Transit

[Pat]

I guess you've all probably read this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

[george conklin]

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

[george conklin]

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

Yes, I noticed the following when I read the earlier today:

"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public school
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its operations."

So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it 'turned a
profit.'

[Pat]

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public school
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its operations."
   So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it 'turned a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee pays
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.

It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big college
town (for part of it, at least).

Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too, because
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.

If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to foot
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.

[george conklin]

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public school
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it 'turned a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee pays
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.

It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big college
town (for part of it, at least).

Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too, because
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.

If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to foot
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.

----

I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

[Pat]

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public school
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it 'turned a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee pays
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses.  Rochester is a pretty big college
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too, because
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to foot
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
  I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?

Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article. The
point is that Rochester faces the same struggles as other transit
systems, and it the face of declining public subsidies it marketed
itself to the (semi-)private section and they found it a valuable
enough service to pay for it. That's a good thing. They are selling
their product on the open market and people are willing to pay for
it. Good for them.

For the colleges it's probably a simple economic equation. Either pay
for more parking lots plus create their own transportation system for
may the bus system. It must have been cheaper to pay for the service
than to replicate it themselves.

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public school
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it 'turned a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee pays
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big college
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too, because
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to foot
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article.

George and Jack have got a quite impressive record in this category.
If intentionally or by accident am be left to the judgement of others.
Tadej

[george conklin]

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public school
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it 'turned a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee pays
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big college
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too, because
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to foot
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article.

George and Jack have got a quite impressive record in this category.
If intentionally or by accident am be left to the judgement of others.
Tadej

"Others" like you seem to think that any way to get government to
subsidize when you want is good, while any alternative is bad.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by george conklin

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public school
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it 'turned a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee pays
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big college
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too, because
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to foot
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article.

George and Jack have got a quite impressive record in this category.
If intentionally or by accident am be left to the judgement of others.
Tadej

"Others" like you seem to think that any way to get government to
subsidize when you want is good, while any alternative is bad.

I think this includes you, unless you want government to stop subsidizing
your _job_!

[george conklin]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public school
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it 'turned a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee pays
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big college
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too, because
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to foot
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article.

George and Jack have got a quite impressive record in this category.
If intentionally or by accident am be left to the judgement of others.
Tadej

"Others" like you seem to think that any way to get government to
subsidize when you want is good, while any alternative is bad.

I think this includes you, unless you want government to stop subsidizing
your _job_!

You are the most illogical person I've met. If you go to school you
have to support transit schemes? ha Ha .

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public school
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it 'turned a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee pays
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big college
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too, because
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to foot
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article.

George and Jack have got a quite impressive record in this category.
If intentionally or by accident am be left to the judgement of others.
Tadej

"Others" like you seem to think that any way to get government to
subsidize when you want is good, while any alternative is bad.

I think this includes you, unless you want government to stop subsidizing
your _job_!

You are the most illogical person I've met. If you go to school you
have to support transit schemes? ha Ha .

So you don't want government to subsidize your job?

[george conklin]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public school
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it 'turned a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee pays
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big college
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too, because
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to foot
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article.

George and Jack have got a quite impressive record in this category.
If intentionally or by accident am be left to the judgement of others.
Tadej

"Others" like you seem to think that any way to get government to
subsidize when you want is good, while any alternative is bad.

I think this includes you, unless you want government to stop
subsidizing your _job_!

You are the most illogical person I've met. If you go to school you
have to support transit schemes? ha Ha .

So you don't want government to subsidize your job?

You equate education in importance with transit schemes, when people are
very willing to drive themselves at their own expense. You have to force
people to take transit.

[Pat]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public school
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its
operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it 'turned a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee pays
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses.  Rochester is a pretty big college
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too, because
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to foot
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
  I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail?  You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article.

George and Jack have got a quite impressive record in this category.
If intentionally or by accident am be left to the judgement of others.
Tadej

  "Others" like you seem to think that any way to get government to
subsidize when you want is good, while any alternative is bad.

I think this includes you, unless you want government to stop
subsidizing your _job_!

    You are the most illogical person I've met.  If you go to school you
have to support transit schemes?  ha Ha .

So you don't want government to subsidize your job?

 You equate education in importance with transit schemes, when people are
very willing to drive themselves at their own expense.  You have to force
people to take transit.

At least in Rochester, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. The
companies and institutions are voluntarily making payments which will
benefit their clientele. The people are voluntarily riding the
buses. The colleges and hospitals obviously see some benefit from it,
even if its a selfish gain such as not needing to build more parking
lots or keeping drunk college kids away from the wheel.

[george conklin]

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public school
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its
operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it 'turned a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee pays
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big
college
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too, because
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to foot
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article.

George and Jack have got a quite impressive record in this category.
If intentionally or by accident am be left to the judgement of others.
Tadej

"Others" like you seem to think that any way to get government to
subsidize when you want is good, while any alternative is bad.

I think this includes you, unless you want government to stop
subsidizing your _job_!

You are the most illogical person I've met. If you go to school you
have to support transit schemes? ha Ha .

So you don't want government to subsidize your job?

You equate education in importance with transit schemes, when people are
very willing to drive themselves at their own expense. You have to force
people to take transit.

At least in Rochester, no one is forcing anyone to do anything.

In terms of % of total market, transit is so small a percentage all
public policy is how to figure out how to force people onto it, and that
includes findings more and more sources of gifts.

[Kris Krieger]

[snip]

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship
So you don't want government to subsidize your job?

You equate education in importance with transit schemes, when people
are very willing to drive themselves at their own expense. You have to
force people to take transit.

Willing to drive themselves, or forced because that is their only
accessible means of transportation?

That sword cuts both ways.

A lot of people *hate* driving, because there are so many a-holes on the
road and that makes it very stressful; OTOH, people I've known who could
access public transport can actually *use* their commuting time to read,
work through problems, do email via a laptop, and do other things that are
much more productive (or simply more relaxing) than struggling with
speeders, reckless drivers, road-ragers, and Mad Max Wannabes.

And if you live in Boston (as did my sister), it's idiotic to tryu to have
a car, ebcasue teh transport *is* good, and the city is old and simply was
not set up to accomidate mobs of sutomobiles, not even small ones (never
mind behemoths).

Post by Pat
At least in Rochester, no one is forcing anyone to do anything.
In terms of % of total market, transit is so small a percentage all
public policy is how to figure out how to force people onto it, and that
includes findings more and more sources of gifts.

Well, when you have to walk 5 miles just to get to a bus stop, then yeah,
public transport *won't* become a larger percentage of travel. It's not a
matter of "gifts" or "forcing", as much as it's a matter of accessibility
and routing.

I say routing because currently, at least where I've lived, even if one can
get to a bus stop, that bus snakes all over creation before actually
heading anywhere - which is why I was thinking of "feeders"that could be
small neighborhood "trolleys" (or maybe solar-recharged electric vans could
work out) that go from suburban neighborhoods, to pickup points from which
the bus (or whatever) could go directly downtown, or directly to one of the
smaller, more localized city-centers.

OTOH, you seem to be most interested in finding excuses to not bother even
*thinking* about anything other than cars, cars, and more cars. So who is
actually forcing whom to do what?

[george conklin]

Post by Kris Krieger
[snip]

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship
So you don't want government to subsidize your job?

You equate education in importance with transit schemes, when people
are very willing to drive themselves at their own expense. You have to
force people to take transit.

Willing to drive themselves, or forced because that is their only
accessible means of transportation?

Like in NYC and London, where the mayors are doing their best to charge
everyone to drive a few blocks, so jealous are they of their transit
systems. And Bloomberg? Yes. He has his Suburbans drive him to a transit
stop so he can be seen by the press emerging. So wonderful you arguments.

Post by Kris Krieger
That sword cuts both ways.
A lot of people *hate* driving, because there are so many a-holes on the
road and that makes it very stressful; OTOH, people I've known who could
access public transport can actually *use* their commuting time to read,
work through problems, do email via a laptop, and do other things that are
much more productive (or simply more relaxing) than struggling with
speeders, reckless drivers, road-ragers, and Mad Max Wannabes.
And if you live in Boston (as did my sister), it's idiotic to tryu to have
a car, ebcasue teh transport *is* good, and the city is old and simply was
not set up to accomidate mobs of sutomobiles, not even small ones (never
mind behemoths).

Post by Pat
At least in Rochester, no one is forcing anyone to do anything.
In terms of % of total market, transit is so small a percentage all
public policy is how to figure out how to force people onto it, and that
includes findings more and more sources of gifts.

Well, when you have to walk 5 miles just to get to a bus stop, then yeah,
public transport *won't* become a larger percentage of travel. It's not a
matter of "gifts" or "forcing", as much as it's a matter of accessibility
and routing.

People drive right by bus stops in their cars, which is what annoys
people like you.

[Warm Worm]

Post by george conklin

Post by Kris Krieger
[snip]

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship
So you don't want government to subsidize your job?

You equate education in importance with transit schemes, when people
are very willing to drive themselves at their own expense. You have to
force people to take transit.

Willing to drive themselves, or forced because that is their only
accessible means of transportation?

