Banning Cars from Manhattan (Paul Goodman)
kn...@bopsecrets.org
"BANNING CARS FROM MANHATTAN"
by Paul & Percival Goodman
http://www.bopsecrets.org/CF/goodman-cars.htm
"We propose banning private cars from Manhattan Island. . . . Present
congestion and parking are unworkable, and other proposed solutions are
uneconomic, disruptive, unhealthy, nonurban, or impractical. . . ."
* * *
Of related interest at the same website:
"Urbanism and Community Planning" (Kenneth Rexroth)
http://www.bopsecrets.org/rexroth/essays/urbanism.htm
"Formulary for a New Urbanism" (Ivan Chtcheglov)
http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/Chtcheglov.htm
"Introduction to a Critique of Urban Geography" (Guy Debord)
http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/urbgeog.htm
"Situationist Theses on Traffic" (Debord)
http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/3.traffic.htm
"Elementary Program of the Bureau of Unitary Urbanism" (Kotanyi &
Vaneigem)
http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/6.unitaryurb.htm
"Territorial Domination" (chapter of Debord's book "The Society of the
Spectacle")
http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/7.htm
"The Blossoming of Free Communities" (section of Ken Knabb's "The Joy
of Revolution")
http://www.bopsecrets.org/PS/joyrev4.htm
* * *
BUREAU OF PUBLIC SECRETS
P.O. Box 1044, Berkeley CA 94701, USA
http://www.bopsecrets.org
"Making petrified conditions dance by singing them their own tune."
Jack May
<kn...@bopsecrets.org> wrote in message
news:1124507249.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Now online at the Bureau of Public Secrets website:
>
> "BANNING CARS FROM MANHATTAN"
> by Paul & Percival Goodman
> http://www.bopsecrets.org/CF/goodman-cars.htm
>
> "We propose banning private cars from Manhattan Island. . . . Present
> congestion and parking are unworkable, and other proposed solutions are
> uneconomic, disruptive, unhealthy, nonurban, or impractical. . . ."
Jolly the idiot is back again with a new name again.
gruhn
Strikes me that the people who can get spaces'd be a bit pissed off. How
about if you are tired of trying to find a space YOU sell YOUR car and STFU.
George Conklin
"gruhn" <gr...@deletehwb.com> wrote in message
news:lNzNe.88$iR3....@news.uswest.net...
Manhattan is what is unworkable according to the web sites posted. "The
street widths of Manhattan were designed, in 1811, for buildings of one to
four stories." On top of that grid, they now have 100 stories +. That is
why Manhattan is charging $1 million for an apartment the size of a trailer.
Subways are what are nasty in NY.
Ralph Hertle
kn...@bopsecrets.org wrote:
>Now online at the Bureau of Public Secrets website:
>
>"BANNING CARS FROM MANHATTAN"
>by Paul & Percival Goodman
>http://www.bopsecrets.org/CF/goodman-cars.htm
>
>"We propose banning private cars from Manhattan Island. . . . Present
>congestion and parking are unworkable, and other proposed solutions are
>uneconomic, disruptive, unhealthy, nonurban, or impractical. . . ."
>
>* * *
>
Do you suggest that people walk instead of take cars? Or, should
socialistic transportations systems be the norm?
What would happen to the private property and private enterprise
system that enabled America to be productive if their liberty, e.g.,
their freedom to act was impaired? Are private property and
individual liberty next to be disappeared in your system?
A non-socialist proposal would be to freely admit private cars
into Manhattan. Government business owned vehicles, except
for police and city government administration vehicles, which
are intended for a legitimate purpose of government, e.g.,
to protect the rights of the citizens, would be sold. The
government's transportation businesses would be sold to
private enterprise concerns or to the general public by means
of public stock offerings. There is no reason whatsoever for
government owned and mandated transportation industry
businesses.
The excessive New York City sales taxes on parking
prices (that are what? 18 percent?) should be adjusted
to be the same as for all other products and services
in New York City (8,25 percent), or, better, abolished
altogether.
Restrictions upon the construction of private above ground,
high-rise, and underground parking garages or industrial
parking businesses would be removed.
Capital would flow into the parking industry at unprecedented
rates, and the construction of parking facilities would
increase at a dramatic pace. The new facilities would take
cars off the streets and free the flow of traffic.
How to get into Manhattan? More tunnels would be
constructed if legal monopoly restrictions set to protect
the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey socialistic
businesses would be removed. The PATH owns major
bridge, tunnel, harbor facilities, land, subway, bus, and airport
businesses, and all those should be completely sold as public
stock companies. The sale of the PATH would bring in
massive amounts of capital to the NYC area, and that
would be returned to the public as amortized reductions
in the fees for services charged. A huge renaissance
of harbor facilities would occur, and unprecedented
reconstruction of New York City's drab harbor would occur:
there would be marinas, ship passenger facilities, parking,
recreation, universities, apartment buildings, office buildings,
and you name it that would be built all around Manhattan
Island and New York City in general.
Private firms would free the traffic coming into NYC.
They would charge fees, and those either higher or lower
than present, would be set by the free market. No price
controls or restrictions would be invoked. NYC private
firms would on balance would receive an increase in sales
revenues.
Underground parking facilities can be built. Proof of that
is the East Side Access project that is constructing four
60 ft. diam. underground railroad tunnels to bring trains
East from Penn Station and then North into a new rail
station located below the two existing levels of tracks
at Grand Central station. Also being constructed are a
passenger concourse and shopping mall to be located above
the new station's two levels of tracks and below the
existing tracks of Grand Central Station. The four new
tubes will then continue to the North and to the East
under the East River and will surface somewhere out in
Jamaica, Queens on Long Island. The project was going
to cost $5B. An engineer I know said that the project
recently went to $6B, and he said that before it
is done the tab will be $10B. Still, the concept of solid
rock tunneling beneath is being demonstrated, and
Manhattan could be tunneled to create parking facilities.
Whether tunneling to create parking facilities would be
achieved at costs lower than for high-rise facilities
remains to be seen.
Parking facilities underground may require integration
with new road tunnel and subway facilities, and the
parking could be placed under the shore areas or the
rivers of Manhattan Island.
I say that free enterprise in the context of liberty
and individual rights is the proved American system
for providing valuable goods and services and making
them available for purchase. Free enterprise solutions
without fascistic controls and governmental monopolies
should be enabled. People and businesses should be
granted the freedom to create the necessary parking
businesses, to freely negotiate and purchase the rights
to subsurface land or easements, and to build what is
needed.
I don't know that many more cars would actually be
brought into Manhattan in the future because of
the improvements and convenience of train travel,
however, the congestion of NYC streets and parking
would be greatly reduced by enabling more free
enterprise parking businesses and parking facilities
at untaxed prices. Additionally, deliveries and
construction would be facilitated by the addition
of greater private parking facilities.
Free enterprise should be granted the unrestricted
opportunity to provide all transportation and parking
facilities for New York City.
Liberty means that the people of America are free
to act to create and provide the property and wealth
of facilities that they need for themselves in order
to continue their lives and prosper.
Let the people and free enterprise be free to act.
Ralph Hertle
Don
> knabb wrote:
>>"BANNING CARS FROM MANHATTAN"
>>by Paul & Percival Goodman
>>http://www.bopsecrets.org/CF/goodman-cars.htm
>>
>>"We propose banning private cars from Manhattan Island. . . . Present
>>congestion and parking are unworkable, and other proposed solutions are
>>uneconomic, disruptive, unhealthy, nonurban, or impractical. . . ."
>
Hear, Here!
And that let that be the model for which the rest of the US would strive,
the entire world itself.
George Conklin
"Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4308C1E8...@verizon.net...
city would not allow fares to increase. Airports can easily be sold, and
ought to be, all over the country. They make money. ATC should be private
too, as in Canada and Switzerland. However, without the subsidies in NYC it
is likely that businesses would move to vastly cheaper places to do
business. That would help the economy and stop rewarding inefficient
operations.
gruhn
> And that let that be the model for which the rest of the US would strive,
> the entire world itself.
No no, Don. They are jealous of our freedoms. We have to throw said out in
order to make them happy with themselves.
gruhn
it
> is likely that businesses would move to vastly cheaper places to do
> business. That would help the economy and stop rewarding inefficient
> operations.
