How to REALLY cut US taxes
Cliff
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/30/lkl.01.html
[
MOORE: You were asking me a serious question. I'm sorry. Actually, you know what
I would do is I would get -- I would try to lower Americans' taxes to the rate
that the French pay. The French pay less taxes than we do, less.
KING: Socialist country?
MOORE: That's right, most of Europe pays less than we do. That's not the way
we're told in this country. We're told, oh, they pay all these horrible taxes;
40 percent of their income goes to income taxes. Actually, the French federal
income tax is around 10 percent. That 10 percent covers everything, the road,
the cops, the military.
What they do is they have these other taxes. Here's your tax for your health
care. Here's your tax for education. Here's your tax -- it's listed on your
payroll stub, where it pays for these things.
KING: What's the total?
MOORE: Hear this out. In France, you have free health care, free college, and
free or near free day care. The average America, if they don't have their health
care covered, it's 12,000 dollars a year out of their pocket. That's a tax. If
they're paying day care, 200 bucks a week, a month, whatever. That's a few
thousands a year. College loans, people are paying their college loans at 40
years old, thousands of dollars in college that you don't pay in France.
If you added up tonight what every American, what you're paying right now out of
your pocket for your college education, for day care, for health care, add that
on to the taxes you pay, you're paying a lot more than what you're paying in
France.
We don't call it a tax in this country. We have other words for it. That's what
we're doing. We're being taxed to death. The French, for all that they riot and
get out in the street and protest and whatever, you never see them out in the
street saying, we pay too many taxes. They never complain about that because
they get something for it. They get to go to a doctor when they're sick. Their
kids get to go to school and college, not have to worry about it. They have help
with their kids if they have kids and have to work.
That's all taken care of. They don't complain about their taxes. We complain
about our taxes because we can't get a pothole fixed.
]
Hagar
"Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:rf0v14p7e4r0658nb...@4ax.com...
> Michael Moore: Americans Pay More Taxes Than French, Most of Europe
> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/30/lkl.01.html
Rumor has it that Michael Moore is a reaaaalllllly reliable source ...
Dan
Well, at least more reliable than any Republican source or the Right
Wing Main Stream Media.
Dan
Ed Huntress
"Hagar" <ha...@sahm.name> wrote in message
news:-sydncUVL59YGILV...@giganews.com...
Checking out what he says about this subject is a piece of cake. Look up the
OECD reports comparing taxes among nations, and then look elsewhere for what
the average Frenchman and American pay for those things he's talking
about -- education, healthcare, etc. I think those latter figures are
available.
Oh, and notice that Moore says nothing about the French value-added tax
(VAT). It's a killer.
I haven't looked at these specific numbers but I think that Moore is wrong
by quite a bit, on the averages. Of course, if you're talking about an
individual who's paying for his own healthcare insurance and who has a kid
in a private college (both situations I faced last year), and you're paying
close to $50,000 off the top before you eat or buy clothes, we can
understand if you want to commit suicide. There were times it looked like an
attractive way out. d8-)
But the French pay more overall, I think.
--
Ed Huntress
Tom Gardner
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:481f9351$0$25053$607e...@cv.net...
Even the French are probably more responsibly spending that US politicians.
Nicholas
Stop fighting wars that can't be won.
Hawke
> > Rumor has it that Michael Moore is a reaaaalllllly reliable source ...
>
> Checking out what he says about this subject is a piece of cake. Look up
the
> OECD reports comparing taxes among nations, and then look elsewhere for
what
> the average Frenchman and American pay for those things he's talking
> about -- education, healthcare, etc. I think those latter figures are
> available.
>
> Oh, and notice that Moore says nothing about the French value-added tax
> (VAT). It's a killer.
>
> I haven't looked at these specific numbers but I think that Moore is wrong
> by quite a bit, on the averages. Of course, if you're talking about an
> individual who's paying for his own healthcare insurance and who has a kid
> in a private college (both situations I faced last year), and you're
paying
> close to $50,000 off the top before you eat or buy clothes, we can
> understand if you want to commit suicide. There were times it looked like
an
> attractive way out. d8-)
>
> But the French pay more overall, I think.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
If you really were to add it all up I think it's fair to say that the French
do pay higher taxes than we do in the US. But there is a big difference.
They get so much more in return for the money they pay in taxes it isn't
even funny. We're getting a worse deal than they do by far. We pay the
obvious property, state, and federal income taxes but then we pay all kinds
of hidden taxes and fees on top of them. Add up all the taxes Americans pay
and it comes to a very big bite. The problem is how little we get for all
the taxes we kick in.
Moore is right in that the French get all kinds of things we must pay
ourselves like the free education, health care, day care, etc. So they pay a
lot but they get a lot in return. Because of that they are happier than we
are. None of them go bankrupt because of health care problems and when it
comes to quality of life, length of life, and general happiness they beat us
in a big way. Oh, one other thing. Most of France takes the entire month of
August off from work. So they also work many fewer days than we do. No
wonder I never meet any Frenchmen who come to America looking for a better
life. They already have it in France.
Hawke
Hawke
"Tom Gardner" <tom(spamless)@ohiobrush.com> wrote in message
news:40PTj.1776$nW2....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
Well of course, we've had republicans in charge. They're irresponsible pigs,
which they just showed everyone over the last decade.
Hawke
Ed Huntress
"The One True Roger" <love...@gawab.com> wrote in message
news:2pvv14dgbh3fn9bj7...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 May 2008 19:05:21 -0400, I found that "Ed Huntress"
> <hunt...@optonline.net> Scribbled the following on the bathroom
> wall:
>
> Health insurance for a family of 4...
> $950 a month in the USA... about $11,400 a year, add in the
> deductibles of anywhere from $500 to $3000 a year, and the copays,
> that's another $1500 to $5000, bringing insurance feels to a total of
> about $16,000
Yeah, but few people actually pay that. The part that comes out of
employers' pockets, on the average, and that otherwise would be paid to us
(so we could individually pay the full boat for health insurance) has to be
considered in terms of our relative net pay, on the average. And ours is
higher than that of the French.
>
> France, about $150 to $200 a month out of taxes, a max of $2400 a
> year, no co-pays or deductible.
But lower per-capita income:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ICPINT/Resources/ICP_final-results.pdf
>
> Public transportation in France, free, except for 2.5% tax (average
> about 15 to 20 a month, $300 max
But few people use it, or would use it if it were free, in the US.
> Income Tax, 10% a month (average USA wage of $20k a year, that's $2000
> a year.
>
> Edcation tax averages about 2K a year
>
> So at a guesstimate, the French are paying about 4 to 8k a year in
> taxes. for an average paying job
You've left out VAT. Annual average consumption per person in France is
$24,600. The nominal VAT is 19.6% (33% for luxury goods; 5.5% for food). So
that's close to another $5k per year for the French, on top of income tax
and other taxes.
>
> USA, average income tax for average worker, about $4k a year
>
> Edcation ($9000 for a tech degree, $50k or more for a Uni)
But that's only paid for a small fraction of one's years.
>
> Telephone tax about $7 a month (check your phone bill)
> Sales tax (varies)
>
> The average american is paying about 8K in taxes, plus the added
> expense of paying for public transportation ,school loans and
> insurance with deductibles/co-pays...
>
> Yea, France has it a lot better than we do BY FAR!
Nope. They're paying somewhat more. There are OECD figures that summarize
the average taxes by country. I'm not going to look for them now, but the US
has had one of the lowest overall tax rates -- lowest or second-lowest -- of
the 25 or 30 OECD countries for many years.
There's no free lunch. We all pay for it one way or the other. When you sort
it all out, there aren't big differences in overall taxes and costs among
the major economic powers.
--
Ed Huntress
*
Hawke <desmi...@dslextreme.com> wrote in article
<KtSTj.48249$OV4....@fe127.usenetserver.com>...
>
>
> > > Rumor has it that Michael Moore is a reaaaalllllly reliable source
..
> >
How can it be "free" if it is paid for with tax money?
Another liberal interpretation????
nick hull
"Hawke" <desmi...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> If you really were to add it all up I think it's fair to say that the French
> do pay higher taxes than we do in the US. But there is a big difference.
> They get so much more in return for the money they pay in taxes it isn't
> even funny. We're getting a worse deal than they do by far. We pay the
> obvious property, state, and federal income taxes but then we pay all kinds
> of hidden taxes and fees on top of them. Add up all the taxes Americans pay
> and it comes to a very big bite. The problem is how little we get for all
> the taxes we kick in.
Actually I wish I got a lot less from the govt. Less rules &
regulation, less complicated tax forms, less cops trying for a monthly
quota........
Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>
>Stop fighting wars that can't be won.
Which ones are those?
The War on Poverty?
The War on Drugs?
The War on Ignorance?
Obviously we are losing on all fronts
Gunner
Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an
unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the
proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Ed Huntress
"nick hull" <nh...@isp.com> wrote in message
news:nhull-0C137E....@dialupusa.usenetserver.com...
That sounds like a man who just got a traffic ticket. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Hagar
"Hawke" <desmi...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:KvSTj.48250$OV4....@fe127.usenetserver.com...
Then just wait until Obama or Hillary become president.
You haven't seen "taxes" yet.
The old Bushite days will seem like paradise lost.
Zayonc
>
> You've left out VAT. Annual average consumption per person in France is
> $24,600. The nominal VAT is 19.6% (33% for luxury goods; 5.5% for food). So
> that's close to another $5k per year for the French, on top of income tax
> and other taxes.
Then do not forget state/sales taxes - here in California it's not
funny.
And then local taxes.
A.
Ed Huntress
<snip>
>>
>> Well of course, we've had republicans in charge. They're irresponsible
>> pigs,
>> which they just showed everyone over the last decade.
>>
>> Hawke
>
> Then just wait until Obama or Hillary become president.
> You haven't seen "taxes" yet.
> The old Bushite days will seem like paradise lost.
