Snow Storm Hits Eastern US, DC Transit Riders Hardest Hit
David V. Loewe, Jr
"As the winter storm charges north, snow continues to fall at a rate of
about two inches an hour in the Washington area, crippling major roads
and forcing some significant mass transit shutdowns.
Metrorail trains stopped serving all of the city�s above-ground stations
at 1 p.m. on Saturday, due to heavy snow covering the electrified third
that powers the trains, according to my colleague, Ian Urbina, who is
based in Washington.
All of the city�s buses also stopped running around the same time,
according to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority."
--
"You tell 'em I'M coming... and Hell's coming with me, you hear?!
Hell's coming with me!"
- Kurt Russell as Wyatt Earp in Tombstone
Lee Ratner
wrote:
> http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/winter-storm-races-north/?hp
>
> "As the winter storm charges north, snow continues to fall at a rate of
> about two inches an hour in the Washington area, crippling major roads
> and forcing some significant mass transit shutdowns.
>
> Metrorail trains stopped serving all of the city’s above-ground stations
> at 1 p.m. on Saturday, due to heavy snow covering the electrified third
> that powers the trains, according to my colleague, Ian Urbina, who is
> based in Washington.
>
> All of the city’s buses also stopped running around the same time,
> according to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority."
> --
David, I suspect that you are doing this just to piss of Keith and
I like driving as much as the next guy but please stop pissing on
public transit. In many places, including D.C., it really makes sense
and a tremendous difference. Driving would be a nightmare in many
metropolitan areas if everybody had to drive. Many of the most car-
orientated metropolitan areas in the United States like Los Angeles,
Dallas, and even Houston and Phoenix are rebuilding their
transportations systems to solve traffic problems. Millions of
Americans, of all political ideologies, believe that investing in
public transportation is a good thing now.
David Loewe, Jr.
<lbra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 19, 2:45�pm, "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net>
>wrote:
>> http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/winter-storm-races-north/?hp
>>
>> "As the winter storm charges north, snow continues to fall at a rate of
>> about two inches an hour in the Washington area, crippling major roads
>> and forcing some significant mass transit shutdowns.
>>
>> Metrorail trains stopped serving all of the city�s above-ground stations
>> at 1 p.m. on Saturday, due to heavy snow covering the electrified third
>> that powers the trains, according to my colleague, Ian Urbina, who is
>> based in Washington.
>>
>> All of the city�s buses also stopped running around the same time,
>> according to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority."
> David, I suspect that you are doing this just to piss of Keith
Actually, it is a riff on the old made up NY Times headline reporting
the end of the world - "World To End! Women And Poor Hardest Hit" I was
inspired by the "World ends Oct. 31, 2018" thread Subject Header.
>and I like driving as much as the next guy but please stop pissing
>on public transit.
I take public transit myself, Lee. I voted for a tax increase for
public transit here in St. Louis. Alas, it did not pass and bus routes
and train frequencies were cut.
>In many places, including D.C., it really makes sense
>and a tremendous difference. Driving would be a nightmare in many
>metropolitan areas if everybody had to drive. Many of the most car-
>orientated metropolitan areas in the United States like Los Angeles,
>Dallas, and even Houston and Phoenix are rebuilding their
>transportations systems to solve traffic problems. Millions of
>Americans, of all political ideologies, believe that investing in
>public transportation is a good thing now.
--
"Reading Solzhenitsyn makes it difficult to take seriously the
people in this culture who insist that Dissent has been squelched.
Brother, you have no idea."
James Lileks
Keith F. Lynch
> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/winter-storm-races-north/?hp
>> "As the winter storm charges north, snow continues to fall at a
>> rate of about two inches an hour in the Washington area, crippling
>> major roads and forcing some significant mass transit shutdowns.
>> Metrorail trains stopped serving all of the city�s above-ground
>> stations at 1 p.m. on Saturday, due to heavy snow covering the
>> electrified third that powers the trains, according to my
>> colleague, Ian Urbina, who is based in Washington.
>> All of the city�s buses also stopped running around the same time,
>> according to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority."
> David, I suspect that you are doing this just to piss of Keith ...
If so, it's not very effective. I wouldn't have even seen his post if
you hadn't quoted it. But I was perfectly well aware that transit was
shut down everywhere except in the underground portion of Metrorail; I
didn't need Loewe to tell me that.
Car driving was also almost entirely shut down.
I did go out last night. The world was transformed. Eveything looks
so different when everything is covered with snow. Christmas lights
look much more interesting when they're buried in snow -- the snow
itself seems to be glowing in various colors. The major roads had
been plowed, but there was almost no traffic, so they were fully
available to pedestrians. And it was much brighter outside than it
usually is at night; I could comfortably read anywhere.
The few cars on the road were moving at not much more than a walking
pace, or, more often, were stuck and abandoned.
And it's so *quiet*. As if the world was holding its breath in
anticipation.
I didn't have to go out. I was prepared. I have enough fresh fruit
and vegetables for more than a week, and enough cereal and nuts for
more than a month.
Today the sun is shining. But the snow obviously won't all melt by
Friday, so this will be this area's first white Christmas in 20 years.
> and I like driving as much as the next guy but please stop pissing
> on public transit. In many places, including D.C., it really makes
> sense and a tremendous difference. Driving would be a nightmare in
> many metropolitan areas if everybody had to drive.
Indeed. Even if there were was enough road capacity, there wouldn't
be enough parking spaces. And even if there were enough parking
spaces, plenty of people are incapable of safely driving. Force them
to drive anyway, and the fatal crash rate will go way up.
I've said it many times before, but I'll say it again: I am not anti-
car. I am pro-choice. Nobody should be *forced* to own and drive a
car -- or to subsidize those who do, financially or otherwise.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
David Loewe, Jr.
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Lee Ratner <lbra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>> http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/winter-storm-races-north/?hp
>
>>> "As the winter storm charges north, snow continues to fall at a
>>> rate of about two inches an hour in the Washington area, crippling
>>> major roads and forcing some significant mass transit shutdowns.
>
>>> Metrorail trains stopped serving all of the city�s above-ground
>>> stations at 1 p.m. on Saturday, due to heavy snow covering the
>>> electrified third that powers the trains, according to my
>>> colleague, Ian Urbina, who is based in Washington.
>
>>> All of the city�s buses also stopped running around the same time,
>>> according to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority."
>
>> David, I suspect that you are doing this just to piss of Keith ...
>
>If so, it's not very effective. I wouldn't have even seen his post if
>you hadn't quoted it.
Which would be why I wouldn't do this primarily to "piss off Keith." I
couldn't be sure it would get to the target.
Should those who never use Mass Transit be "*forced*" to subsidize those
people, like you and I, who use Mass Transit? Should they be forced to
pay, on average in the US, half your fare? Should they be forced to
suffer through the rolling roadblock that is a transit bus?
--
"The current tax code is harder to understand than Bob Dylan reading
Finnegans Wake in a wind tunnel."
Dennis Miller in I Rant, Therefore I Am
cryptoguy
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:01:56 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
>
> <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
> >>>http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/winter-storm-races-north/?hp
>
> >>> "As the winter storm charges north, snow continues to fall at a
> >>> rate of about two inches an hour in the Washington area, crippling
> >>> major roads and forcing some significant mass transit shutdowns.
While we're all aware that Keith has a bee in his bonnet about mass
transit, I honestly can't see any reason David had to initiate a
thread on that subject, other than to piss off Keith. It's hardly on-
topic.
Paul Dormer's mention of the ills of the Chunnel trains is kinda-sorta
on, since the megaengineering is an SF trope.
FWIW, I got less than 2 inches of snow.
pt
netcat
@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, treif...@gmail.com says...
Yes, what's up with them trains anyway? As someone already mentioned, I
think this is surely not the first time France and Britain have
experienced winter. Or do they stop functioning every time it snows a
bit, and I just haven't noticed before?
rgds,
netcat
Paul Dormer
<70ec6a10-f7bf-4079...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
treif...@gmail.com (cryptoguy) wrote:
>
> Paul Dormer's mention of the ills of the Chunnel trains is kinda-sorta
> on, since the megaengineering is an SF trope.
>
Don't think I've heard it called the Chunnel for years now.
They're now saying that snow accumulating on the trains melted and got
through the engine covers, frying the electrics that way.
> FWIW, I got less than 2 inches of snow.
More than enough to bring the UK to a grinding halt.
Paul Dormer
net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee (netcat) wrote:
>
> > Paul Dormer's mention of the ills of the Chunnel trains is
> > kinda-sorta on, since the megaengineering is an SF trope.
>
> Yes, what's up with them trains anyway? As someone already
> mentioned, I think this is surely not the first time France and
> Britain have experienced winter. Or do they stop functioning every
> time it snows a bit, and I just haven't noticed before?
