Number of Cars on the Road Declining
George Conklin
car" all parked in the yard? It's going the way of not-so-smart phones.
The state Division of Motor Vehicles reports that there are 325,000 fewer
passenger vehicles on the road this year than in 2008.
So folks, all those stories about more and more cars on the road are false.
The actual number is declining. Story from News and Observer, Raleigh, NC.
rsh...@gmail.com
George, I will tell you AGAIN,
LIARS FIGURE, and figures LIE
do you get it?
there is a very deep recession going on, people have lost their jobs
so of course, they have no jobs to drive to,
and having lost thise jobs, how many lost their cars????
George Conklin
<rsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0c852d37-6aa6-4308...@z17g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
do you get it?
---
Fewer cars on the road. How is that a lie? It just is.
rsh...@gmail.com
> <rshe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
doesn't it raise questions tho?
what does it mean, is it permanent? why?
what about the billions spent on road const and widening?
should those be abandoned, maybe scrapped?
and when the economy improves, how are those people without cars going
to get to the jobs?
George Conklin
<rsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fb7e9aeb-47c7-429e...@r4g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 12, 2:56 pm, "George Conklin" <nilknoc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> <rshe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0c852d37-6aa6-4308...@z17g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 12, 7:31 am, "George Conklin" <nilknoc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > And a Tar Heel house with three cars, two pickups, an SUV and a "fishing
> > car" all parked in the yard? It's going the way of not-so-smart phones.
>
> > The state Division of Motor Vehicles reports that there are 325,000
> > fewer
> > passenger vehicles on the road this year than in 2008.
>
> > So folks, all those stories about more and more cars on the road are
> > false.
> > The actual number is declining. Story from News and Observer, Raleigh,
> > NC.
>
> George, I will tell you AGAIN,
>
> LIARS FIGURE, and figures LIE
>
> do you get it?
>
> there is a very deep recession going on, people have lost their jobs
>
> so of course, they have no jobs to drive to,
>
> and having lost thise jobs, how many lost their cars????
>
> ---
>
> Fewer cars on the road. How is that a lie? It just is.
doesn't it raise questions tho?
what does it mean, is it permanent? why?
--
Nothing is permanent. Especially trolley cars and Amtrak.
rsh...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Note to Rip van Winkle, you can wake up now...
"trolley" cars are running and even expanding in places like Phoenix
and Salt Lake City, as well DC is getting a new trolley
The River Line from Trenton to Camden is very heavily used
and where do you suppose Amtrak is going to go?
thousands use it every day, esp in the NY area
is it your suggestion to put them in more crowded airspace?
notwithstanding there are still huge delays crossing the Hudson R
George Conklin
<rsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49d33944-ff37-497b...@v12g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
---
As was documented here many times, if all Amtrak went away only the few
users would notice. And the trolley cars simply pull people off buses,
which are vastly cheaper to operate. And, as you know, airspace is crowded
by too many small planes. All slots will always be used up 100%. Going
back to 1900 does not solve any problems except in your imagination.
Robert Bonomi
Needless to say, number of vehicles on the highways/roadways, and number of
vehicles _registered_ are *very* differnt things.
"Vehicle-miles" tells the story of useage, not "vehicles".
It is also not surprising that vehicle numbers are down, vehicles have been
getting progressively _less_affordable_ for decades.
rsh...@gmail.com
thousands of people a day represents "few" users????
even Gov Christie recognizes a new RAIL tunnel is needed under the
Hudson R
And the trolley cars simply pull people off buses,
> which are vastly cheaper to operate.
and you know this HOW?
and why is Salt Lake City expanding their trolley system?
of all it does is pull people off busses
And, as you know, airspace is crowded
> by too many small planes. All slots will always be used up 100%.
so kill 50% of those slots
Going
> back to 1900 does not solve any problems except in your imagination.-
better we kill off unneeded highways
Valentin Brückel
> On Nov 12, 8:37 pm, "George Conklin" <nilknoc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> And the trolley cars simply pull people off buses,
>> which are vastly cheaper to operate.
>
> and you know this HOW?
Neither trolleys nor buses are cheaper per se, they just have different
cost structures. They can co-exist very well and be used to each other's
advantage.