Like in NYC and London, where the mayors are doing their best to charge
everyone to drive a few blocks, so jealous are they of their transit
systems. And Bloomberg? Yes. He has his Suburbans drive him to a transit
stop so he can be seen by the press emerging. So wonderful you arguments.

Post by Kris Krieger
That sword cuts both ways.
A lot of people *hate* driving, because there are so many a-holes on the
road and that makes it very stressful; OTOH, people I've known who could
access public transport can actually *use* their commuting time to read,
work through problems, do email via a laptop, and do other things that are
much more productive (or simply more relaxing) than struggling with
speeders, reckless drivers, road-ragers, and Mad Max Wannabes.
And if you live in Boston (as did my sister), it's idiotic to tryu to have
a car, ebcasue teh transport *is* good, and the city is old and simply was
not set up to accomidate mobs of sutomobiles, not even small ones (never
mind behemoths).

Post by Pat
At least in Rochester, no one is forcing anyone to do anything.
In terms of % of total market, transit is so small a percentage all
public policy is how to figure out how to force people onto it, and that
includes findings more and more sources of gifts.

Well, when you have to walk 5 miles just to get to a bus stop, then yeah,
public transport *won't* become a larger percentage of travel. It's not a
matter of "gifts" or "forcing", as much as it's a matter of accessibility
and routing.

People drive right by bus stops in their cars, which is what annoys
people like you.

Cars annoy people like me.

[george conklin]

Post by Warm Worm

Post by george conklin

Post by Kris Krieger
[snip]

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship
So you don't want government to subsidize your job?

You equate education in importance with transit schemes, when people
are very willing to drive themselves at their own expense. You have to
force people to take transit.

Willing to drive themselves, or forced because that is their only
accessible means of transportation?

Like in NYC and London, where the mayors are doing their best to
charge everyone to drive a few blocks, so jealous are they of their
transit systems. And Bloomberg? Yes. He has his Suburbans drive him to
a transit stop so he can be seen by the press emerging. So wonderful you
arguments.

Post by Kris Krieger
That sword cuts both ways.
A lot of people *hate* driving, because there are so many a-holes on the
road and that makes it very stressful; OTOH, people I've known who could
access public transport can actually *use* their commuting time to read,
work through problems, do email via a laptop, and do other things that are
much more productive (or simply more relaxing) than struggling with
speeders, reckless drivers, road-ragers, and Mad Max Wannabes.
And if you live in Boston (as did my sister), it's idiotic to tryu to have
a car, ebcasue teh transport *is* good, and the city is old and simply was
not set up to accomidate mobs of sutomobiles, not even small ones (never
mind behemoths).

Post by Pat
At least in Rochester, no one is forcing anyone to do anything.
In terms of % of total market, transit is so small a percentage all
public policy is how to figure out how to force people onto it, and that
includes findings more and more sources of gifts.

Well, when you have to walk 5 miles just to get to a bus stop, then yeah,
public transport *won't* become a larger percentage of travel. It's not a
matter of "gifts" or "forcing", as much as it's a matter of
accessibility
and routing.

People drive right by bus stops in their cars, which is what annoys
people like you.

Cars annoy people like me.

So you mental problems require a national solution?

[Warm Worm]

Post by george conklin

Post by Warm Worm

Post by george conklin

Post by Kris Krieger
[snip]

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship
So you don't want government to subsidize your job?

You equate education in importance with transit schemes, when people
are very willing to drive themselves at their own expense. You have to
force people to take transit.

Willing to drive themselves, or forced because that is their only
accessible means of transportation?

Like in NYC and London, where the mayors are doing their best to
charge everyone to drive a few blocks, so jealous are they of their
transit systems. And Bloomberg? Yes. He has his Suburbans drive him to
a transit stop so he can be seen by the press emerging. So wonderful you
arguments.

Post by Kris Krieger
That sword cuts both ways.
A lot of people *hate* driving, because there are so many a-holes on the
road and that makes it very stressful; OTOH, people I've known who could
access public transport can actually *use* their commuting time to read,
work through problems, do email via a laptop, and do other things that are
much more productive (or simply more relaxing) than struggling with
speeders, reckless drivers, road-ragers, and Mad Max Wannabes.
And if you live in Boston (as did my sister), it's idiotic to tryu to have
a car, ebcasue teh transport *is* good, and the city is old and simply was
not set up to accomidate mobs of sutomobiles, not even small ones (never
mind behemoths).

Post by Pat
At least in Rochester, no one is forcing anyone to do anything.
In terms of % of total market, transit is so small a percentage all
public policy is how to figure out how to force people onto it, and that
includes findings more and more sources of gifts.

Well, when you have to walk 5 miles just to get to a bus stop, then yeah,
public transport *won't* become a larger percentage of travel. It's not a
matter of "gifts" or "forcing", as much as it's a matter of
accessibility
and routing.

People drive right by bus stops in their cars, which is what annoys
people like you.

Cars annoy people like me.

So you mental problems require a national solution?

Cars are banes on the mental and physical environment.

[george conklin]

Post by Warm Worm

Post by george conklin

Post by Warm Worm

Post by george conklin

Post by Kris Krieger
[snip]

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship
So you don't want government to subsidize your job?

You equate education in importance with transit schemes, when people
are very willing to drive themselves at their own expense. You have to
force people to take transit.

Willing to drive themselves, or forced because that is their only
accessible means of transportation?

Like in NYC and London, where the mayors are doing their best to
charge everyone to drive a few blocks, so jealous are they of their
transit systems. And Bloomberg? Yes. He has his Suburbans drive him
to a transit stop so he can be seen by the press emerging. So
wonderful you arguments.

Post by Kris Krieger
That sword cuts both ways.
A lot of people *hate* driving, because there are so many a-holes on the
road and that makes it very stressful; OTOH, people I've known who could
access public transport can actually *use* their commuting time to read,
work through problems, do email via a laptop, and do other things that are
much more productive (or simply more relaxing) than struggling with
speeders, reckless drivers, road-ragers, and Mad Max Wannabes.
And if you live in Boston (as did my sister), it's idiotic to tryu to have
a car, ebcasue teh transport *is* good, and the city is old and simply was
not set up to accomidate mobs of sutomobiles, not even small ones (never
mind behemoths).

Post by Pat
At least in Rochester, no one is forcing anyone to do anything.
In terms of % of total market, transit is so small a percentage all
public policy is how to figure out how to force people onto it, and that
includes findings more and more sources of gifts.

Well, when you have to walk 5 miles just to get to a bus stop, then yeah,
public transport *won't* become a larger percentage of travel. It's not a
matter of "gifts" or "forcing", as much as it's a matter of accessibility
and routing.

People drive right by bus stops in their cars, which is what annoys
people like you.

Cars annoy people like me.

So you mental problems require a national solution?

Cars are banes on the mental and physical environment.

As I noted, your mental problems do not require a national solution.

[Warm Worm]

Post by george conklin

Post by Warm Worm

Post by george conklin

Post by Warm Worm

Post by george conklin

Post by Kris Krieger
[snip]

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship
So you don't want government to subsidize your job?

You equate education in importance with transit schemes, when people
are very willing to drive themselves at their own expense. You have to
force people to take transit.

Willing to drive themselves, or forced because that is their only
accessible means of transportation?

Like in NYC and London, where the mayors are doing their best to
charge everyone to drive a few blocks, so jealous are they of their
transit systems. And Bloomberg? Yes. He has his Suburbans drive him
to a transit stop so he can be seen by the press emerging. So
wonderful you arguments.

Post by Kris Krieger
That sword cuts both ways.
A lot of people *hate* driving, because there are so many a-holes on the
road and that makes it very stressful; OTOH, people I've known who could
access public transport can actually *use* their commuting time to read,
work through problems, do email via a laptop, and do other things that are
much more productive (or simply more relaxing) than struggling with
speeders, reckless drivers, road-ragers, and Mad Max Wannabes.
And if you live in Boston (as did my sister), it's idiotic to tryu to have
a car, ebcasue teh transport *is* good, and the city is old and simply was
not set up to accomidate mobs of sutomobiles, not even small ones (never
mind behemoths).

Post by Pat
At least in Rochester, no one is forcing anyone to do anything.
In terms of % of total market, transit is so small a percentage all
public policy is how to figure out how to force people onto it, and that
includes findings more and more sources of gifts.

Well, when you have to walk 5 miles just to get to a bus stop, then yeah,
public transport *won't* become a larger percentage of travel. It's not a
matter of "gifts" or "forcing", as much as it's a matter of accessibility
and routing.

People drive right by bus stops in their cars, which is what annoys
people like you.

Cars annoy people like me.

So you mental problems require a national solution?

Cars are banes on the mental and physical environment.

As I noted, your mental problems do not require a national solution.

"In attribution theory, the fundamental attribution error (also known as
correspondence bias or overattribution effect) is the tendency for
people to over-emphasize dispositional, or personality-based,
explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing
situational explanations."
--Wikipedia


...Like the car. ;)

[Warm Worm]

Post by george conklin

Post by Warm Worm

Post by george conklin

Post by Kris Krieger
[snip]

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship
So you don't want government to subsidize your job?

You equate education in importance with transit schemes, when people
are very willing to drive themselves at their own expense. You have to
force people to take transit.

Willing to drive themselves, or forced because that is their only
accessible means of transportation?

