>>
>>
>> Any examples?
>
>Many of the Japanes railways. Some around Tokyo are _very_ profitable
>(farebox recovery rates of 150% - 200% are not uncommon), the Kowloon -
>Kanton railway in China, probably others too.

That seems reasonable.

>In the UK several light rail systems run without running subsidies if
>I'm not mistaken.

It may be.

[George Conklin]

"Krist" > wrote in message
...
> David Jensen wrote:
> > In misc.transport.urban-transit, Krist > wrote in
> > >:
> >
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Krist > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Keith F. Lynch > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Tranasit makes it harder for people to get to work.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>If this were true, nobody would ride it to work.
> >>>>>>--
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sure you would. Anything highly subsidized will get some takers.
> >>>>
> >>>>Unsubsidezed transit does exist, you know...
> >>>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>Krist
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> It used to.
> >>
> >>It still does.
> >
> >
> > Any examples?
>
> Many of the Japanes railways. Some around Tokyo are _very_ profitable
> (farebox recovery rates of 150% - 200% are not uncommon), the Kowloon -
> Kanton railway in China, probably others too.
>
> In the UK several light rail systems run without running subsidies if
> I'm not mistaken.
>
> --
> Krist
>

Overall Japan has overinvested in both trains and roads, and this problem
is one of the things dragging their economy into deflation and and
bankrupting the banks. Land was bid up to unsustainable prices and now the
are collapsing due to overinvestment in people-concentraing rail schemes.

[Dr Engelbert Buxbaum]

Jack May wrote:


> It still comes out at officially 35 cents per mile including all those cost.
> BTW, cars last much longer than 8 years. Of course the latest results say
> that German cars are now of lower reliability than US and Japanese cars.

Cars can last longer than 8 years, but some get wraped around a tree on
thei first jorney. That is the point of averages, they deal not with
individual cases but with populations. And the average lifetime of a
car, according to industry figures, is 8 years.

And if American cars realy were so much more relible than Europeans, why
did Daimler buy Crysler, rather than the other way round? Fact is that
American cars are a joke to the rest of the world.


> I was comparing transit to cars. There are also multiple ways of
> increasing road capacity without building roads.

There are, for example by slowing down car traffic to reduce the
distance required between cars. But those effects are usually minor. In
the end, a car has a certain footprint, a street a certain area, and
area divided by footprint (plus safety distance) is the number of cars
that a road can carry. If you want to increase that, you build new
streets.

> Plus, remember in the US we look towards the
> future with innovation instead of living in the past and avoiding change
> like Europeans.

Oh, so thats why Europeans have a stable supply with electric power, and
the Americans have blackouts every so often.

>
> > But what about all the additional costs involved: Environmental damage,
> > hospitals for accident victims, lost working hours, pensions for widdows
> > and orphans, separation costs, reduction of living quality along major
> > roads with consequential reduction of property value,....
>
> What are the associated cost of similar items for transit that you forget in
> your highly dishonest argument. The environment damage is transit is far
> higher.

A car uses 10 l of gas for every 100 km and usually sits one person. A
bus needs about 25 l of gas per 100 km and accomodates 100 persons (30
of peak). Now calculate the amount of exaust gases produced per
passenger km.

Calculate the amount of waste that has to be recycled when that bus gets
retired (based on passenger km) and compare that figure with the figure
for 100 SUVs. If you want to talk nonsense, at least make it non-obvious
nonsense.

> That 100 to one ratio means there will be far more congestion and
> thus far more pollution if you spend the money on transit instead of
> spending it to reduce automobile congestion. Transit spend in almost all of
> the US leads to increased congestion which leads to increased pollution.

100 persons in a bus take less space on the road than 100 persons in 100
SUVs (ok, make that 90 SUVs to account for the few cars with more than 1
person in it). Even in off-peak times, when the bus carries only 30
people, the ratio is still better. So public transport reduces
congestion, rather than increasing it.

> Again you make a highly dishonest statement that cars are evil and transit
> is totally problem free. No way is that true in the real world.

I don't. But people have to get around, and the amount of problems
caused by mass transit are less than those caused by cars, especially in
densly populated areas. And that means that transit is the better
option, relatively speaking.

And I havee never said that cars are evil, I said that they have a place
in the transportation mix of a modern society. But the indiscriminant
use of cars for all travel causes problems.

> In the US road increase property values and in most places transit decreases
> property values.

Talk to a property agent about the house prices along a heavyly used
motorway compared with a quiet back street, other factors being equal.
He will tell you that the house in the quiet area will be worth several
times that on the motorway.

Do a sociographic study: Who is living in quiet areas (rich people) and
who is living on major roads (poor people).

Get your facts right before you make a fool out of yourself.

[Dr Engelbert Buxbaum]

> wrote:


> Using the same kind of fake and false data, you can show that transit
> systems cost $15 a mile to operate.

Just because you don't like them does not mean that data are faked. In
fact, before you accuse scientists of faking data, you should really
have some good evidence. Faking data means the end of the carreer for a
scientist.

In this particular case of course there is no room for faking, as the
relevant data are public knowledge.

[Dr Engelbert Buxbaum]

> wrote:


> > How often do you go to Home Depot? Once a year? No point in keeping a
> > car for that, is there?
> >
> >
> Three times a week, and when in the mountain home, more often than that.
> You are obviously a very impractical person who relies on others to do most
> of your work for you.


No, I just organise myself properly. Going 3 times a week to the same
shop may be appropriate for a bakery, but not for Home Depot.

And I delegate those things that can be done better (or more cheaply) by
others. That's what a modern society is about, only cave people did
everything themself.

Dr Engelbert Buxbaum > wrote in message
...
> > wrote:
>
>
> > Using the same kind of fake and false data, you can show that transit
> > systems cost $15 a mile to operate.
>
> Just because you don't like them does not mean that data are faked. In
> fact, before you accuse scientists of faking data, you should really
> have some good evidence. Faking data means the end of the carreer for a
> scientist.
>
> In this particular case of course there is no room for faking, as the
> relevant data are public knowledge.

Transit systems locally in RTP get back 11 cents on the dollar. No one
denies that.

Dr Engelbert Buxbaum > wrote in message
...
> > wrote:
>
>
> > > How often do you go to Home Depot? Once a year? No point in keeping a
> > > car for that, is there?
> > >
> > >
> > Three times a week, and when in the mountain home, more often than
that.
> > You are obviously a very impractical person who relies on others to do
most
> > of your work for you.
>
>
> No, I just organise myself properly.

You are a very impractical person who is totally disorganized
intellectually and personally.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 19:44:16 -0400, Mitch Haley >
wrote:

>I quit viewing Mercedes as a serious carmaker when they replaced the W126
>S-class chassis with the overweight, underreliable W140 S-class in 1992.

The W124 and W126 were the last cars made before the accountants told
them to stop overdesigning them ;-)

For reliability, I would buy a Honda every time. For longevity I
stick with my old Volvo. But the reason US cars are not well-regarded
outside the USA is nothing to do with reliability, it's the abysmal
fuel economy!

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
New! Improved!! Now with added extra Demon!

Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 19:44:16 -0400, Mitch Haley >
> wrote:
>
> >I quit viewing Mercedes as a serious carmaker when they replaced the W126
> >S-class chassis with the overweight, underreliable W140 S-class in 1992.
>
> The W124 and W126 were the last cars made before the accountants told
> them to stop overdesigning them ;-)
>
> For reliability, I would buy a Honda every time. For longevity I
> stick with my old Volvo. But the reason US cars are not well-regarded
> outside the USA is nothing to do with reliability, it's the abysmal
> fuel economy!
>
>

It is the import taxes which make it easy to import a car from a foreign
company into the USA, but very hard for us to export anything. I sure hope
my MB 190D was not what an engineer in German called overdesigned. It is a
maintenance hog and is designed so the AC hoses cross the fuse box making it
impossible to replace the fuses unless you break the cover or cut a hose.

[Marc]

> wrote:

> It is the import taxes which make it easy to import a car from a foreign
>company into the USA, but very hard for us to export anything.

You spoke specifically of "import taxes." I'm unaware of a disparity that
would cause such a situation. Not counting sales tax, economy tax, engine
size tax, CO2 tax, or any other fees that would be the same if the car was
local, what taxes are levied on a car sold in, say, the UK or Germany that
do not apply to vehicles produced locally?

There is a significant cost to keep a dealership network in a country as
large as the US. There are regulations regarding the availability of parts
and such for manufacturers here. The cost to recertify a car for the US
that has already been certified elsewhere is the same as if it wasn't
certified anywhere else. Many regulations in the US are not compatible
with any country across the ocean (either direction), requiring separate
parts for the US and other countries for enough pieces to cause significant
cost.

It is much easier to sell cars in small numbers in European countries than
the US.

Ford, Chrysler and GM all sell cars in foreign countries. Where is Pugeot,
Citroen, Fiat, Rover (the cars, not Range Rover), Seat, Skoda?

From what I've seen, it is relatively easy to export to foreign countries.
But if you read reviews of, say, a Jeep Grand Cherokee, you'll see why they
don't bother with too many models. Also, because of engine size and other
things, they don't fit well to the pricing/taxing structure and are often
uncompetitive for reasons other than the product itself. But that doesn't
make it hard to export, only hard to sell competitively (which isn't the
same thing).

