Hydrogen and voting
David Mar
and lost the posts to which I wanted to respond. Let me say them quickly
now before I forget them. They concern:
"1. DJ's question on metallic hydrogen.
2. electoral colleges and the US 'gas tax'.
3. StM's assertions that voting is not worthwhile.
"Yes Jim, it is true that hydrogen goes 'metallic' under extremely high
pressure. There is believed to be a core of liquid metallic hydrogen at
the centres of the gas giant planets. I'm not sure how they define
'metallic', but I assume it means that the electrons become free to
travel through the proton lattice formed from the hydrogen nuclei. In
other words, it would become electrically conductive.
"Next, someone (sorry, you could use my short-term memory to drain
spaghetti) asked if any other countries had 'electoral colleges'. Well,
I've never heard of them, and don't know what they are, so I'd venture
that they don't exist in Australia. If any other Aussies know differently
speak up!
"As for petrol prices and taxes (sorry again, 'gas' means LPG as far as I
am concerned!), it seems reasonable to me that the country which causes
the most internal combustion engine pollution per capita should pay more
for their petrol. Is this the case? No! Here in Aus we pay (after
currency conversion) US$2.00 or more per gallon. Sheesh, I don't know
what you folks are complaining about! :-)
"Finally, it seems StM and I have to agree to disagree on the value of
voting. But if you really want an example of where a small number of voters
made a big difference in a large election, how about the second last
election I took part in?
"The last New South Wales state election was predicted to be a landslide
victory for the NSW Liberal Party after newspaper polls and so forth.
Come election day, as the votes were tallied it became clear that the
result was going to be _much_ closer than anybody had imagined. With only
a few parliamentary seats to be decided, both the Liberal and Labor
Parties were short of a clear majority. A couple of seats went to
independent candidates and all hinged on the one remaining seat. If it
went to the Liberals, they would have a majority and would take
government. If it went to Labor, the parliament would be hung and a
re-election would have been called. That final seat was decided by _less_
_than_one_hundred_votes_, and went to Labor. Our state parliament was
in a state of limbo, with the Liberals poised on the edge of forming a
government, but a handful of votes short. A recount confirmed the result
and it appeared that a re-election would have to be held. But with only a
day or so to go before that would have to be the case, the Liberals
negotiated a deal whereby one of the independents sided with them, and
they were able to form a government.
"Now, the voting population of NSW is of the order of five million
people. And less than 100 votes were decisive in determining the outcome.
Further, that single independent candidate weilded the power to form a
government or force a re-election, and he (yes, it was a he) was elected
on the strength of a few thousand votes or so. I'll agree that this isn't
a case where my single vote, considered a posteriori, affected the
outcome, but if the opinions of less than a hundred people out of five
million were changed, our state government would look substantially
different today."
- Danger Mouse.
Michael S. Schiffer
>"Next, someone (sorry, you could use my short-term memory to drain
>spaghetti) asked if any other countries had 'electoral colleges'. Well,
>I've never heard of them, and don't know what they are, so I'd venture
>that they don't exist in Australia. If any other Aussies know differently
>speak up!
"For those who aren't US citizens (or who are but aren't too
clear on the concept), here's the lowdown on the US electoral college:
"As determined by the US Constitution (Article II, Section 1,
plus some modifications introduces by later amendments), the President
and Vice President of the US are chosen by the members of the
electoral college. This is a group of people chosen every four years
for the sole purpose of choosing the holders of those offices, once--
it is not a permanent body. Each state chooses electors equal to the
sum of the number of Senators (2 per state) plus the number of members
of the House of Representatives (proportional to population, but
minimum of one per state). Following an amendment in the 1960's, the
capital, Washington, D.C., also selects three electors (as if it were
a state of the minimum size) although it does not have representation
in Congress. Currently, the electoral college will consist of 538
members.
"Now, the Constitution does not prescribe the method by which
the states choose electors, nor does it prescribe how the electors
must vote. However, as a matter of long practice, presidential
candidates run a slate of electors who are pledged to them, and who
are usually identified on the ballot by the name of the candidate
rather than their individual names. (At least in Michigan-- I'm open
to correction if anyone knows of a state which lists electors on the
ballot.) Hence, most voters never know the identity of the electors
they vote for.
"In most or all states at present, the system is
winner-take-all. In other words, if Joe Candidate gets 51% of the
vote in the state, all of his electors become members of the electoral
college, and will almost inevitably cast their ballots for Joe
Candidate. It has been noted that this can result in a candidate with
a popular minority getting an electoral majority (trivial example:
Candidate A gets 100% of the vote in states totalling just under half
the electoral votes, while Candidate B gets 50.001% of the vote in
each of the rest of the states. Candidate B wins, but Candidate A got
many more popular votes). In recent times, this hasn't come up very
much. As an editorial comment, I'll say that I think the fact that
even the densest population centers are of limited utility in an
election forces candidates to pursue broader bases than might occur
otherwise-- but I admit that the major reason the system survives is
that it would be a _lot_ of trouble to change it. (To amend the US
constitution requires a vote by 2/3 of Congress plus ratification by
3/4 of the state legislatures.)
"As someone noted, there are laws in many states requiring
that electors cast their ballot for the candidate to whom they were
pledged. However, the Constitution imposes no such requirement, and I
really doubt that those state laws would stand up in court.
Essentially, the vote of the electoral college is a federal matter,
and as such outside state jurisdiction. And given that the electors
are hand-picked by the candidates and their organizations, the chances
of a defection which could influence the election are virtually nil
unless, as the saying goes, the candidate were `found in bed with a
dead girl or a live boy' between Election Day and the vote of the
electoral college. The electors _could_, in theory, elect anyone they
wanted (among natural born US citizens over age 35). In fact, they
will generally vote for the candidate to whom they were pledged.
"There have, however, been a number of protest votes by
electors who knew that the election was already settled. For example,
the Libertarians got an electoral vote in 1972, I believe (touted by
them as the first electoral vote given to a woman, their
Vice-Presidential candidate [whose name escapes me]), and a Democratic elector
in 1988 voted for Lloyd Bentsen for President (he was the Democrats'
Vice Presidential candidate, and was widely believed to have greater
stature than Michael Dukakis, their Presidential candidate).
"If no candidate gets a majority in the electoral college, the
choice of the President goes to the House of Representatives, and the
choice of the Vice-President goes to the Senate. This could, in some
years (though not in this) result in those offices going to members of
different parties, but this hasn't happened since the Federalist John
Adams became the second President and the Democratic-Republican Thomas
Jefferson became his Vice President. Note that the winner-take-all
system in the states makes this scenario very unlikely even in a three
way race, unless it were very evenly divided, since a third place
candidate will tend to get few or no electoral votes even if he makes
a respectable showing in the popular vote."
Michael
Michael S. Schiffer
>"As for petrol prices and taxes (sorry again, 'gas' means LPG as far as I
>am concerned!), it seems reasonable to me that the country which causes
>the most internal combustion engine pollution per capita should pay more
>for their petrol. Is this the case? No! Here in Aus we pay (after
>currency conversion) US$2.00 or more per gallon. Sheesh, I don't know
>what you folks are complaining about! :-)
"Um... with all due respect, I've never understood why the
fact that other countries pay higher taxes should mean that we're
undertaxed. Personally, I think that we're overtaxed, and most other
industrialized countries are _way_ overtaxed. And taxes are basically
the equivalent of friction in machinery-- probably essential for some
things, but often nothing but a mechanism for wasting effort.