Yup, it will be like Dad took the credit card away and made you pay the
bill. It won't be fun, but it will build character. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
"Zayonc" <Zay...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:UO2Uj.15934$2g1....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
They don't even come close to the VATs in Europe and parts of Asia. Several
of those are over 20%. And there are other small taxes that one doesn't hear
much about.
That's why the OECD has had the US at or near the bottom on overall taxation
for many years.
--
Ed Huntress
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> On Mon, 05 May 2008 23:58:56 -0500, Nicholas <Nicho...@nowhere.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Stop fighting wars that can't be won.
>
> Which ones are those?
>
> The War on Poverty?
> The War on Drugs?
> The War on Ignorance?
>
> Obviously we are losing on all fronts
>
> Gunner
The war on unemployment? Wonder what the French unemployment rate is?
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Do the workers who pay the taxes have priority at the doctors
office?
What happens when too many of the worker bees get sick and can't pay
for health care for everyone who doesn't work?
What happens when they have another real war and they have to call on
the Yanks and the Brits? Do the Yanks and the Brits get free health
care? free child care? sixteen weeks of paid vacation?
strabo
> On Mon, 5 May 2008 19:05:21 -0400, I found that "Ed Huntress"
> <hunt...@optonline.net> Scribbled the following on the bathroom
> wall:
>
>
> Health insurance for a family of 4...
> $950 a month in the USA... about $11,400 a year, add in the
> deductibles of anywhere from $500 to $3000 a year, and the copays,
> that's another $1500 to $5000, bringing insurance feels to a total of
> about $16,000
>
> year, no co-pays or deductible.
>
> about 15 to 20 a month, $300 max
> a year.
>
> Edcation tax averages about 2K a year
>
> So at a guesstimate, the French are paying about 4 to 8k a year in
> taxes. for an average paying job
>
>
> Edcation ($9000 for a tech degree, $50k or more for a Uni)
>
> Sales tax (varies)
>
> The average american is paying about 8K in taxes, plus the added
> expense of paying for public transportation ,school loans and
> insurance with deductibles/co-pays...
>
> Yea, France has it a lot better than we do BY FAR!
>
I would say move there but they wouldn't have you.
But if you were a bona fide native, try starting a business in France.
France is a socialist state. It is difficult to get permission to
own or run a business in France. Every business must be incorporated and
each corporation includes a government representative who oversees
tax collection, union conditions, policy enforcement and business
decisions. Why? Because business is an extension of the state. That's
where most of the wealth is confiscated for your "free" services.
Additionally the government takes money for the same item at each
level of manufacture, distribution and sales.
Nothing is "free".
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Kirk Gordon
If you're like me, you might have spent most of your life carrying
only health care insurance that covered emergencies, rathr than the full
package with all the bells and whistles. That's a lot cheaper than
being compelled to buy what everybody else buys, or whatever the
government decides to provide for the greatest common vote-getting.
Since I'm not a parent, I've spent my whole working life paying
taxes that put other people's kids through grade school and high school,
and subsidized their tuition at state colleges.
Moore (and every other socialist on Earth) seems to think all that's
just fine, and it's perfectly OK to let some folks be sacrifical animals
that others can eat.
I don't agree.
KG
Ed Huntress
"Kirk Gordon" <k...@gordon-eng2.com> wrote in message
news:4820FE0F...@gordon-eng2.com...
I think it's closer to "everyone on Earth." We've had puclicly funded
education in every state in the US since 1870, and the original national
plan for funding was part of the Land Ordinance of 1785.
So it's hardly a "socialist" idea. It was an Enlightenment idea, promoted by
Adam Smith in _The Wealth of Nations_, the idea being that a country's
economy depends upon having a well-educated populace. We went so far with it
that we made it compulsory -- for economic benefits, again, and not because
of some socialist idea. It was much later that it became further propped by
the idea of equal opportunity.
The bottom line is, it's universally based on a nation's economic need. And
if you don't have kids, well, that's your tough luck. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
>
> KG
>
>
over a barrel
Darwin's law....Kirk Gordon childless ...
Pure coincidence ?
I think not.
--
over a barrel
More like having a "bad dad"--he's living rent free in your converted
basement and your having to take away his credit card cause your sick and
tired of paying the fucking tab he recklessly runs continually upwards due
to his pastime of gambling over at the dindin casino.
--
over a barrel
"*" <nos...@this.addy.com> wrote in message
news:01c8af5f$46aa9f00$ef90c3d8@race...
Its coming outa the US workers pocketbook wise up LET your employer drop the
hmo prescription drug plan and buy from Canada instead also raise your
goddamned prices if you are exporting ANYTHING to the EU and also either
boycott or ( if not enough participation ) then TAX the piss out of european
imports apparently nobody else noticed the erosion of the dollar lately
figures well open your fucking eyes.
What the hell is a VAT tax well anyway you look at it it's
protectionism...dont get me wrong free trade is an entirely different
concept as compared to free trade dont be duped by cheap Chinese pipe
fittings 1/2 of them wont fucking seal and I'd be happy to pay a little
extra but sadly if they were even available but we've been fucking
lowballed--good luck finding quality pipe fittings at this late
stage....another trip to the hardware store fucking waste of my time and
gas.
--
over a barrel
"over a barrel" <precision...@COLDmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZaSdnSHsLbywqrzV...@scnresearch.com...
Correction had meant "Fair trade"
over a barrel
Piss off asshole shut the fuck up and follow the goddamned rules--fwiw some
drunken asshole rearended me at some 70 mph + about ten years ago...cost a
nice cushey union job and it left me mildly disabed for life.
--
Hawke
You must be a kid or else you don't know history. Because we've already had
Democrats in charge in the past. You don't seem to know that Bush has
outdone everybody that came before him in spending our money and going into
debt worse than ever. That was with the collusion of a republican controlled
congress. So you see, we've had Democrats and we've had Bush. Bush outspent
everyone before him. The next president will not be as much of a spendthrift
as Bush has been and that's a fact.
Hawke
Hawke
The main difference is in what the people receive for what they put in.
Americans get damn little from the government by and large. The French get a
lot. So do most Europeans. Americans pay a lower rate than the European
countries but have to foot the bill for many things government pays for in
Europe. It's like taxes. What you make means nothing. It's what you keep
that matters. We pay less than them but when we get done paying for
everything out of pocket we have less left and we got less service for what
we paid in. In simple terms we're getting a lousy deal and they are getting
a pretty good one. That's the difference between the Europeans and
Americans. Their governments care about their people and ours doesn't. Our
government cares about business and investors. That makes a big difference
between our lives and theirs. By most standards they are better off then we
are and they are getting better while American's lives are declining.
Hawke
Hawke
"strabo" <str...@flashlight.net> wrote in message
news:1210118522_1642@isp.n...
Just like here, right?
Hawke
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> >
> > Public transportation in France, free, except for 2.5% tax (average
> > about 15 to 20 a month, $300 max
> But few people use it, or would use it if it were free, in the US.
Many millions of people regularly use public transportation. Especially in
traditional northeastern cities. In the sprawl-lands, where large amounts
of infrastructure are designed around half-acre lots and shopping malls,
people drive V-8 pickups and burn gas.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Since I'm not a parent, I've spent my whole working life paying
> taxes that put other people's kids through grade school and high school,
> and subsidized their tuition at state colleges.
Socialized Education! That's what they do in France, isn't it? We need
to eliminate socialized education, socialized police services, socialized
fire departments, socialized pubic works projects, and socialized
military forces!
Not.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> I think it's closer to "everyone on Earth." We've had puclicly funded
> education in every state in the US since 1870, and the original national
> plan for funding was part of the Land Ordinance of 1785.
> So it's hardly a "socialist" idea.
It is a socialist system of education. Education should only be available
to the highest bidders. The market will allocate education to those who
value it most.
Ed Huntress
<EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:fvs8iu$s5k$5...@reader2.panix.com...
> In misc.survivalism Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Public transportation in France, free, except for 2.5% tax (average
>> > about 15 to 20 a month, $300 max
>
>> But few people use it, or would use it if it were free, in the US.
>
> Many millions of people regularly use public transportation. Especially in
> traditional northeastern cities. In the sprawl-lands, where large amounts
> of infrastructure are designed around half-acre lots and shopping malls,
> people drive V-8 pickups and burn gas.
It was 49 billion passenger miles out of 3 trillion total passenger
transportation miles in the US in 2004. (APTA)
That's about 1-1/2% of transportation. Not enough to notice.
--
Ed Huntress
Cliff
>On Mon, 05 May 2008 19:03:12 -0500, Steve Mackay
><steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>D Murphy wrote:
>>> Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in
>>> news:rf0v14p7e4r0658nb...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> Michael Moore: Americans Pay More Taxes Than French, Most of Europe
>>>> http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/30/lkl.01.html
>>> Somehow I doubt it. College is a one time expense per kid. Taxes are
>>> forever.
>>>
>>> <http://www.forbes.com/global/2006/0522/032.html>
>>>
>>> HTH
>>>
>>
>>Who, whoda thunk... Michael Moore wasn't be entirely truthful or accurate?
>>
>>He should stick to making those romantic comedies like Fahrenheit911.
>
>
>He is a blabbering idiot with no intellectual depth, no journalistic
>integrity, no concern for the truth, and no ethical limits in regards
>to how far he’ll go in order to cultivate his popularity.
IOW He's right again.
>Daveb
--
Cliff
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> <EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> But few people use it, or would use it if it were free, in the US.
> >
> > Many millions of people regularly use public transportation. Especially in
> > traditional northeastern cities. In the sprawl-lands, where large amounts
> > of infrastructure are designed around half-acre lots and shopping malls,
> > people drive V-8 pickups and burn gas.
> It was 49 billion passenger miles out of 3 trillion total passenger
> transportation miles in the US in 2004. (APTA)
> That's about 1-1/2% of transportation. Not enough to notice.
First you talked about numbers of people. Now you talk about miles.
Please try to keep the your story straight. How many people use public
transportation? Many, many millions. Every day.