If you want to make it easier for the US to export cars, petition the US
government to work with the EU and Japan to standardize emissions, mileage,
lighting, and other requirements (and the necessary back-end
infrastructure, like fuel) and then it will be much easier for the all cars
to be tested once and sold anywhere in the world (well, tested twice for
lighting for cars sold in RHD and LHD versions).

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 16:30:32 -0700, "fbloogyudsr"
> wrote:

>> And which made it easy for the US makers to build the SUV market
>> without fear of overseas competition, thanks to a tit-for-tat import
>> tariff imposed back in the mists of time ;-)

>There was never an import duty on SUV's. Only on pickups.

AIUI it was "light trucks," and SUVs were / are classed as light
trucks, which is how they also escape CAFE and some passenger car
safety legislation.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony.
http://www.chapmancentral.com
New! Improved!! Now with added extra Demon!

[John David Galt]

>>> There was never an import duty on SUV's. Only on pickups.

>> AIUI it was "light trucks," and SUVs were / are classed as light
>> trucks,

> Not for license plates; they get passenger car plates.

Depends on the state. In CA they are not only trucks, they have to be
registered as commercial vehicles. As do pickups.

[P e t e F a g e r l i n]

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 15:42:48 -0400, RJ > wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 22:08:47 -0700, John David Galt
> wrote:
>
>>>>> There was never an import duty on SUV's. Only on pickups.
>>
>>>> AIUI it was "light trucks," and SUVs were / are classed as light
>>>> trucks,
>>
>>> Not for license plates; they get passenger car plates.
>>
>>Depends on the state. In CA they are not only trucks, they have to be
>>registered as commercial vehicles. As do pickups.
>
>Interesting. All the states I've lived in register SUVs as cars, not
>trucks.

He's mistaken.

In CA SUVs are registered as cars, don't need commercial plates, and
get passenger car plates.

[JD]

"Scott in Aztlan" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 22:08:47 -0700, John David Galt
> > wrote:
>
> >>>> There was never an import duty on SUV's. Only on pickups.
> >
> >>> AIUI it was "light trucks," and SUVs were / are classed as light
> >>> trucks,
> >
> >> Not for license plates; they get passenger car plates.
> >
> >Depends on the state. In CA they are not only trucks, they have to be
> >registered as commercial vehicles. As do pickups.
>
> You're right about pickups having to be registered as commercial vehicles,
but
> my Dodge Durango was registered in CA as an ordinary passenger car and
received
> a passenger car license plate (as evidenced by the NAAANNN character
pattern on
> the plate as well as the lack of an additional licencing fee based on
vehicle
> weight).
>
> It may be that the car dealer screwed up, of course, but the way it was
> explained to me is that, because an SUV can carry passengers in the back,
it
> qulifies as a passenger vehicle; since a pickup truck can only carry cargo
in
> the back, that makes it a commercial vehicle.

No need to speculate. All info is on state's website. My CA SUV was never
licensed as a commercial vehicle and I know of many pick-ups that aren't
either.

[George Conklin]

"JD" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Scott in Aztlan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 22:08:47 -0700, John David Galt
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >>>> There was never an import duty on SUV's. Only on pickups.
> > >
> > >>> AIUI it was "light trucks," and SUVs were / are classed as light
> > >>> trucks,
> > >
> > >> Not for license plates; they get passenger car plates.
> > >
> > >Depends on the state. In CA they are not only trucks, they have to be
> > >registered as commercial vehicles. As do pickups.
> >
> > You're right about pickups having to be registered as commercial
vehicles,
> but
> > my Dodge Durango was registered in CA as an ordinary passenger car and
> received
> > a passenger car license plate (as evidenced by the NAAANNN character
> pattern on
> > the plate as well as the lack of an additional licencing fee based on
> vehicle
> > weight).
> >
> > It may be that the car dealer screwed up, of course, but the way it was
> > explained to me is that, because an SUV can carry passengers in the
back,
> it
> > qulifies as a passenger vehicle; since a pickup truck can only carry
cargo
> in
> > the back, that makes it a commercial vehicle.
>
> No need to speculate. All info is on state's website. My CA SUV was never
> licensed as a commercial vehicle and I know of many pick-ups that aren't
> either.
>
>

FActs do not get in the way of a Usent diatribe.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"George Conklin" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> FActs do not get in the way of a Usent diatribe.
>
Especially true of George's posts.

[Dr Engelbert Buxbaum]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> AIUI it was "light trucks," and SUVs were / are classed as light
> trucks, which is how they also escape CAFE and some passenger car
> safety legislation.

There was some discussion around here wether SUVs should be registered
as trucks, rather than cars. Their weight would normally require that
under German regulations.

That would not only increase taxes, it would place them under the 80
km/h (about 48 miles/h) speed limit for trucks and basically finish the
market for those darn things. Haven't heard anything about that proposal
lately, though. Probably blocked by industry lobbyists.

Dr Engelbert Buxbaum > wrote in message
...
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> > AIUI it was "light trucks," and SUVs were / are classed as light
> > trucks, which is how they also escape CAFE and some passenger car
> > safety legislation.
>
> There was some discussion around here wether SUVs should be registered
> as trucks, rather than cars. Their weight would normally require that
> under German regulations.
>
> That would not only increase taxes, it would place them under the 80
> km/h (about 48 miles/h) speed limit for trucks and basically finish the
> market for those darn things. Haven't heard anything about that proposal
> lately, though. Probably blocked by industry lobbyists.

Well, that would give the $120,000 Mercedes less competition. I am
sure they get even worse fuel economy, but then you could lock out foreign
competition.

[John David Galt]

Dr Engelbert Buxbaum wrote:
> The issue never was to stop travel, that would be nonsense. The idea
> must be to use the right mode of transportation for each journey at
> hand. For short (up to about 20 km) trips of a healthy single person
> without heavy luggage, this is the bike.

Nonsense.

> This is probably the most comman type of trip.

If you can't even spell words like "common", come back when you finish middle
school.

[George Conklin]

"John David Galt" > wrote in message
.. .
> Dr Engelbert Buxbaum wrote:
> > The issue never was to stop travel, that would be nonsense. The idea
> > must be to use the right mode of transportation for each journey at
> > hand. For short (up to about 20 km) trips of a healthy single person
> > without heavy luggage, this is the bike.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> > This is probably the most comman type of trip.
>
> If you can't even spell words like "common", come back when you finish
middle
> school.

That also means that since the average commute in the USA is about 10
miles, then everyone ought to ride a bike to work and sell all their cars.
Why, within 1 year we could lower our standard of living to that of New
Delhi.

[Jim Yanik]

John David Galt > wrote in
:

> Dr Engelbert Buxbaum wrote:
>> The issue never was to stop travel, that would be nonsense. The idea
>> must be to use the right mode of transportation for each journey at
>> hand. For short (up to about 20 km) trips of a healthy single person
>> without heavy luggage, this is the bike.
>
> Nonsense.

Yeah,try it in Florida in the summer months.(or up North in the winter.)
Especially if you want to stink once you reach your destination.




--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Christopher R. Law]

>Yeah,try it in Florida in the summer months.(or up North in the winter.)
>Especially if you want to stink once you reach your destination.
>
>

Having done a 7.2 mile (15 mile round trip commute in Delaware (summer 90+
degrees, 90+% humidity and Code Red smog alerts; winter the occasional sleet
and snow storm, 25-40 degrees), I can tell you that it is possible to commute
that type of distance and still appear in the office clean and without
noticable unwanted smell. Just takes a little planning and a modest restroom or
locker room.

During the four years I was riding (I have a different job now about 0.1 miles
away), I went from 175 lbs. to 155 lbs.

Chris Law
Newark, DE

[Nicholas Byram]

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
.. .
> John David Galt > wrote in
> :
>
> > Dr Engelbert Buxbaum wrote:
> >> The issue never was to stop travel, that would be nonsense. The idea
> >> must be to use the right mode of transportation for each journey at
> >> hand. For short (up to about 20 km) trips of a healthy single person
> >> without heavy luggage, this is the bike.
> >
> > Nonsense.
>
> Yeah,try it in Florida in the summer months.(or up North in the winter.)
> Especially if you want to stink once you reach your destination.

Or even in sunny and mild Northern California, for that matter. After a trip
of even 5 km (= 3 miles), people are sweaty and stinky. These bicycle
bolsheviks obviously do not have to work in places where professional dress
and close contact with others is essential. Nor do they have to pick up
groceries, children, or hardware before or after work.

Don't get me wrong. Bicycling is wonderful recreation and exercise. I do it
many a weekend. But as a serious approach to commuting it is utter nonsense.


Nick Byram (Bay Area Exile)
Antelope, CA

In 1959, Nikita Khrushchev saw his first U.S. interstate freeway and said he
was shocked by the waste of time, money, and effort. In his country, "there
was little need for such roads because the Soviet people lived close
together, did not care for automobiles, and seldom moved."

[Peter]

Nicholas Byram wrote:

> Or even in sunny and mild Northern California, for that matter. After a trip
> of even 5 km (= 3 miles), people are sweaty and stinky. These bicycle
> bolsheviks obviously do not have to work in places where professional dress
> and close contact with others is essential. Nor do they have to pick up
> groceries, children, or hardware before or after work.
>
> Don't get me wrong. Bicycling is wonderful recreation and exercise. I do it
> many a weekend. But as a serious approach to commuting it is utter nonsense.