Yeah, that was my point in the posting. I'm quite a fan of the tunnel,
take holidays through it most years, and I've never heard it happening
before. Eurostar are saying that it has happened before, but only the
odd train each year. This year, they've had five breakdown in two days.
cryptoguy
> In article
> <70ec6a10-f7bf-4079-9b2a-bd0f073ad...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> treifam...@gmail.com (cryptoguy) wrote:
>
> > Paul Dormer's mention of the ills of the Chunnel trains is kinda-sorta
> > on, since the megaengineering is an SF trope.
>
> Don't think I've heard it called the Chunnel for years now.
>
> They're now saying that snow accumulating on the trains melted and got
> through the engine covers, frying the electrics that way.
>
> > FWIW, I got less than 2 inches of snow.
>
> More than enough to bring the UK to a grinding halt.
There seems to be a constant tendency in temperate zones to laugh at
the amount of snow that shuts down the people south of you, or less
used to it.
DC actually got a record snowfall (somewhat qualified: Most in 1 day
in December). Its not that surprising that things weren't engineered
to handle it. Boston got more, but is better equipped, and I don't
think much of anything got shut down. I was once at Arisia when Boston
got 30 inches; that *was* quite disruptive.
With under 2 inches, my plow guy didn't even bother showing up. That's
in the 'ignore it' level here.
pt
David V. Loewe, Jr
<treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 20, 4:37�pm, "David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:01:56 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
>> <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> >Lee Ratner <lbrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> "David V. Loewe, Jr" <davelo...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >>>http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/winter-storm-races-north/?hp
>>
>> >>> "As the winter storm charges north, snow continues to fall at a
>> >>> rate of about two inches an hour in the Washington area, crippling
>> >>> major roads and forcing some significant mass transit shutdowns.
>
>While we're all aware that Keith has a bee in his bonnet about mass
>transit, I honestly can't see any reason David had to initiate a
>thread on that subject, other than to piss off Keith.
AGAIN, if this was my goal, *how* would I accomplish it. I'm famously
in his killfile. He won't see it unless someone follows up.
>It's hardly on-topic.
Funny, I was more or less convinced to move here from rasfw because
virtually anything was on-topic here - a massive storm affecting fen
from the Carolinas to New England seems to fit that bill.
>Paul Dormer's mention of the ills of the Chunnel trains is kinda-sorta
>on, since the megaengineering is an SF trope.
>
>FWIW, I got less than 2 inches of snow.
--
"When it is broken down, the philosophy of environmentalism is the
philosophy of life on earth without humanity at all. Green becomes
the color of a forest that grows over unmarked graves."
Michelle Minton
Jette Goldie
"wrong kind of snow" apparently.
--
Jette Goldie
jette....@gmail.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
Robert Sneddon
<jgold...@btinternet.com> writes
>netcat wrote:
>> Yes, what's up with them trains anyway? As someone already
>>mentioned, I think this is surely not the first time France and
>>Britain have experienced winter. Or do they stop functioning every
>>time it snows a bit, and I just haven't noticed before?
>
>
>"wrong kind of snow" apparently.
The authorities are trying very hard to not use that particular phrase.
From the press reports, it seems that there was enough snow on and
around the tracks that it caked as ice onto areas around the air intakes
on the train used to cool the motor and electrical system. When the
train entered the tunnel it acted as a piston, compressing and warming
the air in front of it. That caused the caked snow and ice in front of
the intakes to melt and it was driven into the engine compartment by the
extra pressure caused by the piston effect. This overwhelmed the baffles
and filters that would normally keep out rainwater etc. High voltages
and lots of moisture = dead trains.
It's difficult to forsee this type of failure and design around it; it
usually takes exceptional conditions for it to occur in the first place.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
Keith F. Lynch
> Jette Goldie <jgold...@btinternet.com> writes
>> "wrong kind of snow" apparently.
> The authorities are trying very hard to not use that particular phrase.
> From the press reports, it seems that there was enough snow on and
> around the tracks that it caked as ice onto areas around the air
> intakes on the train used to cool the motor and electrical system.
> When the train entered the tunnel it acted as a piston, compressing
> and warming the air in front of it. That caused the caked snow
> and ice in front of the intakes to melt and it was driven into
> the engine compartment by the extra pressure caused by the piston
> effect. This overwhelmed the baffles and filters that would
> normally keep out rainwater etc. High voltages and lots of moisture
> = dead trains.
My understanding is that it's easy to filter out water, but what's
hard to filter out are tiny particles of ice suspended in the air.
If so, perhaps the problem was that it *didn't* melt until it was
past the filters.
Keith F. Lynch
> p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk (Paul Dormer) wrote:
>> Don't think I've heard it called the Chunnel for years now.
What's it called now? Thanks.
> There seems to be a constant tendency in temperate zones to laugh at
> the amount of snow that shuts down the people south of you, or less
> used to it.
Indeed. I'm surprised I haven't seen any of that in this thread.
> DC actually got a record snowfall (somewhat qualified: Most in 1 day
> in December).
What's more interesting is how much is on the ground. The snowfall
lasted from Friday evening through Sunday morning, and I don't find it
particularly interesting how much of that fell between midnight and
the next midnight.
There's about two feet, except where plows have piled it up. (Today
I've seen several plow-piles taller than I am.) In the past I've seen
over three feet, but not in this century.
> Its not that surprising that things weren't engineered to handle it.
> Boston got more, but is better equipped, and I don't think much of
> anything got shut down. I was once at Arisia when Boston got 30
> inches; that *was* quite disruptive.
Metrorail was back to normal this morning. Unfortunately, the bus
that runs from here to Metro is not running. I usually walk rather
than take the bus -- I've only taken that bus twice this year -- but
today was not at all a good day for walking. The sidewalks are all
under about four feet of irregular soft snow thanks to plows, making
them utterly unusable. So you have to walk in the street. This
wasn't too bad on Saturday, when there was almost no car traffic and
what little there was was driving not much faster than walking speed.
But today cars were actually going *faster* than normal, since about
two thirds of car commuters stayed home, meaning that for once the
roads weren't way over design capacity during rush hour. And though
the traffic lanes of roads are completely clear of snow and ice, the
shoulders are not. So you have to walk inches from cars going 30
miles per hour or faster, one every few seconds. It's dangerous
as hell.
By not running the local bus, Metro has greatly increased the odds of
someone getting maimed or killed, but decreased the odds that they
could be held directly responsible. Typical.
David V. Loewe, Jr
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>By not running the local bus, Metro has greatly increased the odds of
>someone getting maimed or killed, but decreased the odds that they
>could be held directly responsible. Typical.
<shakes head>
I would be *justified* in trying to piss Keith off if he's going to come
up with this kind of claptrap.
But, I'll repeat it - there is no point in trying to do so because I
don't know that he'll see it.
--
"Quantum particles: the dreams that stuff is made of."
- David Moser
Paul Dormer
Lynch) wrote:
>
> cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk (Paul Dormer) wrote:
> >> Don't think I've heard it called the Chunnel for years now.
>
> What's it called now? Thanks.
The Channel Tunnel, believe it or not.
Just did a search of the Independent for the word Chunnel, and there was
one hit from this year, and that was a reader's comment on the website.
All other hits I found dated from the mid-nineties.
Jay E. Morris
Pehaps all the Channel farmers complained.
Opps, sorry, wrong flu..ah..tunnel...never mind.
cryptoguy
> In article <hgpb4p$sk...@reader1.panix.com>, k...@KeithLynch.net (Keith F.
>
> Lynch) wrote:
>
> > cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk (Paul Dormer) wrote:
> > >> Don't think I've heard it called the Chunnel for years now.
>
> > What's it called now? Thanks.
>
> The Channel Tunnel, believe it or not.
>
> Just did a search of the Independent for the word Chunnel, and there was
> one hit from this year, and that was a reader's comment on the website.
> All other hits I found dated from the mid-nineties.
Interesting. I guess my terminology is out of date in Britain.
pt
Jette Goldie
> In message <hgoi8m$3eh$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Jette Goldie
> <jgold...@btinternet.com> writes
>> netcat wrote:
>>> Yes, what's up with them trains anyway? As someone already
>>> mentioned, I think this is surely not the first time France and
>>> Britain have experienced winter. Or do they stop functioning every
>>> time it snows a bit, and I just haven't noticed before?
>>
>> "wrong kind of snow" apparently.
>
> The authorities are trying very hard to not use that particular phrase.