Trolleys and light rail require a rather large investment up front, but
the operating cost is almost constant, regardless of the number of
passengers. Buses are a smaller investment, which can be made in small
steps, but to achieve the same capacity, more vehicles, more drivers and
more fuel is needed, so operating cost would be higher.
Long story short: If you have decent demand, trolleys are cheaper. On thin
routes, buses are. Ideally, bus routes are set up to be a feeder to rail.
Of course, it gets more complicated if you consider psychological effects:
Experience shows that a rail service draws more passengers than a bus
service of equal quality.
Val
Adam H. Kerman
>Of course, it gets more complicated if you consider psychological effects:
>Experience shows that a rail service draws more passengers than a bus
>service of equal quality.
Um, that gets into park-n-ride issues which in my opinion distort results.
Miles Bader
>>Of course, it gets more complicated if you consider psychological effects:
>>Experience shows that a rail service draws more passengers than a bus
>>service of equal quality.
>
> Um, that gets into park-n-ride issues which in my opinion distort results.
Eh, why, and why?
[Park-n-ride is hardly universal, and even in places where it exists,
surely that would be a mark _against_ rail (meaning the "actual"
preference for rail would be even greater in that case).]
-miles
--
Politeness, n. The most acceptable hypocrisy.
Adam H. Kerman
Miles, PLEASE retain the attribution line with its quote.
>>>Of course, it gets more complicated if you consider psychological effects:
>>>Experience shows that a rail service draws more passengers than a bus
>>>service of equal quality.
>>Um, that gets into park-n-ride issues which in my opinion distort results.
>Eh, why, and why?
>[Park-n-ride is hardly universal, and even in places where it exists,
>surely that would be a mark _against_ rail (meaning the "actual"
>preference for rail would be even greater in that case).]
Park-n-ride isn't a transit trip per se. You are providing a heavily
subsidized parking space to try to keep the driver from heading all
the way into the central business district to avoid high demand for
off-street parking downtown and high demand for free highways leading
into downtown. With high enough demand and congestion, is a driver going
to forgo parking near an express bus stop just because it's a bus? Or
will he complete his journey on the bus because parking is easier in the
suburbs than downtown?
Express buses with a portion of the route in reserved right-of-way have
an advantage over rail, as buses can do their own distribution on one
or both ends.
Rail has a few perceived advantages over bus in that the stations tend
to be superior, as if it's illegal to build comfortable stations or even
decent shelters for bus passengers at ever single significant boarding
location.
We do have real-world examples of newish car lines in Toronto that
replaced bus routes that resulted in increased and growing passenger
boardings for a time.
And then we have the southeast side of Chicago which constantly defies
this wisdom, if it's actually conventional wisdom.
George Conklin
"Valentin Brückel" <vb.usen...@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:op.vl3ws...@coral.site...
Historically the trolley companies could get extra fare for buses because
they went down residential streets and people liked that. Buses were
considered superior. This romance for trolley cars is just that: romance.
Since a bus and a trolley hold about the same number of people, are you
telling us that an additional bus is more expensive than an additional
trolley car? Don't think so. I bet the trolley costs more to buy and run,
and then of course the tracks.
George Conklin
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote in message
news:ibmcb7$uiu$1...@news.albasani.net...
> Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> wrote:
>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> writes:
>>>Valentin Brckel <vb.usen...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
> Miles, PLEASE retain the attribution line with its quote.
>
>>>>Of course, it gets more complicated if you consider psychological
>>>>effects:
>>>>Experience shows that a rail service draws more passengers than a bus
>>>>service of equal quality.
>
>>>Um, that gets into park-n-ride issues which in my opinion distort
>>>results.
>
>>Eh, why, and why?
>
>>[Park-n-ride is hardly universal, and even in places where it exists,
>>surely that would be a mark _against_ rail (meaning the "actual"
>>preference for rail would be even greater in that case).]
>
> Park-n-ride isn't a transit trip per se. You are providing a heavily
> subsidized parking space to try to keep the driver from heading all
> the way into the central business
Even in NYC, 80+% of the trips are NOT in an old-fashioned central
business district. They are, for the most part, a product of history which
do a small minority of total business transactions, and for good reasons
too. A modern city does not need or have a central business district,
except that government likes to keep them afloat.
rsh...@gmail.com
> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote in messagenews:ibmcb7$uiu$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
> > Miles, PLEASE retain the attribution line with its quote.