Like in NYC and London, where the mayors are doing their best to
charge everyone to drive a few blocks, so jealous are they of their
transit systems. And Bloomberg? Yes. He has his Suburbans drive him to
a transit stop so he can be seen by the press emerging. So wonderful you
arguments.

Post by Kris Krieger
That sword cuts both ways.
A lot of people *hate* driving, because there are so many a-holes on the
road and that makes it very stressful; OTOH, people I've known who could
access public transport can actually *use* their commuting time to read,
work through problems, do email via a laptop, and do other things that are
much more productive (or simply more relaxing) than struggling with
speeders, reckless drivers, road-ragers, and Mad Max Wannabes.
And if you live in Boston (as did my sister), it's idiotic to tryu to have
a car, ebcasue teh transport *is* good, and the city is old and simply was
not set up to accomidate mobs of sutomobiles, not even small ones (never
mind behemoths).

Post by Pat
At least in Rochester, no one is forcing anyone to do anything.
In terms of % of total market, transit is so small a percentage all
public policy is how to figure out how to force people onto it, and that
includes findings more and more sources of gifts.

Well, when you have to walk 5 miles just to get to a bus stop, then yeah,
public transport *won't* become a larger percentage of travel. It's not a
matter of "gifts" or "forcing", as much as it's a matter of
accessibility
and routing.

People drive right by bus stops in their cars, which is what annoys
people like you.

Cars annoy people like me.

So you mental problems require a national solution?

...So if by 'mental problems' you are referring to cars ;) then, I might
be interested in _international_ solutions.

[HVS]

Post by george conklin

Post by Kris Krieger
Willing to drive themselves, or forced because that is their
only accessible means of transportation?

Like in NYC and London, where the mayors

FWIW, the current mayor of London has for some years been
particularly well known for cycling to work rather than driving, or
being driven there. Last time I checked, he's still doing it.

(And it's never been a PR stunt: in fact, it annoys the hell out of
the security biz guys, who have a vested interest in keeping high-
profile people scared enough to hire bullet-proofed protection.)

[Kris Krieger]

[snip]

Post by george conklin

Post by Kris Krieger
Well, when you have to walk 5 miles just to get to a bus stop, then
yeah, public transport *won't* become a larger percentage of travel.
It's not a matter of "gifts" or "forcing", as much as it's a matter of
accessibility and routing.

People drive right by bus stops in their cars, which is what annoys
people like you.

WTF are you talking about?

[drydem]

Post by Kris Krieger
[snip]

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship
So you don't want government to subsidize your job?

You equate education in importance with transit schemes, when people
are very willing to drive themselves at their own expense. You have to
force people to take transit.

Willing to drive themselves, or forced because that is their only
accessible means of transportation?  
That sword cuts both ways.  
A lot of people *hate* driving, because there are so many a-holes on the
road and that makes it very stressful; OTOH, people I've known who could
access public transport can actually *use* their commuting time to read,
work through problems, do email via a laptop, and do other things that are
much more productive (or simply more relaxing) than struggling with
speeders, reckless drivers, road-ragers, and  Mad Max Wannabes.

Note that people may avoid public transit if the other
commuter are nasty, if its too expensive, if it is unsafe
due to crime, if its too stressful, if it is difficult to use,
or if it is too slow. Some people however can't drive
or some other reason.

Post by Kris Krieger
And if you live in Boston (as did my sister), it's idiotic to tryu to have
a car, ebcasue teh transport *is* good, and the city is old and simply was
not set up to accomidate mobs of sutomobiles, not even small ones (never
mind behemoths).

Beyond traffic, access to and cost for urban parking turns out to be
another
motivation for using mass transit

   

Post by Kris Krieger

Post by Pat
At least in Rochester, no one is forcing anyone to do anything.
    In terms of % of total market, transit is so small a percentage all
public policy is how to figure out how to force people onto it, and that
includes findings more and more sources of gifts.

Well, when you have to walk 5 miles just to get to a bus stop, then yeah,
public transport *won't* become a larger percentage of travel.  It's not a
matter of "gifts" or "forcing", as much as it's a matter of accessibility
and routing.
I say routing because currently, at least where I've lived, even if one can
get to a bus stop, that bus snakes all over creation before actually
heading anywhere - which is why I was thinking of "feeders"that could be
small neighborhood "trolleys" (or maybe solar-recharged electric vans could
work out) that go from suburban neighborhoods, to pickup points from which
the bus (or whatever) could go directly downtown, or directly to one of the
smaller, more localized city-centers.

the problems with using multiple bus routes is not
cost but synchronization in the DC area - the
wait time between two bus route can be as
short as 5 minutes and as long as 45 minutes.
For long 60 minutes route may be four buses
(two in each direction). Under heavy traffic conditions,
buses *bunch* up so the buses in a particular
direction o the route is not half-way distance
from one another along the route but much closer or
much farther. During rush hour when commuting
traffic is very bad, longer Metrobus routes tend
to *bunch* up and buses rarely are able to keep
to their published schedule.

[George Conklin]

Post by Kris Krieger
[snip]

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship
So you don't want government to subsidize your job?

You equate education in importance with transit schemes, when people
are very willing to drive themselves at their own expense. You have to
force people to take transit.

Willing to drive themselves, or forced because that is their only
accessible means of transportation?
That sword cuts both ways.
A lot of people *hate* driving, because there are so many a-holes on the
road and that makes it very stressful; OTOH, people I've known who could
access public transport can actually *use* their commuting time to read,
work through problems, do email via a laptop, and do other things that are
much more productive (or simply more relaxing) than struggling with
speeders, reckless drivers, road-ragers, and Mad Max Wannabes.

Note that people may avoid public transit if the other
commuter are nasty, if its too expensive, if it is unsafe
due to crime, if its too stressful, if it is difficult to use,
or if it is too slow. Some people however can't drive
or some other reason.

---
A few, but then the anti-jitney rules make picking up people to help them
out and taking money from them to do so, illegal. You become an illegal
taxi. Transit companies got that law put in the help themselves...so they
thought.

Post by Kris Krieger
And if you live in Boston (as did my sister), it's idiotic to tryu to have
a car, ebcasue teh transport *is* good, and the city is old and simply was
not set up to accomidate mobs of sutomobiles, not even small ones (never
mind behemoths).

Beyond traffic, access to and cost for urban parking turns out to be
another
motivation for using mass transit

----

Parking is restricted and inflated to force people onto transit.
Manipulation.

Post by Kris Krieger

Post by Pat
At least in Rochester, no one is forcing anyone to do anything.
In terms of % of total market, transit is so small a percentage all
public policy is how to figure out how to force people onto it, and that
includes findings more and more sources of gifts.

Well, when you have to walk 5 miles just to get to a bus stop, then yeah,
public transport *won't* become a larger percentage of travel. It's not a
matter of "gifts" or "forcing", as much as it's a matter of accessibility
and routing.
I say routing because currently, at least where I've lived, even if one can
get to a bus stop, that bus snakes all over creation before actually
heading anywhere - which is why I was thinking of "feeders"that could be
small neighborhood "trolleys" (or maybe solar-recharged electric vans could
work out) that go from suburban neighborhoods, to pickup points from which
the bus (or whatever) could go directly downtown, or directly to one of the
smaller, more localized city-centers.

the problems with using multiple bus routes is not
cost but synchronization in the DC area - the
wait time between two bus route can be as
short as 5 minutes and as long as 45 minutes.
For long 60 minutes route may be four buses
(two in each direction). Under heavy traffic conditions,
buses *bunch* up so the buses in a particular
direction o the route is not half-way distance
from one another along the route but much closer or
much farther. During rush hour when commuting
traffic is very bad, longer Metrobus routes tend
to *bunch* up and buses rarely are able to keep
to their published schedule.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by drydem

Post by Kris Krieger
[snip]

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship
So you don't want government to subsidize your job?

You equate education in importance with transit schemes, when people
are very willing to drive themselves at their own expense. You have to
force people to take transit.

Willing to drive themselves, or forced because that is their only
accessible means of transportation?
That sword cuts both ways.
A lot of people *hate* driving, because there are so many a-holes on the
road and that makes it very stressful; OTOH, people I've known who could
access public transport can actually *use* their commuting time to read,
work through problems, do email via a laptop, and do other things that are
much more productive (or simply more relaxing) than struggling with
speeders, reckless drivers, road-ragers, and Mad Max Wannabes.

Note that people may avoid public transit if the other
commuter are nasty, if its too expensive, if it is unsafe
due to crime, if its too stressful, if it is difficult to use,
or if it is too slow. Some people however can't drive
or some other reason.
---
A few, but then the anti-jitney rules make picking up people to help them
out and taking money from them to do so, illegal. You become an illegal
taxi. Transit companies got that law put in the help themselves...so they
thought.

I think it's hilarious that you think the fact that people supposedly don't
"want" to use the crappy transit we have in most of the US is an argument
against transit, but you're hung up on this law that supposedly prevents
people from doing what they don't want to do anyway. I can't think of _one_
person I've ever heard say "gee, I wish I could make a living ferrying
people around in my car." I've heard lots of people say "gee, I wish we had
usable transit."