Basically, taxation slows down economic activity by taking away
incentive-- so it had better be for a good reason. Now, the question
is whether decreasing petroleum consumption will benefit US citizens
more than increasing costs will hurt them. (Benefits to the rest of
the world are not the business of the US government directly, though
of course other countries may wish to use carrots or sticks to make
the costs and benefits to the US government's constituents more in
line with what they wish.)
"Now, most goods in the US are shipped in gasoline-powered
trucks. Increase gas taxes, and you've increased the cost of all
those goods to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for them.
You've increased the costs of commuting, whether for a $12,000/year
janitor or of a $120,000/year investment banker (both of whom may live
in suburbs with no alternative to driving). You increase the
incentive to live in already overcrowded cities to take advantage of
their (often overburdened) public transit systems.
"And for what? Right now, electric cars are just too
expensive, and inconvenient to boot-- little cargo space and short
range. Natural gas cars show a lot of potential, but there are some
safety considerations to worry about, and it will take time to create
that large an infrastructure. Most Americans (including me) have both
rational and emotional reasons for preferring personal transportation
to mass transit-- emissions will not, I think, be cut by cutting the
number of cars on the road, so long as the government is at all
responsive to the will of the electorate. Conversely, there are other
ways of controlling driving and emissions besides regressive taxation.
Controlling emissions is certainly a desirable goal, but not at the
cost of returning to recession-- not least because poorer economies
value the environment less.
"You see, if Americans are poorer, they'll drive their older
cars longer (keeping the vehicles which emit more in service for more
years), and they won't be willing to pay the costs of environmental
cleanup. Consider that, in general, it's not the richest countries which are
facing the greatest problems of environmental disasters-- it's poor
countries, whether one considers the former Soviet bloc or Mexico City
or Brazil. The citizens of rich countries, people who (mostly) don't
have to worry about food or housing or war ending their lives early,
have the luxury of worrying about air pollution and ground water
contamination. Poor people, in whatever country, hardly need worry
about skin cancer from increased UV through dissipating ozone if the
primary concern is whether they'll eat tomorrow-- and if it's a choice
between helping chop down a rain forest and starvation, or between
driving a fifteen year old clunker and unemployment, all the preaching
about long-term problems are going to fall on deaf ears. So I'd
counsel being very careful when recommending environmental laws which
will have negative economic effects-- they're very likely to backfire,
badly. IMHO, of course."
Michael
David Mar
>>it seems reasonable to me that the country which causes
>>the most internal combustion engine pollution per capita should pay more
>>for their petrol. Is this the case? No! Here in Aus we pay (after
>>currency conversion) US$2.00 or more per gallon.
>
> "Um... with all due respect, I've never understood why the
>fact that other countries pay higher taxes should mean that we're
>undertaxed. Personally, I think that we're overtaxed, and most other
>industrialized countries are _way_ overtaxed.
Danger Mouse is puzzled by this response for a second. "Woops! Should
have made myself clearer there. I was not saying that US petrol buyers
should pay more than they pay now, I was saying that they should pay more
than Australians (or most other countries). Whether by increasing taxes
in the US or by reducing prices elsewhere, you can achieve the same thing.
My economics is too poor for me to know which direction is preferable,
and you make what seems to me to be a reasonable argument for the former.
"Sigh. It's such a shame that long-term goals mostly seem to cause bad
things (TM) in the short term..."
- Danger Mouse.
David Mar
>in the US or by reducing prices elsewhere, you can achieve the same thing.
>My economics is too poor for me to know which direction is preferable,
>and you make what seems to me to be a reasonable argument for the former.
"Yaargh. I meant 'latter' there.
"At an improbability level of 2^276709 to one against...."
- Danger Mouse.
Jimmy Malcolm Pierce
Michael writes:
>rather than their individual names. (At least in Michigan-- I'm open
>to correction if anyone knows of a state which lists electors on the
>ballot.) Hence, most voters never know the identity of the electors
>they vote for.
"Mississippi puts the names of the electors, and the party they represent.
Threw me for a loop first time I saw it. I drew a blank as I suddenly
couldn't remember which party the candidate was in I wanted to win..."
> "In most or all states at present, the system is
>winner-take-all. In other words, if Joe Candidate gets 51% of the
"Yup, thats the way Mississippi and Louisiana work it."
> "As someone noted, there are laws in many states requiring
>that electors cast their ballot for the candidate to whom they were
>pledged. However, the Constitution imposes no such requirement, and I
>really doubt that those state laws would stand up in court.
"Hasn't happened since the 1800s, but as my Government instructor pointed
out, there is indeed no obligation for them to vote for a particular person."
DJ.
--
Jim Pierce Bach. of Sci. in Applied Computer Science
jmpi...@whale.st.usm.edu Disclaimer: Standard.
"Is it the weekend yet ?" me :-)
Jimmy Malcolm Pierce
>Danger Mouse is puzzled by this response for a second. "Woops! Should
>have made myself clearer there. I was not saying that US petrol buyers
>should pay more than they pay now, I was saying that they should pay more
>than Australians (or most other countries). Whether by increasing taxes
>in the US or by reducing prices elsewhere, you can achieve the same thing.
>My economics is too poor for me to know which direction is preferable,
>and you make what seems to me to be a reasonable argument for the former.
>
>"Sigh. It's such a shame that long-term goals mostly seem to cause bad
>things (TM) in the short term..."
and gasoline producing nation... Its cheaper there than here, just a few
hundred miles away. I thought Europe and Australia gets most of their oil
from the Arab nations ?" DJ, who has no real idea about this...
Me again!
>"1. DJ's question on metallic hydrogen.
>"Yes Jim, it is true that hydrogen goes 'metallic' under extremely high
>pressure. There is believed to be a core of liquid metallic hydrogen at
>the centres of the gas giant planets. I'm not sure how they define
>'metallic', but I assume it means that the electrons become free to
>travel through the proton lattice formed from the hydrogen nuclei. In
>other words, it would become electrically conductive.
From what I learned in Astronomy 110 was that this liquid metallic
hydrogen is what causes the observed magnetic field...I have
forgotten and please correct me if I am wrong.. I think this was
also one of the reasons that the Earth rotates the way it does and
the existence of the poles..
Alan Smith
>>"1. DJ's question on metallic hydrogen.
>>"Yes Jim, it is true that hydrogen goes 'metallic' under extremely high
>>pressure.
I heard that Hydrogen is metallic in it's solid form. It is, after all, stackedin the sodium column.
Big Al. One vote for Neon!
Speaker-to-Minerals
=Danger Mouse sez:
=
=>"1. DJ's question on metallic hydrogen.
=
=>"Yes Jim, it is true that hydrogen goes 'metallic' under extremely high
=>pressure. There is believed to be a core of liquid metallic hydrogen at
=>the centres of the gas giant planets. I'm not sure how they define
=>'metallic', but I assume it means that the electrons become free to
=>travel through the proton lattice formed from the hydrogen nuclei. In
=>other words, it would become electrically conductive.
=
=From what I learned in Astronomy 110 was that this liquid metallic
=hydrogen is what causes the observed magnetic field...I have
=forgotten and please correct me if I am wrong.. I think this was
=also one of the reasons that the Earth rotates the way it does and
=the existence of the poles..