>
> >>>>Of course, it gets more complicated if you consider psychological
> >>>>effects:
> >>>>Experience shows that a rail service draws more passengers than a bus
> >>>>service of equal quality.
>
> >>>Um, that gets into park-n-ride issues which in my opinion distort
> >>>results.
>
> >>Eh, why, and why?
>
> >>[Park-n-ride is hardly universal, and even in places where it exists,
> >>surely that would be a mark _against_ rail (meaning the "actual"
> >>preference for rail would be even greater in that case).]
>
> > Park-n-ride isn't a transit trip per se. You are providing a heavily
> > subsidized parking space to try to keep the driver from heading all
> > the way into the central business
>
> Even in NYC, 80+% of the trips are NOT in an old-fashioned central
> business district. They are, for the most part, a product of history which
> do a small minority of total business transactions, and for good reasons
> too. A modern city does not need or have a central business district,
>
> - Show quoted text -
question, George, is there a need for Courts? Where should their
location be?
what about the lawyers that conduct thise cases?
find me a city in the US that does NOT have a court house in the cbd?
George Conklin
<rsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ae2af58-4728-404a...@a30g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
-------
Courts no more need to be downtown that industry had to be there. It is
just custom. Raleigh just moved a number of the offices where you interface
with the customer to malls. Good idea.
Bolwerk
> Courts no more need to be downtown that industry had to be there. It is
> just custom. Raleigh just moved a number of the offices where you interface
> with the customer to malls. Good idea.
Yes, moving courts out of downtown sounds like a great idea. Let's just
make them less accessible to a wider area!
fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk
> As was documented here many times, if all Amtrak went away only the few
> users would notice. And the trolley cars simply pull people off buses,
> which are vastly cheaper to operate. And, as you know, airspace is crowded
> by too many small planes. All slots will always be used up 100%. Going
> back to 1900 does not solve any problems except in your imagination.
Cars have been around since just before 1900, and aircraft since just
after; should we abandon both of those as well since they are 1900
(ish)? Of course, they have developed considerably since that time,
but so have most other types of vehicles, including trams, streetcars,
trolleys light rail vehicles, or whatever else you call them.
George Conklin
"Bolwerk" <bol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Uu2dnTvc57i7bELR...@earthlink.com...
Downtowns are not more accessible than any other part of the city.
George Conklin
<fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:2ec9e794-d854-41a3...@v20g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
----
Cars were not in widespread use until after 1920. Street cars had a
mazimum return of capital to income about 1914. It was the electric street
cars which enabled Chicago to expand to an effective radius of 12 miles from
3.2 miles, which had been the walkable city. Are you aware that even before
that in London city density started to decline? After 1840? Trains. But
the electic trams made the process vastly more democratic. That is what
city planners hate: the average person having the same options as the rich
used to.
Bolwerk
Yeah, they usually are. And besides that, they tend to be
geographically centralized.
rsh...@gmail.com
> "Bolwerk" <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
crapola, George, absolute crapola
just because Raleigh has no semblance of transit, does not mean every
city in the USA is like that.
fine let Raleigh disperse every city and county office to various
malls, and watch their downtown further become a ghost
as well become further dependent on the auto
and what does this say to lower class poor who may not have cars,
because they cannot afford them? or who cannot drive?
Many (most) cities are doing just the opposite
George Conklin
The trouble with your comments is that humans are not geographically
centralized, whatever that means. And getting to downtowns is expensive,
and parking for juries consumes many times what they are paid in many parts
of the country. Thus juries subsdize, our of their own pockets, the master
builders of politically-correct places, which would not exist anymore
without massive public subsidies, via. courts and jails.
Bolwerk
> "Bolwerk"<bol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:WpidnR1f0o9liX3R...@earthlink.com...
>> On 11/14/2010 9:57 AM, George Conklin wrote:
>>> "Bolwerk"<bol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Uu2dnTvc57i7bELR...@earthlink.com...
>>>> On 11/14/2010 9:18 AM, George Conklin wrote:
>>>>> Courts no more need to be downtown that industry had to be there.