I know, but the reporter on BBC breakfast news seemed to be amused at
how hard they were trying not to use said phrase :-)
>
> From the press reports, it seems that there was enough snow on and
> around the tracks that it caked as ice onto areas around the air intakes
> on the train used to cool the motor and electrical system. When the
> train entered the tunnel it acted as a piston, compressing and warming
> the air in front of it. That caused the caked snow and ice in front of
> the intakes to melt and it was driven into the engine compartment by the
> extra pressure caused by the piston effect. This overwhelmed the baffles
> and filters that would normally keep out rainwater etc. High voltages
> and lots of moisture = dead trains.
>
> It's difficult to forsee this type of failure and design around it; it
> usually takes exceptional conditions for it to occur in the first place.
--
Paul Ciszek
In article <UPLYUcd8R$LLF...@nospam.demon.co.uk>,
Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <hgoi8m$3eh$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Jette Goldie
><jgold...@btinternet.com> writes
>>netcat wrote:
>>> Yes, what's up with them trains anyway? As someone already
>>>mentioned, I think this is surely not the first time France and
>>>Britain have experienced winter. Or do they stop functioning every
>>>time it snows a bit, and I just haven't noticed before?
>>
>>
>>"wrong kind of snow" apparently.
>
> The authorities are trying very hard to not use that particular phrase.
There is no shame in having difficulty with a particular type of
precipitation that is not standard for a given location. Even cities
that are well prepared for ordinary snow can be paralyzed by right type
of freezing rain.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Jette Goldie
> In article <UPLYUcd8R$LLF...@nospam.demon.co.uk>,
> Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <hgoi8m$3eh$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Jette Goldie
>> <jgold...@btinternet.com> writes
>>> netcat wrote:
>>>> Yes, what's up with them trains anyway? As someone already
>>>> mentioned, I think this is surely not the first time France and
>>>> Britain have experienced winter. Or do they stop functioning every
>>>> time it snows a bit, and I just haven't noticed before?
>>>
>>> "wrong kind of snow" apparently.
>> The authorities are trying very hard to not use that particular phrase.
>
> There is no shame in having difficulty with a particular type of
> precipitation that is not standard for a given location. Even cities
> that are well prepared for ordinary snow can be paralyzed by right type
> of freezing rain.
>
Heh - years ago when the railways in the UK were run by British Rail
they would get blocked each year by snow.
Many were the complaints - "how come they never suffer railway
breakdowns due to snow on the Continent? they get lots of snow every
year".
So they bought some special snow-clearing equipment one year.
And that year, after proudly announcing their purchase, the trains
were snowbound again.
When questions were asked - "you bought all that equipment to prevent
this", the reply was "it was the wrong kind of snow" ...... which
reply produced lots of hilarity.
Dan Goodman
In the Twin Cities, buses keep running after many drivers have given up
on their cars.
--
Dan Goodman
Journal at:
dsgood.livejournal.com
dsgood.dreamwidth.org
dsgood.insanejournal.com
David G. Bell
<MPG.2599bf3b5...@news.octanews.com>
net...@devnull.eridani.eol.ee "netcat" wrote:
I've seen convincing arguments that this was a combination of events,
including some pretty basic logistics, and the upper managements being
finance types rather than engineers. And the Eurostar services have to
be fitted around the vehicle-carrier trains.
So...
1: The tunnel is long enough to have several trains following each
other.
2: Whatever the reason for the first stopping, the following trains
would also stop. This would affect the airflow over the electrical gear,
and the local heating that would tend to mitigate condensation effects
arising from a cold train exterior in a warm, damp tunnel.
3: The way things are organised, even the train crews, effectively all
the decisions not laid down in procedures had to be setled by committee.
4: Special couplings: you need specially-equipped locomotives to haul a
broken-down Eurostar train, not just to get them out of the tunnel but
also to put them somewhere. And modern railway operations have very
little "somewhere". Especially on high speed lines.
Remember, it's not just hooking on. You need the right control signals,
and the right energy source, to release the train brakes.
I am guessing when I suggest that the first breakdown might have been
nothing to do with the weather. But I'd be unsuprised if past experience
was that if a train had to stop for signalling reasons, it would
restart. I'd be unsurprised if nobody expected so many immobilised
trains.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
On the horizon, a carrier task force of the Salvation Navy was
turning into the wind, preparing to launch Zeppelins.
Keith F. Lynch
> I've seen convincing arguments that this was a combination of
> events, including some pretty basic logistics, and the upper
> managements being finance types rather than engineers.
ObSF: The railroad tunnel scene in _Atlas Shrugged_.
Doug Wickström
wrote:
No, they don't.
You don't drive, Dan, and you rarely leave the inner city. You
have no idea. _Some_ inner city drivers give up because, having
parked their cars on the street, and not even owning a snow
shovel, they get plowed in and aren't going anywhere until
Spring. If they are lucky, they'll get tagged and towed.
In the Twin Cities, the last time there was a transit strike,
traffic flowed much more smoothly than otherwise. The number of
people actually on the buses doesn't compensate for the amount of
congestion caused by the buses.
--
Doug Wickström
Dan Goodman
Depends what you mean by "the inner city." The neighborhood I now live
in is definitely not what the term is often used to mean.
I DO have some idea. When there's been a big snow I get to see, from
the bus, that the number of cars in motion is rather diminished. And
that's not because the drivers don't own snow shovels; this is in
neighborhoods where sidewalks are regularly shoveled out.
> Some inner city drivers give up because, having
> parked their cars on the street, and not even owning a snow
> shovel, they get plowed in and aren't going anywhere until
> Spring. If they are lucky, they'll get tagged and towed.
> In the Twin Cities, the last time there was a transit strike,
> traffic flowed much more smoothly than otherwise.
That doesn't jibe with what I recall.
> The number of
> people actually on the buses doesn't compensate for the amount of
> congestion caused by the buses.
--
Seth
David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Should those who never use Mass Transit be "*forced*" to subsidize those
>people, like you and I, who use Mass Transit?
Do they benefit from me not driving a private car on the highways?
Why shouldn't they pay for that benefit?
> Should they be forced to pay, on average in the US, half your fare?
What is the fair amount? (I think half the fare should be subsidized
by whoever used power to force the system to cost twice what it
should.)
> Should they be forced to
>suffer through the rolling roadblock that is a transit bus?
Rather than the no-effect-on-traffic 40 cars it replaces?
Seth
Seth
Doug Wickström <nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 23 Dec 2009 08:58:21 GMT, "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com>
>wrote:
>>In the Twin Cities, buses keep running after many drivers have given up
>>on their cars.
>
>No, they don't.
Yes, they do.
>You don't drive, Dan, and you rarely leave the inner city.
I commute to Minnetonka. The amount of traffic is quite visible.
When driving conditions are bad, the apparent amount of traffic
generated by a given number of drivers is way up. When the actual
apparent amount of traffic is down, that implies a lot fewer drivers.
Last year, on Dec. 24, my office was pretty full (over half the
employees showed up). This year, with the major difference being
traffic conditions, about 1/4 did.
>In the Twin Cities, the last time there was a transit strike,
>traffic flowed much more smoothly than otherwise.
Not that I noticed (working downtown).
> The number of people actually on the buses doesn't compensate for
>the amount of congestion caused by the buses.
Commuter-time buses tend to be quite full.
Seth
David V. Loewe, Jr
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>Should those who never use Mass Transit be "*forced*" to subsidize those
>>people, like you and I, who use Mass Transit?
>
>Do they benefit from me not driving a private car on the highways?
Do they? If they do, is it worth half of what is charged for fares?
Are we going to pay car-poolers as well? Don't they take cars of the
road and out of traffic? And don't they further not clog up the road
with one the rolling roadblocks that is a bus?
>Why shouldn't they pay for that benefit?
Will you pay me for using no personal private transportation and rarely
using mass transit?
>> Should they be forced to pay, on average in the US, half your fare?
>
>What is the fair amount? (I think half the fare should be subsidized
>by whoever used power to force the system to cost twice what it
>should.)
*Does* it cost twice what it should? How would you go about proving
*that*?
>>Should they be forced to
>>suffer through the rolling roadblock that is a transit bus?
>
>Rather than the no-effect-on-traffic 40 cars it replaces?
Doug Wickstrom says traffic got better during a transit strike in the
Twin Cities.
--
"What can you do when your dreams come true
And it's not quite like you planned?
What have you done to be losing the one
You held it so tight in your hand?"
Don Henley & Glenn Frey
Kevin J. Maroney
>>suffer through the rolling roadblock that is a transit bus?
>
>Rather than the no-effect-on-traffic 40 cars it replaces?
Not to mention the no-effect-on-parking of the 40 cars it replaces.
That's a potential motto for public transit: "Found a parking space?
Thank a bus driver!"
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com | www.maroney.org
Games are my entire waking life.