But they don't travel 60 miles to work, like those folks who live in tract
housing on former farms out in the middle of nowhere. Those people will
soon waste enough gas money that they could have bought a home in a place
where people like to do more than just buy a cheap(er) bedroom.
Ed Huntress
<EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:fvsefo$9b6$3...@reader2.panix.com...
> In misc.survivalism Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> <EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> But few people use it, or would use it if it were free, in the US.
>> >
>> > Many millions of people regularly use public transportation. Especially
>> > in
>> > traditional northeastern cities. In the sprawl-lands, where large
>> > amounts
>> > of infrastructure are designed around half-acre lots and shopping
>> > malls,
>> > people drive V-8 pickups and burn gas.
>
>> It was 49 billion passenger miles out of 3 trillion total passenger
>> transportation miles in the US in 2004. (APTA)
>
>> That's about 1-1/2% of transportation. Not enough to notice.
>
> First you talked about numbers of people. Now you talk about miles.
>
> Please try to keep the your story straight. How many people use public
> transportation? Many, many millions. Every day.
Let's see your references for "many, many millions." You can search APTA and
the FTA. That's where they are located. Hint: it isn't "many, many millions"
who use it "regularly."
Before you jump to conclusions, when I was commuting into NYC I was taking
roughly 1,600 public transit "trips" per year, the way that APTA and FTA
measure them. That's pretty typical for a NYC area commuter: rail, light
rail, and subway each way each day, plus extra trips at lunchtime and for
meetings, errands, etc. I am not 1,600 people. <g>
>
> But they don't travel 60 miles to work, like those folks who live in tract
> housing on former farms out in the middle of nowhere. Those people will
> soon waste enough gas money that they could have bought a home in a place
> where people like to do more than just buy a cheap(er) bedroom.
Which is it you want to talk about -- the fact that the French have their
transportation subsidized (we do, too), or that we live in the wrong places?
BTW, a two-bedroom apartment in a middling section of Manhatten, midtown
west, runs a little over $5,000/month as of April. What's that you were
saying about saving money?
Where I live, a 2,200 sq-ft house runs around $500,000. That's because we're
a 40-minute train commute from Penn Station New York.
The facts about public transit in the US are tied to many things. You can
say we'd be better off if we all lived within short commutes of major
cities. I've lived in such places all of my working life, and I disagree.
--
Ed Huntress
Gunner
If you belonged to a union, you were disabled long before the
accident.
Gunner
Hawke
The real point is that it's about oil. The entire world output for a day is
about 85 million barrels and it's going at full production. The US is using
about 21 million of those barrels a day. Most of that oil is being used as
gasoline in our personal vehicles. Want to add the real cost including third
party downstream to the way we do things here? We're spending at an
unsustainable pace, the resource we depend on is finite and is beginning to
fail. Things have to change. Individual fossil fuel burning vehicles
commuting to work with one passenger each and getting 15 mpg is taking us to
the cleaners. If we don't find a way to produce cheap, clean energy that is
available anywhere the only other alternative is to live like we used to in
cities where infrastructure and transportation can deliver for us in an
efficient way, not like the wasteful way we do now.
Hawke
Steve Mackay
Hey. if you like blabbering idiots that distort, and ignore facts. It's
your right to believe whatever you want. But don't try to pass it off to
the rest of us that don't posses your reading comprehension problems.
Darrell Stec
>> But few people use it, or would use it if it were free, in the US.
>
> Many millions of people regularly use public transportation. Especially in
> traditional northeastern cities. In the sprawl-lands, where large amounts
> of infrastructure are designed around half-acre lots and shopping malls,
> people drive V-8 pickups and burn gas.
>
Piggybacking here Ed is wrong about public transportation. In Washington
DC, in those areas where public transportation has vehicles coming
frequently and covers a wide area even senators take buses. My brother and
most of his co-workers even though highly paid attorneys used the bus. In
fact for three years, his car rarely left the driveway. The few exceptions
were for Christmas shopping and purchasing items too large to carry on
buses and the subway. Now, he lives outside the bus route where buses only
come a few times a day. However when he lived in Chevy Chase, Bethesda and
Silver Spring, buses were the main mode of transportation to work for he,
his wife and his neighbors.
When I lived in Orlando Florida as soon as the coverage and frequency of
buses increase so did the ridership.
It isn't attitude that keeps people from using public transportation. It is
whether missing the bus, train or subway will make you late for work or
appointments and how far you have to travel to get to a bus stop, and if
the bus will take you to where you want to go.
Unfortunately in the US, few cities have public transportation that cover
more than the downtown area (if they even have that) and most cities do not
have public transportation come frequently enough.
Orlando let their bus service slide downhill until they found out that it
greatly affected the tourist trade. It seems that tourists from some
countries (co-incidentally the big spenders) did not like driving their own
vehicles. Orlando (and surrounding areas which are now called Metropolitan
Orlando) didn't care when the poor or non drivers couldn't get anywhere.
But the second it affected the Central Florida pocketbook (particularly
Disney and Universal Studios) the city fathers (and mothers) paid
attention.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
Darrell Stec
You are not taking into account the lack of bus (and other forms of public
transportation) frequency, nor the areas of interest they cover. If you
can't get to work in time because only one bus comes by every two or three
hours or if the bus stop is two miles away and doesn't cover the part of
town where you work or shop then you can't use the bus. It doesn't even
have anything to do with won't.
And that is the problem with your statistics. They track a poorly build and
non commitment by authorities public transportation system.
Now track the useage among areas that have buses and subways come every 8 to
15 minutes and cover almost every street including outlying suburbs and you
will find a high ridership.
It is the attitude of the authorities rather than the ridership that keeps
people away from public transportation in the US. Well except in the gun
totin' areas of the country where rider think they have the god given right
to drive their pickup or suv into anyone on the highway iffin' they're
drunk. It's the same reason they don't want automatic braking even though
the technology is available.
> --
> Ed Huntress
Darrell Stec
> In misc.survivalism Kirk Gordon <k...@gordon-eng2.com> wrote:
>> Since I'm not a parent, I've spent my whole working life paying
>> taxes that put other people's kids through grade school and high school,
>> and subsidized their tuition at state colleges.
>
> Socialized Education! That's what they do in France, isn't it? We need
> to eliminate socialized education, socialized police services, socialized
> fire departments, socialized pubic works projects, and socialized
> military forces!
>
> Not.
>
Don't forget the socialized post office and socialized public highway
system.
Dan
He still benefits from the educated children of others, but he isn't
"man" enough to admit it...
Dan
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> On May 6, 8:07 am, Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 05 May 2008 23:58:56 -0500, Nicholas <Nicho...@nowhere.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Stop fighting wars that can't be won.
>
> > Which ones are those?
>
> > The War on Poverty?
> > The War on Drugs?
> > The War on Ignorance?
>
> > Obviously we are losing on all fronts
>
> > Gunner
>
> The war on unemployment? Wonder what the French unemployment rate is?
I guess no one wants to talk about the French unemployment rate. It's
even more embarassing than their birth rate. Talk about impotent...
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> "Tom Gardner" <tom(spamless)@ohiobrush.com> wrote in message
>
> news:40PTj.1776$nW2....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >news:481f9351$0$25053$607e...@cv.net...> > >> "Cliff" <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > > Ed Huntress
>
> > Even the French are probably more responsibly spending that US
>
> politicians.
>
> Well of course, we've had republicans in charge. They're irresponsible pigs,
> which they just showed everyone over the last decade.
>
> Hawke
"Irresponsible pigs" is a learned behavior from 50 years of democrat
domination of American politics... if that's what it takes to win.
over a barrel
"Gunner" <gun...@NOSPAM.lightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:nhl324h9meghvn0l9...@4ax.com...
Yeah whatever...my yearly income likely exceeded yours by a factor of 10 x
back then and they still do today.
<replonk>
--
mariposas rand mair fheal
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
what were the deficits in those 50 years?
arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
sacramento - political pigsty of the western world
or a babys arm holding an apple
mariposas rand mair fheal
Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> to how far hešll go in order to cultivate his popularity.
> >
> > IOW He's right again.
>
> Hey. if you like blabbering idiots that distort, and ignore facts. It's
> your right to believe whatever you want. But don't try to pass it off to
> the rest of us that don't posses your reading comprehension problems.
so what are the facts being ignored above
Kirk Gordon
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> In misc.survivalism Kirk Gordon <k...@gordon-eng2.com> wrote:
>
>> Since I'm not a parent, I've spent my whole working life paying
>>taxes that put other people's kids through grade school and high school,
>>and subsidized their tuition at state colleges.
>
>
> Socialized Education! That's what they do in France, isn't it? We need
> to eliminate socialized education, socialized police services, socialized
> fire departments, socialized pubic works projects, and socialized
> military forces!
Shit! I didn't realize this was cross-posted to all the kook of the
month clubs.
KG
over a barrel
"Darrell Stec" <darrel...@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
news:482219ac$0$20186$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
I drive a beat up 86 s10 blazer to work daily its appx 200 yds one
way--pretty sure last time I filled up was about a year and 1/2 ago.
--
Cliff
wrote:
>> IOW He's right again.
>
>Hey. if you like blabbering idiots that distort, and ignore facts. It's
>your right to believe whatever you want. But don't try to pass it off to
>the rest of us that don't posses your reading comprehension problems.
What "facts" have you found to be in error?
BTW, Found those "WMDs" yet? Paid off the repub & winger deficit?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>"Hawke" <desmi...@dslextreme.com> wrote in
>news:FYmUj.85199$oQ4....@fe113.usenetserver.com:
>
>> If we don't find a way to produce cheap, clean energy that is
>> available anywhere the only other alternative is to live like we used
>> to in cities where infrastructure and transportation can deliver for
>> us in an efficient way, not like the wasteful way we do now.
>
>We already have a cheap clean energy source at hand. Natural gas. It's
>fairly simple and strightforward to retrofit to existing vehicles and there
>is plenty of it.