>>>>> It
>>>>> is
>>>>> just custom. Raleigh just moved a number of the offices where you
>>>>> interface
>>>>> with the customer to malls. Good idea.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, moving courts out of downtown sounds like a great idea. Let's just
>>>> make them less accessible to a wider area!
>>>
>>> Downtowns are not more accessible than any other part of the city.
>>
>> Yeah, they usually are. And besides that, they tend to be geographically
>> centralized.
>
> The trouble with your comments is that humans are not geographically
> centralized, whatever that means.
No, humans are not geographically centralized. Downtowns approximately
are central (or at least closest to central) to the _most_ people
compared to other parts of a conurbation, however.
> And getting to downtowns is expensive,
> and parking for juries consumes many times what they are paid in many parts
> of the country.
Could be, but probably not in the vast majority of cases. In the vast
majority of cases, getting across or around town to a more distant
location would be _more_ expensive, at least for most people.
> Thus juries subsdize, our of their own pockets, the master
> builders of politically-correct places, which would not exist anymore
> without massive public subsidies, via. courts and jails.
That's ridiculous. And, you yourself are just demanding the same
subsidies go to places you deem "proper," Masturplanner.
George Conklin
Most trips are not to downtowns, proving that jobs, services and
residences have nothing to do with downtowns, a product of weak
transportations and communication systems of the distant past.
>> And getting to downtowns is expensive,
>> and parking for juries consumes many times what they are paid in many
>> parts
>> of the country.
>
> Could be, but probably not in the vast majority of cases. In the vast
> majority of cases, getting across or around town to a more distant
> location would be _more_ expensive, at least for most people.
>
Nonsense. Putting service agencies where people can actually park free
is a great boon to the humans who live in the real world, not one-sided
downtown boosters like you.
>> Thus juries subsdize, our of their own pockets, the master
>> builders of politically-correct places, which would not exist anymore
>> without massive public subsidies, via. courts and jails.
>
> That's ridiculous. And, you yourself are just demanding the same
> subsidies go to places you deem "proper," Masturplanner.
Juries paying to park subsidize the court system.
Bolwerk
Yeah, yeah, whatever. That wouldn't mean, if true, that jobs, services,
and residences aren't _most_ central to downtowns.
>>> And getting to downtowns is expensive,
>>> and parking for juries consumes many times what they are paid in many
>>> parts
>>> of the country.
>>
>> Could be, but probably not in the vast majority of cases. In the vast
>> majority of cases, getting across or around town to a more distant
>> location would be _more_ expensive, at least for most people.
>>
>
> Nonsense. Putting service agencies where people can actually park free
> is a great boon to the humans who live in the real world, not one-sided
> downtown boosters like you.
Free parking is provided in downtowns across the USA. Maybe you should
get out more.
And, jeeze, with the irrational conspiracies you have about planners
forcing people into tenements downtown, I am supposed to be the
one-sided one?
>>> Thus juries subsdize, our of their own pockets, the master
>>> builders of politically-correct places, which would not exist anymore
>>> without massive public subsidies, via. courts and jails.
>>
>> That's ridiculous. And, you yourself are just demanding the same
>> subsidies go to places you deem "proper," Masturplanner.
>
> Juries paying to park subsidize the court system.
Which, per above, you want to replace with more expensive
taxpayer-subsidized "free" parking in more remote locations. Want to
get rid of subsidies? Stop forcing people to drive in the first place.
Stephen Sprunk
> On 11/14/2010 5:12 PM, George Conklin wrote:
>> "Bolwerk"<bol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:-b6dnSsLOKssyn3R...@earthlink.com...
>>> On 11/14/2010 4:16 PM, George Conklin wrote:
>>>> And getting to downtowns is expensive, and parking for juries
>>>> consumes many times what they are paid in many parts of the country.
>>>
>>> Could be, but probably not in the vast majority of cases. In the vast
>>> majority of cases, getting across or around town to a more distant
>>> location would be _more_ expensive, at least for most people.
>>
>> Nonsense. Putting service agencies where people can actually park
>> free is a great boon to the humans who live in the real world, not one-
>
> Free parking is provided in downtowns across the USA. Maybe you should
> get out more.