Of course some of us have been doing it for decades and haven't encountered
any serious problems. In my case that covers climates from southern
Arizona to New Jersey to northern California, one-way distances from 2
miles to twelve, and dress requirements from business-casual to
suit/tie/dress shoes for business meetings. When our daughter was young
and needed transportation to preschool and kindergarden, she first rode in
a child seat over the rear wheel and later switched to the back seat of my
tandem (pedals moved way up to accommodate 4 year old legs). I'd drop her
off and continue on to work.

[Dave Carroll]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:58:23 +0000, George Conklin wrote:

>
> That also means that since the average commute in the USA is about 10
> miles, then everyone ought to ride a bike to work and sell all their cars.
> Why, within 1 year we could lower our standard of living to that of New
> Delhi.


On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:58:23 +0000, George Conklin wrote:

>
> That also means that since the average commute in the USA is about 10
> miles, then everyone ought to ride a bike to work and sell all their cars.
> Why, within 1 year we could lower our standard of living to that of New
> Delhi.

I've lived in New Dehli, and the average resident's lack of a car has very
little to with their standards of living. It's entirely possible to have
all you need in medicine, nutrition, and adequate living conditions
without use of cars. In fact, the buses and bicycle rickshaws are
sufficient for most of the population of Dehli, and a diversion of public
funds to build wider roads and subsidize private auto use is the last
thing the local government there needs to do, especially considering the
extremlely poor air quality of Dehli. That city is a perfect example of
how cars should not be a measure of standards of living, and can in fact
be a drain on already very scarce public resources. If we in the US
relied more on bicycles more for our basic commuter trips as a conscious
choice, it would be a fine step towards better standards of living here.
I thought that a newsgroup devoted to bikes in society would be the best
place to argue FOR increased use of this healthy, relatively less
polluting mode of transportation.

DC

[George Conklin]

"Dave Carroll" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:58:23 +0000, George Conklin wrote:
>
> >
> > That also means that since the average commute in the USA is about 10
> > miles, then everyone ought to ride a bike to work and sell all their
cars.
> > Why, within 1 year we could lower our standard of living to that of New
> > Delhi.
>
>
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:58:23 +0000, George Conklin wrote:
>
> >
> > That also means that since the average commute in the USA is about 10
> > miles, then everyone ought to ride a bike to work and sell all their
cars.
> > Why, within 1 year we could lower our standard of living to that of New
> > Delhi.
>
> I've lived in New Dehli, and the average resident's lack of a car has very
> little to with their standards of living. It's entirely possible to have
> all you need in medicine, nutrition, and adequate living conditions
> without use of cars. In fact, the buses and bicycle rickshaws are
> sufficient for most of the population of Dehli,

Cheer up. I lived in India 2 years and one of my children was born there.
What do you wan to know about India? To say that life there is as good as
the USA because they don't have many cars is trash.

[George Conklin]

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
.. .
> John David Galt > wrote in
> :
>
> > Dr Engelbert Buxbaum wrote:
> >> The issue never was to stop travel, that would be nonsense. The idea
> >> must be to use the right mode of transportation for each journey at
> >> hand. For short (up to about 20 km) trips of a healthy single person
> >> without heavy luggage, this is the bike.
> >
> > Nonsense.
>
> Yeah,try it in Florida in the summer months.(or up North in the winter.)
> Especially if you want to stink once you reach your destination.
>
>
>
Each business would have to offer showers and a laundry for each of its
workers. Otherwise, yes, we would begin to smell like in the old days.
More energy could be saved by banning air conditioning too, and making sure
we went to bed when it got dark, like the birds and bees. Not washing your
clothes but once per week would save more energy too, and moving into
Vertical Villages (aka high-rises) might save land for more birds and bees.


>
> --
> Jim Yanik,NRA member
> jyanik-at-kua.net

[George Conklin]

"Nicholas Byram" > wrote in message
news:bGXwb.305970$HS4.2742013@attbi_s01...
>
> "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > John David Galt > wrote in
> > :
> >
> > > Dr Engelbert Buxbaum wrote:
> > >> The issue never was to stop travel, that would be nonsense. The idea
> > >> must be to use the right mode of transportation for each journey at
> > >> hand. For short (up to about 20 km) trips of a healthy single person
> > >> without heavy luggage, this is the bike.
> > >
> > > Nonsense.
> >
> > Yeah,try it in Florida in the summer months.(or up North in the winter.)
> > Especially if you want to stink once you reach your destination.
>
> Or even in sunny and mild Northern California, for that matter. After a
trip
> of even 5 km (= 3 miles), people are sweaty and stinky. These bicycle
> bolsheviks obviously do not have to work in places where professional
dress
> and close contact with others is essential. Nor do they have to pick up
> groceries, children, or hardware before or after work.
>

Bicycle bolshevicks don't have children. They are too selfish.

[fclaugus]

"Dave Carroll" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:58:23 +0000, George Conklin wrote:
>
> >
> > That also means that since the average commute in the USA is about 10
> > miles, then everyone ought to ride a bike to work and sell all their
cars.
> > Why, within 1 year we could lower our standard of living to that of New
> > Delhi.
>
>
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:58:23 +0000, George Conklin wrote:
>
> >
> > That also means that since the average commute in the USA is about 10
> > miles, then everyone ought to ride a bike to work and sell all their
cars.
> > Why, within 1 year we could lower our standard of living to that of New
> > Delhi.
>
> I've lived in New Dehli, and the average resident's lack of a car has very
> little to with their standards of living. It's entirely possible to have
> all you need in medicine, nutrition, and adequate living conditions
> without use of cars. In fact, the buses and bicycle rickshaws are
> sufficient for most of the population of Dehli, and a diversion of public
> funds to build wider roads and subsidize private auto use is the last
> thing the local government there needs to do, especially considering the
> extremlely poor air quality of Dehli. That city is a perfect example of
> how cars should not be a measure of standards of living, and can in fact
> be a drain on already very scarce public resources. If we in the US
> relied more on bicycles more for our basic commuter trips as a conscious
> choice, it would be a fine step towards better standards of living here.
> I thought that a newsgroup devoted to bikes in society would be the best
> place to argue FOR increased use of this healthy, relatively less
> polluting mode of transportation.

If only it wasn't so cold here in the sates, we might consider using bikes.
Besides, the chances of getting run over is too high. Public transportation
can work, as long as it takes you where you WANT to go quickly....

Fred

[Dave Carroll]

You misread my comment. I didn't say it was just as good. I said access
and use to private cars is not a good measure of standards of living. A
society can have good standards of living without cars, and, in the case
of New Dehli (which is a city, not all of India), the last thing they need
to do is get more cars. The public resources necessary for the
construction of a more extensive network of cars in the city to accomodate
for millions of new cars are better used on actually fixing the problems
of class inequality, water and air quality, adequate housing conditions,
etc. I didn't ask for any knowledge about India, and you're right, to say
life is as good, in general, as the USA, would be trash. But no one said
that. If I sounded grim, that was because you were unnecessarily
dismissive of the previous original poster, and you made a poor analogy to
New Dehli.
DC


>
> Cheer up. I lived in India 2 years and one of my children was born there.
> What do you wan to know about India? To say that life there is as good as
> the USA because they don't have many cars is trash.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"fclaugus" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> If only it wasn't so cold here in the sates, we might consider using
bikes.
> Besides, the chances of getting run over is too high. Public
transportation
> can work, as long as it takes you where you WANT to go quickly....
>
Check out Portland - they're one of the most bicycle-friendly cities in the
US. We've done a lot for making cycling feasible - including the ability to
take your bike on the bus or train.

[Tanya Quinn]

> That also means that since the average commute in the USA is about 10
> miles, then everyone ought to ride a bike to work and sell all their cars.
> Why, within 1 year we could lower our standard of living to that of New
> Delhi.

Why does riding a bike to work mean a lower standard of living? One
can get to work faster in congested places. Even if it takes longer,
you are also getting good health benefits by exercising. You save tons
of money by not sinking it all into a rapidly depreciating vehicle
that can then be spent on a better home, furnishings, vacations -
things that all add to a standard of living. You can also ride a bike
to work and keep a car for longer trips (which in many cases would
mean a shift from a 2 car family to a 1 car one - saving money to
spend on other luxuries), or just save on gas and parking by riding
the bike some of the time and driving other times when it makes sense.

[Tanya Quinn]

> Or even in sunny and mild Northern California, for that matter. After a trip
> of even 5 km (= 3 miles), people are sweaty and stinky. These bicycle

Only if you're in really bad shape..

> bolsheviks obviously do not have to work in places where professional dress
> and close contact with others is essential. Nor do they have to pick up
> groceries, children, or hardware before or after work.

What you wear to get to work and what you wear at work don't have to
be the same thing. But I've seen many a person riding a bicycle in
dress clothes. Groceries can easily be carried in saddlebags (or towed
in a trailer if you are making a huge trip). There are also child
seats (and the same trailer). How many days do you pick up a large
load of hardware immediately after work?

> Don't get me wrong. Bicycling is wonderful recreation and exercise. I do it
> many a weekend. But as a serious approach to commuting it is utter nonsense.

Many people do it all the time. And its also possible to do it some of
the time, so that days that aren't convenient to do so, you take
another means of transportation.