Has experimental physics (or, perhaps, materials science) made an advance I've
yet to hear about? Last I heard, metallic hydrogen is a theoretical construct
only; i.e., nobody's ever been able to generate the pressures necessary to
create it.
Now, if we were ever to produce it, it's predicted to have some interesting
properties:
1) Though it takes immense pressures to create it (if it is, in fact
possible to create it), once created, it might be stable at much lower
pressures. This means that if we could just create some of the stuff,
storing it, moving it, etc. wouldn't be too difficult.
2) It is predicted to be a high-temperature superconductor.
Now, as to Spacey's suggestions, one has to ask "The observed magnetic field of
what?" Sol's interior is too hot (I think) for this theoretical metal to exist
there; the Earth has (we think) a nickel/iron core; whatever it is, it's
certainly not liquid metallic hydrogen. Liquid metallic hydrogen has, to the
best of my knowledge, absolutely nothing to do with the Earth's rotation, nor
its poles. The candidate for a liquid metallic hydrogen reservoir is Jupiter.
In fact, if I recall correctly, Jupiter's magnetic field is one of the
arguments for the existence of metallic hydrogen: Without some sort of
metallic core, we can't explain Jupiter's magnetic field. We can, for various
reasons, rule out the possibility that Jupiter has a large core of something
like iron (basically, if Jupiter had a large iron core, it would be a lot
heavier than it is). Metallic hydrogen would account nicely for the magnetic
field without causing any difficulties with the mass of the planet.
Speaker-to-Minerals
= "Now, the Constitution does not prescribe the method by which
=the states choose electors, nor does it prescribe how the electors
=must vote. However, as a matter of long practice, presidential
=candidates run a slate of electors who are pledged to them, and who
=are usually identified on the ballot by the name of the candidate
=rather than their individual names. (At least in Michigan-- I'm open
=to correction if anyone knows of a state which lists electors on the
=ballot.) Hence, most voters never know the identity of the electors
=they vote for.
Which, of course, renders the whole idea of the electoral college rather silly.
The idea behind the electoral college in the first place, if I recall correctly
(and no, I wasn't there when they first kicked the idea around) was that, in a
period when you had limited (read: SLOW) communication, one could elect someone
local to go off and take the time and trouble to find out in detail about the
candidates, and then make an informed decision in voting for a candidate.
So you could try to get an elector into the college who held views similar to
your own, and he'd basically function as your proxy in the election.
As soon as you take away the elector's ability to actually make discretionary
decisions, there's no point in the electoral college.
=As an editorial comment, I'll say that I think the fact that
=even the densest population centers are of limited utility in an
=election forces candidates to pursue broader bases than might occur
=otherwise-- but I admit that the major reason the system survives is
=that it would be a _lot_ of trouble to change it. (To amend the US
=constitution requires a vote by 2/3 of Congress plus ratification by
=3/4 of the state legislatures.)
Or, worse, a Constitutional Convention. The latter has the problem that, once
convened, there is no restriction as to what changes it can make in the
constitution.
Speaker-to-Minerals
>>"As for petrol prices and taxes (sorry again, 'gas' means LPG as far as I
>>am concerned!), it seems reasonable to me that the country which causes
>>the most internal combustion engine pollution per capita should pay more
>>for their petrol.
Why? If the costs of shipping it, refining it, etc. are smaller for us, why
shouldn't we pay less? Now, if you're talking about prices that are
artificially inflated by taxes, I still see no reason why per capita
consumption should affect the price. If the taxes are applied purely as a
measure to generate revenue, there should be no correlation at all. If they're
applied for some other local purpose (e.g., because the government doesn't want
the country to be very dependent on foreign energy sources, or because the
government wants to reduce local pollution), then the tax level should be
idiosyncratic on a country-by-country basis.
The ONLY argument that I can think of that results in ANY general statement
about how gasoline prices should vary between countries is that gasoline, being
mostly a collection of hydrocarbons, produces CO2 when it's burned. If global
warming is considered to be a problem (and the issues here are not clear-cut;
personally, I think it is, but the evidence is not conclusive), then there
should be a global tax on net production of CO2, if we're to internalize the
externality caused by the fact that the warming will be global. Now, since
there are no good estimates as to just how severe the effects of global warming
will be, there's similarly no good estimate as to how high such a carbon tax
should be (and, despite the fact that it's a good idea in principle, it's
already become hopelessly politicized: Case in point: At least one proposed
"carbon tax" would also be levied on electricity produced via nuclear reactors).
And please note that all this argument says is that there should be the SAME
TAX on gasoline throughout the world. It doesn't say anything about the
overall price (again, if the direct costs of shipping and refining are lower in
one country than in another, then the overall price should also be lower in the
first country), and most certainly not that the price should depend on per
capita consumption in any particular direction. Price at the well-head should
be determined by clearing of global markets. I.e., wellhead price should be the
same for everyone. Shipping costs scale more or less linearly, though
eventually a point of diminishing returns will be reached, which should tend to
drive up the price; on the other hand, refining costs show at least some
increasing returns to scale for some levels of production, which should tend to
affect the cost in the other direction.
>>Is this the case? No! Here in Aus we pay (after
>>currency conversion) US$2.00 or more per gallon. Sheesh, I don't know
>>what you folks are complaining about! :-)
>
> "Um... with all due respect, I've never understood why the
>fact that other countries pay higher taxes should mean that we're
>undertaxed. Personally, I think that we're overtaxed, and most other
>industrialized countries are _way_ overtaxed. And taxes are basically
>the equivalent of friction in machinery-- probably essential for some
>things, but often nothing but a mechanism for wasting effort.
Taxes are one way of attempting to internalize externalities. Mostly they
don't do a very good job of this, since the politicians quickly come to look at
them simply as revenue sources.
>Basically, taxation slows down economic activity by taking away
>incentive-- so it had better be for a good reason. Now, the question
>is whether decreasing petroleum consumption will benefit US citizens
>more than increasing costs will hurt them. (Benefits to the rest of
>the world are not the business of the US government directly, though
>of course other countries may wish to use carrots or sticks to make
>the costs and benefits to the US government's constituents more in
>line with what they wish.)
That's what treaties are for.
> "Now, most goods in the US are shipped in gasoline-powered trucks.
Actually, most of the trucks use diesel fuel, at least until you get to the
very last stage of shipping.
Speaker-to-Minerals
=> [Quoth me:]
=>>it seems reasonable to me that the country which causes
=>>the most internal combustion engine pollution per capita should pay more
=>>for their petrol. Is this the case? No! Here in Aus we pay (after
=>>currency conversion) US$2.00 or more per gallon.
=>
=> [Replieth Michael:]
=> "Um... with all due respect, I've never understood why the
=>fact that other countries pay higher taxes should mean that we're
=>undertaxed. Personally, I think that we're overtaxed, and most other
=>industrialized countries are _way_ overtaxed.
=
=Danger Mouse is puzzled by this response for a second. "Woops! Should
=have made myself clearer there. I was not saying that US petrol buyers
=should pay more than they pay now, I was saying that they should pay more
=than Australians (or most other countries). Whether by increasing taxes
=in the US or by reducing prices elsewhere, you can achieve the same thing.
=My economics is too poor for me to know which direction is preferable,
=and you make what seems to me to be a reasonable argument for the former.
I still don't follow why you think per capita consumption should affect the
price at all.
David Mar
>I still don't follow why you think per capita consumption should affect the
>price at all.