[George Conklin]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by drydem

Post by Kris Krieger
[snip]

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship
So you don't want government to subsidize your job?

You equate education in importance with transit schemes, when people
are very willing to drive themselves at their own expense. You have to
force people to take transit.

Willing to drive themselves, or forced because that is their only
accessible means of transportation?
That sword cuts both ways.
A lot of people *hate* driving, because there are so many a-holes on the
road and that makes it very stressful; OTOH, people I've known who could
access public transport can actually *use* their commuting time to read,
work through problems, do email via a laptop, and do other things that are
much more productive (or simply more relaxing) than struggling with
speeders, reckless drivers, road-ragers, and Mad Max Wannabes.

Note that people may avoid public transit if the other
commuter are nasty, if its too expensive, if it is unsafe
due to crime, if its too stressful, if it is difficult to use,
or if it is too slow. Some people however can't drive
or some other reason.
---
A few, but then the anti-jitney rules make picking up people to help them
out and taking money from them to do so, illegal. You become an illegal
taxi. Transit companies got that law put in the help themselves...so they
thought.

I think it's hilarious that you think the fact that people supposedly don't
"want" to use the crappy transit we have in most of the US is an argument
against transit, but you're hung up on this law that supposedly prevents
people from doing what they don't want to do anyway. I can't think of _one_
person I've ever heard say "gee, I wish I could make a living ferrying
people around in my car." I've heard lots of people say "gee, I wish we had
usable transit."

People say anything, but they want transit for YOU so they can drive. And
remember that before the anti-jitney laws people were successfully, with
government approval during World War 1, picking others up for a nickel or a
dime and taking them to work. Transit called this "unfair competition." I
am citing accurate history here.

[Warm Worm]

message

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by drydem

Post by Kris Krieger
[snip]

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship
So you don't want government to subsidize your job?

You equate education in importance with transit schemes, when people
are very willing to drive themselves at their own expense. You have

to

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by drydem

Post by Kris Krieger

Post by george conklin
force people to take transit.

Willing to drive themselves, or forced because that is their only
accessible means of transportation?
That sword cuts both ways.
A lot of people *hate* driving, because there are so many a-holes on

the

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by drydem

Post by Kris Krieger
road and that makes it very stressful; OTOH, people I've known who

could

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by drydem

Post by Kris Krieger
access public transport can actually *use* their commuting time to

read,

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by drydem

Post by Kris Krieger
work through problems, do email via a laptop, and do other things that are
much more productive (or simply more relaxing) than struggling with
speeders, reckless drivers, road-ragers, and Mad Max Wannabes.

Note that people may avoid public transit if the other
commuter are nasty, if its too expensive, if it is unsafe
due to crime, if its too stressful, if it is difficult to use,
or if it is too slow. Some people however can't drive
or some other reason.
---
A few, but then the anti-jitney rules make picking up people to help

them

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by drydem
out and taking money from them to do so, illegal. You become an illegal
taxi. Transit companies got that law put in the help themselves...so they
thought.

I think it's hilarious that you think the fact that people supposedly

don't

Post by Amy Blankenship
"want" to use the crappy transit we have in most of the US is an argument
against transit, but you're hung up on this law that supposedly prevents
people from doing what they don't want to do anyway. I can't think of

_one_

Post by Amy Blankenship
person I've ever heard say "gee, I wish I could make a living ferrying
people around in my car." I've heard lots of people say "gee, I wish we

had

Post by Amy Blankenship
usable transit."

People say anything, but they want transit for YOU so they can drive. And
remember that before the anti-jitney laws people were successfully, with
government approval during World War 1, picking others up for a nickel or a
dime and taking them to work. Transit called this "unfair competition." I
am citing accurate history here.

There's a business based in Quebec, called Allo Stop. It networks
drivers going places with a few available seats in their cars together
with interested passengers. I used to use the service quite a bit and,
despite some problems with the odd driver, I was happy to pay the price
which was much cheaper than the Greyhound bus and usually more
comfortable and convenient too.

Apparently the bus companies put legal pressure on Allo Stop and they
had to stop business, at least in Ontario. Unsure if that's been reversed.

[George Conklin]

Post by Warm Worm

message

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by drydem

Post by Kris Krieger
[snip]

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship
So you don't want government to subsidize your job?

You equate education in importance with transit schemes, when people
are very willing to drive themselves at their own expense. You have

to

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by drydem

Post by Kris Krieger

Post by george conklin
force people to take transit.

Willing to drive themselves, or forced because that is their only
accessible means of transportation?
That sword cuts both ways.
A lot of people *hate* driving, because there are so many a-holes on

the

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by drydem

Post by Kris Krieger
road and that makes it very stressful; OTOH, people I've known who

could

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by drydem

Post by Kris Krieger
access public transport can actually *use* their commuting time to

read,

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by drydem

Post by Kris Krieger
work through problems, do email via a laptop, and do other things

that

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by drydem

Post by Kris Krieger
are
much more productive (or simply more relaxing) than struggling with
speeders, reckless drivers, road-ragers, and Mad Max Wannabes.

Note that people may avoid public transit if the other
commuter are nasty, if its too expensive, if it is unsafe
due to crime, if its too stressful, if it is difficult to use,
or if it is too slow. Some people however can't drive
or some other reason.
---
A few, but then the anti-jitney rules make picking up people to help

them

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by drydem
out and taking money from them to do so, illegal. You become an illegal
taxi. Transit companies got that law put in the help themselves...so they
thought.

I think it's hilarious that you think the fact that people supposedly

don't

Post by Amy Blankenship
"want" to use the crappy transit we have in most of the US is an argument
against transit, but you're hung up on this law that supposedly prevents
people from doing what they don't want to do anyway. I can't think of

_one_

Post by Amy Blankenship
person I've ever heard say "gee, I wish I could make a living ferrying
people around in my car." I've heard lots of people say "gee, I wish we

had

Post by Amy Blankenship
usable transit."

People say anything, but they want transit for YOU so they can drive.

And

Post by Warm Worm

remember that before the anti-jitney laws people were successfully, with
government approval during World War 1, picking others up for a nickel or a
dime and taking them to work. Transit called this "unfair competition."

I

Post by Warm Worm

am citing accurate history here.

There's a business based in Quebec, called Allo Stop. It networks
drivers going places with a few available seats in their cars together
with interested passengers. I used to use the service quite a bit and,
despite some problems with the odd driver, I was happy to pay the price
which was much cheaper than the Greyhound bus and usually more
comfortable and convenient too.
Apparently the bus companies put legal pressure on Allo Stop and they
had to stop business, at least in Ontario. Unsure if that's been reversed.

As I said, such arrangements in North America are generally illegal and
trnsit companies try to stop all arrangements which make the use of the
private care more efficient. In the past, also, car companies think this is
great because it sells more cars. But in the end the SLUG system in DC is
not too different. It works, but is only semi-legal.

Here is a census report from New York City:

"Even with gas prices more than doubling from 2000 to 2007, the proportion
of commuters driving to work alone in 2007 - 76 percent - remained the same
as when the decade began."

[Kris Krieger]

Post by drydem

innews:AOidnU7dppIJZVLVnZ2dnUV

[snip]

Post by drydem

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
You equate education in importance with transit schemes, when people
are very willing to drive themselves at their own expense. You have
to force people to take transit.

Willing to drive themselves, or forced because that is their only
accessible means of transportation?  
That sword cuts both ways.  
A lot of people *hate* driving, because there are so many a-holes on
the road and that makes it very stressful; OTOH, people I've known who
could access public transport can actually *use* their commuting time
to read, work through problems, do email via a laptop, and do other
things that ar

e

much more productive (or simply more relaxing) than struggling with
speeders, reckless drivers, road-ragers, and  Mad Max Wannabes.

Note that people may avoid public transit if the other
commuter are nasty, if its too expensive, if it is unsafe
due to crime, if its too stressful, if it is difficult to use,
or if it is too slow. Some people however can't drive
or some other reason.

The thing is that plces are differnt, ridership inthose places are
differnt.

The problem is that GC speaks as tho' everyplace in the entire world is an
exact mirror image of his local situation (or at least, his opinion of his
local situation), and then talks as tho' anyone who says "but differrnt
places are differnt" is an idiot.

Post by drydem

And if you live in Boston (as did my sister), it's idiotic to try
tohave a car, because the transport *is* good, and the city is old and
simply was not set up to accomidate mobs of sutomobiles, not even small
ones (never mind behemoths).

Beyond traffic, access to and cost for urban parking turns out to be
another
motivation for using mass transit

Which also includes the amount of space available for that parking.

Post by drydem

Post by Pat
At least in Rochester, no one is forcing anyone to do anything.
    In terms of % of total market, transit is so small a percentage

all

Post by Pat
public policy is how to figure out how to force people onto it, and
tha

t

Post by Pat
includes findings more and more sources of gifts.

Well, when you have to walk 5 miles just to get to a bus stop, then
yeah, public transport *won't* become a larger percentage of travel.
 It's no

t a

matter of "gifts" or "forcing", as much as it's a matter of
accessibility and routing.
I say routing because currently, at least where I've lived, even if one
c

an

get to a bus stop, that bus snakes all over creation before actually
heading anywhere - which is why I was thinking of "feeders"that could
be small neighborhood "trolleys" (or maybe solar-recharged electric
vans could work out) that go from suburban neighborhoods, to pickup
points from which the bus (or whatever) could go directly downtown, or
directly to one of the smaller, more localized city-centers.

the problems with using multiple bus routes is not
cost but synchronization in the DC area - the
wait time between two bus route can be as
short as 5 minutes and as long as 45 minutes.