Not in any major city I've been to; parking rates are outrageous. OTOH,
a jury summons here works as a transit pass, and selected jurors are
issued a normal pass at the end of each day which is valid for the next
day. If you choose to drive anyway, parking near the courthouse will
cost you about 3/4 of the daily juror compensation.
Of course, if the courts hadn't exempted themselves from paying minimum
wage, parking would be a trivial expense compared to what jurors earned.
> And, jeeze, with the irrational conspiracies you have about planners
> forcing people into tenements downtown, I am supposed to be the
> one-sided one?
Exactly. All I want is for people to be allowed to _choose_; George is
the one who wants to force everyone to live in suburban tract houses or
trailer parks, which sounds rather one-sided to me.
>> Juries paying to park subsidize the court system.
>
> Which, per above, you want to replace with more expensive
> taxpayer-subsidized "free" parking in more remote locations. Want to
> get rid of subsidies? Stop forcing people to drive in the first place.
Given the low farebox recovery of transit in most cities, that's not
exactly an end to subsidies.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Bolwerk
> On 14 Nov 2010 17:13, Bolwerk wrote:
>> On 11/14/2010 5:12 PM, George Conklin wrote:
>>> "Bolwerk"<bol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:-b6dnSsLOKssyn3R...@earthlink.com...
>>>> On 11/14/2010 4:16 PM, George Conklin wrote:
>>>>> And getting to downtowns is expensive, and parking for juries
>>>>> consumes many times what they are paid in many parts of the country.
>>>>
>>>> Could be, but probably not in the vast majority of cases. In the vast
>>>> majority of cases, getting across or around town to a more distant
>>>> location would be _more_ expensive, at least for most people.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. Putting service agencies where people can actually park
>>> free is a great boon to the humans who live in the real world, not one-
>>> sided downtown boosters like you.
>>
>> Free parking is provided in downtowns across the USA. Maybe you should
>> get out more.
>
> Not in any major city I've been to; parking rates are outrageous.
Not in any major city I have been in either, but "major city" by
definition excludes _most_ downtowns - though maybe it includes most
with court houses.
> OTOH,
> a jury summons here works as a transit pass, and selected jurors are
> issued a normal pass at the end of each day which is valid for the next
> day. If you choose to drive anyway, parking near the courthouse will
> cost you about 3/4 of the daily juror compensation.
I couldn't remember the daily compensation here for sure, but I think
it's $40/day, which is already more than enough to park in Manhattan
_all_ day with enough left over for gasoline.
> Of course, if the courts hadn't exempted themselves from paying minimum
> wage, parking would be a trivial expense compared to what jurors earned.
I thought the theory behind the compensation was that it is for
transportation anyway.
>> And, jeeze, with the irrational conspiracies you have about planners
>> forcing people into tenements downtown, I am supposed to be the
>> one-sided one?
>
> Exactly. All I want is for people to be allowed to _choose_; George is
> the one who wants to force everyone to live in suburban tract houses or
> trailer parks, which sounds rather one-sided to me.
Yes, though in reality any kind of reform would probably result in
something George doesn't like.
>>> Juries paying to park subsidize the court system.
>>
>> Which, per above, you want to replace with more expensive
>> taxpayer-subsidized "free" parking in more remote locations. Want to
>> get rid of subsidies? Stop forcing people to drive in the first place.
>
> Given the low farebox recovery of transit in most cities, that's not
> exactly an end to subsidies.
It might be, if it means not subsidizing people to live so far from any
kind of established settlement in the first place - and even then,
subsidizing long-distance trips for jurors is cheaper than doing it (via
transit or auto) for everyone.
Even so, transit seems to get subsidized at a fraction of the rate of
autos even in the most dismal of circumstances, and a walk doesn't cost
anyone anything.
rsh...@gmail.com
> On 14 Nov 2010 17:13, Bolwerk wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11/14/2010 5:12 PM, George Conklin wrote:
> >>news:-b6dnSsLOKssyn3R...@earthlink.com...
> >>> On 11/14/2010 4:16 PM, George Conklin wrote:
> >>>> And getting to downtowns is expensive, and parking for juries
> >>>> consumes many times what they are paid in many parts of the country.