David V. Loewe, Jr
Busses always have 40 or more people on them where you live? Many of
the busses here do not even have seating for 40 or more people.
http://www.metrostlouis.org/InsideMetro/QuickFacts/metrobus.asp
"The MetroBus fleet consists of Gillig buses of varying sizes which seat
43, 37 and 29 passengers, respectively. The fleet also consists of
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) powered Neoplan buses which seat 42
passengers."
Moreover, the busses I see are rarely full.
In any case, cars do not stop at every other intersection, blocking a
lane of traffic, and let passengers on and off very often. That is
*the* mode of operation for busses.
--
"With a gentleman I try to be a gentleman and a half, and with a fraud
I try to be a fraud and a half."
- Otto von Bismarck
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:58:20 +0000 (UTC), se...@panix.com (Seth)
>wrote:
>>>Should they be forced to
>>>suffer through the rolling roadblock that is a transit bus?
>>
>>Rather than the no-effect-on-traffic 40 cars it replaces?
>
>Not to mention the no-effect-on-parking of the 40 cars it replaces.
>
>That's a potential motto for public transit: "Found a parking space?
>Thank a bus driver!"
Back when I drove and now when I ride with others, I've hardly ever had
much trouble finding a parking spot in most cities.
--
"Caught between the longing for love
And the struggle for the legal tender"
Clyde J. Browne
Jette Goldie
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:58:20 +0000 (UTC), se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>
>> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>> Should they be forced to
>>> suffer through the rolling roadblock that is a transit bus?
>> Rather than the no-effect-on-traffic 40 cars it replaces?
>
> Busses always have 40 or more people on them where you live? Many of
> the busses here do not even have seating for 40 or more people.
>
> http://www.metrostlouis.org/InsideMetro/QuickFacts/metrobus.asp
>
> "The MetroBus fleet consists of Gillig buses of varying sizes which seat
> 43, 37 and 29 passengers, respectively. The fleet also consists of
> Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) powered Neoplan buses which seat 42
> passengers."
>
At peak times of day buses tend to be fuller than in off-peak times.
Two 39 person buses, running shortly after each other, will hold more
than 40 cars with only a driver aboard.
The buses here in Scotland seat up to 80 people and are often
"standing room only" at peak times. Some services run as often as
every 5 minutes.
Robert Sneddon
<jgold...@btinternet.com> writes
>The buses here in Scotland seat up to 80 people and are often "standing
>room only" at peak times. Some services run as often as every 5
>minutes.
The 22 bus service in Edinburgh runs on a 3-minute interval during rush
hour. It's mostly crewed with single-decker buses configured for a lot
of standing passengers with a total capacity of 60 or so. The service
runs from a new residential area down near the docks out through the
city centre and on towards the big office parks on the western side of
the city. The 22 buses like many other city centre services run on
priority bus lanes at peak hours and they used dedicated busways along
part of their route although that has now ended as the busway roadbeds
are being refitted for the new tram system that is being built.
As for bus stops, the buses usually pull into cutouts to allow other
traffic past. In most cases where cutouts aren't used they are on four
lane-roads and following traffic can easily pass the bus while it is
stationary.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
David Loewe, Jr.
<jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:58:20 +0000 (UTC), se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Should they be forced to
>>>> suffer through the rolling roadblock that is a transit bus?
>>> Rather than the no-effect-on-traffic 40 cars it replaces?
>>
>> Busses always have 40 or more people on them where you live? Many of
>> the busses here do not even have seating for 40 or more people.
>>
>> http://www.metrostlouis.org/InsideMetro/QuickFacts/metrobus.asp
>>
>> "The MetroBus fleet consists of Gillig buses of varying sizes which seat
>> 43, 37 and 29 passengers, respectively. The fleet also consists of
>> Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) powered Neoplan buses which seat 42
>> passengers."
>>
>At peak times of day buses tend to be fuller than in off-peak times.
Seth's blanket statement indicates that it takes 40 people off the roads
at all times.
Regardless of when the bus is running the route, no matter how full or
empty it is, it is always a rolling roadblock (moving slower than
general traffic flow) at best and a standstill roadblock at worst (when
it stops to pickup or discharge passengers).
>Two 39 person buses, running shortly after each other, will hold more
>than 40 cars with only a driver aboard.
It is rare to see a bus where all the riders are traveling with no one
else. There are almost always couples or families who would all be
riding together in one car. And the wheelchair bound, when they get
onboard, take up 3 seats each.
>The buses here in Scotland seat up to 80 people and are often
>"standing room only" at peak times. Some services run as often as
>every 5 minutes.
The route with the most frequent service here in St. Louis that I know
of runs every 12 minutes at maximum frequency. Most routes run with a
30 minute or hourly frequency at best.
http://www.metrostlouis.org/MetroBus/MapsRoutes.asp
--
"Why do we never get an answer
When we're knocking at the door
With a thousand million questions
About hate and death and war?"
David J. Hayward
David Loewe, Jr.
<fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> As for bus stops, the buses usually pull into cutouts to allow other
>traffic past. In most cases where cutouts aren't used they are on four
>lane-roads and following traffic can easily pass the bus while it is
>stationary.
Observationally, traffic still backs up despite there being a lane
available if there are no cutouts.
--
"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by
making the other poor bastard die for his country."
- George Smith Patton, Jr.
Keith F. Lynch
>> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> Should they be forced to suffer through the rolling roadblock that
>>> is a transit bus?
>> Rather than the no-effect-on-traffic 40 cars it replaces?
My brother recently complained that it took him two hours to get home
from Tysons on the rolling roadblock^H^H^H^H bus thanks to heavy car
traffic. He could have walked the whole way in one hour.
I told him I had good news for him: According to the "experts" on the
net, his experience didn't happen, as buses always slow down cars, not
vice versa. For some strange reason, he wasn't placated.
> Not to mention the no-effect-on-parking of the 40 cars it replaces.
> That's a potential motto for public transit: "Found a parking space?
> Thank a bus driver!"
ITYM bus *passenger*. Or rail passenger. Or pedestrian. Or cyclist.
David V. Loewe, Jr
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Kevin J. Maroney <k...@panix.com> wrote:
>> se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>> Should they be forced to suffer through the rolling roadblock that
>>>> is a transit bus?
>
>>> Rather than the no-effect-on-traffic 40 cars it replaces?
>
>My brother recently complained that it took him two hours to get home
>from Tysons on the rolling roadblock^H^H^H^H bus thanks to heavy car
>traffic. He could have walked the whole way in one hour.
>
>I told him I had good news for him: According to the "experts" on the
>net, his experience didn't happen, as buses always slow down cars, not
>vice versa.
Why do you lie like this?
You have been consistently told that both types of vehicles cause
differing types of congestion. If anyone on this group has said that
one or the other causes no congestion at all, it would be you claiming
that about busses.
You claim you never lie, but you have done this bit where you
misrepresent the *clear* statements or positions of other posters more
than once. *This* is one of the biggest problems I've had with you over
the years.
>For some strange reason, he wasn't placated.
>
>> Not to mention the no-effect-on-parking of the 40 cars it replaces.
>
>> That's a potential motto for public transit: "Found a parking space?
>> Thank a bus driver!"
>
>ITYM bus *passenger*. Or rail passenger. Or pedestrian. Or cyclist.
Or a civic planner...
--
"I don't mind you *thinking* I'm stupid, but don't *talk* to me
like I'm stupid."
- Harlan Ellison
Jette Goldie
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:30:31 +0000, Robert Sneddon
> <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> As for bus stops, the buses usually pull into cutouts to allow other
>> traffic past. In most cases where cutouts aren't used they are on four
>> lane-roads and following traffic can easily pass the bus while it is
>> stationary.
>
> Observationally, traffic still backs up despite there being a lane
> available if there are no cutouts.
Observationally here, any such "back ups" last less than 30 seconds.
We train our car drivers to pass stationary buses.
David V. Loewe, Jr
<jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:30:31 +0000, Robert Sneddon
>> <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> As for bus stops, the buses usually pull into cutouts to allow other
>>> traffic past. In most cases where cutouts aren't used they are on four
>>> lane-roads and following traffic can easily pass the bus while it is
>>> stationary.
>>
>> Observationally, traffic still backs up despite there being a lane
>> available if there are no cutouts.
>
>Observationally here, any such "back ups" last less than 30 seconds.
>We train our car drivers to pass stationary buses.
Observationally, that depends on the amount of traffic. I've seen it
last 5 seconds and I've seen it last as long as the bus is stopped.
Moreover, once cars start backing up, that creates a backup of its own.
--
"It is a consolation to the wretched to have companions in misery."
- Publius Syrus
Jette Goldie
Meh - we have more buses on the roads and fewer cars, and I've never
seen a bus stop cause a back up of more than 30 seconds. Except at
one point on Princes Street, which is a bus only route, so sometimes
the bottleneck can last a whole 5 minutes - but only involves buses.