[Tanya Quinn]

"fclaugus" > wrote in message news:<bq2eh6>
> If only it wasn't so cold here in the sates, we might consider using bikes.
> Besides, the chances of getting run over is too high. Public transportation
> can work, as long as it takes you where you WANT to go quickly....
>
> Fred

Cold? What about spring, summer, and fall? What about wearing clothes
that are appropriate to the temperature outside? Are you afraid of
walking outside your house as well? Put the risk in perspective to
other risks you take every day. For public transportation to be
feasible at providing a decent schedule and a large selection of
routes, there needs to be a sufficient density. So the city has to be
designed so that one doesn't need to drive everywhere as well. But we
don't want mention that density is good, or else George C. might freak
out.

Tanya

[George Conklin]

"Dave Carroll" > wrote in message
...
> You misread my comment. I didn't say it was just as good. I said access
> and use to private cars is not a good measure of standards of living.

People in India think so. They are buying cars in great numbers now.



A
> society can have good standards of living without cars, and, in the case
> of New Dehli (which is a city, not all of India), the last thing they need
> to do is get more cars.

You need to tell that to people who live in India. You are imposing
your values on India.


The public resources necessary for the
> construction of a more extensive network of cars in the city to accomodate
> for millions of new cars are better used on actually fixing the problems
> of class inequality, water and air quality, adequate housing conditions,
> etc. I didn't ask for any knowledge about India, and you're right, to say
> life is as good, in general, as the USA, would be trash. But no one said
> that. If I sounded grim, that was because you were unnecessarily
> dismissive of the previous original poster, and you made a poor analogy to
> New Dehli.
> DC
>
>
Planners say that no city needs cars. Even long-term urbanites disagree.
Social inequality is a separate issue. Nehru was against TV because he
thought water and other issues should be solved first. I don't think that
worked out either.....

[George Conklin]

"Tanya Quinn" > wrote in message
om...
> "fclaugus" > wrote in message news:<bq2eh6>
> > If only it wasn't so cold here in the sates, we might consider using
bikes.
> > Besides, the chances of getting run over is too high. Public
transportation
> > can work, as long as it takes you where you WANT to go quickly....
> >
> > Fred
>
> Cold? What about spring, summer, and fall? What about wearing clothes
> that are appropriate to the temperature outside? Are you afraid of
> walking outside your house as well?

I do not feel that if you take into account changing your clothes when
you get to work after a shower, and then washing them so you can soak them
through going home is a lifestyle we want.

[Chuck Thomas]

Nick couldn't more wrong. Bicycling IS a serious approach to commuting !! I
work in an environment as he has described. I have been bicycle commuting
21 miles round trip for 4 years. I commute year around in Austin,TX. I
shower and change when I get to work. I keep several changes of clothes at
my office. Several other folks that I work with do the same. I drive when
the weather is really bad but otherwise take the bike.


"Nicholas Byram" > wrote in message
news:bGXwb.305970$HS4.2742013@attbi_s01...
>
> "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > John David Galt > wrote in
> > :
> >
> > > Dr Engelbert Buxbaum wrote:
> > >> The issue never was to stop travel, that would be nonsense. The idea
> > >> must be to use the right mode of transportation for each journey at
> > >> hand. For short (up to about 20 km) trips of a healthy single person
> > >> without heavy luggage, this is the bike.
> > >
> > > Nonsense.
> >
> > Yeah,try it in Florida in the summer months.(or up North in the winter.)
> > Especially if you want to stink once you reach your destination.
>
> Or even in sunny and mild Northern California, for that matter. After a
trip
> of even 5 km (= 3 miles), people are sweaty and stinky. These bicycle
> bolsheviks obviously do not have to work in places where professional
dress
> and close contact with others is essential. Nor do they have to pick up
> groceries, children, or hardware before or after work.
>
> Don't get me wrong. Bicycling is wonderful recreation and exercise. I do
it
> many a weekend. But as a serious approach to commuting it is utter
nonsense.
>
>
> Nick Byram (Bay Area Exile)
> Antelope, CA
>
> In 1959, Nikita Khrushchev saw his first U.S. interstate freeway and said
he
> was shocked by the waste of time, money, and effort. In his country,
"there
> was little need for such roads because the Soviet people lived close
> together, did not care for automobiles, and seldom moved."
>
>

[Daniel J Stern]

On 26 Nov 2003, Tanya Quinn wrote:

> Why does riding a bike to work mean a lower standard of living?

Are you for real? You *seriously* can't see the blindingly obvious answer
to this question?

DS

[George Conklin]

"Tanya Quinn" > wrote in message
om...
> > That also means that since the average commute in the USA is about 10
> > miles, then everyone ought to ride a bike to work and sell all their
cars.
> > Why, within 1 year we could lower our standard of living to that of New
> > Delhi.
>
> Why does riding a bike to work mean a lower standard of living? One
> can get to work faster in congested places. Even if it takes longer,
> you are also getting good health benefits by exercising. You save tons
> of money by not sinking it all into a rapidly depreciating vehicle
> that can then be spent on a better home, furnishings, vacations -
> things that all add to a standard of living.

To make a city suitable for bicycles, you would have to compact the
population into a very small area. This is what Smart Growth wants to do.
Most people want a house, not a NYC-style 4-room apartment of 450 square
feet.

[George Conklin]

"Tanya Quinn" > wrote in message
om...
> > Or even in sunny and mild Northern California, for that matter. After a
trip
> > of even 5 km (= 3 miles), people are sweaty and stinky. These bicycle
>
> Only if you're in really bad shape..

Only if it very cold outside does the body not react to strong excercise.

[jacques]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:17:47 +0000, George Conklin wrote:

>> >
>> > Yeah,try it in Florida in the summer months.(or up North in the winter.)
>> > Especially if you want to stink once you reach your destination.
>>
>> Or even in sunny and mild Northern California, for that matter. After a
> trip
>> of even 5 km (= 3 miles), people are sweaty and stinky. These bicycle
>> bolsheviks obviously do not have to work in places where professional
> dress
>> and close contact with others is essential. Nor do they have to pick up
>> groceries, children, or hardware before or after work.
>>
>
> Bicycle bolshevicks don't have children. They are too selfish.

You don't need to be a bolshevik to commute by bike. Once you get used to
some exercise you don't sweat and stink after only 5 km. I've done 12 km
one-way commutes with my "business casual" clothes without problem. For
longer distances or long uphill trips it may become worthwhile changing
clothes when you get to work, and I agree this may become a pain, although
some people I know don't mind doing it.

I've also, on shorter distances (~2 km, but steep uphill), picked up my
kids from kindergarten using one of these child trailers. No problem.

I don't like to be called a "bicycle bolshevik" just because I like
biking. The fact is I don't have so much time to spend in organised
fitness activities, so I do some moderate exercise on my way to work. Some
people think it requires exceptionally strong will and dedication. I
don't. I just do it and like it, summer and winter. By saying so I am not
imposing my "poor standard of living" on you.

Jacques

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Daniel J Stern" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Nov 2003, Tanya Quinn wrote:
>
> > Why does riding a bike to work mean a lower standard of living?
>
> Are you for real? You *seriously* can't see the blindingly obvious answer
> to this question?

The blindingly obvious answer is: No, riding a bike to work does NOT mean a
lower standard of living.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"George Conklin" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Tanya Quinn" > wrote in message
> om...
> > > That also means that since the average commute in the USA is about
10
> > > miles, then everyone ought to ride a bike to work and sell all their
> cars.
> > > Why, within 1 year we could lower our standard of living to that of
New
> > > Delhi.
> >
> > Why does riding a bike to work mean a lower standard of living? One
> > can get to work faster in congested places. Even if it takes longer,
> > you are also getting good health benefits by exercising. You save tons
> > of money by not sinking it all into a rapidly depreciating vehicle
> > that can then be spent on a better home, furnishings, vacations -
> > things that all add to a standard of living.
>
> To make a city suitable for bicycles, you would have to compact the
> population into a very small area.

Nope. Not at all. Unless, of course, you're constructing some sort of
hypothetical city where bicycles were the only form of transportation - and
even then you'd be wrong.

[[email protected]]

In rec.bicycles.soc George Conklin > wrote:
: I do not feel that if you take into account changing your clothes when
: you get to work after a shower, and then washing them so you can soak them
: through going home is a lifestyle we want.

Washing clothes once or twice a day? You seem to be exaggerating
the sweating issue quite a bit.

Changing clothes for work seems to be a lifestyle many people
prefer.

Also in many warm countries (such as summer in the Netherlands)
people seem to take two showers a day anyway.

PS. I thought you might be trolling, but now I notice that
somebody had been crossposting this thread to several newsgroups
recklessly. Chopped off follow-ups to rec.autos.driving as I don't
see much relevance to car driving...

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html
varis at no spam please iki fi

[[email protected]]

In rec.bicycles.soc George Conklin > wrote:

: "Tanya Quinn" > wrote in message
: om...
:> > Or even in sunny and mild Northern California, for that matter. After a
: trip
:> > of even 5 km (= 3 miles), people are sweaty and stinky. These bicycle
:>
:> Only if you're in really bad shape..

: Only if it very cold outside does the body not react to strong excercise.

For a normally fit individual, commuting by bike is hardly strong
exercise. The intensity is close to that of walking.

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html
varis at no spam please iki fi

[Brian Trosko]

In rec.autos.driving wrote:
> Also in many warm countries (such as summer in the Netherlands)
> people seem to take two showers a day anyway.

Summer in the Netherlands is not "warm." Summer temperatures there
average about 19 degrees C, or roughly 67 degrees F.

Summers in Florida are warm. Average summer temperatures over much of
Florida are around 82 degrees F. Average *water* temperatures are in the
80s as well. Then there's the near 100% humidity.