Are you daring to suggest that the pinnacle of American Commerce And Freedom
is an artificially propped up wreck that would implode given half a chance?
Robert Cote
"gruhn" <gr...@deletehwb.com> wrote:
Bentonville is doing just fine and needs no subsidy so the "pinnacle of
American Commerce And Freedom" isn't what is under discussion. NYC is
an obsolete urban form that is surviving on inertia and subsidy.
Removing just one of the numerous subsidies would empty the place out in
a week, transit operating supports.
George Conklin
"Robert Cote" <ts...@adlph.net> wrote in message
news:tsch-044C41.1...@news.isp.giganews.com...
There are many native New Yorkers who would rather die than live the city.
I suspect that the city would become like Portland---rich retirees and
childless couples and singles searching for the quickie one-night stand.
But corporate headquarters? I doubt it...certainly not new ones. If a new
company moved to a first class office location in NYC, I'd recommend selling
its stock immediately.
Remember, I graduated from HS in Brooklyn and my father's family is
native New Yorkers since 1620, but not in the city.
Ralph Hertle
Robert Cote wrote:
Provide HPO with just a single example of a subsidy.
The Taxi industry? It would seem to me that the taxis are a rich source
of tax revenues for the city and its coercive altruists.
The three major airports that are owned by PATH? Subsidies? Hell no.
The airports earn 100's of millions for the PATH.
Now don't tell me that NYC subsidizes the parking industry. Its the
other way around. The city looks the other way when parking lot
computers systematically skim an illegal percentage from the customers,
and there is no place to call to complain. No City agency has an open phone
line for that purpose. The police? Monumental disinterest in the subject.
The politicos must be receiving kickbacks to make the skimming possible.
Then there is the 18 percent (that's EIGHTEEN percent) sales tax paid
to the City, Not to mention the NYC mandated ultra-high prices for
parking. And the tricky pricing schedules that college educated persons
cannot understand. And the closing hour requirements that say that if
you are in the garage when closing hour occurs, and one minute after that
occurs, you can get your car out only if you pay the base daily rate for
the next day. You are claiming a subsidy? Get serious.
Then there are the bridges. You pay one way, but that fee is $8.
Millions use the bridges. Subsidy? You are out of your mind.
Where is there a single subsidy?
.........
What is an "urban form"? Some type of Platonic approximation?
For what?
New York City is a wonder of American productivity. Industries
that are centered there are in fact those that need that type of
central marketplace, e.g., the financial, banking, commodities,
stock trading, and other markets. You don't find soy bean
production there, honey bees, or aircraft manufacturing there.
The main problem is not the subsidies. It is the rebates that
flow in the opposite direction to support the good thing, e.g.,
the golden calf of money roped in by the greedy coercive
altruists, regulators, government monopolists, land use
manipulation, taxers, politicians, related services and
sub-contractors.
Privatization would wipe out the rebates, bribery, clout,
payola, under-the table deals, favoritism, special legislation,
and who knows what else types of rake off's of the
transportation industry.
Ralph Hertle
Robert Cote
Ralph Hertle <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote:
> Robert Cote wrote:
>
> >...NYC is
> >an obsolete urban form that is surviving on inertia and subsidy.
> >Removing just one of the numerous subsidies would empty the place out in
> >a week, transit operating supports.
> >
>
> Provide HPO with just a single example of a subsidy.
You mistake my condemnation of public transit for its' subsidies for the
more general transportation subsidy issue. Except for transit NYC like
most other places not only collects but heavily overtaxes all other
modes of transport including private transport such as air and taxi.
>
> The Taxi industry? It would seem to me that the taxis are a rich source
> of tax revenues for the city and its coercive altruists.
>
> The three major airports that are owned by PATH? Subsidies? Hell no.
> The airports earn 100's of millions for the PATH.
Agreed but PATH turns around and spends even more on transit.
>
> Now don't tell me that NYC subsidizes the parking industry. Its the
> other way around. The city looks the other way when parking lot
> computers systematically skim an illegal percentage from the customers,
> and there is no place to call to complain. No City agency has an open phone
> line for that purpose. The police? Monumental disinterest in the subject.
> The politicos must be receiving kickbacks to make the skimming possible.
> Then there is the 18 percent (that's EIGHTEEN percent) sales tax paid
> to the City, Not to mention the NYC mandated ultra-high prices for
> parking. And the tricky pricing schedules that college educated persons
> cannot understand. And the closing hour requirements that say that if
> you are in the garage when closing hour occurs, and one minute after that
> occurs, you can get your car out only if you pay the base daily rate for
> the next day. You are claiming a subsidy? Get serious.
This is also correct and a classic element of an OPAC (Obsolete
Pre-Automotive City). Urban form preserved through coercive public
policy with attendant corruption.
>
> Then there are the bridges. You pay one way, but that fee is $8.
> Millions use the bridges. Subsidy? You are out of your mind.
As I have mentioned many times the bridges funnel billions to NYCT.
>
> Where is there a single subsidy?
There's the NYS budget (1999 in this case) for one:
The City of New York
The fiscal health of the State may also be affected by the fiscal
health of New York City, which continues to receive significant
financial assistance from the State. State aid contributes to
the City's ability to balance its budget and meet its cash
requirements. The State may also be affected by the ability of
the City and certain entities issuing debt for the benefit of the
City to market their securities successfully in the public credit
markets.
In response to the City's fiscal crisis in 1975, the State took
action to assist the City in returning to fiscal stability. Among
those actions, the State established the Municipal Assistance
Corporation for the City of New York (NYC MAC) to provide
financing assistance to the City; the New York State Financial
Control Board (the Control Board) to oversee the City's financial
affairs; and the Office of the State Deputy Comptroller for the
City of New York (OSDC) to assist the Control Board in exercising
its powers and responsibilities. A "control period" existed from
1975 to 1986, during which the City was subject to certain
statutorily-prescribed fiscal controls.
>
> .........
>
> What is an "urban form"? Some type of Platonic approximation?
> For what?
Generic descriptor, nothing more. NYS and LA differ in urban form.
>
> New York City is a wonder of American productivity. Industries
> that are centered there are in fact those that need that type of
> central marketplace, e.g., the financial, banking, commodities,
> stock trading, and other markets. You don't find soy bean
> production there, honey bees, or aircraft manufacturing there.
This is the inertia part I mentioned. There -used- to be a reason for
the NYC urban form. No longer.
George Conklin
> Robert:
>
>
> Robert Cote wrote:
>
> >In article <M3oOe.30$qd4....@news.uswest.net>,
> > "gruhn" <gr...@deletehwb.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>too, as in Canada and Switzerland. However, without the subsidies in
NYC
> >>>it
> >>>is likely that businesses would move to vastly cheaper places to do
> >>>business. That would help the economy and stop rewarding inefficient
> >>>operations.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Are you daring to suggest that the pinnacle of American Commerce And
Freedom
> >>is an artificially propped up wreck that would implode given half a
chance?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Bentonville is doing just fine and needs no subsidy so the "pinnacle of
> >American Commerce And Freedom" isn't what is under discussion. NYC is
> >an obsolete urban form that is surviving on inertia and subsidy.
> >Removing just one of the numerous subsidies would empty the place out in
> >a week, transit operating supports.
> >
> >
>
>
> Provide HPO with just a single example of a subsidy.
>
> The Taxi industry? It would seem to me that the taxis are a rich source
> of tax revenues for the city and its coercive altruists.
>
By elimination of competition and limiting taxis to just a few more than
in 1938, NYC has made a mockery of the traveling public, creating 'value'
where there is none except for stupid rules.
> The three major airports that are owned by PATH? Subsidies? Hell no.
> The airports earn 100's of millions for the PATH.
>
Airports are always cash cows...at least the larger commercial ones. They
subsidize all kinds of rail projects.
Correct. But what do you want to privatize?
zenboom
"Robert Cote" <ts...@adlph.net> wrote in message
news:tsch-91A2E6.2...@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <430A7443...@verizon.net>,
> Ralph Hertle <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Robert Cote wrote:
> >
> > >...NYC is
> > >an obsolete urban form that is surviving on inertia and subsidy.
> > >Removing just one of the numerous subsidies would empty the place out
in
> > >a week, transit operating supports.