Danger Mouse sighs. "Because I'm naively idealistic and think that people
who average a greater amount of pollution each in order to make their
lives more comfortable should pay for it in some way."
- Danger Mouse.
Speaker-to-Minerals
=> [StM:]
=>I still don't follow why you think per capita consumption should affect the
=>price at all.
=
=Danger Mouse sighs. "Because I'm naively idealistic and think that people
=who average a greater amount of pollution each in order to make their
=lives more comfortable should pay for it in some way."
Given that emissions standards in the U.S. are among the highest (if not simply
the highest) in the world, then if we were paying the same amount for fuel as
elsewhere, we'd already be paying the highest price per unit of emissions.
What you're talking about is double-indexing.
Michael S. Schiffer
"Well, but they do. After all, the reason they're producing
more pollution is presumably because they're driving more miles, and
thus burning more gasoline, causing more wear and tear on the car, and
so on. Someone who drives 40,000 miles per year pays roughtly twice
as much as someone who drives 20,000. Older cars pollute more, but
they also get worse gas mileage, and hence are more expensive to
operate. So the cost is there. Now, it's possible that there are
external costs not being taken into account-- but as StM said, those
costs should be the same per unit of pollution wherever the car is
driven-- and other taxes and/or transportation costs and/or whatever
may make the price in the lower use place higher despite the higher
carbon tax. However, current disparities don't, as far as I know,
reflect environmental expenses much-- they reflect the aforementioned
variables, with taxes being a major factor (certainly they result in a
fairly wide spread in costs in North America in places where prices
shouldn't be all that different-- Detroit, Michigan and Windsor,
Ontario, for example, which are just across a river from one another.
This summer gas cost half again as much in Windsor as in Detroit-- I
can't imagine that the bridge tolls account for all of this. :-) )"
Michael
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS "Indeed I tremble for my country
ms...@midway.uchicago.edu when I reflect that God is just."
mike.s...@um.cc.umich.edu -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on
ms...@usite-next.uchicago.edu Virginia (1784)
Paul Estin
"One assumption people seem to be making is that the auto-based
society Americans have is somehow due entirely to their own failings.
I just thought I'd suggest a partial alternative-- that some of the
auto and truck usage in the US is intrinsically necessary for a nation
as large as this (in terms of the population being spread out). Or,
to put it another way, it's a lot more feasible to replace most car
usage with mass transit in a densely-populated European country than
it is in most sections of the US (the Northeastern Bos-NY-Wash
corridor being a possible exception).
"Even large countries like Canada and Australia don't, I think, really
have populations spread out to the same degree as the US does... much
of Canada's population seem to be bunched in the eastern part of the
country, along the US border. (What's the stat... something like 80%
of Canada's population lives within 100 miles of the US, I think.)
And (I don't have my atlas with me) aren't most of Australia's
population centers all in the southeastern part of the country? On a
more local level, how spread out are metro areas in Canada and
Australia, compared to the US?
"Given the above, it's perhaps more sensible (than at first glance)
that the US subsidizes roads over mass transit disproportionally
compared to other countries. During the Eisenhower administration
(the 50s), the government *could* conceivably have poured money into
trains instead of the interstate highway system, but it wouldn't have
worked nearly as well or efficiently as in densely populated European
countries, say.
"This of course doesn't explain everything. Americans do seem to have
a greater preference for personal autonomy in their cars, and although
some of it makes economic sense, a lot of it doesn't. Furthermore,
the whole suburban long-drive ethic and the *need* for cars feed one
another, in a sense. (Though, on the flip side, greater urban
crowding and reliance on mass transit aren't so great either... the
Tokyo rush hour subway car doesn't appeal to me.) Finally, as already
noted, there are long-term costs like pollution to consider.
"All I wanted to do was point out that *part* of the reason the US is
more auto-based is out of greater need for long-distance autonomous
travel, and semi-rational government realization of that fact."
-----
There are two ways to slide easily through life: to believe
everything or to doubt everything; both ways save us from thinking.
-- Alfred Korzybski
Paul Andrew Estin
es...@csmil.umich.edu es...@um.cc.umich.edu es...@amber.uchicago.edu
214 Beakes St. (home) 330 Packard Rd. (work) Ann Arbor, MI 48104
(313)-994-3869 (313)-747-3699
David Mar
>Given that emissions standards in the U.S. are among the highest (if not simply
>the highest) in the world, then if we were paying the same amount for fuel as
>elsewhere, we'd already be paying the highest price per unit of emissions.
>What you're talking about is double-indexing.
"Yes," Danger Mouse admits, "I realised that just after I posted that last
message.
"Still <unjustified (ie. if you ask me for a thought-out reason I won't
have one) whinge mode *on*>, I don't see why (and I'm not talking about
economics of supply and distribution) a big rich country like the USA
has petrol prices around half of what we poor Australians have to pay.
In the words of Midnight Oil: 'The rich get richer, the poor get the
picture'. It's not _fair_! <unjustified whinge mode *off*>"
- Danger Mouse.
Jimmy Malcolm Pierce
>Snark drops in briefly...
>"All I wanted to do was point out that *part* of the reason the US is
>more auto-based is out of greater need for long-distance autonomous
>travel, and semi-rational government realization of that fact."
>
"The distance from Houston to El Paso is over 900 miles, about 96 %
of it in open country. Most of the area between California and the
Mississippi River is like that. There are too few customers to make
mass transit economically viable, and too many ornry cusses who
value their independence to use mass transit much, " DJ.
Most trains are used to carry freight, not passengers.
Even busses and planes have been cut from some routes as there
simply aren't enough passsengers to justify having mass transit,
particularly in the mid-West where alot of very large farms
grow wheat, corn, etc...
Paul Estin
In article <RANDOLPH.9...@cognito.ebay.Sun.COM>
rand...@cognito.ebay.Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz) writes:
>"I'm pretty sure we use our cars most in urban areas. I think this
>argument needs work."
Snark replies, "Granted. Let me see what I can do to patch it up a
bit...
"Well, first off, my main argument concerning comparative population
density might help explain why Americans have and use cars more in the
first place... if you've got a car you need for long distances, you're
going to to tend to use it for short distances as well. And once so
many people *are* driving short distances, the local municipalities
will understandably cater to people's wishes, and concentrate on
maintaining roads instead of more mass transit.
"But let me see if I can come up with some other reasons as well,
besides just 'having gotten cars in the first place, Americans got
used to them and the government went along accordingly, thus causing a
positive feedback loop'. Idle speculation mode, switch on! :-)
"What is the ideal situation for mass transit to be a feasible system
for getting around in a city? High population density, for one--
crowded roads discourage driving and lead to more people taking any
given route. Next, a metro area arrangement such that a lot of people
are taking the same routes-- probably to and from downtown, with
little 'circumnavigation'. That makes designing a mass transit system
much easier.
"The European cities I've visited tend to follow this pattern
heavily-- London and Paris especially. (Come to think of it, their
entire national train systems were usually designed with the capital
city as a hub-- sort of the 'centralized' plan on a larger scale.)
Munich isn't quite as centralized, but then again people seem to drive
there more-- a testament to the German affair with cars, I guess. I
would guess that the German government puts more money into the
Autobahn system than, say, the French government puts into *their*
motorways, and proportionally less into their trains. (Which would
explain why the French came up with the TGV ('Train a` Grande
Vitesse', or 'Train with Big Speed') before the Germans got commercial
high-speed rail... I refuse to believe the French are better
engineers. :-) :-)
"Some US cities *do* follow the high-density centralized arrangement--
New York, in particular. Guess what? Many people in New York *don't*
drive! A large number of New York friends of mine learned to drive
fairly late; some still don't drive. Boston (where I grew up) isn't
as much like this as it used to be, so I used to drive when going to
another suburb, but I did take mass transit for going into downtown.