Summers in Arizona are warm. In the Basin and Range region, average
summer temperatures run around 91 degrees F *for the year*. Average
temps for the summer months are well over 100 degrees, and the record
highs for the summer months are up around 120 degrees.

Summer in the Netherlands is not warm.

[[email protected]]

In rec.bicycles.soc George Conklin > wrote:
: To make a city suitable for bicycles, you would have to compact the
: population into a very small area. This is what Smart Growth wants to do.
: Most people want a house, not a NYC-style 4-room apartment of 450 square
: feet.

Are you saying most people can afford a house? :-)

Also it's possible to build rather densely with small buildings,
around here you get the same density with sparsely built
highrises. Both styles would be more than adequate for commuting
by cycling. Did you have some special needs in mind because you
suggested that population density would need to be very high?

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html
varis at no spam please iki fi

[Tanya Quinn]

"George Conklin" > wrote in message . net>...
> "Tanya Quinn" > wrote in message
> om...
> > > Or even in sunny and mild Northern California, for that matter. After a
> trip
> > > of even 5 km (= 3 miles), people are sweaty and stinky. These bicycle
> >
> > Only if you're in really bad shape..
>
> Only if it very cold outside does the body not react to strong excercise.

If you are not a couch potato, a 15 minute bicycle ride at an easy
pace (5 km @ 20km/h or 12.5 mph) is NOT strong exercise.

[Tanya Quinn]

"George Conklin" > wrote in message .net>...
> A
> > society can have good standards of living without cars, and, in the case
> > of New Dehli (which is a city, not all of India), the last thing they need
> > to do is get more cars.
>
> You need to tell that to people who live in India. You are imposing
> your values on India.

In a highly populated urban area, perhaps your standard of living
could increase (by certain people's standards, everyone measures
standard of living differently) by owning and using a car but only if
very few other people make that same choice. In a large metropolis
there is not undeveloped land to build more roads, and the roads that
do exist will quickly become congested. So instead of being able to
ride a bicycle or take public transport at a reasonably quick pace on
roads that still have space, one gets to sit in traffic jams often.
How is spending a lot of money for a vehicle to travel at a slower
speed than you were going before an increase in standard of living by
any measure?

[Tanya Quinn]

Daniel J Stern > wrote in message >...
> On 26 Nov 2003, Tanya Quinn wrote:
>
> > Why does riding a bike to work mean a lower standard of living?
>
> Are you for real? You *seriously* can't see the blindingly obvious answer
> to this question?
>
> DS

Okay perhaps some people will see having to exercise or deal with
dressing for the elements as a lower standard of living. But it
doesn't mean that's universal. I meant that as a question that it
doesn't *have* to mean that, not that it never means that. Here are
some for and against:

Higher standard of living:
.. low cost means of transportation = more disposable income to spend
elsewhere
.. active method of transporation = healthier body, less stress, can
enjoy good food without worrying about weight gain, more energy
overall
.. avoid traffic jams and congestion = less stress, more personal time
.. simple to park = saves money, less stress, more likely to stop and
enjoy more places
.. easy to stop and chat to friends or neighbours you pass by on foot
or cycle = sociable


Lower standard of living:
.. having to exercise mildly (ow that might be too much for my body to
handle)
.. having no steel cage to protect you from the other steel cages that
you are afraid won't follow the traffic rules and smash into you
.. having no steel cage to stop you from getting a bit wet or cold
(raincoats and insulated clothing were invented for a reason)
.. could take more time if you have a particularly speedy auto route to
work. (few lights, highway) but more time isn't necessarily bad if
something is inherently enjoyable in of itself.

So yeah if you're paranoid and think exercise is bad for you, then
maybe a bike would lead to a lower standard of living. Nobody is
suggesting to bike for long-haul trips (though that can be fun its not
usually time effective) - its biking for short-haul trips where the
time spent biking is pretty comparable to the automobile.

[Mitch Haley]

George Conklin wrote:
> Only if it very cold outside does the body not react to strong excercise.

Why in the world does commuting to work have to be strong exercise?
If you lived 1/4 mile from work, would you run full speed and then
claim that walking to work gets you too sweaty?
Mitch.

[Tanya Quinn]

"George Conklin" > wrote in message
> To make a city suitable for bicycles, you would have to compact the
> population into a very small area. This is what Smart Growth wants to do.
> Most people want a house, not a NYC-style 4-room apartment of 450 square
> feet.

Lots of towns with low populations are very suitable for bicycling in.
You don't need super high density in order to bicycle. A bicycle can
cover quite a bit of range in a short period of time. 10 mile trips in
any direction are very easy to do. As well when you dedicate less land
to the automobile - narrower instead of wide roads, less parking
spaces (or moving them underground and out of prime public space),
less gas stations and garages, houses without sprawling two or three
car garages sticking out the side of them, it becomes possible to have
a mix of housing choices for people to live in that aren't all
concrete boxes in the sky and density that makes it easier to walk and
have sustainable public transport as well. Bicycles don't need
density, although denser places will have shorter rides, more pleasant
scenery and slower moving traffic making more people comfortable
riding a bicycle.

[Brent P]

In article . net>, George Conklin wrote:

> To make a city suitable for bicycles, you would have to compact the
> population into a very small area. This is what Smart Growth wants to do.
> Most people want a house, not a NYC-style 4-room apartment of 450 square
> feet.

Really all that is needed to make a city suitablefor bicycles is a grided
street system. The city of chicago as it is, is suitable for bicycles.
Most older suburbs are or were suitable for bicycles. It's when people
decide not to have grided streets that it becomes a problem for all traffic,
including bicycle users.

[Brent P]

In article >, Daniel J Stern wrote:
> On 26 Nov 2003, Tanya Quinn wrote:
>
>> Why does riding a bike to work mean a lower standard of living?
>
> Are you for real? You *seriously* can't see the blindingly obvious answer
> to this question?

bicycle need not equal cheap. Hell my best bicycle is worth more than
my worst car.

[Rick]

Folks,

You are arguing with a bunch of dunderheads who crosspost to this newsgroup
just to argue. George and co. have no idea what they are talking about. They
have never cycle commuted, nor experienced the pleasure and improved
lifestyle that cycle commuting offers. They will not get it because they do
not want to. Each person has their own version of reality and to George,
pollution, traffic density, road deaths, road damage, and the like, is
simply "collateral damage." You cannot change his reality, so don't even
try.

That said, there is something to the argument that there are reasons why
cycle commuting isn't more popular. Some of us will make choices that are
different than most others. The fact that, in an urban environment, a
bicycle is as fast (or faster) than a car during commute hours isn't
important. The fact that you may need to deal with the elements, sweat, etc.
is, in their tiny minds, an insurmountable obstacle. They do not listen to
those of us who have done this for extended periods of time. Sure, I sweat.
Sure, I smell. So what? 10 minutes by the sink, a shower, or whatever solves
this quickly. This means that my effective travel time is a bit longer than
the time I spend on the road. Again, so what? I still would, in San Jose,
for example, reach work 10-20 minutes before someone who left my house at
the same time (on the average day, though at times, such as early morning
Sundays, or holidays where the company where I worked did not get the day
off, cars are faster).

Cars are a tremendous waste of resources and the environment when they move
1 person point-to-point. The physics aren't arguable. The economics aren't
arguable. So when George and Co. spout garbage saying that cars are a
economic boon to a society and that they improve the quality of life, they
are referring only to those, like themselves, who are narrow-minded,
sedentary, wasteful, and who have no compassion for others. Ignore them,
just as they ignore the fact that war with Iraq, and other arab states, is
about oil.

Rick

"Baxter" > wrote in message
...
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Daniel J Stern" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 26 Nov 2003, Tanya Quinn wrote:
> >
> > > Why does riding a bike to work mean a lower standard of living?
> >
> > Are you for real? You *seriously* can't see the blindingly obvious
answer
> > to this question?
>
> The blindingly obvious answer is: No, riding a bike to work does NOT mean
a
> lower standard of living.
>
>
>

[Scott Eiler]

Brian Trosko wrote:
> In rec.autos.driving wrote:
>
>>Also in many warm countries (such as summer in the Netherlands)
>>people seem to take two showers a day anyway.
>
> Summer in the Netherlands is not "warm." <snip climatological data>
>
> Summers in Florida are warm. <snip climatological data>
>
> Summers in Arizona are warm. <snip climatological data>
>
> Summer in the Netherlands is not warm.

You *do* realize you're talking to someone from Finland, right?

Me, I'm from Chicago, USA (more or less), and I think winter in Chicago
is not cold. Or at least, it doesn't necessarily preclude bike season.
I can see how winter in Helsinki might, though.


--
-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- http://www.eilertech.com/ --------

"It seemed an unlikely spot for a sensitive songwriter from Greenwich
Village... She ordered the 20-ounce steak."
-- Lin Brehmer, Chicago DJ, describing his meeting in a steakhouse
with Suzanne Vega.

[Scott Eiler]

George Conklin wrote:

> "Nicholas Byram" > wrote in message
> news:bGXwb.305970$HS4.2742013@attbi_s01...
>
>>These bicycle bolsheviks
>>obviously do not have to work in places where professional dress
>>and close contact with others is essential.

If I know just one cyclist-commuter who dresses professionally or works
closely with others, do you admit that means I know you're wrong?

>>Nor do they have to pick up
>>groceries, children, or hardware before or after work.