> > >
> >
> > Provide HPO with just a single example of a subsidy.
>
> You mistake my condemnation of public transit for its' subsidies for the
> more general transportation subsidy issue. Except for transit NYC like
> most other places not only collects but heavily overtaxes all other
> modes of transport including private transport such as air and taxi.
>
<snip>
>
> > Now don't tell me that NYC subsidizes the parking industry. Its the
> > other way around. The city looks the other way when parking lot
> > computers systematically skim an illegal percentage from the customers,
> > and there is no place to call to complain. No City agency has an open
phone
> > line for that purpose. The police? Monumental disinterest in the
subject.
> > The politicos must be receiving kickbacks to make the skimming possible.
> > Then there is the 18 percent (that's EIGHTEEN percent) sales tax paid
> > to the City, Not to mention the NYC mandated ultra-high prices for
> > parking. And the tricky pricing schedules that college educated persons
> > cannot understand. And the closing hour requirements that say that if
> > you are in the garage when closing hour occurs, and one minute after
that
> > occurs, you can get your car out only if you pay the base daily rate for
> > the next day. You are claiming a subsidy? Get serious.
>
> This is also correct and a classic element of an OPAC (Obsolete
> Pre-Automotive City). Urban form preserved through coercive public
> policy with attendant corruption.
>
<snip>
>
> > What is an "urban form"? Some type of Platonic approximation?
> > For what?
>
> Generic descriptor, nothing more. NYS and LA differ in urban form.
>
> >
> > New York City is a wonder of American productivity. Industries
> > that are centered there are in fact those that need that type of
> > central marketplace, e.g., the financial, banking, commodities,
> > stock trading, and other markets. You don't find soy bean
> > production there, honey bees, or aircraft manufacturing there.
>
> This is the inertia part I mentioned. There -used- to be a reason for
> the NYC urban form. No longer.
No matter. It's the private Automobile that will be obsolete soon. Sell that
parking 'investment' real quick.
3D Peruna
>
>
>
>
> "Robert Cote" <ts...@adlph.net> wrote in message
> news:tsch-91A2E6.2...@news.isp.giganews.com...
>>This is the inertia part I mentioned. There -used- to be a reason for
>>the NYC urban form. No longer.
>
>
> No matter. It's the private Automobile that will be obsolete soon. Sell that
> parking 'investment' real quick.
>
And why is that?
Don
> No matter. It's the private Automobile that will be obsolete soon.
There's loads of other stuff that will be obsolete long before cars are.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"3D Peruna" <""w\"@h%a@r%o@l%d@w&e@i&r@d&n@e&s@s&.@c7o4m"> wrote in message
news:JDIOe.9834$ih4....@fe02.lga...
$10/gal gas.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don" <one-if-...@concord.com> wrote in message
news:5IIOe.698$_84...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "zenboom"> wrote
> > No matter. It's the private Automobile that will be obsolete soon.
>
> There's loads of other stuff that will be obsolete long before cars are.
>
Like food?
Robert Cote
"Baxter" <lbax02.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
> "3D Peruna" wrote in message news:JDIOe.9834$ih4....@fe02.lga...
> > zenboom wrote:
> > >
> > > "Robert Cote" <ts...@adlph.net> wrote in message
> > > news:tsch-91A2E6.2...@news.isp.giganews.com...
> >
> > >>This is the inertia part I mentioned. There -used- to be a reason for
> > >>the NYC urban form. No longer.
> > >
> > > No matter. It's the private Automobile that will be obsolete soon. Sell
> > > that parking 'investment' real quick.
> > >
> >
> > And why is that?
> >
>
> $10/gal gas.
$10/gal gasoline disproportionately impacts northern cities. Annual
refinery cycles trade-off between gas and heating oil. In this contest
there is no contest. Home heating oil is the loser every time. [Well,
that is unless/until the government steps in and tries to impose price
controls.] 82% of all home heating oil is consumed in the BosWash
States (New England and Central Atlantic). Typical users consume
600-900 gallons per year. Last year it was around $2.20/gallon and has
always closely tracked the price of crude plus 1/3rd. If last year it
cost $1500 then $10/gal gas looks like a $7000 season. That's
annualized as if the mortgage were raised $500/month. Or the other way
round, those houses are worth to future buyers $500/month less. Anyone
want to calculate the impact of lopping $90,000 from the home value of 9
million homes (Home heating oil users, not counting surrounding homes
that will feel similar effects)? The simple answer is that you don't
want to live there.
The first answer that comes to mind is massive govt intervention and
crash programs to invest in efficiency. IOW reward the stupidest for
being the most stubborn and lazy and selfish. Imagine tell SoCal
residents that they need to subsidize home improvement in Boston while
they are paying $10/gal for gas.
Don
>> > No matter. It's the private Automobile that will be obsolete soon.
>>
>>
> $10/gal gas.
Hardly. LOL
If you'll turn tail and run over that, you prolly shouldn't have had one in
the first place.
Don
> "Don"> wrote
>> "zenboom"> wrote
>> > No matter. It's the private Automobile that will be obsolete soon.
>>
>> There's loads of other stuff that will be obsolete long before cars are.
>>
> Like food?
Nah, its too easy to grown yer own.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don" <one-if-...@concord.com> wrote in message
news:QDLOe.876$FW1...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
I'd say 'go right ahead and try it', but the fact is you just might have to.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don" <one-if-...@concord.com> wrote in message
news:TBLOe.875$FW1...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
You think $10/gal gas won't impact car ownership? You think that some
aren't already bailing from car ownership?
Come to think of it - the perfect solution for congestion -- raise the gas
tax, excuse me - "usage fee", until congestion abates. Then you'll also
have enough money to fix the roads.
gruhn
> You think $10/gal gas won't impact car ownership?
You think these state the same point twice?
You still haven't seen outside the box?
Don
>> >> There's loads of other stuff that will be obsolete long before cars
> are.
>> >>
>> > Like food?
>>
>> Nah, its too easy to grown yer own.
>>
> I'd say 'go right ahead and try it', but the fact is you just might have
> to.
In the spring I will be starting a series of 4'x8' raised bed vegetable
gardens.
I'll start with 4, then if all works well the following year I'll add 4
more.
Don
"Baxter" <lbax02.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:11gnher...@corp.supernews.com...
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Don" <one-if-...@concord.com> wrote in message
> news:TBLOe.875$FW1...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> "Baxter"> wrote
>> >> > No matter. It's the private Automobile that will be obsolete soon.
>> >>
>> >> And why is that?
>> >>
>> > $10/gal gas.
>>
>> Hardly. LOL
>> If you'll turn tail and run over that, you prolly shouldn't have had one
> in
>> the first place.
>>
> You think $10/gal gas won't impact car ownership?
It won't effect me at all. I drive less than 9k a year and its all written
off for business.
You think that some
> aren't already bailing from car ownership?
>
> Come to think of it - the perfect solution for congestion -- raise the gas
> tax,
I've been saying it for over a year now, raise the price of gas to at least
$10/per gallon and the traffic will thin out, less people will be killed in
accidents, etc.
Back in the mid 70's in Germany I was paying the equiv. of $2.50 (10DM) for
a quart (litre) of gas (benzene).
excuse me - "usage fee", until congestion abates. Then you'll also
> have enough money to fix the roads.
Surely thou doth jest.
They'll spend it on pork and bennies, let the people suffer.
3D Peruna
I've just put the dirt on my garage for about 150 sq. ft. of raised beds
w/ lawn on 3 sides and a nice patio/sitting area on the 4th.
We're going to try corn.
Don
> I've just put the dirt on my garage for about 150 sq. ft. of raised beds
> w/ lawn on 3 sides and a nice patio/sitting area on the 4th.
>
> We're going to try corn.
Corn requires quite a bit of depth doesn't it?
Adam Weiss
$10/gallon gasoline might render the internal combustion engine
obsolete. But cars? I doubt it.
Cars are such an integral part of life for most Americans (Manhattanites
notwithstanding) that we'll sooner develop better ways of powering them
than we would get rid of them altogether.
Well before gas hits $10 a gallon, you'll see an honest investment into
alternative fuels and engines for private automobiles out of the US
automotive industry. Japanese car makers have already started, and the
gas-electric hybrids you see today are only the beginning.