It's less fuss by bus - and you get free newspapers too. :-)
Seth
David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:32:57 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
><k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>>By not running the local bus, Metro has greatly increased the odds of
>>someone getting maimed or killed, but decreased the odds that they
>>could be held directly responsible. Typical.
>I would be *justified* in trying to piss Keith off if he's going to come
>up with this kind of claptrap.
What part of that "claptrap" is actually false?
At least some people who would otherwise take a bus will walk
instead. Given the conditions as described, they'd have to walk in
the street.
It is definitely less safe to walk in the street than to take a bus.
If buses aren't running, they can't be held directly responsible for
people getting hit by cars.
Seth
Seth
>>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Should those who never use Mass Transit be "*forced*" to subsidize those
>>>people, like you and I, who use Mass Transit?
>>
>>Do they benefit from me not driving a private car on the highways?
>
>Do they?
Yes; all of them benefit a little from the lesser amount of
congestion, and a few benefit a lot from not being near me.
> If they do, is it worth half of what is charged for fares?
The half that's government-induced waste, you mean? Why should the
transit riders be solely responsible for that?
>Are we going to pay car-poolers as well?
We do, at least around here. But indirectly: the highway is 3 lanes
each way, plus 2 lanes in the popular direction, with those limited to
carpools (and others who pay for the privilege).
> Don't they take cars of the road and out of traffic? And don't
>they further not clog up the road with one the rolling roadblocks
>that is a bus?
A bus blocks traffic when it stops to let someone on or off. So does
a car.
>>Why shouldn't they pay for that benefit?
>Will you pay me for using no personal private transportation and rarely
>using mass transit?
Sure, the full amount of the benefit that I get.
>>> Should they be forced to pay, on average in the US, half your fare?
>>What is the fair amount? (I think half the fare should be subsidized
>>by whoever used power to force the system to cost twice what it
>>should.)
>*Does* it cost twice what it should? How would you go about proving
>*that*?
Get a complete breakdown of the costs, and see which are too high
(above market prices).
>>>Should they be forced to
>>>suffer through the rolling roadblock that is a transit bus?
>>Rather than the no-effect-on-traffic 40 cars it replaces?
>Doug Wickstrom says traffic got better during a transit strike in the
>Twin Cities.
That wasn't my observation.
And it _certainly_ and provably didn't get better during transit
strikes in New York City. There were a lot of news articles about
that.
Seth
Seth
>>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>>Should they be forced to
>>>suffer through the rolling roadblock that is a transit bus?
>>
>>Rather than the no-effect-on-traffic 40 cars it replaces?
>
>Busses always have 40 or more people on them where you live?
Not always. During rush hour, most do.
> Many of
>the busses here do not even have seating for 40 or more people.
Do people stand on them?
>In any case, cars do not stop at every other intersection, blocking a
>lane of traffic, and let passengers on and off very often.
Do buses? If they're letting very many people on and off, wouldn't
that imply they have a lot of riders?
> That is *the* mode of operation for busses.
Except when it isn't. The bus I commute on stops that often for maybe
1 mile of the 15 miles of its route, and almost all of that is on a
street with no cars allowed.
Seth
Seth
David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:45:52 +0000, Jette Goldie
><jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>David V. Loewe, Jr wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:58:20 +0000 (UTC), se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>>> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Should they be forced to
>>>>> suffer through the rolling roadblock that is a transit bus?
>>>> Rather than the no-effect-on-traffic 40 cars it replaces?
>>> Busses always have 40 or more people on them where you live? Many of
>>> the busses here do not even have seating for 40 or more people.
>>> http://www.metrostlouis.org/InsideMetro/QuickFacts/metrobus.asp
>>> "The MetroBus fleet consists of Gillig buses of varying sizes which seat
>>> 43, 37 and 29 passengers, respectively. The fleet also consists of
>>> Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) powered Neoplan buses which seat 42
>>> passengers."
>>At peak times of day buses tend to be fuller than in off-peak times.
>Seth's blanket statement indicates that it takes 40 people off the roads
>at all times.
No more than yours does that there is enough traffic at all times that
buses provide roadblocks. (When there's about 1 car per minutes on a
2-lane (each way) road, if a bus is a roadblock, then the driver is
severely incompetent.)
>Regardless of when the bus is running the route, no matter how full or
>empty it is, it is always a rolling roadblock (moving slower than
>general traffic flow) at best and a standstill roadblock at worst (when
>it stops to pickup or discharge passengers).
And when there isn't much traffic, the traffic can pass the bus quite
easily, so it's a "roadblock" that blocks nothing.
>>Two 39 person buses, running shortly after each other, will hold more
>>than 40 cars with only a driver aboard.
>
>It is rare to see a bus where all the riders are traveling with no one
>else. There are almost always couples or families who would all be
>riding together in one car.
During rush hour, going to or from work? That's not my experience.
> And the wheelchair bound, when they get onboard, take up 3 seats
> each.
And if they don't take regular buses, they can get special transit
vans, which are worse for blocking traffic (because they're slower to
load and unload than the buses).
>>The buses here in Scotland seat up to 80 people and are often
>>"standing room only" at peak times. Some services run as often as
>>every 5 minutes.
>
>The route with the most frequent service here in St. Louis that I know
>of runs every 12 minutes at maximum frequency. Most routes run with a
>30 minute or hourly frequency at best.
So bad service causes people to avoid riding the bus causes service to
be reduced even further . . .
When service is very frequent, people are more likely to use it.
Seth
Keith F. Lynch
> And if they don't take regular buses, they can get special transit
> vans, which are worse for blocking traffic (because they're slower
> to load and unload than the buses).
In my experience, the MetroAccess vans, which are only for people
physically incapable of taking a regular Metrobus, always pull into
driveways or parking lots for passengers to get on and off.
All Metrobuses are wheelchair accessible. Wheelchair users do take
longer to get on or off the bus than most able-bodied passengers,
but there are too few wheelchair users for this to be significant.
Keith F. Lynch
Indeed. My brother walked to work and back, three miles each way, in
the street, last week. There were no buses, but there were plenty of
cars using the street. His morning commute was in the dark. I was
quite concerned for his safety.
He wasn't hit. If he had been, he certainly couldn't have sued Metro.
I'm not sure whether he uses passes or "pay as you go." If the
former, he paid Metro for his dangerous walk to and from work.
If anyone wonders why I have Loewe killfiled, look above.
Jay E. Morris
On 27-Dec-2009, Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> As for bus stops, the buses usually pull into cutouts to allow other
> traffic past. In most cases where cutouts aren't used they are on four
> lane-roads and following traffic can easily pass the bus while it is
> stationary.
>
And this is the opposite of what I know of the routes in San Antonio. The
only places I've ever seen cutouts are on four lane roads. I have never
encountered one on a two lane road. There may be a wide shoulder so the bus
is half off the road but it's still on the road.
Tim McDaniel
<71776e33-ca4a-4699...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>out of date in Britain.
I didn't know those words went together.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
David Loewe, Jr.
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:32:57 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
>><k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>
>>>By not running the local bus, Metro has greatly increased the odds of
>>>someone getting maimed or killed, but decreased the odds that they
>>>could be held directly responsible. Typical.
>
>>I would be *justified* in trying to piss Keith off if he's going to come
>>up with this kind of claptrap.
>
>What part of that "claptrap" is actually false?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/claptrap
>At least some people who would otherwise take a bus will walk
>instead. Given the conditions as described, they'd have to walk in
>the street.
>
>It is definitely less safe to walk in the street than to take a bus.
>
>If buses aren't running, they can't be held directly responsible for
>people getting hit by cars.
They aren't responsible in any sense of the word.
--
"Quote! Quote! Young man, the barbarians are hammering at
the gates of our civilization, and you stand there saying
'quote' when you mean 'quotation'."
- Prof. Charles Lloyd of Davidson College, circa 1968
David Loewe, Jr.
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Seth <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>> David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>> By not running the local bus, Metro has greatly increased the odds
>>>> of someone getting maimed or killed, but decreased the odds that
>>>> they could be held directly responsible. Typical.
>
>>> I would be *justified* in trying to piss Keith off if he's going to
>>> come up with this kind of claptrap.
>
>> What part of that "claptrap" is actually false?
>
>> At least some people who would otherwise take a bus will walk
>> instead. Given the conditions as described, they'd have to walk in
>> the street.
>
>> It is definitely less safe to walk in the street than to take a bus.
>
>> If buses aren't running, they can't be held directly responsible for
>> people getting hit by cars.
>
>Indeed. My brother walked to work and back, three miles each way, in
>the street, last week. There were no buses, but there were plenty of
>cars using the street. His morning commute was in the dark. I was
>quite concerned for his safety.
>
>He wasn't hit. If he had been, he certainly couldn't have sued Metro.