THat's a problem in many areas. But in others, it works. I don't pretend
to know the formula, it just seems to me that simply sitting around and
kvetching (as deos GC) that there is NO public transport idea that can
*possibly* work is worse than useless.

Post by drydem
For long 60 minutes route may be four buses
(two in each direction). Under heavy traffic conditions,
buses *bunch* up so the buses in a particular
direction o the route is not half-way distance
from one another along the route but much closer or
much farther. During rush hour when commuting
traffic is very bad, longer Metrobus routes tend
to *bunch* up and buses rarely are able to keep
to their published schedule.

I never took the bus when I lived in Laurel, but I did take the DC rail.
THat was pretty good. But again, differnt places need differnt solutions
- what's goofy is talking as tho' the present is the one and only possible
way to do something - esp. when the present way isn't working well
either...

[George Conklin]

Post by Kris Krieger

Post by drydem

innews:AOidnU7dppIJZVLVnZ2dnUV

[snip]

Post by drydem

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
You equate education in importance with transit schemes, when people
are very willing to drive themselves at their own expense. You have
to force people to take transit.

Willing to drive themselves, or forced because that is their only
accessible means of transportation?
That sword cuts both ways.
A lot of people *hate* driving, because there are so many a-holes on
the road and that makes it very stressful; OTOH, people I've known who
could access public transport can actually *use* their commuting time
to read, work through problems, do email via a laptop, and do other
things that ar

e

much more productive (or simply more relaxing) than struggling with
speeders, reckless drivers, road-ragers, and Mad Max Wannabes.

Note that people may avoid public transit if the other
commuter are nasty, if its too expensive, if it is unsafe
due to crime, if its too stressful, if it is difficult to use,
or if it is too slow. Some people however can't drive
or some other reason.

The thing is that plces are differnt, ridership inthose places are
differnt.
The problem is that GC speaks as tho' everyplace in the entire world is an
exact mirror image of his local situation (or at least, his opinion of his
local situation), and then talks as tho' anyone who says "but differrnt
places are differnt" is an idiot.

You mean London, NYC and other cities are not different enough for you.
Tell Bloomberg that please.

Post by Kris Krieger

Post by drydem

And if you live in Boston (as did my sister), it's idiotic to try
tohave a car, because the transport *is* good, and the city is old and
simply was not set up to accomidate mobs of sutomobiles, not even small
ones (never mind behemoths).

Beyond traffic, access to and cost for urban parking turns out to be
another
motivation for using mass transit

Which also includes the amount of space available for that parking.

Space? Transit vehicles waste fuel because they have to return empty
for the next load. If they could also stay in the city then they would be
fuel-efficient.

Post by Kris Krieger

Post by drydem

Post by Pat
At least in Rochester, no one is forcing anyone to do anything.
In terms of % of total market, transit is so small a percentage

all

Post by Pat
public policy is how to figure out how to force people onto it, and
tha

t

Post by Pat
includes findings more and more sources of gifts.

Well, when you have to walk 5 miles just to get to a bus stop, then
yeah, public transport *won't* become a larger percentage of travel.
It's no

t a

matter of "gifts" or "forcing", as much as it's a matter of
accessibility and routing.
I say routing because currently, at least where I've lived, even if one
c

an

get to a bus stop, that bus snakes all over creation before actually
heading anywhere - which is why I was thinking of "feeders"that could
be small neighborhood "trolleys" (or maybe solar-recharged electric
vans could work out) that go from suburban neighborhoods, to pickup
points from which the bus (or whatever) could go directly downtown, or
directly to one of the smaller, more localized city-centers.

the problems with using multiple bus routes is not
cost but synchronization in the DC area - the
wait time between two bus route can be as
short as 5 minutes and as long as 45 minutes.

THat's a problem in many areas. But in others, it works. I don't pretend
to know the formula, it just seems to me that simply sitting around and
kvetching (as deos GC) that there is NO public transport idea that can
*possibly* work is worse than useless.

Transportation in the public realm failed, in case you don't remember
any history at all. It was there, and went out of business. Costs were
high, and ridership went down. Trolleys reached their peak fare-revenue
ratios in 1914. That far back.

Post by Kris Krieger

Post by drydem
For long 60 minutes route may be four buses
(two in each direction). Under heavy traffic conditions,
buses *bunch* up so the buses in a particular
direction o the route is not half-way distance
from one another along the route but much closer or
much farther. During rush hour when commuting
traffic is very bad, longer Metrobus routes tend
to *bunch* up and buses rarely are able to keep
to their published schedule.

I never took the bus when I lived in Laurel, but I did take the DC rail.
THat was pretty good. But again, differnt places need differnt solutions
- what's goofy is talking as tho' the present is the one and only possible
way to do something - esp. when the present way isn't working well
either...

But most jobs are not downtown.

[drydem]

Post by Kris Krieger

Post by drydem

innews:AOidnU7dppIJZVLVnZ2dnUV

[snip]

Post by drydem

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
You equate education in importance with transit schemes, when people
are very willing to drive themselves at their own expense. You have
to force people to take transit.

Willing to drive themselves, or forced because that is their only
accessible means of transportation?  
That sword cuts both ways.  
A lot of people *hate* driving, because there are so many a-holes on
the road and that makes it very stressful; OTOH, people I've known who
could access public transport can actually *use* their commuting time
to read, work through problems, do email via a laptop, and do other
things that ar

e

much more productive (or simply more relaxing) than struggling with
speeders, reckless drivers, road-ragers, and  Mad Max Wannabes.

Note that people may avoid public transit if the other
commuter are nasty, if its too expensive, if it is unsafe
due to crime, if its too stressful, if it is difficult to use,
or  if it is too slow. Some people however can't drive
or some other reason.

The thing is that plces are differnt, ridership inthose places are
differnt.
The problem is that GC speaks as tho' everyplace in the entire world is an
exact mirror image of his local situation (or at least, his opinion of his
local situation), and then talks as tho' anyone who says "but differrnt
places are differnt" is an idiot.

Post by drydem

And if you live in Boston (as did my sister), it's idiotic to try
tohave a car, because the transport *is* good, and the city is old and
simply was not set up to accomidate mobs of sutomobiles, not even small
ones (never mind behemoths).

Beyond traffic, access to and cost for urban parking turns out to be
another
motivation for using mass transit

Which also includes the amount of space available for that parking.

Post by drydem

Post by Pat
At least in Rochester, no one is forcing anyone to do anything.
    In terms of % of total market, transit is so small a percentage

 all

Post by Pat
public policy is how to figure out how to force people onto it, and
tha

t

Post by Pat
includes findings more and more sources of gifts.

Well, when you have to walk 5 miles just to get to a bus stop, then
yeah, public transport *won't* become a larger percentage of travel.
 It's no

t a

matter of "gifts" or "forcing", as much as it's a matter of
accessibility and routing.
I say routing because currently, at least where I've lived, even if one
c

an

get to a bus stop, that bus snakes all over creation before actually
heading anywhere - which is why I was thinking of "feeders"that could
be small neighborhood "trolleys" (or maybe solar-recharged electric
vans could work out) that go from suburban neighborhoods, to pickup
points from which the bus (or whatever) could go directly downtown, or
directly to one of the smaller, more localized city-centers.

the problems with using multiple bus routes is not
cost but synchronization in the DC area - the
wait time between two bus route can be as
short as 5 minutes and as long as 45 minutes.

THat's a problem in many areas.  But in others, it works.  I don't pretend
to know the formula, it just seems to me that simply sitting around and
kvetching (as deos GC) that there is NO public transport idea that can
*possibly* work is worse than useless.

Post by drydem
For long 60 minutes route may be four buses
(two in each direction). Under heavy traffic conditions,
buses *bunch* up so the buses in a particular
direction o the route is  not half-way distance
from one another along the route but much closer or
much farther. During rush hour when commuting
traffic is very bad,  longer Metrobus routes tend
to  *bunch* up and buses rarely are able to keep
to their published schedule.

I never took the bus when I lived in Laurel, but I did take the DC rail.
THat was pretty good.  But again, differnt places need differnt solutions
- what's goofy is talking as tho' the present is the one and only possible
way to do something - esp. when the present way isn't working well
either...-

The Blue and Orange Line that serves the Laurel, Maryland
area (Prince George's County) has a reasonable route
in that is it is not too long and therefore suffers less from timing
issues. The Red line that serves Montogmery County is
a longer route and has reliablity and timing problems. The
longer the line the higher the probablity of failure and timing
problems ( given that all things are equal). Metrorail is
definitely much better than Metrobus - the fare is higher
so it serves a more unscale commutership than Metrobus.
Shorter rail routes like the yellow line tend to be more
reliable.