>
> >>> Could be, but probably not in the vast majority of cases. In the vast
> >>> majority of cases, getting across or around town to a more distant
> >>> location would be _more_ expensive, at least for most people.
>
> >> Nonsense. Putting service agencies where people can actually park
> >> free is a great boon to the humans who live in the real world, not one-
> >> sided downtown boosters like you.
>
> > Free parking is provided in downtowns across the USA. Maybe you should
> > get out more.
>
> Not in any major city I've been to; parking rates are outrageous. OTOH,
> a jury summons here works as a transit pass, and selected jurors are
> issued a normal pass at the end of each day which is valid for the next
> day. If you choose to drive anyway, parking near the courthouse will
> cost you about 3/4 of the daily juror compensation.
>
Don't they have jury pkg at the court house?
The court houses in NJ all do
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/juryreporting/passaic/message/message.htm
if you read down, they have a shuttle option from Willowbrook Mall to
the courthouse in Paterson
> Of course, if the courts hadn't exempted themselves from paying minimum
> wage, parking would be a trivial expense compared to what jurors earned.
and you know what the teabaggers will say to that
>
> > And, jeeze, with the irrational conspiracies you have about planners
> > forcing people into tenements downtown, I am supposed to be the
> > one-sided one?
>
> Exactly. All I want is for people to be allowed to _choose_; George is
> the one who wants to force everyone to live in suburban tract houses or
> trailer parks, which sounds rather one-sided to me.
>
> >> Juries paying to park subsidize the court system.
>
> > Which, per above, you want to replace with more expensive
> > taxpayer-subsidized "free" parking in more remote locations. Want to
> > get rid of subsidies? Stop forcing people to drive in the first place.
>
> Given the low farebox recovery of transit in most cities, that's not
> exactly an end to subsidies.
>
> S
>
> --
> Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
> CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
> K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking- Hide quoted text -
Miles Bader
teabaggers have language?!
-miles
--
The automobile has not merely taken over the street, it has dissolved the
living tissue of the city. Its appetite for space is absolutely insatiable;
moving and parked, it devours urban land, leaving the buildings as mere
islands of habitable space in a sea of dangerous and ugly traffic.
[James Marston Fitch, New York Times, 1 May 1960]
Larry Sheldon
> "rsh...@gmail.com"<rsh...@gmail.com> writes:
>> and you know what the teabaggers will say to that
>
> teabaggers have language?!
Of course queers have language--have you never seen one swishing down
the street?
>
> -miles
>
--
Superfluity does not vitiate.
larrysheldonisalyingfuckinghypocrite
> On 11/14/2010 8:47 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
>
> >> and you know what the teabaggers will say to that
>
> > teabaggers have language?!
>
> Of course queers have language--have you never seen one swishing down
> the street?
>
>
>
> > -miles
>
> --
> Superfluity does not vitiate.
like you swoosh you lying fucking christian piece of shit
actually, what it is with you, you stick your dick into your daughters
starting about when they were 7 or 8 because your wife would not give
you any sex
Stephen Sprunk
> On Nov 14, 5:51 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> On 14 Nov 2010 17:13, Bolwerk wrote:
>>> Free parking is provided in downtowns across the USA. Maybe you should
>>> get out more.
>>
>> Not in any major city I've been to; parking rates are outrageous. OTOH,
>> a jury summons here works as a transit pass, and selected jurors are
>> issued a normal pass at the end of each day which is valid for the next
>> day. If you choose to drive anyway, parking near the courthouse will
>> cost you about 3/4 of the daily juror compensation.
>
> Don't they have jury pkg at the court house?
The courthouse has a parking garage, and the jail next door has a large
parking lot if the garage is full.
> The court houses in NJ all do
>
> http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/juryreporting/passaic/message/message.htm
>
> if you read down, they have a shuttle option from Willowbrook Mall to
> the courthouse in Paterson
All area TA P&R lots are free, and there's a train station across the
street, which effectively means free parking without the cost of highway
congestion. During rush hour, when most jurors will be traveling, the
trains are faster than driving all the way to the courthouse, plus
they're free (see quote above). Transit seems like the obvious choice,
but the garage seems to be packed every day.