>
>I'm not sure whether he uses passes or "pay as you go." If the
>former, he paid Metro for his dangerous walk to and from work.
>
>If anyone wonders why I have Loewe killfiled, look above.
Is it because you don't believe in personal responsibility? Why is
WMATA responsible for anything a pedestrian does? Why is there not the
slightest bit of speculation that conditions were just too bad to have
large, lightly loaded (read: NO TRACTION) vehicles out on those roads at
that time? Sometimes you just have to pack it in and there is no
accompanying intent to inconvenience WMATA riders.
Give it a rest.
--
"Get next to a clue and hope the wind blows, dude."
- Fitzbo
David Loewe, Jr.
<jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:58:08 +0000, Jette Goldie
>> <jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:30:31 +0000, Robert Sneddon
>>>> <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As for bus stops, the buses usually pull into cutouts to allow other
>>>>> traffic past. In most cases where cutouts aren't used they are on four
>>>>> lane-roads and following traffic can easily pass the bus while it is
>>>>> stationary.
>>>> Observationally, traffic still backs up despite there being a lane
>>>> available if there are no cutouts.
>>> Observationally here, any such "back ups" last less than 30 seconds.
>>> We train our car drivers to pass stationary buses.
>>
>> Observationally, that depends on the amount of traffic. I've seen it
>> last 5 seconds and I've seen it last as long as the bus is stopped.
>> Moreover, once cars start backing up, that creates a backup of its own.
>
>Meh - we have more buses on the roads and fewer cars, and I've never
>seen a bus stop cause a back up of more than 30 seconds.
Which is a backup and it will propagate.
>Except at
>one point on Princes Street, which is a bus only route, so sometimes
>the bottleneck can last a whole 5 minutes - but only involves buses.
>
>It's less fuss by bus -
If you live where the bus goes and you're going where the bus goes and
the bus picks you up when you want to go and the bus arrives when you
want to get there...
>and you get free newspapers too. :-)
I'm curious. Does the transit agency provide these or are you talking
about ones that are left behind by riders? In my limited experience, in
is rare to see someone reading anything on the bus or train. Yakking
away on their cell, however, is quite another matter.
--
"Getting a SCSI chain working is perfectly simple if you remember that there
must be exactly three terminations: one on one end of the cable, one on the
far end, and the goat, terminated over the SCSI chain with a silver-handled
knife whilst burning *black* candles." -- Anthony DeBoer
David Loewe, Jr.
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Seth <se...@panix.com> wrote:
>> And if they don't take regular buses, they can get special transit
>> vans, which are worse for blocking traffic (because they're slower
>> to load and unload than the buses).
>
>In my experience, the MetroAccess vans, which are only for people
>physically incapable of taking a regular Metrobus, always pull into
>driveways or parking lots for passengers to get on and off.
Yes, if there is one available. I've used Call-A-Ride several times
myself (it being for more than people physically incapable of riding the
bus) and they always try to get off the street if they can when loading
or unloading. At Barnes (which is where I've been going every time I've
used the service), they use the designated loading zone to achieve this.
>All Metrobuses are wheelchair accessible. Wheelchair users do take
>longer to get on or off the bus than most able-bodied passengers,
>but there are too few wheelchair users for this to be significant.
One regular wheelchair rider on one route can be the difference between
smooth flowing traffic and a regular recurring minor jam.
--
"I guess I wouldn't believe in anything anymore if it weren't
for my lucky astrology mood watch."
- Steve Martin
Jette Goldie
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:34:01 +0000, Jette Goldie
> <jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> It's less fuss by bus -
>
> If you live where the bus goes and you're going where the bus goes and
> the bus picks you up when you want to go and the bus arrives when you
> want to get there...
A good bus service will have enough intersecting routes that you can
hop and change without problems and get you closer to your destination
than you'd have to walk from where you had to park your car - and cost
a lot less than the parking charges would.
>
>> and you get free newspapers too. :-)
>
> I'm curious. Does the transit agency provide these or are you talking
> about ones that are left behind by riders? In my limited experience, in
> is rare to see someone reading anything on the bus or train. Yakking
> away on their cell, however, is quite another matter.
Metro - a free daily (week days only) newspaper supplied by the
publishers. Every morning that day's issue is stacked in each city
bus, big stacks provided in hoppers on commuter train platforms, etc,
all over the UK.
They have a web version too.
David Loewe, Jr.
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:58:20 +0000 (UTC), se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Should they be forced to
>>>>suffer through the rolling roadblock that is a transit bus?
>>>
>>>Rather than the no-effect-on-traffic 40 cars it replaces?
>>
>>Busses always have 40 or more people on them where you live?
>
>Not always. During rush hour, most do.
Do they run just at rush hour? Aren't most of the bus runs done outside
of rush hour?
>>Many of
>>the busses here do not even have seating for 40 or more people.
>
>Do people stand on them?
I've never been on one (here) that was so full that people might have
had to.
When in Chicago the other day, however, I took the bus from the Palmer
House, where I was staying, to the Field Museum (which I toured until it
closed) and Soldier Field (where I watched the Bears defeat my beloved
Vikings in overtime [1]) and back. The CTA had many busses lined up
outside Soldier Field when the game ended and people packed into the
busses with the aisles being full of people standing.
The CTA busses had strap hangers and the Metro St. Louis busses do not.
To me, this indicates that in Chicago they expect a load so great that
people will stand and in St. Louis they do not.
>>In any case, cars do not stop at every other intersection, blocking a
>>lane of traffic, and let passengers on and off very often.
>
>Do buses? If they're letting very many people on and off, wouldn't
>that imply they have a lot of riders?
Does it? What if only one person gets on or off at each stop?
>>That is *the* mode of operation for busses.
>
>Except when it isn't. The bus I commute on stops that often for maybe
>1 mile of the 15 miles of its route, and almost all of that is on a
>street with no cars allowed.
Cars flow. Busses stop at random intervals. One stops a lane of
traffic, causing its own kind of congestion. The other does not do
that.
[1] MAN that place was COLD.
--
"Even when uttered by Democrats, middle class often sounds like a
mealymouthed way of saying, Us, and not them, where them includes poor
people, snake handlers and those with pierced tongues."
- Barbara Ehrenreich
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
Apparently, there are cutouts in DC. There are generally not any here
in St. Louis. I didn't see any in Chicago, but I only took the one bus
route. The problem with Keith's "solution" to the situation is that it
is tailored for DC and much of the rest of the country is sufficiently
unlike DC for it to work there. Another is that, in much of the
country, there is no problem to be solved with the situation.
--
"For progressives, the goal is not ultimately to create more tax
revenue for the government, but to equalize the income of the
citizenry."
- Gregory V. Helvering
David V. Loewe, Jr
<jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>David Loewe, Jr. wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:34:01 +0000, Jette Goldie
>> <jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's less fuss by bus -
>>
>> If you live where the bus goes and you're going where the bus goes and
>> the bus picks you up when you want to go and the bus arrives when you
>> want to get there...
>
>A good bus service will have enough intersecting routes that you can
>hop and change
Which will cause delays in getting to your destination over driving a
car directly there, but I digress...
And, I'll point out again that it takes me about an hour to get to
Barnes by transit (which is how I get there for CT scans about every
three months) while it only takes about 20 minutes by car.
>without problems and get you closer to your destination
>than you'd have to walk from where you had to park your car -
Well, *that* certainly depends on your location. Most destinations
around here have convenient parking. Even for those places where the
bus pulls right up to the doors it can be better to take your car to
them. As an example, if you are going to the mall, there is often a bus
that pulls up at an entrance. However, if you are going to a store on
the other side of the mall from that entrance, you'd be closer to that
store if you drove and parked on that side of the mall.
>and cost a lot less than the parking charges would.
Most places around here have free parking.
>>> and you get free newspapers too. :-)
>>
>> I'm curious. Does the transit agency provide these or are you talking
>> about ones that are left behind by riders? In my limited experience, in
>> is rare to see someone reading anything on the bus or train. Yakking
>> away on their cell, however, is quite another matter.
>
>Metro - a free daily (week days only) newspaper supplied by the
>publishers. Every morning that day's issue is stacked in each city
>bus, big stacks provided in hoppers on commuter train platforms, etc,
>all over the UK.
>
>They have a web version too.
Cool...
--
"Yeah, I remember when I had my first beer."
- Steve Martin responding to a heckler on
the album A Wild And Crazy Guy
David Loewe, Jr.
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:58:20 +0000 (UTC), se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Should those who never use Mass Transit be "*forced*" to subsidize those
>>>>people, like you and I, who use Mass Transit?
>>>
>>>Do they benefit from me not driving a private car on the highways?
>>
>>Do they?
>
>Yes; all of them benefit a little from the lesser amount of
>congestion,
Something that hasn't been proven.