Hence it's rapidly rising price.
>It is also a far cleaner energy source than oil with a
>carbon to hydrogen ration of 1 to 4.
And it would run out how fast?
And it's price would rise to what?
>Just need to build the infrastructure.
And new cars & trucks .....
--
Cliff
over a barrel
"D Murphy" <spam...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9A97C3189625...@130.133.1.4...
> > available anywhere the only other alternative is to live like we used
> > to in cities where infrastructure and transportation can deliver for
> > us in an efficient way, not like the wasteful way we do now.
>
> fairly simple and strightforward to retrofit to existing vehicles and
there
> carbon to hydrogen ration of 1 to 4.
>
>
http://www.green-trust.org/2000/oxcart.jpg
--
Gunner
<love...@gawab.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 May 2008 15:44:00 -0500, I found that Steve Mackay
><steve_...@hotmail.com> Scribbled the following on the bathroom
>wall:
>
>>Hey. if you like blabbering idiots that distort, and ignore facts. It's
>>your right to believe whatever you want. But don't try to pass it off to
>>the rest of us that don't posses your reading comprehension problems.
>
>Yea, isn't it a shame all those people believing George Bush.
>--
Ayup..and all those people believing Democrat party leadership too....
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe
Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John
Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors
last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam
Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that
biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be
back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine
delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile
program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the
United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter
signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among
others
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement
between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by
failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and
refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations
inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction,
including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive
progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a
joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18,
2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while
retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.
We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline
Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and
some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he
has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger,
Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all
weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up
to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course
to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability.
Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons,
but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October
2002
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has
chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But
the United States right now is on a very much different defensive
posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as
we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't
have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I
think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as
would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq
represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did
use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to
think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international
inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques
Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of
threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction,
ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond
today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be
emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no
evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11,
2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein
will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical
warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he
succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security
landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects
American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence
back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from
gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up
and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense
William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass
destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them
against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our
allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades,
Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every
available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons.
He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and
is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to
build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to
achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national
security. It should be clear that our national security requires
Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is
united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its
weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf
and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his
access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of
mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we
should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to
deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction."
-- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27,
2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger,
that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass
destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy,
Sept 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the
authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F.
Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end
of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after
Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has
continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years
to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the
interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and
the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous
dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his
offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating
America?s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp
for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the
United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding
that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of
Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not
new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." --
John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19,
2002
"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological
weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for
the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N.
inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear
facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various
reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons
capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear
weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical
weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological
weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used
chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish
population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the
past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can
be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining
weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware
that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue
of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in
the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a
threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the
weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible
intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq
still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and
clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen
bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue
manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons
of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and
mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and
ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use
industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute
large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector
Scott Ritter in 1998
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he
can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources --
something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also
should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has
made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John
Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam?s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a
very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons
before, both against Iraq?s enemies and against his own people. He is
working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial
vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and
U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration?s policy
towards Iraq, I don?t think there can be any question about Saddam?s
conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past
11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he
disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any
nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he
snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors;
and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the
just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security
Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the
facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
Gunner
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > IOW He's right again.
>>
>> Hey. if you like blabbering idiots that distort, and ignore facts. It's
>> your right to believe whatever you want. But don't try to pass it off to
>> the rest of us that don't posses your reading comprehension problems.
>
>so what are the facts being ignored above
Gunner
<precision...@COLDmail.com> wrote:
So do most bank robbers
Gunner
mariposas rand mair fheal
Gunner <gun...@NOSPAM.lightspeed.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 07 May 2008 18:39:31 -0700, mariposas rand mair fheal
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> > IOW He's right again.
> >>
> >> Hey. if you like blabbering idiots that distort, and ignore facts. It's
> >> your right to believe whatever you want. But don't try to pass it off to
> >> the rest of us that don't posses your reading comprehension problems.
> >
> >so what are the facts being ignored above
> "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
nonresponsive
and a massive snip because your blither has nothing to do with -the facts-
arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
Ed Huntress
"Darrell Stec" <darrel...@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
news:482219ac$0$20186$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
>>> But few people use it, or would use it if it were free, in the US.
>>
>> Many millions of people regularly use public transportation. Especially
>> in
>> traditional northeastern cities. In the sprawl-lands, where large amounts
>> of infrastructure are designed around half-acre lots and shopping malls,
>> people drive V-8 pickups and burn gas.
>>
>
> Piggybacking here Ed is wrong about public transportation.
No, I'm not. I don't pull numbers out of the air, Darrell. I'd like to see a
source that backs up the claim that "many, many millions of people" use
public transit "regularly" in the US.
Here's a hint: The number of people who use public transportation to get to
work is roughly 6 million in the US (4.7% of workers, US Census 2000).
Commuting is the vast majority of public transit use of all types in this
country. But many of those are park-and-ride types, who drive to some
terminal and then take a bus or light rail, so they're using both public and
private transportation. As I pointed out earlier, the passenger miles
accounted for by all public transit in the US is roughly 1.5% of the
passenger miles travelled. The fuel-consumption effect is trivial.
I realize that fuel consumption is not the issue. And many people would like
to have access to public transportation, but don't. The problem is, the easy
public transportation, that which can be built efficiently and which would
provide an efficient ride, is mostly tapped out. From here on, it gets very
clumsy. I'm in one of the best places in the US to commute by public transit
to New York, and it takes three "rides" for me to get to a midtown office.
And I walk to the train from my house. For people who live in suburbs, even
here in densely populated NJ, the routes for getting anywhere except NYC by
bus and/or rail can be a nightmare.
So the possibilities for MORE public transit are limited in this country.
It's a matter of possible routes and their efficiency, not a matter of
desire.
EskWIRED said, "How many people use public transportation? Many, many
millions. Every day." That's simply not the case, unless you consider 6 to
be "many, many." They're 4.7% of the working population. A drop in the
bucket.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>
>> <EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
>> news:fvs8iu$s5k$5...@reader2.panix.com...
>>> In misc.survivalism Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > Public transportation in France, free, except for 2.5% tax (average
>>>> > about 15 to 20 a month, $300 max
>>>
>>>> But few people use it, or would use it if it were free, in the US.
>>>
>>> Many millions of people regularly use public transportation. Especially
>>> in
>>> traditional northeastern cities. In the sprawl-lands, where large
>>> amounts of infrastructure are designed around half-acre lots and
>>> shopping
>>> malls, people drive V-8 pickups and burn gas.
>>
>> It was 49 billion passenger miles out of 3 trillion total passenger
>> transportation miles in the US in 2004. (APTA)
>>
>> That's about 1-1/2% of transportation. Not enough to notice.
>>
>
> You are not taking into account the lack of bus (and other forms of public
> transportation) frequency, nor the areas of interest they cover. If you
> can't get to work in time because only one bus comes by every two or three
> hours or if the bus stop is two miles away and doesn't cover the part of
> town where you work or shop then you can't use the bus. It doesn't even
> have anything to do with won't.
Right. Now what you need to do is to figure out a network of transit that
would actually work in most US environments.
The issue is what EskWIRED suggested: that the distribution of people in the
US is all wrong for mass transit. The assignment, should you choose to take
it, is to get most people to move. d8-)
>
> And that is the problem with your statistics. They track a poorly build
> and
> non commitment by authorities public transportation system.
>
> Now track the useage among areas that have buses and subways come every 8
> to
> 15 minutes and cover almost every street including outlying suburbs and
> you
> will find a high ridership.
Do you know of such a system in the US?
>
> It is the attitude of the authorities rather than the ridership that keeps
> people away from public transportation in the US. Well except in the gun
> totin' areas of the country where rider think they have the god given
> right
> to drive their pickup or suv into anyone on the highway iffin' they're
> drunk. It's the same reason they don't want automatic braking even though
> the technology is available.
Counting the "gun totin' areas," 87.9% of Americans drive to work. The
percentage actually increased between 1990 and 2000. That sounds like a lot
more than just gun totin' areas.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/c2kbr-33.pdf
Good luck in changing it, Darrell. We've been hearing this song for at least
50 years now. The only thing that will change it, IMO, is a *lot* more
costly fuel.
--
Ed Huntress
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Right. Now what you need to do is to figure out a network of transit that
> would actually work in most US environments.
> The issue is what EskWIRED suggested: that the distribution of people in the
> US is all wrong for mass transit. The assignment, should you choose to take
> it, is to get most people to move. d8-)
Yep. We have built most environments to accomodate cars. Such a luxury
will become increasingly expensive, and executive McMansions an hour away
from the suburban office park will become increasingly disfavored.
> Good luck in changing it, Darrell. We've been hearing this song for at least
> 50 years now. The only thing that will change it, IMO, is a *lot* more
> costly fuel.
Yep.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> No, I'm not. I don't pull numbers out of the air, Darrell. I'd like to see a
> source that backs up the claim that "many, many millions of people" use
> public transit "regularly" in the US.
Google on public transportation usage stistics. The second hit says that
people took more than 9.7 billion trips on US public transportation in
2005. You can divide it by 365 yourself. And don't forget to factor in
multiple trips per day by the same person, to translate from trips to
people.
> So the possibilities for MORE public transit are limited in this country.
> It's a matter of possible routes and their efficiency, not a matter of
> desire.
Agreed.
> EskWIRED said, "How many people use public transportation? Many, many
> millions. Every day." That's simply not the case, unless you consider 6 to
> be "many, many." They're 4.7% of the working population. A drop in the
> bucket.
Maybe I'm wrong. I thought that between NYC, Chicago, SanFran, Boston, DC
and Philly alone, the total was Many Millions. How can all of those
cities add up to only 6 million?
Is it because your statistic refers only to a subset of riders?
Darrell Stec
That would be easy. Just do what Orlando, Florida or Washington D.C. does.
Just increase the coverage and put more buses per hour out there. You will
take a hit for a couple of years like they did. Then once people realize
they CAN get to work or to the movies on time and get back home in a timely
manner, they will use the bus, tram, subway, train, whatever.