Metrobus has improve over the years. Better policing
around and one transit systems is one of the solutions
that have helped. As transit systems become more
heavily used - commuters become targets for criminal
elements. Initially, Metro official tried to keep it secret
but eventually the public found out that Metro security
was losing its battle against crime on metro rail station
areas - it was only with the assistance of local police
patrol and support that the crime levels have subsided.
In the past onee of the worst places to park one's
car was at the huge mega parking lot at the
New Carrollton Metrorail station - the local authorities
have stepped up patrols because of it. We've had
several local car theft rings busted in recent times
- even the minor involve were prosecuted to the fullest
extent of the law.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public school
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its
operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it 'turned a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee pays
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big college
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too, because
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to foot
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article.

George and Jack have got a quite impressive record in this category.
If intentionally or by accident am be left to the judgement of others.
Tadej

"Others" like you seem to think that any way to get government to
subsidize when you want is good, while any alternative is bad.

I think this includes you, unless you want government to stop
subsidizing your _job_!

You are the most illogical person I've met. If you go to school you
have to support transit schemes? ha Ha .

So you don't want government to subsidize your job?

You equate education in importance with transit schemes, when people are
very willing to drive themselves at their own expense. You have to force
people to take transit.

People are willing to educate themselves at their own expense, as well, or
there wouldn't be any private schools. You were complaining about people
who disapprove of subsidies for things they don't like, yet approve of it
for things they want. I think the fact that you disapprove of subsidies for
transit, yet make your living from other subsidies, puts you squarely in the
group you're complaining about. I don't think that the fact that _you_
can't see the logic in this assertion makes me illogical.

[Warm Worm]

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public school
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it 'turned a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee pays
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big college
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too, because
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to foot
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article.

George and Jack have got a quite impressive record in this category.
If intentionally or by accident am be left to the judgement of others.
Tadej

"Others" like you seem to think that any way to get government to
subsidize when you want is good, while any alternative is bad.

I think this includes you, unless you want government to stop subsidizing
your _job_!

You are the most illogical person I've met. If you go to school you
have to support transit schemes? ha Ha .

Vulcans don't laugh. ;)

[Warm Worm]

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public school
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it 'turned a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee pays
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big college
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too, because
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to foot
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article.

George and Jack have got a quite impressive record in this category.
If intentionally or by accident am be left to the judgement of others.

I admit to wondering if they might be a little young.

[george conklin]

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public school
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it 'turned a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee pays
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big college
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too, because
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to foot
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article.

George and Jack have got a quite impressive record in this category.
If intentionally or by accident am be left to the judgement of others.

I admit to wondering if they might be a little young.

The point of the article is quite clear. Transit has to find many more
groups to throw money at them in order to survive. Riders are irrelevant to
the financial picture. Our local TTA gets 11% from the riders. That is
close to nothing, yet it does not get anywhere near as many riders as they
think they ought to have, based on some philosophy or other.

[Kris Krieger]

[snip]

Post by george conklin

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article.

George and Jack have got a quite impressive record in this category.
If intentionally or by accident am be left to the judgement of others.

I admit to wondering if they might be a little young.

The point of the article is quite clear. Transit has to find many more
groups to throw money at them in order to survive. Riders are
irrelevant to the financial picture. Our local TTA gets 11% from the
riders. That is close to nothing, yet it does not get anywhere near as
many riders as they think they ought to have, based on some philosophy
or other.

Broad extrapolation from a local situation is inadequate. It'd be like
claiming "everyone in the US can grow palm trees because people in Luisiana
can grow them". Your local situation, even if accurately described, is not
the end-all and be-all absolute definition for *everywhere*.

[George Conklin]

Post by Kris Krieger
[snip]

Post by george conklin

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article.

George and Jack have got a quite impressive record in this category.
If intentionally or by accident am be left to the judgement of others.

I admit to wondering if they might be a little young.

The point of the article is quite clear. Transit has to find many more
groups to throw money at them in order to survive. Riders are
irrelevant to the financial picture. Our local TTA gets 11% from the
riders. That is close to nothing, yet it does not get anywhere near as
many riders as they think they ought to have, based on some philosophy
or other.

Broad extrapolation from a local situation is inadequate. It'd be like
claiming "everyone in the US can grow palm trees because people in Luisiana
can grow them". Your local situation, even if accurately described, is not
the end-all and be-all absolute definition for *everywhere*.

If transit made money, then the transit companies would still be in
business. They all failed. That is pretty generalized. Based on fact, not
your idle wishes.

[Warm Worm]

Post by george conklin

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public school
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it 'turned a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee pays
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big college
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too, because
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to foot
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article.

George and Jack have got a quite impressive record in this category.
If intentionally or by accident am be left to the judgement of others.

I admit to wondering if they might be a little young.

The point of the article is quite clear. Transit has to find many more
groups to throw money at them in order to survive. Riders are irrelevant to
the financial picture. Our local TTA gets 11% from the riders. That is
close to nothing, yet it does not get anywhere near as many riders as they
think they ought to have, based on some philosophy or other.

Whatever it takes for the betterment of everyone and the Earth...
Cars currently seem like an unsustainable illusion... like the dirt
under the rug...

Speaking of death-rates, seeing as you seem up on that, are you aware of
the inter/national statistics of those involving vehicles?

[George Conklin]

Post by Warm Worm

Post by george conklin

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

Post by Warm Worm

Post by george conklin

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public school
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it

'turned

Post by Warm Worm

Post by george conklin

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee pays
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big college
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too, because
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to foot
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article.

George and Jack have got a quite impressive record in this category.
If intentionally or by accident am be left to the judgement of others.

I admit to wondering if they might be a little young.

The point of the article is quite clear. Transit has to find many more
groups to throw money at them in order to survive. Riders are irrelevant to
the financial picture. Our local TTA gets 11% from the riders. That is
close to nothing, yet it does not get anywhere near as many riders as they
think they ought to have, based on some philosophy or other.

Whatever it takes for the betterment of everyone and the Earth...
Cars currently seem like an unsustainable illusion... like the dirt
under the rug...

The real radicals know that it is now how you travel, but ALL travel is
bad, unless by walking only. That is supposed to be healthy. Transit buses
do not save fuel compared to cars. Thus transit is a lifestyle not an
environmental issue. So you are not into sustainability, but lifestyle. A
lifestyle few enjoy.

[Pat]

Post by Pat
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public

school

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its
operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it

'turned

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee

pays

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses.  Rochester is a pretty big college
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too,

because

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to

foot

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
  I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail?  You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article.

George and Jack have got a quite impressive record in this category.
If intentionally or by accident am be left to the judgement of others.

I admit to wondering if they might be a little young.

  The point of the article is quite clear.  Transit has to find many

more

Post by Warm Worm

groups to throw money at them in order to survive.  Riders are

irrelevant to

Post by Warm Worm

the financial picture.  Our local TTA gets 11% from the riders.  That is
close to nothing, yet it does not get anywhere near as many riders as

they

Post by Warm Worm

think they ought to have, based on some philosophy or other.

Whatever it takes for the betterment of everyone and the Earth...
Cars currently seem like an unsustainable illusion... like the dirt
under the rug...

    The real radicals know that it is now how you travel, but ALL travel is
bad, unless by walking only.  That is supposed to be healthy.  Transit buses
do not save fuel compared to cars.  Thus transit is a lifestyle not an
environmental issue.  So you are not into sustainability, but lifestyle.  A
lifestyle few enjoy.

I think you're wrong on both counts. For many, transit is
"transportation of last resort". It is what you use if you cannot
afford any other means of transportation whether it be a poor person
in a poor area of Rochester or a fairly well-to-do Manhattan-ite who
still can't afford a car. Even many of the so-called middle class of
Westchester or LI can't afford to take a car into Manhattan, even if
they can afford to take it to the train station.

Ideally, everyone would have their own water-permeable, substainable
route into work for their chauffeur driven, CO2 powered vehicle. But
alas, that's not the case. I think few people want to take transit,
but many people need to.

Your problem, George, is that you have never gotten past the concept
of disjointness and into the whole non-disjoint world of reality. You
view transit as solely a transportation issue (with maybe a tinge of
environmentalism). But in reality, its much more than that. It is a
social program. It is a political issue. It is a anti-poverty program/
issue.

The other thing, George, is that the argument for or against the
economics of transit depends nearly entirely on how you calculate
costs. One can argue anything you want and be right, as long as you
ignore everything else. Unfortunately, one cannot take all costs,
factors, issues and un-intended consequences into account because its
way too complex.

If you look at the operating costs of transit v. a car, you get one
answer. It is neither right nor wronig, it's an answer. Just an
answer and nothing more.
If you take into account subsidies, you get another answer.
If you take into account the fact that you need less lanes of roadway,
you get another answer.
If you take into account the roadway demand for peak hours (when it's
most critical), you get another answer.
If you take into account acid rain pollution v. solids, you get
another answer.
If you take into account externality such as off-site pollution, you
get another answer.
If you take into account additional access to health care, you get
another answer.
If you take into account additional access to employment you get
another answer.
If you take into account additional access to education you get
another answer.
If you take into account people owning cars to get to transit you get
another answer.
If you take into account peoples' time you get another answer.

George, there is no "right" answer. There is not "single" answer.
The answer depends on your perspective -- and do some extent it
depends on what you want the answer to be. And it depends on who you
are. The answer is different for a rich person or a poor one.