>and a few benefit a lot from not being near me.
Whatever. maybe you should increase your driving skills or bathe more
often - whatever is necessary to make it less unpleasant to be near you.
>>If they do, is it worth half of what is charged for fares?
>
>The half that's government-induced waste, you mean?
Something you never prove.
>Why should the transit riders be solely responsible for that?
Responsible for something you haven't proven exists, much less to the
degree you claim?
>>Are we going to pay car-poolers as well?
>
>We do, at least around here. But indirectly: the highway is 3 lanes
>each way, plus 2 lanes in the popular direction, with those limited to
>carpools (and others who pay for the privilege).
Don't the busses get to use those lanes?
And, what about areas that do not have such lanes?
>> Don't they take cars of the road and out of traffic? And don't
>>they further not clog up the road with one the rolling roadblocks
>>that is a bus?
>
>A bus blocks traffic when it stops to let someone on or off. So does
>a car.
Cars pull into parking lots or driveways most times when letting out
passengers. Busses rarely *can* do so.
>>>Why shouldn't they pay for that benefit?
>>Will you pay me for using no personal private transportation and rarely
>>using mass transit?
>
>Sure, the full amount of the benefit that I get.
Will you force others to pay me as you seem to want to force drivers to
pay transit riders?
>>>>Should they be forced to pay, on average in the US, half your fare?
>>>What is the fair amount? (I think half the fare should be subsidized
>>>by whoever used power to force the system to cost twice what it
>>>should.)
>>*Does* it cost twice what it should? How would you go about proving
>>*that*?
>
>Get a complete breakdown of the costs, and see which are too high
>(above market prices).
Those are available online...
>>>>Should they be forced to
>>>>suffer through the rolling roadblock that is a transit bus?
>>>Rather than the no-effect-on-traffic 40 cars it replaces?
>>Doug Wickstrom says traffic got better during a transit strike in the
>>Twin Cities.
>
>That wasn't my observation.
Then you cancel each other out...
>And it _certainly_ and provably didn't get better during transit
>strikes in New York City. There were a lot of news articles about
>that.
So...
We should generalize from one specific and atypical (population
densities in NYC are far above most US cities) example to everywhere in
the US?
--
"The dead remember our indifference.
The dead remember our silence."
President James Marshall "Air Force One"
David V. Loewe, Jr
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:45:52 +0000, Jette Goldie
>><jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>David V. Loewe, Jr wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:58:20 +0000 (UTC), se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>>>> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Should they be forced to
>>>>>> suffer through the rolling roadblock that is a transit bus?
>>>>> Rather than the no-effect-on-traffic 40 cars it replaces?
>>>> Busses always have 40 or more people on them where you live? Many of
>>>> the busses here do not even have seating for 40 or more people.
>>>> http://www.metrostlouis.org/InsideMetro/QuickFacts/metrobus.asp
>>>> "The MetroBus fleet consists of Gillig buses of varying sizes which seat
>>>> 43, 37 and 29 passengers, respectively. The fleet also consists of
>>>> Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) powered Neoplan buses which seat 42
>>>> passengers."
>>>At peak times of day buses tend to be fuller than in off-peak times.
>>Seth's blanket statement indicates that it takes 40 people off the roads
>>at all times.
>
>No more than yours does that there is enough traffic at all times that
>buses provide roadblocks. (When there's about 1 car per minutes on a
>2-lane (each way) road, if a bus is a roadblock, then the driver is
>severely incompetent.)
If a bus is stopped in a traffic lane, it is a roadblock. You don't
have to block all lanes for it to be a roadblock.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/roadblock (see definition #2)
Moreover, it should be understood that neither cars nor busses present a
significant blockage of traffic when overall traffic levels are light
enough. But Keith consistently makes it sound like there is a major
traffic jam on all DC area streets from approximately 6 AM to midnight
*every day*.
>>Regardless of when the bus is running the route, no matter how full or
>>empty it is, it is always a rolling roadblock (moving slower than
>>general traffic flow) at best and a standstill roadblock at worst (when
>>it stops to pickup or discharge passengers).
>
>And when there isn't much traffic, the traffic can pass the bus quite
>easily, so it's a "roadblock" that blocks nothing.
And when there isn't much traffic, the bus can proceed easily, so the
cars are not presenting any delay to the bus either - unlike what Mr.
Lynch constantly asserts.
>>>Two 39 person buses, running shortly after each other, will hold more
>>>than 40 cars with only a driver aboard.
>>
>>It is rare to see a bus where all the riders are traveling with no one
>>else. There are almost always couples or families who would all be
>>riding together in one car.
>
>During rush hour, going to or from work?
Yes.
>That's not my experience.
How would you tell?
>> And the wheelchair bound, when they get onboard, take up 3 seats
>> each.
>
>And if they don't take regular buses, they can get special transit
>vans, which are worse for blocking traffic (because they're slower to
>load and unload than the buses).
IME, having been onboard both (and observed the vans at the hospital
loading zone) while they loaded and unloaded wheelchair bound patrons,
the vans do not take significantly more or less time to load than the
busses for wheelchair bound riders. And, as Keith rightly noted, the
vans can and do often pull out of traffic to load or unload wheelchair
bound passengers.
Of course, none of that (or your comment) has anything to do with the
fact that the wheelchair bound take up three seats - reducing the
capacity of busses when they get on.
>>>The buses here in Scotland seat up to 80 people and are often
>>>"standing room only" at peak times. Some services run as often as
>>>every 5 minutes.
>>
>>The route with the most frequent service here in St. Louis that I know
>>of runs every 12 minutes at maximum frequency. Most routes run with a
>>30 minute or hourly frequency at best.
>
>So bad service causes people to avoid riding the bus causes service to
>be reduced even further . . .
Most people that ride the bus around here have no alternate
transportation other than shank's mare.
>When service is very frequent, people are more likely to use it.
If there is no one waiting to ride the bus, the bus will be empty and a
waste of money.
--
"Red meat is NOT bad for you. Now blue-green meat, THAT'S
bad for you!"
- Tommy Smothers
Keith F. Lynch
>>> and you get free newspapers too. :-)
>> I'm curious. Does the transit agency provide these or are you
>> talking about ones that are left behind by riders? In my limited
>> experience, in is rare to see someone reading anything on the bus
>> or train. Yakking away on their cell, however, is quite another
>> matter.
> Metro - a free daily (week days only) newspaper supplied by the
> publishers. Every morning that day's issue is stacked in each city
> bus, big stacks provided in hoppers on commuter train platforms,
> etc, all over the UK.
At every DC Metro station there are several competing free newspapers,
including:
* Washington Post Express
* Washington City Paper
* The Examiner
* The Onion
Plus at least two just for gays and at least one just for Spanish
speakers.
> They have a web version too.
Doesn't everything?
The majority of people on both trains and buses are reading. Or at
least those who can find seats are.
cryptoguy
> Indeed. My brother walked to work and back, three miles each way, in
> the street, last week. There were no buses, but there were plenty of
> cars using the street. His morning commute was in the dark. I was
> quite concerned for his safety.
>
> He wasn't hit. If he had been, he certainly couldn't have sued Metro.
Of course not. It was his personal decision to go into work that day.
He knew Metro was down. Metro doesn't have a contractual obligation to
place its personnel and equipment in jeopardy to provide him with a
ride.
Nor did he have to walk. Are there no taxis where he lives?
> I'm not sure whether he uses passes or "pay as you go." If the
> former, he paid Metro for his dangerous walk to and from work.
There, I think you may have a case; perhaps Metro should have extended
the life of their passes by a day.
pt
David V. Loewe, Jr
Again, reading is rare on St. Louis Metro busses. Nor did I see anyone
reading on the CTA busses I was on earlier this week.
--
"The flame rises but it soon descends
Empty pages and a frozen pen
You're not quite lovers and you're not quite friends
After the thrill is gone,"
Don Henley & Glenn Frey
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Indeed. �My brother walked to work and back, three miles each way,
>> in the street, last week. �There were no buses, but there were
>> plenty of cars using the street. �His morning commute was in the
>> dark. �I was quite concerned for his safety.
>> He wasn't hit. �If he had been, he certainly couldn't have
>> sued Metro.
> Of course not. It was his personal decision to go into work
> that day.
Yes, because of his arbitrary and capricious preference for keeping
his job rather than being replaced by someone who will show up every
working day. What was he thinking?
> He knew Metro was down. Metro doesn't have a contractual obligation
> to place its personnel and equipment in jeopardy to provide him with
> a ride.
What jeopardy? Plenty of cars were on the roads. How can roads be
safely usable by cars but not by buses?
> Nor did he have to walk. Are there no taxis where he lives?
Perhaps a round trip by taxi would cost more than he'd earn that day.