3D Peruna
Research! Research! They might say it does, but we'll find out. I've
got at least 16" worth of depth...
Jack May
"Adam Weiss" <aw...@blockspam.org> wrote in message
news:430BF141...@blockspam.org...
> Baxter wrote:
> Well before gas hits $10 a gallon, you'll see an honest investment into
> alternative fuels and engines for private automobiles out of the US
> automotive industry. Japanese car makers have already started, and the
> gas-electric hybrids you see today are only the beginning.
The only way the car will go away is if there is something far better to
replace it. Maybe that will be the NASA Highway in the sky, but nobody
really knows.
We all know that transit and especially rail has no chance of replacing cars
because transit can not solve the problem of providing the absolute minimum
capability required by the vast majority of commuters.
For rail to replace cars the minimum requirements are:
The train must be able to get some one from any door to any door in 30
minutes or less for a distance of around 10 to 20 miles. Time door to door
for a typical go anywhere trip must include walking time or any other travel
mode on both ends.
Further the 30 minute time must be met for the typical route where there is
a transfer to another train to go roughly 90 degrees in a different
direction to wait for another train and then make second transfer to a third
train including waiting time to get near to your destination.
Assuming one train goes from near your door to near the other door happens
only a small percentage of the trips for all commuters and is not allowable
as a general solution for transportation.
We keep talking about trains being obsolete and no technology to solve the
problem. That is exactly what is meant by needing a technology to satisfy
the above criterion. If anyone has a solution that meets the above
requirements then rail could come back.
The car solved the above requirement which is exactly why it made rail
obsolete with no hope for any technology possible to bring back rail.
Further the car and road has advance far beyond the minimum requirements
which means rail or other transits must be significantly more advanced than
the car for the investment in bringing back rail to have any chance of
capturing the market.
I eagerly await for a transit advocate showing us how transit can meet and
far exceed the requirements demanded by travelers today, not in the 19th
Century.
Don
> The only way the car will go away is if there is something far better to
> replace it.
Telecommute, and Mollers SkyCar.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Adam Weiss" <aw...@blockspam.org> wrote in message
news:430BF141...@blockspam.org...
> Baxter wrote:
> $10/gallon gasoline might render the internal combustion engine
> obsolete. But cars? I doubt it.
>
> Cars are such an integral part of life for most Americans (Manhattanites
> notwithstanding) that we'll sooner develop better ways of powering them
> than we would get rid of them altogether.
>
> Well before gas hits $10 a gallon, you'll see an honest investment into
> alternative fuels and engines for private automobiles out of the US
> automotive industry. Japanese car makers have already started, and the
> gas-electric hybrids you see today are only the beginning.
>
Ah yes, the panglossian "alternative". That $10/gal gas will be here long
before you're ready for it.
And those gas-electric hybrids aren't getting all that much better actual
gas mileage.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:iuudnfSitKq...@comcast.com...
>
>
> We all know that transit and especially rail has no chance of replacing
cars
> because transit can not solve the problem of providing the absolute
minimum
> capability required by the vast majority of commuters.
>
> For rail to replace cars the minimum requirements are:
>
> The train must be able to get some one from any door to any door in 30
> minutes or less for a distance of around 10 to 20 miles.
Baloney. On several different levels.
George Conklin
"Adam Weiss" <aw...@blockspam.org> wrote in message
news:430BF141...@blockspam.org...
> Baxter wrote:
>
used to be, "At $3 a gallon, everyone will have to walk or move to
Manhattan." Now it is $10. But it will never happen because transit will
just have to use the $10 a gallon fuel also, so costs will still be the
same. Transit wastes fuel so it is no solution.
George Conklin
> news:430BF141...@blockspam.org...
> > Baxter wrote:
> > Well before gas hits $10 a gallon, you'll see an honest investment into
> > alternative fuels and engines for private automobiles out of the US
> > automotive industry. Japanese car makers have already started, and the
> > gas-electric hybrids you see today are only the beginning.
>
> The only way the car will go away is if there is something far better to
> replace it. Maybe that will be the NASA Highway in the sky, but nobody
> really knows.
>
> We all know that transit and especially rail has no chance of replacing
cars
> because transit can not solve the problem of providing the absolute
minimum
> capability required by the vast majority of commuters.
>
Besides, rail and transit bus do NOT save fuel so the comments are
irrelevant.
George Conklin
> "zenboom"> wrote
> > No matter. It's the private Automobile that will be obsolete soon.
>
> There's loads of other stuff that will be obsolete long before cars are.
>
>
Like eating meat, for example. Or even chicken. You loose 90% of the
value of the grain fed to a chicken. So we really should be eating the
grain, not the chicken.
Sancho Panza
The usual meaningless drivel we have come to expect.
Sancho Panza
"George Conklin" <georgec...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:y0ZOe.1221$5B4...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
The "experts" who preach but hardly ever use mass transportation do not get
to see the wastefulness like deadheads evident in any operation.
Robert Cote
"Baxter" <lbax02.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
> "Adam Weiss" <aw...@blockspam.org> wrote in message
> news:430BF141...@blockspam.org...
> > Baxter wrote:
>
> > $10/gallon gasoline might render the internal combustion engine
> > obsolete. But cars? I doubt it.
> >
> > Cars are such an integral part of life for most Americans (Manhattanites
> > notwithstanding) that we'll sooner develop better ways of powering them
> > than we would get rid of them altogether.
> >
> > Well before gas hits $10 a gallon, you'll see an honest investment into
> > alternative fuels and engines for private automobiles out of the US
> > automotive industry. Japanese car makers have already started, and the
> > gas-electric hybrids you see today are only the beginning.
> >
> Ah yes, the panglossian "alternative". That $10/gal gas will be here long
> before you're ready for it.
When is that? Certainly not within a year. So when? The only way you
can make your claim is if you know when $10/gal gasoline will be the
price. Are you adjusting for inflation? Certainly not because
inflation adjusted $10/gal gasoline is not possible. Coal tar and all
that come on line at even lower price points.
>
> And those gas-electric hybrids aren't getting all that much better actual
> gas mileage.
Not yet. A little downsizing, a little aerodynamic cleanup, a little
improvement in magnets and/or batteries, purpose built engines in the
next generation, better regenerative systems, more composites and a few
other things and we can probably triple the current product bottom line.
Notice these are all -incremental- changes. No gee wiz adibatic cermet
EC cycle Buck Rogers stuff necessary.
Robert Cote
"Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
> "Baxter" <lbax02.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:11go2ub...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:iuudnfSitKq...@comcast.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > We all know that transit and especially rail has no chance of
> > > replacing cars because transit can not solve the problem of
> > > providing the absolute minimum capability required by the vast
> > > majority of commuters.
> > >
> > > For rail to replace cars the minimum requirements are:
> > >
> > > The train must be able to get some one from any door to any door in 30
> > > minutes or less for a distance of around 10 to 20 miles.
> >
> > Baloney. On several different levels.
>
> The usual meaningless drivel we have come to expect.
I'd love it if Baxter turned it down to just meaningless drivel. I've
come to expect vicious personal invective.
Jack is correct as his description is very much in line with well
documented personal travel budgets and commute times.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:430c759a$0$170$ad36...@news.netcarrier.net...
>
> The "experts" who preach but hardly ever use mass transportation do not
get
> to see the wastefulness like deadheads evident in any operation.
>
The experts around Portland DO use mass transportation.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Robert Cote" <ts...@adlph.net> wrote in message
news:tsch-109808.0...@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <11go2s5...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Baxter" <lbax02.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > Ah yes, the panglossian "alternative". That $10/gal gas will be here
long
> > before you're ready for it.
>
> When is that? Certainly not within a year. So when?
How long ago was it that you claimed that oil wouldn't break $50/bbl for at
least a decade?
How long will it take to come up with a -viable- alternative? We've had
electric cars for decades - they're still not viable. Same with many of the
alternatives being discussed.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Robert Cote" <ts...@adlph.net> wrote in message
news:tsch-BC57C7.0...@news.isp.giganews.com...
Be our guess show us some of that documentation - and show that it would
still be valid in an environment of $10/gal POV fuel (particularly at
mileage rates of less than double today's fleet).
Don
> Like eating meat, for example. Or even chicken. You loose 90% of the
> value of the grain fed to a chicken. So we really should be eating the
> grain, not the chicken.