If I know just one cyclist-commuter who has bike bags or a child seat,
do you admit that means I know you're wrong?

> Bicycle bolshevicks (sic) don't have children. They are too selfish.

That last one, I'm not even going to touch here. As long as you're
looking for a nice crispy argument, why don't you try saying that on
alt.support.childfree?

--
-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- http://www.eilertech.com/ --------

"It seemed an unlikely spot for a sensitive songwriter from Greenwich
Village... She ordered the 20-ounce steak."
-- Lin Brehmer, Chicago DJ, describing his meeting in a steakhouse
with Suzanne Vega.

[Matthew Russotto]

In article >,
Tanya Quinn > wrote:
>
>Why does riding a bike to work mean a lower standard of living?

For the obvious reasons.

>One can get to work faster in congested places.

Provided one runs all the lights, anyway.

>Even if it takes longer,
>you are also getting good health benefits by exercising.

By this perverse measure, eliminating any labor-saving device is an
increase rather than a decrease in standard of living.

>You save tons of money by not sinking it all into a rapidly
>depreciating vehicle

Sure, though a bicycle depreciates to zero the instant you buy it if
not sooner, at least it's cheaper.

>that can then be spent on a better home,

You'll have to spend more on that home to live within bicycling
distance of just about everything you need.

>furnishings, vacations - things that all add to a standard of
>living.

Of course, the vacations will be more expensive because you'll have to
rent a vehicle for every one.

>You can also ride a bike
>to work and keep a car for longer trips (which in many cases would
>mean a shift from a 2 car family to a 1 car one - saving money to
>spend on other luxuries)

A false economy, though; the payoff of having a sufficiency of cars is
far greater than that of any other luxury you can buy with the same
money.

--
Matthew T. Russotto
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

[Matthew Russotto]

In article . net>,
George Conklin > wrote:
>
>"Tanya Quinn" > wrote in message
om...
>> > Or even in sunny and mild Northern California, for that matter. After a
>trip
>> > of even 5 km (= 3 miles), people are sweaty and stinky. These bicycle
>>
>> Only if you're in really bad shape..
>
> Only if it very cold outside does the body not react to strong excercise.

Not quite true. Even if it is very cold outside, the body does react
to strong exercise by sweating.


--
Matthew T. Russotto
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

[Dennis P. Harris]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:43:09 -0500 in rec.bicycles.soc, Daniel J
Stern > wrote:

> On 26 Nov 2003, Tanya Quinn wrote:
>
> > Why does riding a bike to work mean a lower standard of living?
>
> Are you for real? You *seriously* can't see the blindingly obvious answer
> to this question?
>
car pollution creates a lower standard of living. cycling
increases health, which raises the standard of living. riding
around all day in a polluting metal cage does NOT increase the
standard of living for anyone.

[Dennis P. Harris]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 19:43:25 GMT in rec.bicycles.soc, "George
Conklin" > wrote:

> To make a city suitable for bicycles, you would have to compact the
> population into a very small area. This is what Smart Growth wants to do.
> Most people want a house, not a NYC-style 4-room apartment of 450 square
> feet.
>
you mean "most greedy overweight wasteful americans who consume
more than their fair share of the world's resources" want a
house, even when it's ecologically unsound and financially
impractical. they need big houses to store all the imported
sweatshop crap pushed on them by the ugly big box stores and
their minimum wage employees.

smart people know that big houses are a waste of resources.

[Dennis P. Harris]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:24:07 GMT in rec.bicycles.soc, "Nicholas
Byram" > wrote:

> Or even in sunny and mild Northern California, for that matter. After a trip
> of even 5 km (= 3 miles), people are sweaty and stinky. These bicycle
> bolsheviks obviously do not have to work in places where professional dress
> and close contact with others is essential. Nor do they have to pick up
> groceries, children, or hardware before or after work.
>
i know folks that do all those, and don't stink either. and they
sometimes commute in "professional dress", though most folks in
smaller towns these days don't dress up much, even for business.
only fusspots like you make a big deal about it.

> Don't get me wrong. Bicycling is wonderful recreation and exercise. I do it
> many a weekend. But as a serious approach to commuting it is utter nonsense.
>
you're wrong, and many commuting professionals, including those
in your own community, can tell you otherwise. i commuted for
years, servicing my computer and networking clients on my
bicycle.

[Brandon Sommerville]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:43:09 -0500, Daniel J Stern
> wrote:

>On 26 Nov 2003, Tanya Quinn wrote:
>
>> Why does riding a bike to work mean a lower standard of living?
>
>Are you for real? You *seriously* can't see the blindingly obvious answer
>to this question?

Hmm, if getting stuck in traffic jams is your idea of the high life,
then I can see why a bike would mean a lower standard of living! ;)

Seriously though, driving around the city at 5:00 PM is a complete
nightmare, never mind on the highways. Why on earth would I want to
do that every day?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

[Claire Petersky]

"Brandon Sommerville" > wrote in message
s.com...

> Seriously though, driving around the city at 5:00 PM is a complete
> nightmare, never mind on the highways. Why on earth would I want to
> do that every day?

Certainly I know that when circumstances force me to drive my car rather
than ride my bike to work, I dread the experience. It's so unpleasant
compared to riding my bike.

Car = slavery
Bike = freedom

It's as simple as that for me.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com

Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm

Books just wanna be FREE! See what I mean at:
http://bookcrossing.com/friend/Cpetersky

[Brent P]

In article <yOoxb.232867$mZ5.1767896@attbi_s54>, Claire Petersky wrote:

> Certainly I know that when circumstances force me to drive my car rather
> than ride my bike to work, I dread the experience. It's so unpleasant
> compared to riding my bike.
>
> Car = slavery
> Bike = freedom
>
> It's as simple as that for me.

I like driving, I like riding a bicycle somewhat more. I hate doing
both around other people in the USA. If nearly everyone used a bicycle
in the USA it would be just as unpleasant as it is driving in the
USA during rush-hour conditions.

The chicago lakeshore bicycle path can become as crowded and backed
up as any expressway, and it's just as frustrating. Not so much that
it's crowded and slow, but the boneheaded way people drive/ride their
bicycles that make it so much worse than it has to be.

There is a fundamental cultural / education problem at work IMO.

[Tanya Quinn]

(Matthew Russotto) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> Tanya Quinn > wrote:
> >
> >Why does riding a bike to work mean a lower standard of living?
>
> For the obvious reasons.

I have no idea what those reasons are for a healthy intelligent person
living within a reasonable proximity to work. Many people have both
cars and bicycles but still choose to use the bicycle to go to work.

> >One can get to work faster in congested places.
>
> Provided one runs all the lights, anyway.

Nope not necessary. Just pass the lines of traffic that are moving
slower than you are, and this is easy because a bicycle takes up a
really small footprint and is much easier to manouver than a couple
tons of steel. Its easier to be front in line every stop light. And
unless you're the CEO its unlikely that your car will get a parking
spot closer than a place you can park your bike - right at the door at
work.

> >Even if it takes longer,
> >you are also getting good health benefits by exercising.
>
> By this perverse measure, eliminating any labor-saving device is an
> increase rather than a decrease in standard of living.

Exercise can be pleasurable, I encourage you to try it sometime and
see for yourself. Some labor that devices replace is fun, and some is
not. A larger majority of people are going to find bicycling fun than
washing dishes, but if someone finds hand washing dishes enjoyable
then to them a dishwasher would not mean an increase in standard of
living.

> >You save tons of money by not sinking it all into a rapidly
> >depreciating vehicle
>
> Sure, though a bicycle depreciates to zero the instant you buy it if
> not sooner, at least it's cheaper.

I don't think a bicycle depreciates any faster than a car. But much
much cheaper. You can easily commute on a used bicycle costing under
$200. You don't need insurance, you don't need to buy gas.

> >that can then be spent on a better home,
>
> You'll have to spend more on that home to live within bicycling
> distance of just about everything you need.

If you're living huge distances away from work and everything else you
need you are just spending the money you aren't spending on that home
on gas and car wear and tear at any rate. As well by most measures
living closer to the things you need is considered better regardless
of the mode of transportation used. Even if you are driving would you
rather have an hour drive to work or a 10 minute drive to work? Lots
of people buy homes within a close proximity to where they work even
though they never plan to bicycle. If they did bicycle they would have
more money to spend on other things.

> >furnishings, vacations - things that all add to a standard of
> >living.
>
> Of course, the vacations will be more expensive because you'll have to
> rent a vehicle for every one.

If you are travelling far you need to fly to where you are going
anyway. So regardless of whether you choose to have a vehicle at your
destination, whether you own your own car or not you'll have to rent
it. There are other ways of going on vacation besides car - you can go
on a bike vacation :), there are cruises, and trains. Renting a car a
couple of times a year is generally MUCH cheaper than having to
maintain insurance, and depreciation on your car just by sitting in
the driveway.

> >You can also ride a bike
> >to work and keep a car for longer trips (which in many cases would
> >mean a shift from a 2 car family to a 1 car one - saving money to
> >spend on other luxuries)
>
> A false economy, though; the payoff of having a sufficiency of cars is
> far greater than that of any other luxury you can buy with the same
> money.

Lets take a simple case of a couple with no kids. In most cases the
second car is used almost exclusively for the other person to go to
work. Therefore by biking to work one car becomes sufficient. The
payoff of sufficient cars is really in freedom of mobility. Often a
combination of bicycles, amenities in walking distance, transit and
the rare taxi or rental vehicle can fulfill these freedoms with less
cost than car ownership.