I don't know.
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
> cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Indeed. My brother walked to work and back, three miles each way,
>>> in the street, last week. There were no buses, but there were
>>> plenty of cars using the street. His morning commute was in the
>>> dark. I was quite concerned for his safety.
>
>>> He wasn't hit. If he had been, he certainly couldn't have
>>> sued Metro.
>
>> Of course not. It was his personal decision to go into work
>> that day.
>
> Yes, because of his arbitrary and capricious preference for keeping
> his job rather than being replaced by someone who will show up every
> working day. What was he thinking?
I know there are some lousy employers out there, but one that would fire
an employee under those conditions must rank near the bottom. I take it
that nobody's allowed to sick or injured either?
>> He knew Metro was down. Metro doesn't have a contractual obligation
>> to place its personnel and equipment in jeopardy to provide him with
>> a ride.
>
> What jeopardy? Plenty of cars were on the roads. How can roads be
> safely usable by cars but not by buses?
I can think of multiple possibilities. The roads may not have been safely
usable by cars but people were using them anyway. The transit authority
may have been concerned about their liability in an accident if they ran
the buses under poor conditions. Finally, while I've not driven a bus I
have driven a 35-foot class A motorhome. I can easily imagine road
conditions that would be unsafe for something the size of a bus but
relatively safe for most passenger cars. There are dramatic handling
differences even between varieties of small vehicles. I had a light truck
that was an absolute menace on ice.
Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com
Keith F. Lynch
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
>> Yes, because of his arbitrary and capricious preference for keeping
>> his job rather than being replaced by someone who will show up
>> every working day. What was he thinking?
> I know there are some lousy employers out there, but one that would
> fire an employee under those conditions must rank near the bottom.
> I take it that nobody's allowed to sick or injured either?
I doubt he'd be fired for missing one day, whether due to weather,
sickness, or injury, but it would measurably increase the odds that
if there are layoffs, he'd be on the short list. It also reduces the
chances of raises or promotions.
And of course there could be worse weather coming. Or sickness or
injury. In which case that one extra day off could be the straw that
broke the camel's back.
David Loewe, Jr.
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
><rksh...@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
>> Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
>>> Yes, because of his arbitrary and capricious preference for keeping
>>> his job rather than being replaced by someone who will show up
>>> every working day. What was he thinking?
>
>> I know there are some lousy employers out there, but one that would
>> fire an employee under those conditions must rank near the bottom.
>> I take it that nobody's allowed to sick or injured either?
>
>I doubt he'd be fired for missing one day, whether due to weather,
>sickness, or injury, but it would measurably increase the odds that
>if there are layoffs, he'd be on the short list. It also reduces the
>chances of raises or promotions.
>
>And of course there could be worse weather coming. Or sickness or
>injury. In which case that one extra day off could be the straw that
>broke the camel's back.
It must be sheer Hell to have fear run your life...
--
"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass"
Ian Anderson
Cryptoengineer
> cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> Indeed. My brother walked to work and back, three miles each way,
> >> in the street, last week. There were no buses, but there were
> >> plenty of cars using the street. His morning commute was in the
> >> dark. I was quite concerned for his safety.
> >> He wasn't hit. If he had been, he certainly couldn't have
> >> sued Metro.
> > Of course not. It was his personal decision to go into work
> > that day.
>
> Yes, because of his arbitrary and capricious preference for keeping
> his job rather than being replaced by someone who will show up every
> working day. What was he thinking?
> > He knew Metro was down. Metro doesn't have a contractual obligation
> > to place its personnel and equipment in jeopardy to provide him with
> > a ride.
>
> What jeopardy? Plenty of cars were on the roads. How can roads be
> safely usable by cars but not by buses?
> > Nor did he have to walk. Are there no taxis where he lives?
>
> Perhaps a round trip by taxi would cost more than he'd earn that day.
> I don't know.
There have been many times when I've worked unpaid, to keep a job (I
did it for a couple hours tonight). He could have done so too. It was
his choice to pick a less safe method to get to work, our of those
available.
pt
cryptoguy
> cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> Indeed. My brother walked to work and back, three miles each way,
> >> in the street, last week. There were no buses, but there were
> >> plenty of cars using the street. His morning commute was in the
> >> dark. I was quite concerned for his safety.
> >> He wasn't hit. If he had been, he certainly couldn't have
> >> sued Metro.
> > Of course not. It was his personal decision to go into work
> > that day.
>
> Yes, because of his arbitrary and capricious preference for keeping
> his job rather than being replaced by someone who will show up every
> working day. What was he thinking?
>
> > He knew Metro was down. Metro doesn't have a contractual obligation
> > to place its personnel and equipment in jeopardy to provide him with
> > a ride.
>
> What jeopardy? Plenty of cars were on the roads. How can roads be
> safely usable by cars but not by buses?
>
> > Nor did he have to walk. Are there no taxis where he lives?
>
> Perhaps a round trip by taxi would cost more than he'd earn that day.
> I don't know.
There have been many times when I've worked unpaid, to keep a job (I
did it for a couple hours tonight). He could have done so too. It was
his choice to pick a less safe method to get to work, out of those
available.
pt
Jette Goldie
> cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Indeed. My brother walked to work and back, three miles each way,
>>> in the street, last week. There were no buses, but there were
>>> plenty of cars using the street. His morning commute was in the
>>> dark. I was quite concerned for his safety.
>
>>> He wasn't hit. If he had been, he certainly couldn't have
>>> sued Metro.
>
>> Of course not. It was his personal decision to go into work
>> that day.
>
> Yes, because of his arbitrary and capricious preference for keeping
> his job rather than being replaced by someone who will show up every
> working day. What was he thinking?
>
>> He knew Metro was down. Metro doesn't have a contractual obligation
>> to place its personnel and equipment in jeopardy to provide him with
>> a ride.
>
> What jeopardy? Plenty of cars were on the roads. How can roads be
> safely usable by cars but not by buses?
Every time there is heavy snow around here the police and various
motoring associations make a plea for motorists "not to travel unless
the journey is essential"
But hundreds of cars take to the road anyway. Most will arrive at
their destination safely, some will not - and the reason they did not
was directly attributable to the snow and road conditions caused by
the snow. Would you then say "the roads were safely usable by cars"?
netcat
@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, pete...@gmail.com says...
There have been several times I've taken on contracted work at net loss
to me, in hopes of being offered future contracts.
rgds,
netcat
David V. Loewe, Jr
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Indeed. �My brother walked to work and back, three miles each way,
>>> in the street, last week. �There were no buses, but there were
>>> plenty of cars using the street. �
A question that goes unanswered in Keith's customary non-specificity is
what percentage of normal traffic was "plenty"? Given his descriptions
of normal DC area rush hour traffic, "plenty" could be as low as 10%.
>>> His morning commute was in the
>>> dark. �I was quite concerned for his safety.
>
>>> He wasn't hit. �If he had been, he certainly couldn't have
>>> sued Metro.
>
>> Of course not. It was his personal decision to go into work
>> that day.
>
>Yes, because of his arbitrary and capricious preference for keeping
>his job rather than being replaced by someone who will show up every
>working day. What was he thinking?
Most sane employers, when they hire someone who can only get to work via
transit, don't hold it against the employee when they don't show up at
all or show up extremely late when the transit is OOC. They generally
just want you to keep them in the loop.
One wonders if Keith's brother even tried to communicate with his
employer to see if he could stay home or get a ride from another
employee.
>> He knew Metro was down. Metro doesn't have a contractual obligation
>> to place its personnel and equipment in jeopardy to provide him with
>> a ride.
>
>What jeopardy? Plenty of cars were on the roads. How can roads be
>safely usable by cars but not by buses?
Busses are light in comparison to their size. Nor do they have a
surfeit of drive wheels (unlike a semi-tractor which has 8 and can lock
the drive wheels) to provide traction.
>> Nor did he have to walk. Are there no taxis where he lives?
>
>Perhaps a round trip by taxi would cost more than he'd earn that day.
>I don't know.
As others have noted, sometimes you have to bite the bullet.
--
"Clams on the half shell...and rollerskates."
Bernard Edwards & Nile Rodgers
Keith F. Lynch
> Every time there is heavy snow around here the police and various
> motoring associations make a plea for motorists "not to travel
> unless the journey is essential"
> But hundreds of cars take to the road anyway. Most will arrive at
> their destination safely, some will not - and the reason they did
> not was directly attributable to the snow and road conditions caused
> by the snow. Would you then say "the roads were safely usable by
> cars"?
There's no sharp dividing line between essential and non-essential,
nor between safe and unsafe. Cars crash and kill their occupants even
in perfect weather.
Anyhow, no employee wants to be thought of as non-essential.
Non-essential employees get laid off.