> The issue is what EskWIRED suggested: that the distribution of people in
> the US is all wrong for mass transit. The assignment, should you choose to
> take it, is to get most people to move. d8-)
>
How does it differ from the routes or Orlando or Washington D.C.? Answer --
it doesn't.
>>
>> And that is the problem with your statistics. They track a poorly build
>> and
>> non commitment by authorities public transportation system.
>>
>> Now track the useage among areas that have buses and subways come every 8
>> to
>> 15 minutes and cover almost every street including outlying suburbs and
>> you
>> will find a high ridership.
>
> Do you know of such a system in the US?
>
>>
>> It is the attitude of the authorities rather than the ridership that
>> keeps
>> people away from public transportation in the US. Well except in the gun
>> totin' areas of the country where rider think they have the god given
>> right
>> to drive their pickup or suv into anyone on the highway iffin' they're
>> drunk. It's the same reason they don't want automatic braking even
>> though the technology is available.
>
> Counting the "gun totin' areas," 87.9% of Americans drive to work. The
> percentage actually increased between 1990 and 2000. That sounds like a
> lot more than just gun totin' areas.
>
> http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/c2kbr-33.pdf
>
You misunderstood what I wrote. I am not talking about what the situation
is now. Bus service is deplorable, or should I say public transportation
in general is deplorable. What I mean what that if buses increased so that
an entire area was covered and buses ran from 4:30 AM to 2:00 AM 7 days a
week with a minimum service to all areas at least one bus every half hour,
ridership would increase dramatic. They would increase everywhere except
in those gun totin' areas, the same areas that the natives would insist on
driving drunk.
And I census figures are a crock. They do not cover all areas, and people
lie to the census takers. More so now days, because people do not want
their information in a computer.
> Good luck in changing it, Darrell. We've been hearing this song for at
> least 50 years now. The only thing that will change it, IMO, is a *lot*
> more costly fuel.
>
Of course you heard those songs for 50 years. For 50 years public
transportation has been getting worse and worse. Rates increased higher
and higher. Buses started coming every half hour, then every hour, then
every two hours, then every three hours. The they reduced the time from
4:00 AM to 1:00 AM and replaced it with 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM and then
replaced that with 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Then they cut coverage down from
all city streets plus most suburban streets to most city streets plus the
main suburban streets and finally down to the main city streets and almost
no suburban streets. With each decrease in service, ridership fell because
they could no longer depend upon public transportation to get them where
they wanted to go. And naturally over this 50 year decline the songs were
sung just like songs of slavery were sung when it was a major problem.
Slavery no longer is, so the songs stopped. Increase public transportation
service and those songs will stop too.
Darrell Stec
>
> "Darrell Stec" <darrel...@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
> news:482219ac$0$20186$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>> EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>>
>>>> But few people use it, or would use it if it were free, in the US.
>>>
>>> Many millions of people regularly use public transportation. Especially
>>> in
>>> traditional northeastern cities. In the sprawl-lands, where large
>>> amounts of infrastructure are designed around half-acre lots and
>>> shopping malls, people drive V-8 pickups and burn gas.
>>>
>>
>> Piggybacking here Ed is wrong about public transportation.
>
> No, I'm not. I don't pull numbers out of the air, Darrell.
Actually you do. You use the US Census. Far too unreliable a source of
information. First there are whole areas that census workers do not gather
information from. Secondly people lie on those censuses. In my 59 years,
I have never answered a census questionaire and don't know of anyone
personally who has.
> I'd like to see
> a source that backs up the claim that "many, many millions of people" use
> public transit "regularly" in the US.
>
> Here's a hint: The number of people who use public transportation to get
> to work is roughly 6 million in the US (4.7% of workers, US Census 2000).
What do the bus, train and subway people say? I'll wager that NYC and
Washington DC alone have that many passengers. But we aren't likely to see
the real statistics from public transportation companies in most cities.
> Commuting is the vast majority of public transit use of all types in this
> country. But many of those are park-and-ride types, who drive to some
> terminal and then take a bus or light rail, so they're using both public
> and private transportation.
But my proposal is to increase the coverage area. Get rid of the park and
ride. Increase service and that will increase ridership.
> As I pointed out earlier, the passenger miles
> accounted for by all public transit in the US is roughly 1.5% of the
> passenger miles travelled. The fuel-consumption effect is trivial.
>
> I realize that fuel consumption is not the issue. And many people would
> like to have access to public transportation, but don't. The problem is,
> the easy public transportation, that which can be built efficiently and
> which would provide an efficient ride, is mostly tapped out. From here on,
> it gets very clumsy. I'm in one of the best places in the US to commute by
> public transit to New York, and it takes three "rides" for me to get to a
> midtown office. And I walk to the train from my house. For people who live
> in suburbs, even here in densely populated NJ, the routes for getting
> anywhere except NYC by bus and/or rail can be a nightmare.
>
> So the possibilities for MORE public transit are limited in this country.
> It's a matter of possible routes and their efficiency, not a matter of
> desire.
>
> EskWIRED said, "How many people use public transportation? Many, many
> millions.
That is absolutely insane. At a nominal $1.00 per passenger (too high for
most bus companies) that is only six million dollars a day times five days
a week for the entire United States. I'll bet the NYC subway alone pulls
in more money than that.
> Every day." That's simply not the case, unless you consider 6 to
> be "many, many." They're 4.7% of the working population. A drop in the
> bucket.
>
You keep confusing what public transportation is doing today with what it
can and should be doing. Heck even in this village I live in there use to
be 3 cab companies and a bus company. The buses came every half hour. On
that bus you could go either east to Warren and Youngstown (where you could
go north and south) or west to Ravenna (and then to Kent).
Now there is no bus at any time and not one cab company. You can call a cab
from out of town but at a nominal wait of 3 hours (about 10 miles away,
even cabs are not a dependable means of travel. So one either drives their
own car or stays at home. I might add that there is a special bus for
people over 62 and below a certain income (well into the poverty range)
that will take you somewhere as long as you call up a day ahead of time.
Wow! What service.
Again, I'm not talking about what the situation IS, I am talking about what
it once was and what it could be again if service increased to where people
could get to where they are going and in a timely fashion.
> --
> Ed Huntress
Darrell Stec
> In misc.survivalism Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> Right. Now what you need to do is to figure out a network of transit that
>> would actually work in most US environments.
>
>> The issue is what EskWIRED suggested: that the distribution of people in
>> the US is all wrong for mass transit. The assignment, should you choose
>> to take it, is to get most people to move. d8-)
>
> Yep. We have built most environments to accomodate cars. Such a luxury
> will become increasingly expensive, and executive McMansions an hour away
> from the suburban office park will become increasingly disfavored.
>
>> Good luck in changing it, Darrell. We've been hearing this song for at
>> least 50 years now. The only thing that will change it, IMO, is a *lot*
>> more costly fuel.
>
> Yep.
>
I think most of the problem starts and ends with the government. Years ago,
Walt Disney wanted to put in a monorail going from Walt Disney World east
to Daytona Beach and west to Tampa. He even agreed to front most of the
cost. The vast majority of little monarchies,er I mean bureaucracies the
monorail had to pass through did not like the plan.
Now 40 years later, they are trying to figure out how to develop a high
speed monorail system across Central Florida. But now they have two
problems instead of one. Now they do not have a Walt Disney to pay for the
project yet now they still have those petty monarchies bickering at each
other. Far too many big fish in small ponds to make it work.
Darrell Stec
> In misc.survivalism Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> No, I'm not. I don't pull numbers out of the air, Darrell. I'd like to
>> see a source that backs up the claim that "many, many millions of people"
>> use public transit "regularly" in the US.
>
> Google on public transportation usage stistics. The second hit says that
> people took more than 9.7 billion trips on US public transportation in
> 2005. You can divide it by 365 yourself. And don't forget to factor in
> multiple trips per day by the same person, to translate from trips to
> people.
>
>
>> So the possibilities for MORE public transit are limited in this country.
>> It's a matter of possible routes and their efficiency, not a matter of
>> desire.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>> EskWIRED said, "How many people use public transportation? Many, many
>> millions. Every day." That's simply not the case, unless you consider 6
>> to be "many, many." They're 4.7% of the working population. A drop in the
>> bucket.
>
> Maybe I'm wrong. I thought that between NYC, Chicago, SanFran, Boston, DC
> and Philly alone, the total was Many Millions. How can all of those
> cities add up to only 6 million?
>
> Is it because your statistic refers only to a subset of riders?
>
No. It is because the figures come from the US Census. The figures
themselves are wrong. There are huge demographics of people who never get
interview by census takers. I would be a huge number of them use the buses
and subways on a daily basis.
Heck, I've never been interviewed by a census taker in all my 59 years of
existence and do not know personally of anyone who has. I would bet middle
or middle upper class suburbanites are the majority of people polled with a
small percentage of lower class and upper class.
Besides the question is not about present ridership, rather it is the
ridership potential if service was something that could actually be
depended upon. Wait until gas hits $5 a gallon. I'll bet we will hear a
lot more about public transportation then.
Ed Huntress
<EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:fvv84v$rta$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> In misc.survivalism Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> No, I'm not. I don't pull numbers out of the air, Darrell. I'd like to
>> see a
>> source that backs up the claim that "many, many millions of people" use
>> public transit "regularly" in the US.
>
> Google on public transportation usage stistics. The second hit says that
> people took more than 9.7 billion trips on US public transportation in
> 2005. You can divide it by 365 yourself. And don't forget to factor in
> multiple trips per day by the same person, to translate from trips to
> people.
Yeah, that's what I did, too. And it produces completely impossible numbers.
Then I saw that the transportation authority in southern California claims
that "10 million people rely on public transportation in southern
California." Since I live in the state with the second-highest percentage of
public-transportation users in the US (NJ: 10% use public transit to
commute; 24% in the total New York MSA, where I live, and the Bureau of the
Census says we are 50% of the public transit riders in the entire United
States), I knew that was impossible, too.