Chicago is fairly well centralized (though now businesses are
relocating out more in the airport region), so mass transit was
somewhat feasible, but there did seem to be quite a stress on car
usage... hmm, not as good an example, then, though I wish I had some
exact stats on proportion of people who commute with cars vs. other
means, in different cities. This all idle specualtion, otherwise.
"On the flip side, Los Angeles is very decentralized. Detroit used to
have a center, but it went downhill so much that now suburbanites
drive from suburb to suburb rather than go into the city, so that
'Detroit Metro' is a city-of-suburbs that is decentralized too. Both
Detroit and Los Angeles have poor public transit, and although I don't
know which way the causation actually goes, there does seem to be a
clear correlation.
"So, though I don't know which came first (the 'chicken or the egg'
problem), it seems that city structure is well-correlated with types
of transit used. US cities are more decentralized than European
cities, and so cars are needed more, in general. Anyone want to add
to this think-aloud process of mine? For example, I don't think
Toronto is very centralized, although it's probably the most densely
populated city in Canada, even so. How easy is mass transit there?
How much is mass transit intrinsically feasible there, and how much is
it just operating at a large loss due to inefficiencies of the city
structure?"
Randolph Fritz
argument needs work."
|\/|\/|
| | ||\ /|
| | || \/||
|\ /| | || | ||
| \/|| | || | || Randolph Fritz
| | || | || | || sun!cognito.ebay!randolph
| | || | || | || rand...@ebay.sun.com
| | || | || | || Mountain View, California, North America, Earth
| | || | || | ||
| | || | || | ||
|\| ||\/ \/|\| ||
Michael S. Schiffer
>"Still <unjustified (ie. if you ask me for a thought-out reason I won't
>have one) whinge mode *on*>, I don't see why (and I'm not talking about
>economics of supply and distribution) a big rich country like the USA
>has petrol prices around half of what we poor Australians have to pay.
>In the words of Midnight Oil: 'The rich get richer, the poor get the
>picture'. It's not _fair_! <unjustified whinge mode *off*>"
"It might be useful, if the information can be found
reasonably easily, to find out just how the prices of gasoline in our
respective countries break down. I.e. how much is transportation, how
much taxes, how much the wholesale cost of the fuel itself, how much
profit. If nothing else, it'll help determine how much of the
unfairness is merely The Way things Are (i.e. one can hardly blame the
US, OPEC, or anyone except perhaps God for the presumed fact that
Australia is farther from petroleum sources than the US is. Can't
even blame our respective ancestors, for the most part, since I doubt
any of them considered petroleum when deciding where to emigrate to.),
how much is deliberately imposed on the country's population by
its representatives, and how much if any can be traced to particular
groups (say, profit margins for petroleum being higher in Australia
than the US). At least we'd know who, if anyone, to blame. :-)
"BTW, on a tangential note, I'm not familiar with the term
`whinge'. At first, I thought it was a mistype for `whine' or some
such (which would work in the context in accordance with traditional
Callahanian deprecation of one's own remarks) but since it appears
twice, it's more likely a word I don't know. In the continuing
tradition of the a.c. Cultural Exchange, would you be willing to
expand on its meaning (and pronunciation-- in my head I'm rhyming it
with "hinge")?
Mike
Aaron Humphrey
Alfvaen sets about describing the only city he knows well--Edmonton. "Edmonton
ain't a big place--on the order of 200,000 or 300,000 people. And it does have
a mass transit system--but a poor one. As late as 1975(according to my 1975
World Book encyclopedia), it didn't have one at all.
"Currently, it has an LRT service which runs mainly parallel to existing train
lines to the northeast of the city, hitting the Commonwealth Stadium and
Northlands Coliseum on the north, passing under downtown, down to the Govt.
Centre, and recently was extended across the North Saskatchewan to the
University, which probably increased the usage of the LRT astronomically. The
plans are to extend the LRT everywhere around the city, but this will probably
only happen by about 2126, when that comet comes back to hit the Earth. ;-}
"As for busing, things are less from ideal. During midday, most bus routes
from outlying neighbourhoods are running every half hour, or even every hour.
I could relate a horror story when Nicole and I were in an unfamiliar
neighbourhood(taking our Catholic marriage course), and waited for a bus that,
it turned out, came only every hour, and came about ten minutes before the
course let out. The first time we waited for it, we gave up on it after forty
minutes(I didn't know there were once-every-hour bus routes, then)and went to
call a cab from a gas station. While we were calling for the cab, the bus went
by outside. And then the cab never came--to this day I suspect the guy at the
gas station gave him the wrong address, through probably unintentionally. But
we had to wait another hour, outside on a cold fall night. But maybe I won't
bore you with that story, after all. ;-}
"But if you're not traveling during 'peak hours', then you have to wait for
your bus; if you do travel during peak hours, then the buses are usually
crowded. Since I'm unemployed and rarely travel during peak hours, we often
end up driving within the city anymore. The best bus routes are to downtown
and to the University. Even West Edmonton Mall has crappy bus service--but
then, it has extensive parking facilities. My brother gets around town with
no car and no driver's license, but he lives near downtown, and also walks a
lot.
"Anyway, that's my $.02, Canadian..."
--
---Alfvaen(Canadian SF Quasi-Activist)
"They say Confucius does his crosswords with a pen."
---Tori Amos
Current Album--Rickie Lee Jones:The Magazine
Current Read--Alexandre Dumas:The Three Musketeers
J.P.Gardner
>
>[ some stuff deleted for bandwidth ]
>
>>Snark drops in briefly...
>>"All I wanted to do was point out that *part* of the reason the US is
>>more auto-based is out of greater need for long-distance autonomous
>>travel, and semi-rational government realization of that fact."
>>
> "The distance from Houston to El Paso is over 900 miles, about 96 %
> of it in open country. Most of the area between California and the
> Mississippi River is like that. There are too few customers to make
> mass transit economically viable, and too many ornry cusses who
> value their independence to use mass transit much, " DJ.
I made a trip on Amtrak along that line, and even a month in advance I
had trouble making a reservation. All the trains were full. Train
travel is inherantly more efficient (if the trains are full) than
driving, so the only reason why they could be running with full trains
and not simply run more of them is if the tax structure subsidizes
automobile travel at the expense of trains. Which it does, roads are
built with tax money, while the Reagan and Bush administrations have
systematically cut Amtrak subsidies. They only run that line 3 times a
week, by the way. In my (admittedly sparse) observation, they could up
that to every day, and still do alright.
>
> Most trains are used to carry freight, not passengers.
> Even busses and planes have been cut from some routes as there
> simply aren't enough passsengers to justify having mass transit,
> particularly in the mid-West where alot of very large farms
> grow wheat, corn, etc...
Again, that is partly because the gommint subsidizes automobiles and
airplanes more than it subsidizes trains and busses. It is hard to
argue with economic arguments like this: if driving were more
expensive, fewer people would drive.
As for busses: why not let them go 100 MPH and give them their
own lane on the highways? That would cause more people to take
the bus, especially during rushhour!