Bolwerk
>> On 11/14/2010 8:47 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
>>
>>> "rshe...@gmail.com"<rshe...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> and you know what the teabaggers will say to that
>>
>>> teabaggers have language?!
>>
>> Of course queers have language--have you never seen one swishing down
>> the street?
Is there even a real Larry Sheldon anymore, or just a bunch of Sam
Sloan-ish fakes?
Clark F Morris
>"rsh...@gmail.com" <rsh...@gmail.com> writes:
>> and you know what the teabaggers will say to that
>
>teabaggers have language?!
I see that you are trying to insult both conservatives and gay people.
I assume you are prejudiced against both.
Clark
>
>-miles
Sancho Panza
> I couldn't remember the daily compensation here for sure, but I think
> it's $40/day, which is already more than enough to park in Manhattan
> _all_ day with enough left over for gasoline.
Barely:
"GGMC Battery Place Car Park, LLC
8 2nd Pl (at Battery Pl)
Battery Pl 2nd Pl $35
CENTRAL Parking System of NY, Inc.
92 Pearl St (bet. Coenties Sl-Hanover Sq)
Coenties Sl Pearl St $35
GMC John Street Garage
35 Gold St (bet. John-Fulton St)
John Gold St $35
LITTLE MAN Anne Park, LLC
57 Ann St (bet. William St-Nassau St)
Ann St William St / Nassau St $35
State Pearl Garage, Inc.
9 Pearl St (bet. Whitehall St-State St)
Pearl St Whitehall St / State St $36
GGMC Ocean Car Park, LLC
9 West St (bet. Battery Pl-Morris St)
Battery Pl West St $38
45 Wall Parking Corp.
41 Exchange Pl (bet. William St-Broad St)
Exchange Pl William St / Broad St $38
John St. Parking Corp.
3 Hanover St (bet. Exchange Pl-Wall St)
Exchange Pl Hanover St $38
IMPARK Water, LLC
47 Old Slip (bet. South St-Water St)
Old Slip South St / Water St $39
CENTRAL Parking System of NY, Inc.
153 John St (bet. Front St-Water St)
John St Front St / Water St $39
Pine Water Garage, LLC
144 Water St (bet. Maiden Lane-Pine St)
Maiden Lane Water St $40
CHELNIK Gateway Parking Corp.
345 S End Ave (bet. Albany-Liberty St)
Albany S End Ave $40
PROPARK America New York, LLC (Lot 1)
19-21 Marginal St (at Maiden Lane)
Maiden Lane Marginal St $40
CENTRAL Parking System of NY, Inc.
188 Fulton St (bet. Broadway-Church St)
Fulton St Broadway / Church St $40
CENTRAL Parking System of NY, Inc.
217 Pearl St (bet. John St-Maiden Ln)
Pearl St John St / Maiden Ln $45"
Bolwerk
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:47:31 +0900, Miles Bader<mi...@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> "rsh...@gmail.com"<rsh...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> and you know what the teabaggers will say to that
>>
>> teabaggers have language?!
>
> I see that you are trying to insult both conservatives and gay people.
What the hell does teabagging need to have to do with gay people? As a
sexual act, it doesn't really require the person receiving the, uh,
action to be of any particular gender (or species).
Bolwerk
> On 11/14/2010 7:16 PM, Bolwerk wrote:
>
>> I couldn't remember the daily compensation here for sure, but I think
>> it's $40/day, which is already more than enough to park in Manhattan
>> _all_ day with enough left over for gasoline.
>
> Barely:
Wow, I didn't realize rates went up so much since I stopped driving. I
used many of those garages frequently as recently as 2007. ~$28 seemed
to be about typical. Are those the "morning bird" rates?
Of course, not many people would drive to jury duty in Manhattan anyway.
Merritt Mullen
Bolwerk <bol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/15/2010 1:43 PM, Clark F Morris wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:47:31 +0900, Miles Bader<mi...@gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> >> "rsh...@gmail.com"<rsh...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> and you know what the teabaggers will say to that
> >>
> >> teabaggers have language?!
> >
> > I see that you are trying to insult both conservatives and gay people.
>
> What the hell does teabagging need to have to do with gay people?
Or conservatives, for that matter.