So I re-checked the Census figures and they say that 6.1 million people used
public transportation to commute in the US in 2000. It's detailed; it even
tells you that Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders are twice as likely as
white Americans to car pool. <g>
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/c2kbr-33.pdf
The "10 billion" number apparently is a collection of estimates that APTA
has gathered from the individual transportation authorities around the
country. If you dig into their reports a little deeper, they're claiming,
for example, 9.7 million total riders for 2005. This still doesn't reconcile
with the US Census figures or even with their own "10 billion trips" number,
unless they're claiming that as many people use transit for non-job-related
travel as for job commuting. The figures for NJ don't agree with that at
all -- I think it was 1.4 rides/trip each way, IIRC from the last time I
looked it up, and something like 75% or 80% of trips were for travel to work
or school -- colleges, for the most part.
So I have a call into APTA, to see how they reconcile it. I'll let you know.
>
>
>> So the possibilities for MORE public transit are limited in this country.
>> It's a matter of possible routes and their efficiency, not a matter of
>> desire.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>> EskWIRED said, "How many people use public transportation? Many, many
>> millions. Every day." That's simply not the case, unless you consider 6
>> to
>> be "many, many." They're 4.7% of the working population. A drop in the
>> bucket.
>
> Maybe I'm wrong. I thought that between NYC, Chicago, SanFran, Boston, DC
> and Philly alone, the total was Many Millions. How can all of those
> cities add up to only 6 million?
>
> Is it because your statistic refers only to a subset of riders?
There are several things that could be involved. I'm hoping that the APTA
public relations people can clear it up. Grilling such people is what I do
for a living, so I hope I'll get a clear answer.
--
Ed Huntress
Gunner
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <93i524tkls00bn7h0...@4ax.com>,
> Gunner <gun...@NOSPAM.lightspeed.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 May 2008 18:39:31 -0700, mariposas rand mair fheal
>> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >
>> >> > IOW He's right again.
>> >>
>> >> Hey. if you like blabbering idiots that distort, and ignore facts. It's
>> >> your right to believe whatever you want. But don't try to pass it off to
>> >> the rest of us that don't posses your reading comprehension problems.
>> >
>> >so what are the facts being ignored above
>> "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
>
>nonresponsive
Oh its Very responsive. You just dont like the implications.
>
>and a massive snip because your blither has nothing to do with -the facts-
Covering your ears and screaming " I cant hear yooooouuuuuu!" is the
mark of a child.
Im curious, when I present those quotes, how come none of you leftards
ever attack those making those quotes, but just the messenger?
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> So I re-checked the Census figures and they say that 6.1 million people used
> public transportation to commute in the US in 2000. It's detailed; it even
> tells you that Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders are twice as likely as
> white Americans to car pool. <g>
But comuting is only one use, and therefore represents only a subset of
users.
> The "10 billion" number apparently is a collection of estimates that APTA
> has gathered from the individual transportation authorities around the
> country.
Dunno. But APTA claims that commuters make up a minority of users in all
but the biggest cities.
If you dig into their reports a little deeper, they're claiming,
> for example, 9.7 million total riders for 2005. This still doesn't reconcile
> with the US Census figures or even with their own "10 billion trips" number,
> unless they're claiming that as many people use transit for non-job-related
> travel as for job commuting.
More. See their page at
http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/purpose.cfm
> > Maybe I'm wrong. I thought that between NYC, Chicago, SanFran, Boston, DC
> > and Philly alone, the total was Many Millions. How can all of those
> > cities add up to only 6 million?
> >
> > Is it because your statistic refers only to a subset of riders?
> There are several things that could be involved. I'm hoping that the APTA
> public relations people can clear it up. Grilling such people is what I do
> for a living, so I hope I'll get a clear answer.
Good luck. I grill people too, sometimes. Generally, though, I ask a
bunch of non-specific open-ended questions, never really mentioning the
true subject of my inquiry, and see if their answers are consistent. I'll
even ask loaded questions that make it seem I'm looking for the opposite
answer, just to test to see if they are answering me truthfully, or
telling me what they think I want to hear.
Ed Huntress
<EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:fvvcqv$cml$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> In misc.survivalism Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> So I re-checked the Census figures and they say that 6.1 million people
>> used
>> public transportation to commute in the US in 2000. It's detailed; it
>> even
>> tells you that Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders are twice as likely
>> as
>> white Americans to car pool. <g>
>
> But comuting is only one use, and therefore represents only a subset of
> users.
It's 69%, according to the APTA numbers. It's somewhat higher in
high-density areas like the NY MSA.
>
>> The "10 billion" number apparently is a collection of estimates that APTA
>> has gathered from the individual transportation authorities around the
>> country.
>
> Dunno. But APTA claims that commuters make up a minority of users in all
> but the biggest cities.
Look closer. You're misreading the numbers.
>
> If you dig into their reports a little deeper, they're claiming,
>> for example, 9.7 million total riders for 2005. This still doesn't
>> reconcile
>> with the US Census figures or even with their own "10 billion trips"
>> number,
>> unless they're claiming that as many people use transit for
>> non-job-related
>> travel as for job commuting.
>
> More. See their page at
> http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/purpose.cfm
But most mass transit *is* in the largest cities. Take a look at their
national average: 69% for work and school. That fits with the NJ figures I
remember, which are somewhat higher, and which I would expect because we
have so much work commuting by rail and bus.
BTW, when you see the high "medical" figure, as in the smallest cities, you
know they're catering mostly to seniors -- a captive market. The low
work-commuting figure tells you the small-city systems are not suitable for
commuting, or that people simply won't use them. That's the pattern I'm
talking about.
Ed Huntress
Washington's is a metropolitan-area system with commuter hubs, Darrell. The
commuter hubs are park-and-ride. The metro system serves a large city. The
point we're talking about is that the people who don't use public transit
are the ones who don't live in large cities. And people who use
park-and-ride hubs use BOTH cars and public transportation to make each
trip.
I'm waiting for more info on Orlando's system. Among a few key facts, 40% of
their riders have no other transportation. In central Florida, not having a
car suggests they're seniors and the poor. That doesn't solve the
car-commuting problem, which is close to 90% of the to-and-from-work
transportation in the US.
> Just increase the coverage and put more buses per hour out there. You
> will
> take a hit for a couple of years like they did. Then once people realize
> they CAN get to work or to the movies on time and get back home in a
> timely
> manner, they will use the bus, tram, subway, train, whatever.
>
>
>> The issue is what EskWIRED suggested: that the distribution of people in
>> the US is all wrong for mass transit. The assignment, should you choose
>> to
>> take it, is to get most people to move. d8-)
>>
>
> How does it differ from the routes or Orlando or Washington D.C.?
> Answer --
> it doesn't.
I don't think we're on the same track. Orlando is a tourist and retirement
center. Washington DC is a large city. These are NOT the thinly distributed
working commuters that we're talking about.
That's speculation on your part. I don't think that's the case. The only
things that are going to get most people out of their cars and into mass
transit are poverty; old age; fierce congestion and parking problems; and
gas prices maybe 50% higher than they are now.
I'm estimating that Orlando is at least 50% poverty and old age. When 40% of
the riders don't have cars, and 60% of them are women, in a tourist center,
I'll bet that at least half of those riders are retirees and poor immigrant
and black women who are working as domestics. I'd lay money on it. That
doesn't replace driving. That replaces sitting at home and doing nothing.
That's a very good thing, but it doesn't solve the problem we're talking
about.
As for Washington, it's about time. But that's a city. Most cities have some
kind of public transit. That doesn't solve the suburbs' problem.
>
> And I census figures are a crock. They do not cover all areas, and people
> lie to the census takers. More so now days, because people do not want
> their information in a computer.
They just don't want to talk to you, Darrell. d8-)
>
>
>> Good luck in changing it, Darrell. We've been hearing this song for at
>> least 50 years now. The only thing that will change it, IMO, is a *lot*
>> more costly fuel.
>>
>
> Of course you heard those songs for 50 years. For 50 years public
> transportation has been getting worse and worse. Rates increased higher
> and higher. Buses started coming every half hour, then every hour, then
> every two hours, then every three hours. The they reduced the time from
> 4:00 AM to 1:00 AM and replaced it with 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM and then
> replaced that with 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Then they cut coverage down from
> all city streets plus most suburban streets to most city streets plus the
> main suburban streets and finally down to the main city streets and almost
> no suburban streets. With each decrease in service, ridership fell
> because
> they could no longer depend upon public transportation to get them where
> they wanted to go. And naturally over this 50 year decline the songs were
> sung just like songs of slavery were sung when it was a major problem.
>
> Slavery no longer is, so the songs stopped. Increase public
> transportation
> service and those songs will stop too.
You don't just "increase public transportation" with a snap of the fingers.
You and I have to pay for it up front. Orlando's annual operating budget is
$113,807,706, which results in an operating cost of $0.47 per passenger
mile. The City of Orlando, alone, subsidizes Lynx to the tune of $3.5
million/year, and there are other subsidies, state, federal, and whatever.
They requested a federal capital-investment subsidy of $800 million a few
years ago; I don't know how much of it they actually got. You and I pay and
pay for the subsidies. And it isn't going to work, anyway, in the kind of
project development that's been going on for the past 50 years.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>
>> "Darrell Stec" <darrel...@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
>> news:482219ac$0$20186$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>>> EskW...@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>> But few people use it, or would use it if it were free, in the US.
>>>>
>>>> Many millions of people regularly use public transportation. Especially
>>>> in
>>>> traditional northeastern cities. In the sprawl-lands, where large
>>>> amounts of infrastructure are designed around half-acre lots and
>>>> shopping malls, people drive V-8 pickups and burn gas.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Piggybacking here Ed is wrong about public transportation.
>>
>> No, I'm not. I don't pull numbers out of the air, Darrell.