Cut out the middle man? :-)
Mark
Robert Cote wrote:
Is that based on a survey of expectations or on actual commute times? A
survey isn't of much use; everyone wants a shorter commute. From what I've
seen of actual commute times, transit users accept much longer commute
times than POV commuters.
Even so, the data I've seen isn't of much use but it does point us in the
right direction. A better comparison would be actual commute times for
transit and POV users broken down by income level and possibly urban area.
I haven't been able to find such data.
Mark
3D Peruna
Yeah...but have you ever tried to fire up the grill for some cream of
wheat? Just doesn't cut it...
(we do a grilled pizza that's pretty darn good)
George Conklin
"Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:430c759a$0$170$ad36...@news.netcarrier.net...
>
In NYC, they are known as limousine liberals. The entire New York Times
featured writing staff is of this religion. I wonder how the NYT thinks it
is going to get to be able to charge for reading such stuff.
George Conklin
If the gas prices of 1981 had held, we would have tons of alternatives
today. What did in Canada's coal tars and similar plans in the USA was the
fact that oil fell to one-quarter of this amount in constant dollars. If
prices stay up, all kinds of feathered wells in southern Ohio, for example,
can easily come back on line. And we will drill in Alaska again. The only
issue is when and who lets it happen.
> >
> > And those gas-electric hybrids aren't getting all that much better
actual
> > gas mileage.
>
> Not yet. A little downsizing, a little aerodynamic cleanup, a little
> improvement in magnets and/or batteries, purpose built engines in the
> next generation, better regenerative systems, more composites and a few
> other things and we can probably triple the current product bottom line.
> Notice these are all -incremental- changes. No gee wiz adibatic cermet
> EC cycle Buck Rogers stuff necessary.
But only for stop and go traffic. Over-the-road trucks and cars will get
better fuel mileage only with the old tricks of light weight, small engines
and small basically uncomfortable cars. Thank goodness the cars of 1980-5
are long gone. They were (are) just plan awful.
Consumer Reports continues its biases once again by suggesting people NOT
buy the diesel Jeep. Why? It gets only 3/15th better mileage!! 20%. They
say that was not economical. If we switched to a diesel engine mix, we
could save tons of fuel.
George Conklin
Chicken. -:)
George Conklin
"3D Peruna" <""w\"@h%a@r%o@l%d@w&e@i&r@d&n@e&s@s&.@c7o4m"> wrote in message
So there. Just use cheese, tomato and wheat!! Save the world!! Eat
pizza.
3D Peruna
But it's best with a recently grilled steak sliced thin on top...
George Conklin
"3D Peruna" <""w\"@h%a@r%o@l%d@w&e@i&r@d&n@e&s@s&.@c7o4m"> wrote in message
Don
> Yeah...but have you ever tried to fire up the grill for some cream of
> wheat? Just doesn't cut it...
>
> (we do a grilled pizza that's pretty darn good)
You'd be surprised at the versatility of the backyard grill when a hurricane
or 4 has reduced everything else to rubble.
I've heard that, to this day, kids are still sick of grilled chicken
breasts.
Don
> But it's best with a recently grilled steak sliced thin on top...
Surely you meant a recently *killed* steak sliced thin on top.....
(Ted sez: Ya gotta kill it before ya grill it.)
gruhn
That's an opinion or an insurmountable fact?
Kris Krieger
> Don wrote:
>>
>> "Baxter"> wrote
>>
>>>>>>There's loads of other stuff that will be obsolete long before
>>>>>>cars
>>>
>>>are.
>>>
>>>>>Like food?
>>>>
>>>>Nah, its too easy to grown yer own.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I'd say 'go right ahead and try it', but the fact is you just might
>>>have to.
>>
>>
>> In the spring I will be starting a series of 4'x8' raised bed
>> vegetable gardens.
>> I'll start with 4, then if all works well the following year I'll add
>> 4 more.
>>
>
> I've just put the dirt on my garage for about 150 sq. ft. of raised
> beds w/ lawn on 3 sides and a nice patio/sitting area on the 4th.
>
> We're going to try corn.
ON your garage? That's cool ;) Did you have to reinforce, and/or make
other changes or upgrades to, the roof first? I assume it's a flat roof.
If you made changes, where did you find the requisite info?
THis is interesting to me.
- K.
P. Fritz
"gruhn" <gr...@deletehwb.com> wrote in message
news:6t5Pe.99$NA5....@news.uswest.net...
> > (Ted sez: Ya gotta kill it before ya grill it.)
>
> That's an opinion or an insurmountable fact?
A Theory :-)
>
>
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>If we switched to a diesel engine mix, we could save tons of fuel.
And money, if we switch to used french fry oil. The First PA Renewable
Energy Festival will have a grease car conversion workshop. See
Nick
Tired of Iraq? Do something about it. Learn to halve your energy use
while having fun with math and science.
Join PE Drew Gillett and PhD Rich Komp and me for a workshop on Solar House
Heating and Natural Cooling Strategies at the first Pennsylvania Renewable
Energy Festival on Saturday September 24, 2005 near Allentown. See
Don
>> (Ted sez: Ya gotta kill it before ya grill it.)
>
> That's an opinion or an insurmountable fact?
It's a fact that Ted sez that.
otter...@hotmail.com
> > The "experts" who preach but hardly ever use mass transportation do not
> get
> > to see the wastefulness like deadheads evident in any operation.
> >
> The experts around Portland DO use mass transportation.
Then why have we seen so many posts here about all their
government-gift vehicles? And that is the case in many other
jurisdictions.
Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<nicks...@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:deir1g$4...@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
Ralph Hertle
Jack May wrote:
> [...]
>
>
>I eagerly await for a transit advocate showing us how transit can meet and
>far exceed the requirements demanded by travelers today, not in the 19th
>Century.
>
>
>
>
The energy requirement per ton-mile minute for railroads is by far
less than for all other forms of mechanical, air and water transportation.
All else is political and governmental monopolizing and regulation
of the otherwise free transportation industry for the purpose of
gaining money from and power over the citizen-customer.
That's a simple matter of induction from the available facts.
Ralph Hertle
Ralph Hertle
Ralph Hertle
George Conklin wrote:
> [...]
> The whole conversation has switched over the last several years here. It
>used to be, "At $3 a gallon, everyone will have to walk or move to
>Manhattan." Now it is $10. But it will never happen because transit will
>just have to use the $10 a gallon fuel also, so costs will still be the
>same. Transit wastes fuel so it is no solution.
>
>
You have zero facts to back up what you say.
A scientific analysis of the facts will clearly demonstrate that
you are speaking without any evidence whatsoever.
Mass transit transportation, especially in the form of railroads,
for example, is far more energy efficient than automobiles.
Ralph Hertle
Ralph Hertle
>"Don" <one-if-...@concord.com> wrote in message
>news:5IIOe.698$_84...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>
>>"zenboom"> wrote
>>
>>
>>>No matter. It's the private Automobile that will be obsolete soon.
>>>
>>>
>>There's loads of other stuff that will be obsolete long before cars are.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Like eating meat, for example. Or even chicken. You loose 90% of the
>value of the grain fed to a chicken. So we really should be eating the
>grain, not the chicken.
>
>
>
>
Total fiction. Lies, specifically.
Adam Weiss
> "zenboom"> wrote
>
>>No matter. It's the private Automobile that will be obsolete soon.
>
>
> There's loads of other stuff that will be obsolete long before cars are.
>
>
What nobody is willing to acknowledge is that cars are the latest in a
long line of personal transportation devices that have been around for
millenia.
People have been riding horses and mules, bareback or with saddles,
since the Dark Ages.
The ancient Romans had chariots - and smooth roads to get them from city
to city. There were no buses, trains, or mass transit.
The horse (or mule) drawn cart has been around since ancient times and
is still used in parts of the world (rural parts of Asia and tourist
traps in Europe).
The 17th and 18th century brought gilded carriages to royalty.
Sedan chairs (from which modern 'sedan' automobiles got their namesakes)
from what I gather date to the Qing dynasty in china.
The horse drawn wagons used by settlers heading West in the 19th century
has become an iconic image of American history.