[Brandon Sommerville]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:06:13 -0600,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>In article >,
>Tanya Quinn > wrote:
>>
>>Why does riding a bike to work mean a lower standard of living?
>
>For the obvious reasons.

Not so obvious to all.

>>One can get to work faster in congested places.
>
>Provided one runs all the lights, anyway.

No, if traffic is completely jammed though, lane splitting can get you
to the front quickly, and since you're moving faster than the auto
traffic anyway even when they're moving it's not like someone like
Galt will have a point that you're "stealing" their space.

>>Even if it takes longer,
>>you are also getting good health benefits by exercising.
>
>By this perverse measure, eliminating any labor-saving device is an
>increase rather than a decrease in standard of living.

That depends. Some labour doesn't benefit you, some does.

>>You save tons of money by not sinking it all into a rapidly
>>depreciating vehicle
>
>Sure, though a bicycle depreciates to zero the instant you buy it if
>not sooner, at least it's cheaper.

Hmm, even if I buy an expensive bike at $1,000 and it depreciates to
zero in the first year (certainly not true), your car will depreciate
more than that in its first year.

>>that can then be spent on a better home,
>
>You'll have to spend more on that home to live within bicycling
>distance of just about everything you need.

Factor in the extra hour of commuting each way and add that cost to
the price of your current home. Still a good deal?

>>furnishings, vacations - things that all add to a standard of
>>living.
>
>Of course, the vacations will be more expensive because you'll have to
>rent a vehicle for every one.

If you fly, you end up renting a car anyways.

>>You can also ride a bike
>>to work and keep a car for longer trips (which in many cases would
>>mean a shift from a 2 car family to a 1 car one - saving money to
>>spend on other luxuries)
>
>A false economy, though; the payoff of having a sufficiency of cars is
>far greater than that of any other luxury you can buy with the same
>money.

Cars are certainly handy to have, that doesn't mean you need to suffer
for not having one.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

[[email protected]]

In rec.bicycles.soc Brent P > wrote:

: The chicago lakeshore bicycle path can become as crowded and backed
: up as any expressway, and it's just as frustrating. Not so much that
: it's crowded and slow, but the boneheaded way people drive/ride their
: bicycles that make it so much worse than it has to be.

: There is a fundamental cultural / education problem at work IMO.

Solve it! ;p

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html
varis at no spam please iki fi

[[email protected]]

In rec.bicycles.soc Brandon Sommerville > wrote:

: Seriously though, driving around the city at 5:00 PM is a complete
: nightmare, never mind on the highways. Why on earth would I want to
: do that every day?

Maybe because you are one of those people who don't mind sitting
in the traffic jam for an hour just to drive the remaining 40 km
at highway speeds, listening to Mozart while sitting on the vinyl
seat and thinking of all the damned souls who actually have to
exercise to reach home... finally reaching your precious little
house next to the forest and the lake (and the other million
precious little houses cluttering the countryside).

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html
varis at no spam please iki fi

[George Conklin]

"Claire Petersky" > wrote in message
news:yOoxb.232867$mZ5.1767896@attbi_s54...
> "Brandon Sommerville" > wrote in message
> s.com...
>
> > Seriously though, driving around the city at 5:00 PM is a complete
> > nightmare, never mind on the highways. Why on earth would I want to
> > do that every day?
>
> Certainly I know that when circumstances force me to drive my car rather
> than ride my bike to work, I dread the experience. It's so unpleasant
> compared to riding my bike.
>
> Car = slavery
> Bike = freedom
>
> It's as simple as that for me.
>

Well, for 99.99% of the population you have that reversed.

[[email protected]]

In rec.bicycles.soc Claire Petersky > wrote:
: "Brandon Sommerville" > wrote in message
: s.com...

:> Seriously though, driving around the city at 5:00 PM is a complete
:> nightmare, never mind on the highways. Why on earth would I want to
:> do that every day?

: Certainly I know that when circumstances force me to drive my car rather
: than ride my bike to work, I dread the experience. It's so unpleasant
: compared to riding my bike.

: Car = slavery
: Bike = freedom

: It's as simple as that for me.

Second that. Many days when I ride to work it feels like being on
a vacation.

It's much nicer to ride in sparsely populated areas than to ride
in the densely populated, though.

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html
varis at no spam please iki fi

[Tom Keats]

In article . net>,
"George Conklin" > writes:

>> Car = slavery
>> Bike = freedom
>>
>> It's as simple as that for me.
>>
>
> Well, for 99.99% of the population you have that reversed.

Bike = freedom
Car = slavery

There. Fixed.

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[[email protected]]

In rec.bicycles.soc Brandon Sommerville > wrote:
: On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:06:13 -0600,
: (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
:>By this perverse measure, eliminating any labor-saving device is an
:>increase rather than a decrease in standard of living.

: That depends. Some labour doesn't benefit you, some does.

It's about freedom of choice too. On some days you can enjoy
cycling and on others you can decide to commute by other means. I
don't ride to places every day; when I do, I enjoy it because it
was my voluntary choice.

: Cars are certainly handy to have, that doesn't mean you need to suffer
: for not having one.

If you don't have one you often don't even need to rent it, you
can take the taxi or ask a ride from a friend or borrow a car from
your relatives.

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html
varis at no spam please iki fi

[Tom Keats]

In article >,
writes:

> It's much nicer to ride in sparsely populated areas than to ride
> in the densely populated, though.

While I respect your prefrence, I think both environments have
their advantages and charms.

In the city, one can readily stop for a snack at a grocery
store, bakery or delicatessen. There may be more social
encounters with friends, neighbours & acquaintances, or
even just other nice riders on the streets. In the country,
there's the allure of the open road, natural scenery,
and possibly better air to breathe (unless there's an
industrial city or town upwind).

Riding is good in all kinds of places. At any rate, either
urban or rural riding is better than not riding at all.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

[RJ]

> wrote:

> In rec.bicycles.soc Brandon Sommerville > wrote:
> : On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:06:13 -0600,
> : (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> : Cars are certainly handy to have, that doesn't mean you need to suffer
> : for not having one.
>
> If you don't have one you often don't even need to rent it, you
> can take the taxi or ask a ride from a friend or borrow a car from
> your relatives.

Even better, if you can get somebody else to pay for your house, you can
save all your housing costs, too.

[RJ]

Brandon Sommerville > wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:06:13 -0600,
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
> >You'll have to spend more on that home to live within bicycling
> >distance of just about everything you need.
>
> Factor in the extra hour of commuting each way and add that cost to
> the price of your current home. Still a good deal?

For my last move, buying a house within bicycling distance from where I
work would have cost $200,000 to 300,000 MORE than I paid for the house
I bought.

[[email protected]]

In rec.bicycles.soc RJ > wrote:

: Even better, if you can get somebody else to pay for your house, you can
: save all your housing costs, too.

Works for me :-)

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html
varis at no spam please iki fi

[[email protected]]

In rec.bicycles.soc RJ > wrote:
: Brandon Sommerville > wrote:

:> Factor in the extra hour of commuting each way and add that cost to
:> the price of your current home. Still a good deal?

: For my last move, buying a house within bicycling distance from where I
: work would have cost $200,000 to 300,000 MORE than I paid for the house
: I bought.

You failed to mention how much you make in an hour ;)

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html
varis at no spam please iki fi

[RJ]

> wrote:

> In rec.bicycles.soc RJ > wrote:
> : Brandon Sommerville > wrote:
>
> :> Factor in the extra hour of commuting each way and add that cost to
> :> the price of your current home. Still a good deal?
>
> : For my last move, buying a house within bicycling distance from where I
> : work would have cost $200,000 to 300,000 MORE than I paid for the house
> : I bought.
>
> You failed to mention how much you make in an hour ;)

Not enough to afford the house close to work.

[Brent P]

In article >, Matthew Russotto wrote:

> Sure, though a bicycle depreciates to zero the instant you buy it if
> not sooner, at least it's cheaper.

Spoken like someone who's never shopped for a *GOOD* used bike. (hint:
you won't find *GOOD* bicycles at any place with mart in the name)

[Brandon Sommerville]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 19:09:55 -0500, (RJ) wrote:

>Brandon Sommerville > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:06:13 -0600,
>> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>> >You'll have to spend more on that home to live within bicycling
>> >distance of just about everything you need.
>>
>> Factor in the extra hour of commuting each way and add that cost to
>> the price of your current home. Still a good deal?
>
>For my last move, buying a house within bicycling distance from where I
>work would have cost $200,000 to 300,000 MORE than I paid for the house
>I bought.

That doesn't change what I said. Multiply your hourly wage times
however many hours you commute during the year, times however many
years you'll be commuting.

Let's assume $25/hr, with an hour's commute either way. That's
$250/wk, times 48 weeks, we're now at $12,000/yr. Factor in fuel and
maintenance costs, never mind parking, and suddenly the cost of living
an hour's commute away isn't as cheap, is it? There's a lot more to
cost than just cash unfortunately.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

[Brandon Sommerville]

On 27 Nov 2003 21:27:53 GMT,
wrote:

>In rec.bicycles.soc Brandon Sommerville > wrote:
>
>: Seriously though, driving around the city at 5:00 PM is a complete
>: nightmare, never mind on the highways. Why on earth would I want to
>: do that every day?
>
>Maybe because you are one of those people who don't mind sitting
>in the traffic jam for an hour just to drive the remaining 40 km
>at highway speeds, listening to Mozart while sitting on the vinyl
>seat and thinking of all the damned souls who actually have to
>exercise to reach home... finally reaching your precious little
>house next to the forest and the lake (and the other million
>precious little houses cluttering the countryside).