By the way, petrol in the UK is L2.20 per Imperial gallon. That is
equal to US$2.80 per US gallon, and is only that low because the
pound is falling fast. (I expect that the price will go up soon, as
the price of oil is set in other, stronger, currencies, like the
Saudi Arabian gold standard.)
> Jim Pierce Bach. of Sci. in Applied Computer Science
--The Space Cadet
Durham, England
dph...@tuda.ncl.ac.uk
Jesse Mundis
tax, if the revenue went only to funding road repair/building projects. I
live in California, I like to drive my car, and (like most people) I don't
want to pay higher prices for gas. But, it makes sense that those who buy
a lot of gas are using the roads more than those who don't, and as a result,
should be paying for more of the upkeep. From what I understand, the USA
still pays less for gas than almost any other country. Also, if the price of
gas went up it might encourage people who could, to use alternate forms of
transportation.
Throwing my three cents in. (inflation don't ya' know)
--
Jesse Mundis | Amdahl Corporation | Freedom is just chaos
je...@uts.amdahl.com | 1250 East Arques Ave M/S 316 | with better lighting.
(408) 746-4796 | Sunnyvale, CA 94088-3470 | -Alan Dean Foster
#include <Disclaimer.standard>
David Mar
>[Mike S:] "It might be useful, if the information can be found
>reasonably easily, to find out just how the prices of gasoline in our
>respective countries break down.
"Yes," agrees Danger Mouse, "I'd like to see that. I can probably get
some figures for Australia, but it'll take a bit of digging. I'll do
some probing (short of phoning BP) and see if I get anywhere."
>"BTW, on a tangential note, I'm not familiar with the term `whinge'. At
>first, I thought it was a mistype for `whine' or some such (which would
>work in the context in accordance with traditional Callahanian deprecation
>of one's own remarks) but since it appears twice, it's more likely a word
>I don't know. In the continuing tradition of the a.c. Cultural Exchange,
>would you be willing to expand on its meaning (and pronunciation-- in my
>head I'm rhyming it with "hinge")?
"Hmmm, I hadn't even stopped to think about that one. I definitely know
it's used in Britain as well as Australia. I guess it has dropped out of
American usage. Anyway, you were almost right in thinking it a typo for
'whine', since the meaning is very similar, although 'whinge' tends to
carry a more 'cry-baby'-ish connotation. To whinge is to whine interminably
and with little justification. And your pronunciation is spot on."
>[Snark:] "So, though I don't know which came first (the 'chicken or the egg'
>problem), it seems that city structure is well-correlated with types
>of transit used. US cities are more decentralized than European
>cities, and so cars are needed more, in general. Anyone want to add
>to this think-aloud process of mine?
Danger Mouse volunteers eagerly.
"Well, I've just posted a description of Sydney's size (quite large, with
a very decentralised population, IMHO). Now there may be complaints from
cynics living here, but I believe our public transport system (trains,
buses, ferries, hydrofoils) is fairly good. Around a million people travel
by train on any working day. There are regions where the service is not
good (the northern beaches in particular), but for the most part you can
get from anywhere in the city to anywhere else quite easily. I've been
legal driving age for eight years now, got my licence four years ago, and
don't yet have a car - I've never felt the need to have one. Most of the
people I know don't have their own cars.
"I suppose you may have some point for proposing that spread-out urban
areas are less likely to have good mass transit systems, but I think that
such places are the very ones which _need_ such systems! Consider LA - it
would be a much nicer place if they had a decent rail network."
- Danger Mouse.
David Mar
>population centers all in the southeastern part of the country? On a
>more local level, how spread out are metro areas in Canada and
>Australia, compared to the US?
Danger Mouse nods. "True, most of our population centres are south-eastish.
But there are Perth, Darwin, and largish towns elsewhere. And because
distances between towns are usually quite large, it is necessary for
people to do a lot of driving to get from some remote place to the nearest
large centre.
"Metro areas? Well, I can only describe Sydney right now. Suburban Sydney
stretches almost exactly 100 kilometres from east to west (I just measured
it off a street directory), and almost as far north-south. I live some
30 km from the central business district (and travel that each way every
day by train). I guess Melbourne would be similar in size. So, how _does_
this compare to the USA?"
- Danger Mouse.
Randolph Fritz
enough, it'll get to be common knowledge. Snark--I'm sorry, I was
baiting you. Because, you see, I've studied the history.
"The newer cities and suburbs, LA being the largest, were designed
specifically for car transit. Public transit was actively discouraged
for the positive reason of economy and the negative reason of keeping
the disadvantaged out of the wealthier, whiter neighborhoods.
"Cities and transit systems grow up together. A higher density than
most of LA is required for an NYC/Paris/London-style transit system,
and very dense office districts. Two-story row houses is probably
enough; a mix of two and four stories is for sure.
"However, very little effort has been expended on designing transit
systems for places like LA. My educated amateur's opinion is that
it's possible; this might be a good time to give it a try. The air is
getting dirtier, more than half the place is paved (literally: more
than half the built-up land in LA is pavement--not park, not
buildings--pavement), and people hate the traffic. And gasoline is
getting more expensive. For sure, most of our long-haul freight could
be carried by train, and most of our short-haul trucking could be
electric powered.
"So there's an accounting of the matter. Snark--please forgive me for
baiting you."
__Randolph Fritz sun!cognito.ebay!randolph || rand...@ebay.sun.com
Jimmy Malcolm Pierce
>I don't know if I'm in the minority or not here, but I wouldn't mind a gas
>tax, if the revenue went only to funding road repair/building projects. I
>live in California, I like to drive my car, and (like most people) I don't
>want to pay higher prices for gas. But, it makes sense that those who buy
>a lot of gas are using the roads more than those who don't, and as a result,
>should be paying for more of the upkeep. From what I understand, the USA
"Actualamente, much of the cost of gas here in the US is Federal
taxes, which goes for highway construction. To give you an example. In 1977,
i worked on staff of a Boy Scout camp up in Texas. A tanker truck delivered
gasoline for the camp vehicles before camp started. The camp paid only about
25 cents per gallon, when gas in town was going for 58 cents per gallon.
Kerosene { coal oil } cost 12 cents per gallon, and in town it was costing
about 25-30 cents. The difference in price is State and Federal taxes.
Later, I have to work on part 2 of my Halloween post, " DJ.
--
Jim Pierce Bach. of Sci. in Applied Computer Science USM - Gulf Park Campus
jmpi...@whale.st.usm.edu Disclaimer: Standard.
"Kill the Wabbit ! " Elmer Fudd.
Speaker-to-Minerals
> "Actualamente, much of the cost of gas here in the US is Federal
>taxes, which goes for highway construction.
Um, that federal gas tax is also used to fund things like the new light rail
system they're building in Los Angeles.
Speaker-to-Minerals
>As for busses: why not let them go 100 MPH and give them their
>own lane on the highways? That would cause more people to take
>the bus, especially during rushhour!
While they don't let them exceed the speed limit, in Los Angeles they already
DO give busses their own lanes on freeways.
Mark Beirne Lively
M...@physics.su.OZ. (957)
> "Metro areas? Well, I can only describe Sydney right now. Suburban Sydney
> stretches almost exactly 100 kilometres from east to west (I just measured
> it off a street directory), and almost as far north-south. I live some
> 30 km from the central business district (and travel that each way every
> day by train). I guess Melbourne would be similar in size. So, how _does_
> this compare to the USA?"