All of these are what I would call "personal transportation devices" for
lack of a better term. They allow a person to climb on (or in), and go
where they want to when they want to much faster than they could on
foot. The car is just the latest technology to allow people to do so.
The anti-car crowd always tries to get us to think that before there
were cars, people just walked everywhere or took the train. But that's
not true. The desire of people to want to go places quickly, privately,
and in comfort predates mass transit and wasn't created by the automobile.
That said, can people really be so naive as to think that personal
transportation will completely disappear in favor of mass transit?
Don
> What nobody is willing to acknowledge is that cars are the latest in a
> long line of personal transportation devices that have been around for
> millenia.
>
> People have been riding horses and mules, bareback or with saddles, since
> the Dark Ages.
>
> The ancient Romans had chariots - and smooth roads to get them from city
> to city. There were no buses, trains, or mass transit.
>
> The horse (or mule) drawn cart has been around since ancient times and is
> still used in parts of the world (rural parts of Asia and tourist traps in
> Europe).
Don't forget them *Two Black Cadilacs*, they've been around since the
beginning.
Also known in the Army as LPC's.
(Leather Personnel Carriers)
gruhn
> long line of personal transportation devices that have been around for
Adam, I've been watching this thread with similar thoughts in mind. Part of
recognizing that certain posters aren't quite on the ball has been their
root assumption that "car == gasoline engine". When automobiles proper
started out there were a number of competing technologies... more than a
hundred years ago. And gasoline was by no means guaranteed to win.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the current crop of hot young college
intellectuals weren't "unwilling to acknowledge" but rather "completely
fucking unaware."
> That said, can people really be so naive as to think that personal
> transportation will completely disappear in favor of mass transit?
It's part of the "wow, I just learned the most amazing thing from this
stupid hippie down at the coffee house when I should have been doing my math
homework so I could grow up and be useful. Now we're going to change the
world!" thing the kids get in to. Why do you suppose the Peace Corps
recruits cult fodder er... I mean college students and not experienced
professionals? Same reason the Krishnas do...
Because the ARE that naive
gruhn
> (Leather Personnel Carriers)
Leather Personnel. ... a lifer non-com ;-)
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>> The First PA Renewable Energy Festival will have a grease car
>> conversion workshop. See
>What about the other 99% of cars?
This isn't a universal solution, but it's easy, given a Diesel.
The Bruderhof have a fleet of 10 old Jettas that run on filtered
French fry oil, with plastic 5-gallon tanks in the trunks and
Diesel fuel in the original tanks for winter starting. The local
fast food places pay $50/drum to have the oil removed...
Nick
George Conklin
"Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:430D1751...@verizon.net...
> Jack:
>
> Jack May wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >
> >
> >I eagerly await for a transit advocate showing us how transit can meet
and
> >far exceed the requirements demanded by travelers today, not in the 19th
> >Century.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> The energy requirement per ton-mile minute for railroads is by far
> less than for all other forms of mechanical, air and water transportation.
>
This is correct ONLY for heavy freight loads. It has long been
established that for passengers rail is about the same as your private car.
For transit buses, private cars are more efficient. If you want to save
fuel, moving truck traffic to railroads is a good idea. Moving passengers
is a waste of time as far as fuel is concerned. ALSO, moving passengers by
rail is very, very expensive, about 4 times more expensive than moving them
by air.
George Conklin
> George:
>
> George Conklin wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
>
> > The whole conversation has switched over the last several years here.
It
> >used to be, "At $3 a gallon, everyone will have to walk or move to
> >Manhattan." Now it is $10. But it will never happen because transit
will
> >just have to use the $10 a gallon fuel also, so costs will still be the
> >same. Transit wastes fuel so it is no solution.
> >
> >
>
>
> You have zero facts to back up what you say.
>
You need to stop with your lies. It has long been established by the CBO
and national data on transit buses that there is no fuel savings for transit
buses and rail travel with passengers. Freight: yes, a large savings.
Long-distance buses use half the fuel of passenger cars and Amtrak too.
Don't be fooled by statements "Primary fuel consumption in the direction of
travel.:
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>"Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote:
>> The energy requirement per ton-mile minute for railroads is by far
>> less than for all other forms of mechanical, air and water transportation.
I've read river barges have the least kWh kWh/ton-mile.
> This is correct ONLY for heavy freight loads. It has long been
>established that for passengers rail is about the same as your private car.
Are we talking about moving 20 100-pound people 1 mile?
>For transit buses, private cars are more efficient. If you want to save
>fuel, moving truck traffic to railroads is a good idea. Moving passengers
>is a waste of time as far as fuel is concerned.
I doubt that.
>ALSO, moving passengers by rail is very, very expensive, about 4 times
>more expensive than moving them by air.
I wonder why. It seems useful to separate monty and energy here, eg union
crews at every state boundary and policies that allow near-empty trains,
vs mostly-full Boswash trains.
Robert Cote
Ralph Hertle <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote:
> Jack:
>
> Jack May wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >
> >I eagerly await for a transit advocate showing us how transit can meet and
> >far exceed the requirements demanded by travelers today, not in the 19th
> >Century.
> >
>
> The energy requirement per ton-mile minute for railroads is by far
> less than for all other forms of mechanical, air and water transportation.
Nope, sorry. Low but not the lowest. Barges and pipelines do better.
Besides yo get those ton-mile rates all we have to do is treat people
like iron ore. "Save energy, spend a week on a siding with no food or
heat packed in 1200 to a car."
>
> All else is political and governmental monopolizing and regulation
> of the otherwise free transportation industry for the purpose of
> gaining money from and power over the citizen-customer.
>
> That's a simple matter of induction from the available facts.
There's been a distinct LAck of FActs in your -assertions-.
P. Fritz
"Adam Weiss" <aw...@blockspam.org> wrote in message
news:430D3E85...@blockspam.org...
> Don wrote:
> > "zenboom"> wrote
> >
> >>No matter. It's the private Automobile that will be obsolete soon.
> >
> >
> > There's loads of other stuff that will be obsolete long before cars are.
> >
> >
>
>
> What nobody is willing to acknowledge is that cars are the latest in a
> long line of personal transportation devices that have been around for
> millenia.
>
> People have been riding horses and mules, bareback or with saddles,
> since the Dark Ages.
>
> The ancient Romans had chariots - and smooth roads to get them from city
> to city. There were no buses, trains, or mass transit.
>
> The horse (or mule) drawn cart has been around since ancient times and
> is still used in parts of the world (rural parts of Asia and tourist
> traps in Europe).
You haven't been to Romania then.......certainly not a tourust trap......and
they are still used there.
(now that I think about it.........saw them used in Egypt too.)
>
Robert Cote
Mark <ma...@example.com> wrote:
> Followups set.
>
> Robert Cote wrote:
>
> > In article <430c74f2$0$177$ad36...@news.netcarrier.net>,
> > "Sancho Panza" <otter...@xhotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> >> news:11go2ub...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >> > "Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:iuudnfSitKq...@comcast.com...
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > We all know that transit and especially rail has no chance of
> >> > > replacing cars because transit can not solve the problem of
> >> > > providing the absolute minimum capability required by the vast
> >> > > majority of commuters.
> >> > >
> >> > > For rail to replace cars the minimum requirements are:
> >> > >
> >> > > The train must be able to get some one from any door to any door in
> >> > > 30 minutes or less for a distance of around 10 to 20 miles.
> >> >
> >> > Baloney. On several different levels.
> >>
> >> The usual meaningless drivel we have come to expect.
> >
> > I'd love it if Baxter turned it down to just meaningless drivel. I've
> > come to expect vicious personal invective.
> >
> > Jack is correct as his description is very much in line with well
> > documented personal travel budgets and commute times.
>
> Is that based on a survey of expectations or on actual commute times?
Revealed preference not stated preference yes. Let's be clear here.
These are data not surveys of what people want. Measurements of actual
behavior.
> A survey isn't of much use; everyone wants a shorter commute.
Which is why transit and TOD are such laughable ideas.
> From what I've
> seen of actual commute times, transit users accept much longer commute
> times than POV commuters.
Sort of but remember this is not an independent variable. Transit
collects a disproportionate number of the outliers through self
selection and excessive transit commute times are offset by less other
travel.
>
> Even so, the data I've seen isn't of much use but it does point us in the
> right direction. A better comparison would be actual commute times for
> transit and POV users broken down by income level and possibly urban area.