>
> Actually you do. You use the US Census. Far too unreliable a source of
> information.
Right. Darrell, keep your day job. d8-)
> First there are whole areas that census workers do not gather
> information from. Secondly people lie on those censuses. In my 59 years,
> I have never answered a census questionaire and don't know of anyone
> personally who has.
They just don't want to talk to you or your friends.
>
>> I'd like to see
>> a source that backs up the claim that "many, many millions of people" use
>> public transit "regularly" in the US.
>>
>> Here's a hint: The number of people who use public transportation to get
>> to work is roughly 6 million in the US (4.7% of workers, US Census 2000).
>
> What do the bus, train and subway people say?
They say 9.7 million. I doubt it, but I'm waiting for a call from one of
their officials.
> I'll wager that NYC and
> Washington DC alone have that many passengers.
You just lost your wager. Too bad I didn't have some money on it. <g>
> But we aren't likely to see
> the real statistics from public transportation companies in most cities.
They inflate the hell out of them, from what I've seen.
>
>> Commuting is the vast majority of public transit use of all types in this
>> country. But many of those are park-and-ride types, who drive to some
>> terminal and then take a bus or light rail, so they're using both public
>> and private transportation.
>
> But my proposal is to increase the coverage area. Get rid of the park and
> ride. Increase service and that will increase ridership.
Good. How many tens of billions of dollars do you have? And how much are you
willing to pay to subsidize them, world without end, amen?
>
>> As I pointed out earlier, the passenger miles
>> accounted for by all public transit in the US is roughly 1.5% of the
>> passenger miles travelled. The fuel-consumption effect is trivial.
>>
>> I realize that fuel consumption is not the issue. And many people would
>> like to have access to public transportation, but don't. The problem is,
>> the easy public transportation, that which can be built efficiently and
>> which would provide an efficient ride, is mostly tapped out. From here
>> on,
>> it gets very clumsy. I'm in one of the best places in the US to commute
>> by
>> public transit to New York, and it takes three "rides" for me to get to a
>> midtown office. And I walk to the train from my house. For people who
>> live
>> in suburbs, even here in densely populated NJ, the routes for getting
>> anywhere except NYC by bus and/or rail can be a nightmare.
>>
>> So the possibilities for MORE public transit are limited in this country.
>> It's a matter of possible routes and their efficiency, not a matter of
>> desire.
>>
>> EskWIRED said, "How many people use public transportation? Many, many
>> millions.
>
> That is absolutely insane. At a nominal $1.00 per passenger (too high for
> most bus companies) that is only six million dollars a day times five days
> a week for the entire United States. I'll bet the NYC subway alone pulls
> in more money than that.
Don't bet. Look. Look at the sizes of the subsidies. They'll make your eyes
roll back in your head.
I'm not going to do anymore homework for you. You have a head full of
baloney on this subject, and you're on your own for facts from this point
forward.
>
>> Every day." That's simply not the case, unless you consider 6 to
>> be "many, many." They're 4.7% of the working population. A drop in the
>> bucket.
>>
>
> You keep confusing what public transportation is doing today with what it
> can and should be doing. Heck even in this village I live in there use to
> be 3 cab companies and a bus company. The buses came every half hour. On
> that bus you could go either east to Warren and Youngstown (where you
> could
> go north and south) or west to Ravenna (and then to Kent).
You keep confusing what you'd like to have happen with what is going to
happen. And you keep blaming people (politicians, I guess, although you'd do
better to blame everyone who owns a car) and you don't bother to look into
what you're talking about.
>
> Now there is no bus at any time and not one cab company. You can call a
> cab
> from out of town but at a nominal wait of 3 hours (about 10 miles away,
> even cabs are not a dependable means of travel. So one either drives
> their
> own car or stays at home.
Riding in a cab doesn't save any gas or improve transportation. It just
makes you wait for a cab, and to have someone else drive you instead of
doing it for yourself.
> I might add that there is a special bus for
> people over 62 and below a certain income (well into the poverty range)
> that will take you somewhere as long as you call up a day ahead of time.
>
> Wow! What service.
It's all a matter of how much you're willing to pay in taxes to subsidize
it.
>
> Again, I'm not talking about what the situation IS, I am talking about
> what
> it once was and what it could be again if service increased to where
> people
> could get to where they are going and in a timely fashion.
Thank you, Mr. Utopian. Figure out how you're going to pay for it, first.
And no guesses. Look at some system operating costs and capital costs.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
and I got a real earful. Rather than give the whole rundown, let me just say
that Orlando, as this official says, isn't a possible model for any other
town or city in the country. It's 'way out in left field because of the
demographics. But the way they operate isn't much different from other
small-city systems. They just have a more captive ridership.
First, their fares represent only 25% of their operating cost. They're 75%
subsidized, in various ways. Disney, for example, just granted them $6
million for operations.
Why? Because most of their riders are what I suggested: poor domestic-type
workers and "tourist workers." They're the working poor, cleaning the hotels
and so on. No problem with that, but those aren't the people who would
otherwise be driving to work. BTW, the figure they published, which says 40%
of their riders have no other transportation, is incorrect. It's 65%. That
tells the story about who is riding.
The official says he drives to work, which takes him 20 minutes. If he rode
on the Orlando Lynx system, it would take him an hour and a half. That's a
good example of why public transit, in all but the largest cities and the
densest population areas, is a tough sell for anyone who can afford to
drive.
There is much more, but you get the picture. I'm getting interested in doing
an article about this. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> > Dunno. But APTA claims that commuters make up a minority of users in all
> > but the biggest cities.
> Look closer. You're misreading the numbers.
OK, I'll look again.
> > More. See their page at
> > http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/purpose.cfm
--
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> In Message-ID:<4822efc8$0$25019$607e...@cv.net> posted on Thu, 8 May
> 2008 04:06:01 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote: Begin
> >EskWIRED said, "How many people use public transportation? Many, many
> >millions. Every day."
> While I don't have an accurate head count as to per diem usage,
> All the local public transportation agencies here (San Diego) are
> reporting increasing ridership, most likely due to our 'highest in the
> nation' gasoline rates. I notice it myself, being a frequent traveler,
> that all busses and trolleys are more crowded.
Boston is reporting record ridership on the MBTA.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> good example of why public transit, in all but the largest cities and the
> densest population areas, is a tough sell for anyone who can afford to
> drive.
My crystal ball says that fewer and fewer will be willing to "afford to
drive", and that these far-flung McMansion subdivions will become
increasingly less desirable. Those who drive to the office park in their
Hummer will be among the first to change significant parts of their
lifestyle.
I think that "the inner city" will resurge, much as it did in the 1980's.
But I also think that options such as mixed-use development near
transportation hubs (in the suburbs, not the exurbs) will become
increasingly popular, along with an increase in home offices. In the mixed
use scenario, people will have goods and services close by, much as things
were in the streetcar era, and will commute into town on the train or bus
from the station down the block. I think that density will (and
should) increase.
In the last many years, real estate was appreciating at a much faster rate
than were energy costs, and so for a lot of people, it made sense to move
further away from town. Those folks are screwed now, if I am correct in
my asessment. Their property values will drop as their transportation
costs rise.
Ed Huntress
<EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:fvvp3u$foa$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> In misc.survivalism Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> good example of why public transit, in all but the largest cities and the
>> densest population areas, is a tough sell for anyone who can afford to
>> drive.
>
> My crystal ball says that fewer and fewer will be willing to "afford to
> drive", and that these far-flung McMansion subdivions will become
> increasingly less desirable. Those who drive to the office park in their
> Hummer will be among the first to change significant parts of their
> lifestyle.
>
> I think that "the inner city" will resurge, much as it did in the 1980's.
>
> But I also think that options such as mixed-use development near
> transportation hubs (in the suburbs, not the exurbs) will become
> increasingly popular, along with an increase in home offices. In the mixed
> use scenario, people will have goods and services close by, much as things
> were in the streetcar era, and will commute into town on the train or bus
> from the station down the block. I think that density will (and
> should) increase.
>
> In the last many years, real estate was appreciating at a much faster rate
> than were energy costs, and so for a lot of people, it made sense to move
> further away from town. Those folks are screwed now, if I am correct in
> my asessment. Their property values will drop as their transportation
> costs rise.
I hear you, but my conclusion is quite different. You're assuming a rational
marketplace and I think you're underestimating the astronomical capital
investment that would be required to make a qualitative improvement in mass
transit in the US. The low-hanging fruit is mostly picked. Future projects
will cost vastly more. Fuel prices will reach a plateau insufficient to
drive changes in where people build their houses. And individual
transportation is the goal of people in every developing country in the
world. Not only is it no different here, but we've been the ones who set the
goalposts.
We'll all be driving Smart Cars before we give up our four-wheelers. (I've
seen two of those little buggers on the road so far; they look pretty good
to me. Put a three-cylinder, 900 cc turbo diesel in them and you'll be able
to go a long way on a bottle of Wesson oil. <g>) They'll have to pry them
out of our cold, dead hands.
And I'm one who lives a six-minute walk from what is probably the best rail
line in the US, the Northeast Corridor line, where I can go all over the
place by mass transit and often do. I don't drive to any airport, or to NY,
Philadelphia, DC, or Boston. I even ride to Princeton, NJ, Springfield, MA,
and Staunton, VA. It's easier for me to just jump on the train.
I have a lot of experience with good, bad, and indifferent mass transit,
including a year spent in Europe as a poor student, and I don't think a
tolerable level of efficiency will be reached in all but select places in
the US, where we don't already have mass transit. Most of those places are
already closely packed. It can be made a lot better and it probably will be,
and a higher percentage of people will use it as fuel prices rise. But only
at the margins. I see no qualitative change coming.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> My crystal ball says that fewer and fewer will be willing to "afford to
> drive"...
Oh, I almost forgot. I saw an article yesterday that characterizes the
situation perfectly, IMO:
"Report: 98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For
Others"
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38644
<G>
--
Ed Huntress
cavelamb himself
A thought, Ed?