You-all need to expand your horizons and look at the bigger pictures.

So here's the next question, what's better: a hamburger or a veggie
burger? What's better, McDonalds or Burger King? Yankees or Mets.
Cubs or Bears?

[George Conklin]

Post by Pat

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public

school

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its
operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it

'turned

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee

pays

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big

college

Post by Pat

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too,

because

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to

foot

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article.

George and Jack have got a quite impressive record in this category.
If intentionally or by accident am be left to the judgement of others.

I admit to wondering if they might be a little young.

The point of the article is quite clear. Transit has to find many

more

Post by Warm Worm

groups to throw money at them in order to survive. Riders are

irrelevant to

Post by Warm Worm

the financial picture. Our local TTA gets 11% from the riders. That is
close to nothing, yet it does not get anywhere near as many riders as

they

Post by Warm Worm

think they ought to have, based on some philosophy or other.

Whatever it takes for the betterment of everyone and the Earth...
Cars currently seem like an unsustainable illusion... like the dirt
under the rug...

The real radicals know that it is now how you travel, but ALL travel is
bad, unless by walking only. That is supposed to be healthy. Transit buses
do not save fuel compared to cars. Thus transit is a lifestyle not an
environmental issue. So you are not into sustainability, but lifestyle. A
lifestyle few enjoy.

I think you're wrong on both counts. For many, transit is
"transportation of last resort". It is what you use if you cannot
afford any other means of transportation whether it be a poor person
in a poor area of Rochester or a fairly well-to-do Manhattan-ite who
still can't afford a car.

-----

Transit may well be the method of last resort for a few people. But of
course individuals cannot fulfill that need now as a result of the
anti-jitney laws. In rural areas, such laws are routinely ignored, but not
in some cities. But in NYC there are the dollar cars, illegal, but popular.
That is the solution, but made illegal by greedy transit operators.


Even many of the so-called middle class of
Westchester or LI can't afford to take a car into Manhattan, even if
they can afford to take it to the train station.

Ideally, everyone would have their own water-permeable, substainable
route into work for their chauffeur driven, CO2 powered vehicle. But
alas, that's not the case. I think few people want to take transit,
but many people need to.

Your problem, George, is that you have never gotten past the concept
of disjointness and into the whole non-disjoint world of reality. You
view transit as solely a transportation issue (with maybe a tinge of
environmentalism). But in reality, its much more than that. It is a
social program. It is a political issue. It is a anti-poverty program/
issue.

---

When I post about the solutions (illegal) worked out by people at low cost,
you get upset and ignore that.


The other thing, George, is that the argument for or against the
economics of transit depends nearly entirely on how you calculate
costs.

------

All I hear here is "secret subsities" and other nonsense.



One can argue anything you want and be right, as long as you
ignore everything else. Unfortunately, one cannot take all costs,
factors, issues and un-intended consequences into account because its
way too complex.

If you look at the operating costs of transit v. a car, you get one
answer. It is neither right nor wronig, it's an answer. Just an
answer and nothing more.
If you take into account subsidies, you get another answer.
If you take into account the fact that you need less lanes of roadway,
you get another answer.
If you take into account the roadway demand for peak hours (when it's
most critical), you get another answer.
If you take into account acid rain pollution v. solids, you get
another answer.
If you take into account externality such as off-site pollution, you
get another answer.
If you take into account additional access to health care, you get
another answer.
If you take into account additional access to employment you get
another answer.
If you take into account additional access to education you get
another answer.
If you take into account people owning cars to get to transit you get
another answer.
If you take into account peoples' time you get another answer.

George, there is no "right" answer. There is not "single" answer.
The answer depends on your perspective -- and do some extent it
depends on what you want the answer to be. And it depends on who you
are. The answer is different for a rich person or a poor one.

You-all need to expand your horizons and look at the bigger pictures.

So here's the next question, what's better: a hamburger or a veggie
burger? What's better, McDonalds or Burger King? Yankees or Mets.
Cubs or Bears?

-----

So you are back to lifestyle, Yankees or Mets. If I say that you get
upset, yet you end with that very statement.

[Pat]

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public

school

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its
operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it

'turned

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee

pays

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus

routes

Post by Pat

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big

college

Post by Pat

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too,

because

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to

foot

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article.

George and Jack have got a quite impressive record in this category.
If intentionally or by accident am be left to the judgement of

others.

Post by Pat

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm
I admit to wondering if they might be a little young.

The point of the article is quite clear. Transit has to find many

more

Post by Warm Worm

groups to throw money at them in order to survive. Riders are

irrelevant to

Post by Warm Worm

the financial picture. Our local TTA gets 11% from the riders. That is
close to nothing, yet it does not get anywhere near as many riders as

they

Post by Warm Worm

think they ought to have, based on some philosophy or other.

Whatever it takes for the betterment of everyone and the Earth...
Cars currently seem like an unsustainable illusion... like the dirt
under the rug...

The real radicals know that it is now how you travel, but ALL travel is
bad, unless by walking only. That is supposed to be healthy. Transit buses
do not save fuel compared to cars. Thus transit is a lifestyle not an
environmental issue. So you are not into sustainability, but lifestyle. A
lifestyle few enjoy.

I think you're wrong on both counts.  For many, transit is
"transportation of last resort".  It is what you use if you cannot
afford any other means of transportation whether it be a poor person
in a poor area of Rochester or a fairly well-to-do Manhattan-ite who
still can't afford a car.
    -----
    Transit may well be the method of last resort for a few people.  But of
course individuals cannot fulfill that need now as a result of the
anti-jitney laws.  In rural areas, such laws are routinely ignored, but not
in some cities.  But in NYC there are the dollar cars, illegal, but popular.
That is the solution, but made illegal by greedy transit operators.
  Even many of the so-called middle class of
Westchester or LI can't afford to take a car into Manhattan, even if
they can afford to take it to the train station.
Ideally, everyone would have their own water-permeable, substainable
route into work for their chauffeur driven, CO2 powered vehicle.  But
alas, that's not the case.  I think few people want to take transit,
but many people need to.
Your problem, George, is that you have never gotten past the concept
of disjointness and into the whole non-disjoint world of reality.  You
view transit as solely a transportation issue (with maybe a tinge of
environmentalism).  But in reality, its much more than that.  It is a
social program. It is a political issue.  It is a anti-poverty program/
issue.
---
When I post about the solutions (illegal) worked out by people at low cost,
you get upset and ignore that.
The other thing, George, is that the argument for or against the
economics of transit depends nearly entirely on how you calculate
costs.
------
     All I hear here is "secret subsities"  and other nonsense.
 One can argue anything you want and be right, as long as you
ignore everything else.  Unfortunately, one cannot take all costs,
factors, issues and un-intended consequences into account because its
way too complex.
If you look at the operating costs of transit v. a car, you get one
answer.  It is neither right nor wronig, it's an answer.  Just an
answer and nothing more.
If you take into account subsidies, you get another answer.
If you take into account the fact that you need less lanes of roadway,
you get another answer.
If you take into account the roadway demand for peak hours (when it's
most critical), you get another answer.
If you take into account acid rain pollution v. solids, you get
another answer.
If you take into account externality such as off-site pollution, you
get another answer.
If you take into account additional access to health care, you get
another answer.
If you take into account additional access to employment you get
another answer.
If you take into account additional access to education you get
another answer.
If you take into account people owning cars to get to transit you get
another answer.
If you take into account peoples' time you get another answer.
George, there is no "right" answer.  There is not "single" answer.
The answer depends on your perspective -- and do some extent it
depends on what you want the answer to be.  And it depends on who you
are.  The answer is different for a rich person or a poor one.
You-all need to expand your horizons and look at the bigger pictures.
So here's the next question, what's better: a hamburger or a veggie
burger?  What's better, McDonalds or Burger King?  Yankees or Mets.
Cubs or Bears?
-----
    So you are back to lifestyle, Yankees or Mets.  If I say that you get
upset, yet you end with that very statement.

No George, you continue to miss points. The point of the final
examples is that there are no "right" answers. It depends on the
individual. Let me give you another example, if you can handle it.
Many people think electric cars are "the solution" because they don't
pollute. Sure, if all cars/trucks/trains were electric, you might get
pristine air in Manhattan. Many would view that as a good thing. But
electric cars don't just pull electricity out of the air (unless they
are lightening powered). So the externality is more pollution in
Ohio, Pennsylvania and upstate NY. It might mean more dead lake in
the Adirondacks. So, are electric cars good? It depends on where you
live. If you have a kid with asthma in NYC, they might be a great
idea. If you like trout fishing in the Adirondacks, they might not
be.

I'll finish by quoting George Carlin. "If you think that there's a
solution, then you are part of the problem". All solution create
their own set of new problems. They might be lesser problems, but we
live in a closed system.

[George Conklin]

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public

school

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its
operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it

'turned

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee

pays

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus

routes

Post by Pat

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big

college

Post by Pat

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too,

because

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to

foot

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article.

George and Jack have got a quite impressive record in this category.
If intentionally or by accident am be left to the judgement of

others.

Post by Pat

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm
I admit to wondering if they might be a little young.