Merritt
Larry Sheldon
I have never heard the term used except by queers.
> Or conservatives, for that matter.
Or anybody but a subset of queers, although I suppose breasts could be
used the way I have heard "teabagging" described.
--
Superfluity does not vitiate.
4
Clark F Morris
When I was reading about the term tea-bagger at first I just thought
it was a derisive way to refer to the Tea Party people (mostly
conservative). I had to use wikipedia to find the other connotation
that people were giving to the term. The double use of the term was
the basis for my comment.
Clark Morris
Bolwerk
I figured the term probably had its origin in frat houses in the 1970s
or 1980s, no doubt amongst white kids with too much time on their hands.
The only possibly homosexual context I can think for it is that maybe
it's kind of, uh, gay that an ostensibly straight male would want to put
his scrotum on the face of another male who has passed out from drinking
too much alcohol. But nothing about the act, no matter how narrowly it
gets defined, limits it to homosexual contexts, although I don't know
what pleasure is derived from it beyond degrading one's partner, a
common theme in pornography.
The term was _extended_ to apply to the "Tea Party," probably mostly out
of some combination of: (a) the "Tea Party's" contempt for America so
perfectly paralleling the teabagger's desire to degrade his sex partner,
(b) deference for the original Boston Tea Party that was made up of real
anti-authoritarians, or most likely (c) just because it's a really
obvious joke.
Miles Bader
>>teabaggers have language?!
>
> I see that you are trying to insult both conservatives and gay people.
> I assume you are prejudiced against both.
You'd be wrong, of course...
-Miles
--
Happiness, n. An agreeable sensation arising from contemplating the misery of
another.
Jimmy
> Bolwerk wrote:
> > I couldn't remember the daily compensation here for sure, but I think
> > it's $40/day, which is already more than enough to park in Manhattan
> > _all_ day with enough left over for gasoline.
>
> Barely:
>
> "GGMC Battery Place Car Park, LLC
> 8 2nd Pl (at Battery Pl)
> Battery Pl 2nd Pl $35
Primospot.com says the garage at Bayard Street and the Bowery has an
early bird deal for $12.67 plus tax (enter 6-11 am, leave by
midnight).
Jimmy
George Conklin
"Jimmy" <JimmyG...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:91d02703-5363-4997...@fh19g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Jimmy
-----
That means that a round-trip subway ride is worth at least $12.67, plus the
cost of the car and gas, etc. So my old rule of thumb that the single ride
was worth $6 is about right, at least for the early birds.
spsffan
> Clark F Morris<cfmp...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes:
>>> teabaggers have language?!
>>
>> I see that you are trying to insult both conservatives and gay people.
>> I assume you are prejudiced against both.
>
> You'd be wrong, of course...
>
> -Miles
>
Indeed Miles. Just because you insult someone (or some group) doesn't
mean you are prejudiced against them. It is often a sign of affection.
The Mills Brothers had it right: "You always hurt the one you love. "
-DAve
Miles Bader
> Indeed Miles. Just because you insult someone (or some group) doesn't
> mean you are prejudiced against them. It is often a sign of affection.
No doubt, but what Clark claimed was that I insulted "both conservatives
and gay people", which I didn't.
-miles
--
Any man who is a triangle, has thee right, when in Cartesian Space,
to have angles, which when summed, come to know more, nor no less,
than nine score degrees, should he so wish. [TEMPLE OV THEE LEMUR]
Adam H. Kerman
[teabaggers]
>The term was _extended_ to apply to the "Tea Party," probably mostly out
>of some combination of: (a) the "Tea Party's" contempt for America so
>perfectly paralleling the teabagger's desire to degrade his sex partner,
>(b) deference for the original Boston Tea Party that was made up of real
>anti-authoritarians, or most likely (c) just because it's a really
>obvious joke.
No. There was a protest in which actual tea bags were thrown or dumped.
addre...@invalid.invalid
No, it was just a cheap shot.
--
GS Rider
Bolwerk
What a waste of perfectly good tea.
Larry Sheldon
I'm pretty sure there were people in the modern tea party movement who
thought it was an obvious badge.
Believe it or not, there are people who think "gay" means "happy,
festive", not "depressed, antagonistic, queer".