Well in the US the suburbs are much more spread out. For instance the
Washington DC and Baltimore have now offically grown together and they
are 80 miles or so apart and niether one is a metropolis. I live(3
months out of the year) 30 miles(50 km) from the edge of DC and I am
still in the suburbs.
The proceding were not the opinons of the CIA, NSA or FBI,
but they seemed highly interested in them.
ML...@andrew.cmu.edu Bear aka the Lord High Rulebender
Phyllis Rostykus
>While they don't let them exceed the speed limit, in Los Angeles they already
>DO give busses their own lanes on freeways.
Yup, same up here in Seattle, they get their own lane. Seattle has
probably one of the best bus systems in the nation, but then Seattle and
Bellevue's populations are pretty much concentrated around their city
centers, one on each side of Lake Washington. Seattle would work well for
a light rail system with most of the commuting just being back and forth
across Lake Washington. The busses are plentiful, run on time, and are
fairly inexpensive because so many people use them. But the lines only
run through and to the main population centers. Out where our house is
there is only one bus that runs once an hour for two runs in the morning
and two runs in the evening, and only in the direction of rush hour's
normal progress, which is towards the cities. It's great where people are
packed, but, expectedly, bad where there is no density. I *think* that
Metro is one of the few bus systems in the country that breaks even.
There are some businesses up here that *give* bus passes to their employees,
because it is impossible to increase parking in the city center. They have
special lots and spaces for those that carpool. Some businesses even pay
their employees a bonus if they don't drive. Seattle is rather nice about
getting people to use the system that works. And it really does. With the
bottleneck of the bridges, during rush hour, it usually takes about 45
minutes to get from the Eastside to the City if one drives, but only 25
minutes by bus or carpool, if they use the carpool/bus lanes.
I used to use the bus system in L.A., and it was atrocious. The biggest
problem is that they have to cover so much area with so little density
that it just never made any sense. It was usually a half mile to a mile
walk to any particular bus line, and then there were so few people using
them that the number of busses was really low and with that, the schedules
were horrendously ragged.
--
Liralen Li | "Looking down on empty streets, all she can see
aka Phyllis Rostykus | are the dreams made solid, the dreams made real"
l...@inigo.Data-IO.com | - Peter Gabriel, _So_
David Mar
>As for busses: why not let them go 100 MPH and give them their
>own lane on the highways? That would cause more people to take
>the bus, especially during rushhour!
Danger Mouse pipes up again. "Such a thing exists in Sydney, although not
quite at that high a speed! There is a full-time bus-only lane into the
CBD from the Gore Hill Freeway and over the Harbour Bridge, as well as
several other peak hour bus-only lanes spread throughout the major
arterial roads leading into the city centre."
- Danger Mouse.
Paul Estin
In article <RANDOLPH.9...@cognito.ebay.Sun.COM>
rand...@cognito.ebay.Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz) writes:
>Randolph looks resigned. "Oh, well--maybe if I explain it often
>enough, it'll get to be common knowledge. Snark--I'm sorry, I was
>baiting you. Because, you see, I've studied the history.
>"The newer cities and suburbs, LA being the largest, were designed
>specifically for car transit. Public transit was actively discouraged
>for the positive reason of economy and the negative reason of keeping
>the disadvantaged out of the wealthier, whiter neighborhoods.
"Y'know, I actually knew that about LA . (Now, trying to claim that
Detroit is intentional, on the other hand... :-) An LA friend of mine
explained it to me as attempting to make an entire city out of
'pleasant' suburbs in order to avoid congestion... an experiment which
has clearly failed in recent years, witness the freeway traffic jams."
>"Cities and transit systems grow up together. A higher density than
>most of LA is required for an NYC/Paris/London-style transit system,
>and very dense office districts. Two-story row houses is probably
>enough; a mix of two and four stories is for sure.
>"However, very little effort has been expended on designing transit
>systems for places like LA. My educated amateur's opinion is that
>it's possible; this might be a good time to give it a try. The air is
>getting dirtier, more than half the place is paved (literally: more
>than half the built-up land in LA is pavement--not park, not
>buildings--pavement), and people hate the traffic. And gasoline is
>getting more expensive. For sure, most of our long-haul freight could
>be carried by train, and most of our short-haul trucking could be
>electric powered.
"For a NYC/P/L-style transit system, *most* American metro areas are
probably too sparsely populated and spread out, even with heavy
subsidies. I agree, though that doesn't mean *nothing* should be
done. I was merely proposing realistic limits.
"Re: 'more than half the land'.. I heard a *slightly* lower figure
(more like 35% of the land in and around LA is in some way devoted to
cars), but the point is well taken."
>"So there's an accounting of the matter. Snark--please forgive me for
>baiting you."
"No sweat, I'm mostly in agreement."
tj...@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu
>"There's also what seems to be a fairly uniquely British concept that
>hasn't been mentioned here yet: the Park And Ride.
>
>"Here an out of town parking area for a large number of cars is set up,
>and a subsidised bus route direct to the town centre is provided. In
>Bath we have three Park and Ride schemes at present, with a further three
>planned. These, in conjunction with bus lanes should provide a much improved
>traffic flow, and a more pleasant environment in the town.
"I've seen Park and Rides outside Cedar Rapids, Iowa, although
they're not the same thing exactly," says the Lamplighter. "Aurora tells me
that they're parking lots outside of town where, for example, five people
could drive their cars in, and then carpool into town in the remaining car,
leaving four cars behind."
"Around New York, I've seen carpooling lanes -- it's illegal to drive
in them unless there are two or more in the car. There are some new lanes
popping up that could be special lanes for public transit, but I don't know
much about them."
- - - - -=---------=----=--=-=#=========#====#==#=#*#########*####*
The Lamplighter |"There's only so many times you can type 'Pat
(Tom Lee) | Buchanan' into a word processor before the
tj...@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu | system crashes." -- Love & War
S H L G Bisson
"As for busses: why not let them go 100 MPH and give them their
own lane on the highways? That would cause more people to take
the bus, especially during rushhour!"
"Such a thing exists in Sydney, although not quite at that high a
speed! There is a full-time bus-only lane into the CBD from the Gore
Hill Freeway and over the Harbour Bridge, as well as several other
peak hour bus-only lanes spread throughout the major arterial roads
leading into the city centre."
The cartoon mouse leans over the arm of the overstuffed rocking chair,
and joins in.
"Round here, the local council is investing quite a bit of money in road
improvements aimed at improving public transport. Bristol has until now
had major problems with congestion, especially on the A4 from Bath. Road
widening work is currently taking place. However this will be a bus lane,
not for cars...
"The local bus company, whilst being fairly expensive on the whole, does
provide a very frequent service. Most routes within Bath have wait times
on the order of 10 minutes, whilst out of town routes operate on hourly
or half hourly schedules.
"There's also what seems to be a fairly uniquely British concept that
hasn't been mentioned here yet: the Park And Ride.
"Here an out of town parking area for a large number of cars is set up,
and a subsidised bus route direct to the town centre is provided. In
Bath we have three Park and Ride schemes at present, with a further three
planned. These, in conjunction with bus lanes should provide a much improved
traffic flow, and a more pleasant environment in the town.
"Public transport is important, and, I believe, with our environmental
problems, has to have government or local funding to compete effectively
against the car."
-----
Ignatz Mouse/Simon Bisson...net.jerriais...sf-bibliophile at shortish........