Instead of public bus service, what about "private livery" service.
Kinda like taxi, but under contract and cheaper than outright
ownership and maintanence (and taxes, etc) of an automoble?
And you know who the driver is.
Drop the kids at school, Mom goes shopping, pick up Dad at the airport.
Monthly cost based on what? Fixed rate plus? Miles? Hours?
Limo service for the masses!
Richard
Ed Huntress
"cavelamb himself" <cave...@Xearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:r7KdneClGKfZ4L7V...@earthlink.com...
>
> A thought, Ed?
>
> Instead of public bus service, what about "private livery" service.
> Kinda like taxi, but under contract and cheaper than outright
> ownership and maintanence (and taxes, etc) of an automoble?
>
> And you know who the driver is.
>
> Drop the kids at school, Mom goes shopping, pick up Dad at the airport.
>
> Monthly cost based on what? Fixed rate plus? Miles? Hours?
>
> Limo service for the masses!
>
>
> Richard
I think it's been tried (Holland?), and it is a possibility. It solves
parking problems and it can ease in-and-out commuting traffic.
I don't know, though. I've never seen an analysis of it. It does sound like
a reasonable idea. Also, they're trying it with bicycles somewhere in the US
right now. Maybe they're working up to cars. <g>
--
Ed Huntress
cavelamb himself
The layout of most towns and all cities requires transportation.'
There just aren't enough corner grocery stores.
Everything is located at the supermarket or the Mall.
That's going to be the hardest part of getting off of the oil teat.
If (when?) gas prices double (in about 6 or 8 months at the rate
they are going?) maybe one of the recruiting incentives for employees
would be company door to door transportation?
Doesn't fix up Mom or the kids, but it gets Dad to work on time.
And he doesn't leave early either!
My SO is a medical transcriptionist.
She used to drive an hour to work and an hour back.
Then the doctors she worked for sold the company to a management firm.
So she got a job doing medical transcription - here at home.
Works an 8 hour day - does 1800 to 2000 lines a day - covers 5 states.
Makes MORE money - and had no transportation cost.
(and it's the only transcription company that stayed in the US!)
But not ever one can do that.
It's going to be interesting to see how people adapt.
I think we are about to donate her Lincoln Town Car to a church
or something and just keep my Blazer.
Anybody want a BIG car - cheap???
Richard
--
(remove the X to email)
Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne
D Murphy
news:3v6524hmsgkvda60h...@4ax.com:
> On 8 May 2008 00:01:20 GMT, D Murphy <spam...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>"Hawke" <desmi...@dslextreme.com> wrote in
>>news:FYmUj.85199$oQ4....@fe113.usenetserver.com:
>>
>>> If we don't find a way to produce cheap, clean energy that is
>>> available anywhere the only other alternative is to live like we
>>> used to in cities where infrastructure and transportation can
>>> deliver for us in an efficient way, not like the wasteful way we do
>>> now.
>>
>>We already have a cheap clean energy source at hand. Natural gas. It's
>>fairly simple and strightforward to retrofit to existing vehicles and
>>there is plenty of it.
>
> Hence it's rapidly rising price.
Perhaps we should stop using it to fertilize corn which is in turn, made
into very expensive heavily subsidized ethanol. We could lift the
restrictions on sugar imports and kill off the high fructose corn syrup
market as well. It would also be a good idea to stop feeding it to cattle
as well. It just makes them sick.
In any case demmand is rising faster than the ability to supply it. The
price increases have nothing to do with the quantity available.
>
>>It is also a far cleaner energy source than oil with a
>>carbon to hydrogen ration of 1 to 4.
>
> And it would run out how fast?
Proven reserves alone are six times greater than oil. Plus there's loads
of it in the seas (methane hydrates) and it's fairly simple to make more.
> And it's price would rise to what?
I told you a couple of years ago to invest in it.
>
>>Just need to build the infrastructure.
>
> And new cars & trucks .....
We build millions of new ones every year. Old ones can be converted in a
few hours.
--
Dan
CNC Videos - <http://tinyurl.com/yzdt6d>
Ed Huntress
"cavelamb himself" <cave...@Xearthlink.net> wrote in message
Uh, yeah, "interesting" is a good word. <g>
>
> I think we are about to donate her Lincoln Town Car to a church
> or something and just keep my Blazer.
>
> Anybody want a BIG car - cheap???
You're missing a business opportunity. What you should do is fill the dash
and the rear ledge full of religious geejaws, park it by the side of the
road, and open the doors on Sunday to the First Church of Our Ford, God's
Own Upholstered Chariot to Heaven.
You should be able to fit a dozen or more in there for every service.
There's money in that stuff, you know.
--
Ed Huntress
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> I hear you, but my conclusion is quite different. You're assuming a rational
> marketplace
I think that over time, gradually, rational decisions become more and more
common, and that eventually the market works in the maner theorists
predict.
and I think you're underestimating the astronomical capital
> investment that would be required to make a qualitative improvement in mass
> transit in the US. The low-hanging fruit is mostly picked. Future projects
> will cost vastly more.
I think that development will increase close to existing and expanded
transportaion sites, and will decrease in far-flung bedroom communities.
Fuel prices will reach a plateau insufficient to
> drive changes in where people build their houses.
Neither of us knows where fuel prices will settle.
And individual
> transportation is the goal of people in every developing country in the
> world. Not only is it no different here, but we've been the ones who set the
> goalposts.
> We'll all be driving Smart Cars before we give up our four-wheelers.
Yeah - not all, but more. We're talking general trends here, and not
overight revolutions. People will still drive 450 HP Maseratis, but fewer
people will buy giant pick-ups to use for casual around-town driving.
(I've
> seen two of those little buggers on the road so far; they look pretty good
> to me. Put a three-cylinder, 900 cc turbo diesel in them and you'll be able
> to go a long way on a bottle of Wesson oil. <g>) They'll have to pry them
> out of our cold, dead hands.
> And I'm one who lives a six-minute walk from what is probably the best rail
> line in the US, the Northeast Corridor line, where I can go all over the
> place by mass transit and often do. I don't drive to any airport, or to NY,
> Philadelphia, DC, or Boston. I even ride to Princeton, NJ, Springfield, MA,
> and Staunton, VA. It's easier for me to just jump on the train.
You're lucky. I've taken the train, and I've passed it up, too. I used
to ride the bus into Boston, when I lived in a place that had convenient
busses. Now it would be a PITA, and I can drive into Boston muchmore
easily. But I'm moving next week, and I'll be a 5 minute walk to the MBTA
light rail, which is part of the Boston subway system. Likely I'll take
fewer car trips then.
> I have a lot of experience with good, bad, and indifferent mass transit,
> including a year spent in Europe as a poor student, and I don't think a
> tolerable level of efficiency will be reached in all but select places in
> the US, where we don't already have mass transit.
I can't argue. Cruising endless subdivision roads is not what busses are
good at. The current infrastructure does not lend itself to mass transit,
with exurban sprawl having replaced compact neighborhoods in most of the
country.
Most of those places are
> already closely packed. It can be made a lot better and it probably will be,
> and a higher percentage of people will use it as fuel prices rise. But only
> at the margins. I see no qualitative change coming.
The margins are where it is at. You can basically write off large swaths
of poorly-planned sprawl, and many cities already have services which can
be expanded as ridership increases. The margins will see increased use of
cheaper alternativs.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> Oh, I almost forgot. I saw an article yesterday that characterizes the
> situation perfectly, IMO:
> "Report: 98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For
> Others"
> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38644
The Onion is generally pretty spot-on in their satire.
cavelamb himself
Maybe so, Ed, but that's not the way my faith leans.
Pass...
Ed Huntress
<EskW...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
news:g01g4m$6dm$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> In misc.survivalism Ed Huntress <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> I hear you, but my conclusion is quite different. You're assuming a
>> rational
>> marketplace
>
> I think that over time, gradually, rational decisions become more and more
> common, and that eventually the market works in the maner theorists
> predict.
>
> and I think you're underestimating the astronomical capital
>> investment that would be required to make a qualitative improvement in
>> mass
>> transit in the US. The low-hanging fruit is mostly picked. Future
>> projects
>> will cost vastly more.
>
> I think that development will increase close to existing and expanded
> transportaion sites, and will decrease in far-flung bedroom communities.
>
>
>
> Fuel prices will reach a plateau insufficient to
>> drive changes in where people build their houses.
>
> Neither of us knows where fuel prices will settle.
A fair guess would be based on the cost of producing oil from tar sands, and
diesel fuel from Fischer-Tropsch conversion of coal. Those will set a
ceiling on petroleum price, IMO, once we convince ourselves that CO2 doesn't
matter. <g> And that won't be hard, once the pain of high oil prices works
on our collective minds for a while. The combination of self-interest,
wishful thinking, and severe stress is like a parasite that eats into the
brain.
>
>
> And individual
>> transportation is the goal of people in every developing country in the
>> world. Not only is it no different here, but we've been the ones who set
>> the
>> goalposts.
>
>> We'll all be driving Smart Cars before we give up our four-wheelers.
>
> Yeah - not all, but more. We're talking general trends here, and not
> overight revolutions. People will still drive 450 HP Maseratis, but fewer
> people will buy giant pick-ups to use for casual around-town driving.
Maseratis are not the problem, of course, given their small numbers. Having
rented a big Chevy pickup to move some furniture a month ago, I don't
understand the mentality of anyone who would drive one of those
foul-handling barges every day as a matter of choice. I wouldn't predict
what they'll do when fuel prices rise even further.
Gunner
<love...@gawab.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 08 May 2008 02:31:06 -0700, I found that Gunner
><gun...@NOSPAM.lightspeed.net> Scribbled the following on the bathroom
>wall:
>
>>Ayup..and all those people believing Democrat party leadership too....
>>
>>"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
>
><snip>
>
>And what does that have to do with Bush's lies?
Lies? Those people were verifying what Bush said.
Now are you claiming all those Democrats are liars as well?
Gunner