> I haven't been able to find such data.
I suggest you don't find the data you are looking for because you are
looking for support of an untenable theory. The giveaway was your
thinking that income should be a factor and your desire to classify by
degree of urbanization. Sign up for an account at at the 2001 NHTS:
http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/
Everything you want is there.
Don
> world!" thing the kids get in to. Why do you suppose the Peace Corps
> recruits cult fodder er... I mean college students and not experienced
> professionals? Same reason the Krishnas do...
...and the military.
> Because they ARE that naive
Most of them do alot of *learning* during that period.
Less than 1% reenlist.
If the military was prohibited from lying and basically
kidnapping/incarcerating (holding them against their will) young folks, it
would fold in about 30 days or less.
Don
>> Also known in the Army as LPC's.
>> (Leather Personnel Carriers)
>
> Leather Personnel. ... a lifer non-com ;-)
The lifer non-coms walk, the lifer coms ride.
Non Commissioned Officer = NCO
N o
C hance
O utside
NCO's are like flies, they eat shit and bother people.
Sadly, I still remember all that stuff.......
gruhn
> while having fun with math and science.
"tired" of Iraq? War policy should be decided on whether or not it's
generating good teevee?
gruhn
Are we still dealing with
>>>>>No matter. It's the private Automobile that will be obsolete soon.
If so, then _what_ about the other 99% of cars? You're going to have to
spell this argument out a little more because it clearly isn't obvious to
me.
zenboom
<nicks...@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:dek00n$4...@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
For those of us who won't be making it to PA, can you forward some detail on
how this conversion is done?
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<nicks...@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:dekbu9$4...@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
> George Conklin <georgec...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> >For transit buses, private cars are more efficient. If you want to save
> >fuel, moving truck traffic to railroads is a good idea. Moving
passengers
> >is a waste of time as far as fuel is concerned.
>
> I doubt that.
You'll find that Conklin and Cote claim this on a vehicle-to-vehicle basis.
When you start talking passenger-mile efficiency they tap dance all over the
place in and effort to claim that transit is not being used - and even deny
actual facts.
George Conklin
>
> >"Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> The energy requirement per ton-mile minute for railroads is by far
> >> less than for all other forms of mechanical, air and water
transportation.
>
> I've read river barges have the least kWh kWh/ton-mile.
>
> > This is correct ONLY for heavy freight loads. It has long been
> >established that for passengers rail is about the same as your private
car.
>
> Are we talking about moving 20 100-pound people 1 mile?
>
> >For transit buses, private cars are more efficient. If you want to save
> >fuel, moving truck traffic to railroads is a good idea. Moving
passengers
> >is a waste of time as far as fuel is concerned.
>
> I doubt that.
>
Your ignorance is great but your seem to live your opinions. Try FActs.
> >ALSO, moving passengers by rail is very, very expensive, about 4 times
> >more expensive than moving them by air.
>
> I wonder why. It seems useful to separate monty and energy here, eg union
> crews at every state boundary and policies that allow near-empty trains,
> vs mostly-full Boswash trains.
>
> Nick
>
All irrelevant. Rail travel for people is expensive. BoshWash must get
40 cents per mile to break even. It is the only place Amtrak comes close to
getting that kind of income.
> Tired of Iraq? Do something about it. Learn to halve your energy use
> while having fun with math and science.
>
Then you would have to go to long distance buses, which use HALF the
energy Amtrak does.
> Join PE Drew Gillett and PhD Rich Komp and me for a workshop on Solar
House
> Heating and Natural Cooling Strategies at the first Pennsylvania Renewable
> Energy Festival on Saturday September 24, 2005 near Allentown. See
>
> http://www.paenergyfest.com/workshop-info.shtml
>
Unlike you, I already have a solar roof for hot water, and have for 28
years since the last 'crisis.' I have a high-efficiency heat pump and can
heat with wood too.
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>> >> The First PA Renewable Energy Festival will have a grease car
>> >> conversion workshop. See
>> The Bruderhof have a fleet of 10 old Jettas that run on filtered
>> French fry oil, with plastic 5-gallon tanks in the trunks and
>> Diesel fuel in the original tanks for winter starting. The local
>> fast food places pay $50/drum to have the oil removed...
Or maybe that's $100/drum...?
>For those of us who won't be making it to PA, can you forward some
>detail on how this conversion is done?
I don't know the workshop content, but the 5-gallon Bruderhof Jetta
tanks contain a pipe loop with some radiator water moving through it
to keep the used French fry oil liquid in wintertime and a valve on
the dashboard marked "Diesel" and "Veg." The valve stays in the veg
position in summertime. In wintertime, they start on Diesel and switch
to veg after a few minutes, then switch back to veg just before the
drive ends to ensure the fuel line is filled with Diesel for the next
startup. IIRC, the newer conversions switch automatically with timers
and solenoid valves. Jetta fuel filters get replaced 4X per year, more
often than usual, because of particulates that remain in the oil after
simple filtering.
They also converted an old Mercedes and talked about opening a 25 cent
per gallon veggie fuel station in downtown Rifton, NY and doing Diesel
car conversions for hire...
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>> >"Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>The energy requirement per ton-mile minute for railroads is by far
>> >>less than for all other forms of mechanical, air and water transportation.
>>
>> I've read river barges have the least kWh/ton-mile.
>>
>> >...It has long been established that for passengers rail is about
>> >the same as your private car.
>>
>> Are we talking about moving 20 100-pound people 1 mile?
Well?
>> >For transit buses, private cars are more efficient. If you want to save
>> >fuel, moving truck traffic to railroads is a good idea. Moving passengers
>> >is a waste of time as far as fuel is concerned.
>>
>> I doubt that.
>
> Your ignorance is great but your seem to live your opinions. Try FActs.
In rhetoric, an assertion demands no more than a counterassertion.
>> >ALSO, moving passengers by rail is very, very expensive, about 4 times
>> >more expensive than moving them by air.
>>
>> I wonder why. It seems useful to separate money and energy here, eg union
>> crews at every state boundary and policies that allow near-empty trains,
>> vs mostly-full Boswash trains.
>>
>...Rail travel for people is expensive.
Perhaps, but the subject was energy.
>> Join PE Drew Gillett and PhD Rich Komp and me for a workshop on Solar
>> House Heating and Natural Cooling Strategies at the first Pennsylvania
>> Renewable Energy Festival on Saturday September 24, 2005 near Allentown. See
http://www.paenergyfest.com/workshop-info.shtml
>...I already have a solar roof for hot water...
Pray tell us more.
Nick
El Kabong
<nicks...@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:dekbu9$4...@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
> George Conklin <georgec...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>ALSO, moving passengers by rail is very, very expensive, about 4 times
>>more expensive than moving them by air.
>
> I wonder why. It seems useful to separate monty and energy here, eg union
> crews at every state boundary and policies that allow near-empty trains,
> vs mostly-full Boswash trains.
>
> Nick
No doubt it is too expensive, mostly because passenger trains must run on
schedule and can't be "humped" as freight trains are, and IMHO, unions
strangle common sense management.
Once when I was dispatching for a general commodities trucking firm, we got
a call from a major railroad company out of Minneapolis who needed a machine
hauled from Louisville, KY. They were willing to pay the full 40,000 lb.
rate for a 500 lb part. I asked why they didn't ship it in by rail and the
answer was, "We can't wait that long, we have to have it here within the
next two weeks." That tells me, they have a problem with time schedules.
When they did haul passengers, the fare was subsidized by also hauling the
mail. U. S. Post office contracts required regularly scheduled runs with
lots of stops... why not carry a few passengers at the same time? But when
trucks began delivering the mail (they could handle even more stops because
they used the highway system) passenger fares would have been prohibitive,
even at a serviceman's discount of 50% when riding in uniform. Other than
acts of terror and war, that was the saddest event in my lifetime.
In 1962, the train ride from San Diego to Chicago took nearly a week but was
it beautiful beyond description. However, my favorite run was from Chicago
to Woodruff, WI (I think it ended in Hurley or Superior but never rode it
that far) on the Chicago-Northwestern. It took 12 hours to go approx. three
hundred miles, stopping at every single little town for 5 to 15 minutes to
drop off and pick up mail. On snowy nights or bright summer days, I met a
lot of friendly people along the way and arrived refreshed and ready for
leave. God, how I miss those days. I have never found a more enjoyable way
to get from point A to point B. Probably never will, either.