If you think one must be a damned soul to enjoy exercise that says a
lot about you. My home is a very relaxing environment, even if it
isn't situated in an apparent vacation type spot. I'd rather have
that extra hour each way to spend with my family. But maybe I'm just
silly...
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

[Tanya Quinn]

(RJ) wrote in message >...
> > wrote:
>
> > In rec.bicycles.soc Brandon Sommerville > wrote:
> > : On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:06:13 -0600,
> > : (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> > : Cars are certainly handy to have, that doesn't mean you need to suffer
> > : for not having one.
> >
> > If you don't have one you often don't even need to rent it, you
> > can take the taxi or ask a ride from a friend or borrow a car from
> > your relatives.
>
> Even better, if you can get somebody else to pay for your house, you can
> save all your housing costs, too.

Oh please. Before you make all car-free people that occasionally have
use for a car out to be moochers.. keep in mind that this is often a
barter type system. Borrow a car from the relatives, go and help them
with their house renovations. As well, whenever I (and most people)
share a ride with someone to a destination (that they would be going
to anyway) I always offer money for car expenses. There are a lot of
car-share programs around as well where you pay a certain amount of
money to have access to a number of cars which is much less than the
number of people in the group, but figuring that the cars are idle
much of the time. I find a need for a car in town rare enough that
this is not worth it for me personally however. I believe they
generally advertise they are cheaper than owning if you drive less
than 12000 km a year.

[Tanya Quinn]

(Dennis P. Harris) wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 06:24:07 GMT in rec.bicycles.soc, "Nicholas
> Byram" > wrote:
>
> > Or even in sunny and mild Northern California, for that matter. After a trip
> > of even 5 km (= 3 miles), people are sweaty and stinky. These bicycle
> > bolsheviks obviously do not have to work in places where professional dress
> > and close contact with others is essential. Nor do they have to pick up
> > groceries, children, or hardware before or after work.
> >
> i know folks that do all those, and don't stink either. and they
> sometimes commute in "professional dress", though most folks in
> smaller towns these days don't dress up much, even for business.
> only fusspots like you make a big deal about it.

Um now that alt.planning.urban and rec.autos.driving have been cut off
the newsgroups list, you're preaching to the already converted :)

[Scott Eiler]

Tanya Quinn wrote:

> If you are travelling far you need to fly to where you are going
> anyway. So regardless of whether you choose to have a vehicle at your
> destination, whether you own your own car or not you'll have to rent
> it.

And, many's the time I hopped on that plane and rented a *bike* a the
other end.

--
-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- http://www.eilertech.com/ --------

"It seemed an unlikely spot for a sensitive songwriter from Greenwich
Village... She ordered the 20-ounce steak."
-- Lin Brehmer, Chicago DJ, describing his meeting in a steakhouse
with Suzanne Vega.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"RJ" > wrote in message
. ..
> Brandon Sommerville > wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:06:13 -0600,
> > (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> >
> > >You'll have to spend more on that home to live within bicycling
> > >distance of just about everything you need.
> >
> > Factor in the extra hour of commuting each way and add that cost to
> > the price of your current home. Still a good deal?
>
> For my last move, buying a house within bicycling distance from where I
> work would have cost $200,000 to 300,000 MORE than I paid for the house
> I bought.

And that car cost about $6,000/per year - over the life of a mortgage, you'd
about break even -- except that the property would probably appreciate at a
greater rate.

[RJ]

Brandon Sommerville > wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 19:09:55 -0500, (RJ) wrote:
>
> >Brandon Sommerville > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:06:13 -0600,
> >> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> >>
> >> >You'll have to spend more on that home to live within bicycling
> >> >distance of just about everything you need.
> >>
> >> Factor in the extra hour of commuting each way and add that cost to
> >> the price of your current home. Still a good deal?
> >
> >For my last move, buying a house within bicycling distance from where I
> >work would have cost $200,000 to 300,000 MORE than I paid for the house I
> >bought.
>
> That doesn't change what I said. Multiply your hourly wage times
> however many hours you commute during the year, times however many
> years you'll be commuting.
>
> Let's assume $25/hr, with an hour's commute either way. That's
> $250/wk, times 48 weeks, we're now at $12,000/yr.

No, it's zero. My income is unaffected by my commute. I only commute 2
to 3 days a week anyway.

>Factor in fuel and maintenance costs, never mind parking, and suddenly
>the cost of living an hour's commute away isn't as cheap, is it?
>There's a lot more to cost than just cash unfortunately.

Parking is free for me. A mortgage in the area where I work was
infeasible under any possible assumption.

[[email protected]]

In rec.bicycles.soc Tanya Quinn > wrote:
: Oh please. Before you make all car-free people that occasionally have
: use for a car out to be moochers.. keep in mind that this is often a
: barter type system. Borrow a car from the relatives, go and help them
: with their house renovations. As well, whenever I (and most people)

Absolutely. Sometimes I drive my relatives around because they are
too lazy to drive themselves or don't want to park the car where
they are going. And if you borrow a car you can always return it
with a full tank if you feel like it.

: share a ride with someone to a destination (that they would be going
: to anyway) I always offer money for car expenses. There are a lot of

Technically illegal here... Getting help time to time from
internal combustion oriented friends is a rather casual thing in
our urban setting, it goes with friendship (and friendship goes
both ways...) or as part of the activities of a community of
volunteers, where it kind of feels just natural that people help
and support each other. Hmm, maybe this is also a part of the
status of owning a car, people feel good for being able to help
others?

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html
varis at no spam please iki fi

[[email protected]]

In rec.bicycles.soc RJ > wrote:

: Parking is free for me. A mortgage in the area where I work was
: infeasible under any possible assumption.

So who pays the parking? I guess we come to a hidden cost such as
the showers were for cyclists. One difference is that each car
needs its own parking spot but many cyclists can share one
shower.

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html
varis at no spam please iki fi

[[email protected]]

In rec.bicycles.soc RJ > wrote:
: Brandon Sommerville > wrote:

:> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 19:09:55 -0500, (RJ) wrote:

:> That doesn't change what I said. Multiply your hourly wage times
:> however many hours you commute during the year, times however many
:> years you'll be commuting.
:>
:> Let's assume $25/hr, with an hour's commute either way. That's
:> $250/wk, times 48 weeks, we're now at $12,000/yr.

: No, it's zero. My income is unaffected by my commute. I only commute 2
: to 3 days a week anyway.

Your free time is affected by your commute, and I assume the vast
majority of people value their free time. The rest of the people
could always convert the extra free time into working time and
earn more. (Run your own company, work full time instead of part
time, build skills to get a better job, etc.)

If I commuted only 2 or 3 days a week I could naturally live
further away, save in housing costs and enjoy a nicer, longer
commute on the bike/trike.

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html
varis at no spam please iki fi

[RJ]

> wrote:

> In rec.bicycles.soc RJ > wrote:
>
> : Parking is free for me. A mortgage in the area where I work was
> : infeasible under any possible assumption.
>
> So who pays the parking?

My employer. The garage came with the purchase of the building.

[RJ]

> wrote:

> In rec.bicycles.soc RJ > wrote:
> : Brandon Sommerville > wrote:
>
> :> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 19:09:55 -0500, (RJ) wrote:
>
> :> That doesn't change what I said. Multiply your hourly wage times
> :> however many hours you commute during the year, times however many
> :> years you'll be commuting.
> :>
> :> Let's assume $25/hr, with an hour's commute either way. That's
> :> $250/wk, times 48 weeks, we're now at $12,000/yr.
>
> : No, it's zero. My income is unaffected by my commute. I only commute 2
> : to 3 days a week anyway.
>
> Your free time is affected by your commute, and I assume the vast
> majority of people value their free time. The rest of the people
> could always convert the extra free time into working time and
> earn more. (Run your own company, work full time instead of part
> time, build skills to get a better job, etc.)

I work at home the other days; it is a full time job.

> If I commuted only 2 or 3 days a week I could naturally live
> further away, save in housing costs and enjoy a nicer, longer
> commute on the bike/trike.

It would be long all right. My commute is 35 miles each way.

[Rick]

And when you resold, you would have regained that price and perhaps a bit
more. Basic economics apply.

Rick

"RJ" > wrote in message
. ..
> Brandon Sommerville > wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 22:06:13 -0600,
> > (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> >
> > >You'll have to spend more on that home to live within bicycling
> > >distance of just about everything you need.
> >
> > Factor in the extra hour of commuting each way and add that cost to
> > the price of your current home. Still a good deal?
>
> For my last move, buying a house within bicycling distance from where I
> work would have cost $200,000 to 300,000 MORE than I paid for the house
> I bought.

[John David Galt]

Dave Carroll wrote:
> I thought that a newsgroup devoted to bikes in society would be the best
> place to argue FOR increased use of this healthy, relatively less
> polluting mode of transportation.

It is. So please quit crossposting this crap to r.a.d.

[John David Galt]

Dave Carroll wrote:
> You misread my comment. I didn't say it was just as good. I said access
> and use to private cars is not a good measure of standards of living.

It is for some individuals, and that includes most Americans. That's why
choices such as this rightfully belong to each individual, not any group
process. Live with it.