-----
P'relan
> But there are Perth, Darwin, and largish towns elsewhere. And because
> distances between towns are usually quite large, it is necessary for
> people to do a lot of driving to get from some remote place to the nearest
> large centre.
>
> "Metro areas? Well, I can only describe Sydney right now. Suburban Sydney
> stretches almost exactly 100 kilometres from east to west (I just measured
> it off a street directory), and almost as far north-south. I live some
> 30 km from the central business district (and travel that each way every
> day by train). I guess Melbourne would be similar in size. So, how _does_
> this compare to the USA?"
> - Danger Mouse.
Well, certainly population centers are spread further apart in general. I
don't know much about metro areas - the Cleveland-Akron area is about the size
of Sydney from your description - and I haven't really lived in Pittsburgh
long enough to have a good feel for its size. I'm only 2 miles from work so
the majority of my driving is 120 miles to Cleveland to see Toothpick where
they just implemented a new cleaner (more expensive) gasoline that was forced
on 30+ of the more polluted metropolitan areas of the U.S.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
P'relan (and Birith) ``Time stand still -
jwwa...@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu I'm not looking back -
or jwwa...@miavx1.bitnet But I want to look around me now.'' - RUSH
Michael S. Schiffer
>In article <1992Nov6.2...@data-io.com> l...@Data-IO.COM (Phyllis Rostykus) writes:
>>S H L G Bisson writes:
>>>"There's also what seems to be a fairly uniquely British concept that
>>>hasn't been mentioned here yet: the Park And Ride.
>>Actually, we have a *lot* of them around Seattle.
>"We have several in Denver, too. Can't say as it caught on as much as in
>Seattle, but then again, our bus system is not a real popular thing."
"They exist in Detroit and Chicago as well. They're not real
popular, unsurprisingly-- there are no bus lanes or other ways to cut
the travel time, so Park and Ride takes much longer for any
significant commute, since one adds driving to the bus stop, waiting
for the bus, and taking a less direct route (since the bus isn't going
only to your destination) to it with no significant benefit to the
rider."
Michael
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS "Indeed I tremble for my country
ms...@midway.uchicago.edu when I reflect that God is just."
mike.s...@um.cc.umich.edu -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on
ms...@amber.uchicago.edu Virginia (1784)
Alan Smith
>
>>"There's also what seems to be a fairly uniquely British concept that
>>hasn't been mentioned here yet: the Park And Ride.
>
"We have several in Denver, too. Can't say as it caught on as much as in
Seattle, but then again, our bus system is not a real popular thing."
Big Al. Who isn't a bus either! Will you guys lay off?
Speaker-to-Minerals
>There are some businesses up here that *give* bus passes to their employees,
>because it is impossible to increase parking in the city center. They have
>special lots and spaces for those that carpool. Some businesses even pay
>their employees a bonus if they don't drive.
That's the way they SHOULD put it, if they're going to do something like that.
But bad examples abound. For example, Caltech just decided to do something
like that, but their implementation is to give, if I recall correctly, $18 per
month to employees who car-pool. OK, so now I've got to try to find someone
willing to swing by my apartment on their way to and from work so that I can
collect the $18 (I'll split it 50/50 with anybody I can convince to do this),
instead of bicycling to work as I do now :-).
Randolph Fritz
"Now that I think about it, I don't know the source of that 50% figure
either. Anyone at UCLA's planning department out there?"
__R
Phyllis Rostykus
>"There's also what seems to be a fairly uniquely British concept that
>hasn't been mentioned here yet: the Park And Ride.
Actually, we have a *lot* of them around Seattle. Most of our towns
(Redmond, Issaquah, Kent, Bothell, Kirkland, Renton, Juanita... etc.) have
at least one in the center of the town, all the major shopping malls have
one, and then there are usually several sprinkled all around the edges of
Bellevue and Seattle proper. They are really popular around here. A lot
of 'em also include a park area for kids while they're waiting with
parents and stuff, so it isn't just a slab of concrete; and businesses
find that it's pretty profitable to have shops near 'em.
If I want to get downtown or to the U-District during the day, I like to
drive to the Redmond Park and Ride and catch the buses in. It makes for a
convenient stop for most of the buslines, and, since it's usually in
highly active areas, the cars are pretty safe being parked there. Also,
since there's so much traffic through 'em, they've usually got covered
waiting areas.
Speaker-to-Minerals
>"There's also what seems to be a fairly uniquely British concept that
>hasn't been mentioned here yet: the Park And Ride.
StM muses, "Hmmm, if that's `fairly uniquely British,' I've got to work on my
accent. Seriously, Park & Rides are fairly common in California, too."
P'relan
> S H L G Bisson writes:
>
>>"There's also what seems to be a fairly uniquely British concept that
>>hasn't been mentioned here yet: the Park And Ride.
>>
>>"Here an out of town parking area for a large number of cars is set up,
>>and a subsidised bus route direct to the town centre is provided. In
>>Bath we have three Park and Ride schemes at present, with a further three
>>planned. These, in conjunction with bus lanes should provide a much improved
>>traffic flow, and a more pleasant environment in the town.
I've seen several Park and Rides in Seattle so I know they exist in the U.S.
Pittsburgh here has bus lanes for some routes and I've seen carpool lanes on
I-279 though for some reason it's closed at least half the times I come into
the city that way and there's no discernable construction.
> "I've seen Park and Rides outside Cedar Rapids, Iowa, although
> they're not the same thing exactly," says the Lamplighter. "Aurora tells me
> that they're parking lots outside of town where, for example, five people
> could drive their cars in, and then carpool into town in the remaining car,
> leaving four cars behind."
That's an interesting idea...never have seen those before.
Mike van Keulen
>In article <1992Nov6.2...@data-io.com> l...@Data-IO.COM (Phyllis Rostykus) writes:
>>S H L G Bisson writes:
>>
>>>"There's also what seems to be a fairly uniquely British concept that
>>>hasn't been mentioned here yet: the Park And Ride.
>>
>>Actually, we have a *lot* of them around Seattle.
>"We have several in Denver, too. Can't say as it caught on as much as in
>Seattle, but then again, our bus system is not a real popular thing."
Yup - we got 'em here in Western Australia a few years ago too. Neat
idea, and works well with the sprawl of Perth.
Splash!
--
***************************** Michael van Keulen ***************************
* Snail: School of BES - Biology e-mail: keu...@murdoch.edu.au *
* Murdoch University phone: ++ 61 (09) 360-2843 (work)*
* Murdoch WA 6150 AUSTRALIA ++ 61 (09) 417-3902 (home)*
*************************** "To Love is to _LIVE_!" ************************
Jay Brandt (Jason)
At the U of Oregon, all employees get a free bus pass as part of their
staff ID card, good anywhere in the Lane County transit district. Students
get one too, paid for out of their student fees, although they can opt out
on that if they choose to do so. Parking on our campus is at a premium, and
everyone is encouraged to bus or bike it. As an added incentive, parking
sticker fees for the few lots on campus are around $200 a year! And that
-doesn't- promise you a space. The employees joke about parking permits
being a 'hunting licence'. It just allows you to 'hunt' for an legal place
to park. If an employee wants a reserved space, that has to be cleared by
your department head, valid cause for your needing one must be shown, and
it costs around $450! Gives you a lot of incentive to ride the bus or a
bike. (However, there -are- parking meters on campus as well, for those who
need to bring a car in briefly.)
Jason
Who owns two cars, but rides the bus to work.
.