Sorry to be so long winded.
El
(an old vet if you can't tell by this post.)
Ralph Hertle
[...]
>
> That said, can people really be so naive as to think that personal
> transportation will completely disappear in favor of mass transit?
>
In a free enterprise market, and not just an authoritarian market, a
multiplicity
of inventions for transportation has been and will be the reality.
Personal transportation, as you say, is here to stay.
The "Sequey" invention is a good example. A marvelous development and with
original improvements and new inventive integrations.
Back in 1958 I saw the prototypes of the gasoline engined two-wheeled
scooter being tested that was invented by Lou Richards at the Institute of
Design, at IIT, in Chicago, and that had a development of the side pivoting
four-wheel two-axle roller skate chassis, When unused it could be folded
into
a compact unit and placed into a desk drawer.
The engine was on the front, and it powered the front wheels. The power
source
was a 5 HP 2-stroke Otto cycle engine from a German large scale model
aircraft
engine. The ease with which Lou could speed around the outside streets
and walks
as well as the interiors of buildings was really something. He would use
it for
daily transportation to classes at school. Lou confided with his fellow
students
that a speed of 30 mph was possible, and he said that an object, say a
brick, lying
on the highway was indeed a problem. The sound was not all that
objectionable
in comparison to auto traffic.
For a while, sometime during the next decade, the powered roller skate,
a la
Lou Richard's invention, that was mounted beneath a skate-board, and that
functioned and was steered in the same way by action of the rider's
balance,
and that additionally had a flexible power on-off (and possibly braking)
control
stalk, seemed to have gained popularity.
Ralph Hertle
Mark
Certainly at the lower income levels this is true. But not at higher incomes
where people can afford to drive. These people are choice riders.
>>
>> Even so, the data I've seen isn't of much use but it does point us in the
>> right direction. A better comparison would be actual commute times for
>> transit and POV users broken down by income level and possibly urban
>> area. I haven't been able to find such data.
>
> I suggest you don't find the data you are looking for because you are
> looking for support of an untenable theory. The giveaway was your
> thinking that income should be a factor and your desire to classify by
> degree of urbanization. Sign up for an account at at the 2001 NHTS:
> http://nhts.ornl.gov/2001/
> Everything you want is there.
I took a look. Someone should explain to their webmaster that appending .xls
to an HTML file will not turn it into a spreadsheet. Quite clunky overall.
Nevertheless, I was able to get some data out. It was pretty much what I
expected.
Across all income levels, commute by car averaged about 18.5 min with not
much variation.
For commute by city bus, commute times trended lower as income increased.
Again this was an expected result. At the lower income levels, bus
ridership includes quite a few riders who have no choice, they are captive
riders without access to a car. However, at higher income levels (over 50K
per year) the average commute time wasn't much lower. It reached a low of
33.68min in 75K-80K range.
The data definitely showed, to me at least, that the benefits of riding a
city bus make a longer commute more palatable.
Mark
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:430E71E6...@verizon.net...
>
>
> In a free enterprise market, and not just an authoritarian market, a
> multiplicity
> of inventions for transportation has been and will be the reality.
Bullshit. There's just NO free enterprise interested in stepping up and
building a new road system.
george conklin
The only place I have ever seen one is on TV. Not much of a success now
is it?
Robert Cote
"Baxter" <lbax02.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
> "Ralph Hertle" <ralph....@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:430E71E6...@verizon.net...
> >
> >
> > In a free enterprise market, and not just an authoritarian market, a
> > multiplicity
> > of inventions for transportation has been and will be the reality.
>
> Bullshit. There's just NO free enterprise interested in stepping up and
> building a new road system.
Chicago Skyway. You should now apologize to the group for being both
wrong and rude.
Robert Cote
Mark <ma...@example.com> wrote:
You're welcome? :-/
> Someone should explain to their webmaster that appending .xls
> to an HTML file will not turn it into a spreadsheet. Quite clunky overall.
Hey, it's a .gov site. Do you really want all the government we pay
for?
>
> Nevertheless, I was able to get some data out. It was pretty much what I
> expected.
>
> Across all income levels, commute by car averaged about 18.5 min with not
> much variation.
So the general figures Jack, Sancho and Robert present are correct.
>
> For commute by city bus, commute times trended lower as income increased.
> Again this was an expected result.
Discretionary ridership which defines every single rider that needs to
be attracted to grow transit mode share.
> At the lower income levels, bus
> ridership includes quite a few riders who have no choice, they are captive
> riders without access to a car.
How did you come to this conclusion? Could you post the job# for the
matrix you ran that shows this? Regardless this is not an independent
variable. Not having access to a car -makes- you poor(er).
> However, at higher income levels (over 50K
> per year) the average commute time wasn't much lower. It reached a low of
> 33.68min in 75K-80K range.
Again not independent but still interesting. People with high incomes
tolerate longer commutes to have both high incomes and better living
conditions presumably. That says transit needs to go after these kinds
of people and therein lies the problem. Why subsidize the rich when
public transit is -supposedly- a form of social safety net and economic
leveler? BTW, that $80k figure is what LAs Metrolink reports for their
massively subsidized commuter rail.
>
> The data definitely showed, to me at least, that the benefits of riding a
> city bus make a longer commute more palatable.
Maybe individuals benefit but the total societal costs are so much
higher any personal advantage is wiped out by general qol degradation.
gruhn
> > building a new road system.
Think about "context".
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Robert Cote" <ts...@adlph.net> wrote in message
news:tsch-CD0317.0...@news.isp.giganews.com...
1. One road does not make a system
2. That road was opened over 40 years ago - do demonstrate such a project
today.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Robert Cote" <ts...@adlph.net> wrote in message
news:tsch-CD0317.0...@news.isp.giganews.com...
BTW:
--------
The Chicago Skyway Bridge is a 7.8-mile toll road built in 1958 to connect
the Dan Ryan Expressway to the Indiana Tollway. For almost 50 years, it has
been operated and maintained by the City of Chicago Department of Streets
and Sanitation and the Skyway is the only toll highway in Illinois that is
not operated by the Illinois Toll Highway Authority
http://www.chicagoskyway.org/
-------
Do explain how the City of Chicago Department of Streets and Sanitation is
Private Enterprise.
You're the one who should apologize.
Robert Cote
"Baxter" <lbax02.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
> "Robert Cote" <ts...@adlph.net> wrote in message
> news:tsch-CD0317.0...@news.isp.giganews.com...
> > In article <11gtaq4...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Baxter" <lbax02.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Bullshit. There's just NO free enterprise interested in stepping up and
> > > building a new road system.
> >
> > Chicago Skyway. You should now apologize to the group for being both
> > wrong and rude.
>
> BTW:
> --------
> The Chicago Skyway Bridge is a 7.8-mile toll road built in 1958 to connect
> the Dan Ryan Expressway to the Indiana Tollway. For almost 50 years, it has
> been operated and maintained by the City of Chicago Department of Streets
> and Sanitation and the Skyway is the only toll highway in Illinois that is
> not operated by the Illinois Toll Highway Authority
> http://www.chicagoskyway.org/
> -------
>
> Do explain how the City of Chicago Department of Streets and Sanitation is
> Private Enterprise.
That would be the part you omitted:
In a transaction that gave the City of Chicago a $1.83 billion dollar
cash infusion, the Skyway Concession Company, LLC* (SCC) will assume
operations on the Skyway on a 99-year operating lease. SCC will be
responsible for all operating and maintenance costs of the Skyway but
has the right to all toll and concession revenue. This agreement between
SCC and the City of Chicago is the first privatization of an existing
toll road anywhere in the United States.
>
> You're the one who should apologize.
You are right, I apologize for implying you had even a shred of
civility.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Robert Cote" <ts...@adlph.net> wrote in message
news:tsch-0EF0FD.1...@news.isp.giganews.com...
They're operating - not building. Were you hoping people would miss that
little detail?
> > You're the one who should apologize.
>
> You are right, I apologize for implying you had even a shred of
> civility.
Translation: Cote recognizes (but doesn't admit) that he screwed up.