The point of the article is quite clear. Transit has to find many

more

Post by Warm Worm

groups to throw money at them in order to survive. Riders are

irrelevant to

Post by Warm Worm

the financial picture. Our local TTA gets 11% from the riders. That is
close to nothing, yet it does not get anywhere near as many riders as

they

Post by Warm Worm

think they ought to have, based on some philosophy or other.

Whatever it takes for the betterment of everyone and the Earth...
Cars currently seem like an unsustainable illusion... like the dirt
under the rug...

The real radicals know that it is now how you travel, but ALL travel is
bad, unless by walking only. That is supposed to be healthy. Transit buses
do not save fuel compared to cars. Thus transit is a lifestyle not an
environmental issue. So you are not into sustainability, but lifestyle. A
lifestyle few enjoy.

I think you're wrong on both counts. For many, transit is
"transportation of last resort". It is what you use if you cannot
afford any other means of transportation whether it be a poor person
in a poor area of Rochester or a fairly well-to-do Manhattan-ite who
still can't afford a car.
-----
Transit may well be the method of last resort for a few people. But of
course individuals cannot fulfill that need now as a result of the
anti-jitney laws. In rural areas, such laws are routinely ignored, but not
in some cities. But in NYC there are the dollar cars, illegal, but

popular.

Post by Pat
That is the solution, but made illegal by greedy transit operators.
Even many of the so-called middle class of
Westchester or LI can't afford to take a car into Manhattan, even if
they can afford to take it to the train station.
Ideally, everyone would have their own water-permeable, substainable
route into work for their chauffeur driven, CO2 powered vehicle. But
alas, that's not the case. I think few people want to take transit,
but many people need to.
Your problem, George, is that you have never gotten past the concept
of disjointness and into the whole non-disjoint world of reality. You
view transit as solely a transportation issue (with maybe a tinge of
environmentalism). But in reality, its much more than that. It is a
social program. It is a political issue. It is a anti-poverty program/
issue.
---
When I post about the solutions (illegal) worked out by people at low cost,
you get upset and ignore that.
The other thing, George, is that the argument for or against the
economics of transit depends nearly entirely on how you calculate
costs.
------
All I hear here is "secret subsities" and other nonsense.
One can argue anything you want and be right, as long as you
ignore everything else. Unfortunately, one cannot take all costs,
factors, issues and un-intended consequences into account because its
way too complex.
If you look at the operating costs of transit v. a car, you get one
answer. It is neither right nor wronig, it's an answer. Just an
answer and nothing more.
If you take into account subsidies, you get another answer.
If you take into account the fact that you need less lanes of roadway,
you get another answer.
If you take into account the roadway demand for peak hours (when it's
most critical), you get another answer.
If you take into account acid rain pollution v. solids, you get
another answer.
If you take into account externality such as off-site pollution, you
get another answer.
If you take into account additional access to health care, you get
another answer.
If you take into account additional access to employment you get
another answer.
If you take into account additional access to education you get
another answer.
If you take into account people owning cars to get to transit you get
another answer.
If you take into account peoples' time you get another answer.
George, there is no "right" answer. There is not "single" answer.
The answer depends on your perspective -- and do some extent it
depends on what you want the answer to be. And it depends on who you
are. The answer is different for a rich person or a poor one.
You-all need to expand your horizons and look at the bigger pictures.
So here's the next question, what's better: a hamburger or a veggie
burger? What's better, McDonalds or Burger King? Yankees or Mets.
Cubs or Bears?
-----
So you are back to lifestyle, Yankees or Mets. If I say that you get
upset, yet you end with that very statement.

No George, you continue to miss points. The point of the final
examples is that there are no "right" answers.

There are expensive answers to everything which always require high
taxes and no flexibility.


It depends on the
individual. Let me give you another example, if you can handle it.
Many people think electric cars are "the solution" because they don't
pollute. Sure, if all cars/trucks/trains were electric, you might get
pristine air in Manhattan. Many would view that as a good thing. But
electric cars don't just pull electricity out of the air (unless they
are lightening powered). So the externality is more pollution in
Ohio, Pennsylvania and upstate NY. It might mean more dead lake in
the Adirondacks. So, are electric cars good? It depends on where you
live. If you have a kid with asthma in NYC, they might be a great
idea. If you like trout fishing in the Adirondacks, they might not
be.

-----

Electric cars do allow cities to export dirty air to rural locations.
That is what the subways do now. NYC does NOT use fewer BTUs per person
than average because of transit. They do it by having people live in spaces
with lower square footage than a single-wide trailer and with rents and
charges in the millions for a 1 room apartment. But that is the lifestyle
pushed by pro-transit people. Remember the people here who said that 800
square feet for a family was very ample? Yes, there are strong correlates
of transit and my point is that most of the outcomes would be considered
negative by most people most of the time.

[Pat]

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public

school

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its
operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it

'turned

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee

pays

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus

routes

Post by Pat

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big

college

Post by Pat

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too,

because

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization

to

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
foot

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then
transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article.

George and Jack have got a quite impressive record in this

category.

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina
If intentionally or by accident am be left to the judgement of

others.

Post by Pat

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm
I admit to wondering if they might be a little young.

The point of the article is quite clear. Transit has to find many

more

Post by Warm Worm

groups to throw money at them in order to survive. Riders are

irrelevant to

Post by Warm Worm

the financial picture. Our local TTA gets 11% from the riders. That

is

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by Warm Worm

close to nothing, yet it does not get anywhere near as many riders

as

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
they

Post by Warm Worm

think they ought to have, based on some philosophy or other.

Whatever it takes for the betterment of everyone and the Earth...
Cars currently seem like an unsustainable illusion... like the dirt
under the rug...

The real radicals know that it is now how you travel, but ALL travel is
bad, unless by walking only. That is supposed to be healthy. Transit

buses

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
do not save fuel compared to cars. Thus transit is a lifestyle not an
environmental issue. So you are not into sustainability, but lifestyle.

A

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
lifestyle few enjoy.

I think you're wrong on both counts. For many, transit is
"transportation of last resort". It is what you use if you cannot
afford any other means of transportation whether it be a poor person
in a poor area of Rochester or a fairly well-to-do Manhattan-ite who
still can't afford a car.
-----
Transit may well be the method of last resort for a few people. But of
course individuals cannot fulfill that need now as a result of the
anti-jitney laws. In rural areas, such laws are routinely ignored, but not
in some cities. But in NYC there are the dollar cars, illegal, but

popular.

Post by Pat
That is the solution, but made illegal by greedy transit operators.
Even many of the so-called middle class of
Westchester or LI can't afford to take a car into Manhattan, even if
they can afford to take it to the train station.
Ideally, everyone would have their own water-permeable, substainable
route into work for their chauffeur driven, CO2 powered vehicle. But
alas, that's not the case. I think few people want to take transit,
but many people need to.
Your problem, George, is that you have never gotten past the concept
of disjointness and into the whole non-disjoint world of reality. You
view transit as solely a transportation issue (with maybe a tinge of
environmentalism). But in reality, its much more than that. It is a
social program. It is a political issue. It is a anti-poverty program/
issue.
---
When I post about the solutions (illegal) worked out by people at low

cost,

Post by Pat
you get upset and ignore that.
The other thing, George, is that the argument for or against the
economics of transit depends nearly entirely on how you calculate
costs.
------
All I hear here is "secret subsities" and other nonsense.
One can argue anything you want and be right, as long as you
ignore everything else. Unfortunately, one cannot take all costs,
factors, issues and un-intended consequences into account because its
way too complex.
If you look at the operating costs of transit v. a car, you get one
answer. It is neither right nor wronig, it's an answer. Just an
answer and nothing more.
If you take into account subsidies, you get another answer.
If you take into account the fact that you need less lanes of roadway,
you get another answer.
If you take into account the roadway demand for peak hours (when it's
most critical), you get another answer.
If you take into account acid rain pollution v. solids, you get
another answer.
If you take into account externality such as off-site pollution, you
get another answer.
If you take into account additional access to health care, you get
another answer.
If you take into account additional access to employment you get
another answer.
If you take into account additional access to education you get
another answer.
If you take into account people owning cars to get to transit you get
another answer.
If you take into account peoples' time you get another answer.
George, there is no "right" answer. There is not "single" answer.
The answer depends on your perspective -- and do some extent it
depends on what you want the answer to be. And it depends on who you
are. The answer is different for a rich person or a poor one.
You-all need to expand your horizons and look at the bigger pictures.
So here's the next question, what's better: a hamburger or a veggie
burger? What's better, McDonalds or Burger King? Yankees or Mets.
Cubs or Bears?
-----
So you are back to lifestyle, Yankees or Mets. If I say that you get
upset, yet you end with that very statement.

No George, you continue to miss points.  The point of the final
examples is that there are no "right" answers.
    There are expensive answers to everything which always require high
taxes and no flexibility.

Oh, then what is the answer to high taxes and lack of flexibility?

Post by Tadej Brezina
  It depends on the
individual.  Let me give you another example, if you can handle it.
Many people think electric cars are "the solution" because they don't
pollute.  Sure, if all cars/trucks/trains were electric, you might get
pristine air in Manhattan.  Many would view that as a good thing.  But
electric cars don't just pull electricity out of the air (unless they
are lightening powered).  So the externality is more pollution in
Ohio, Pennsylvania and upstate NY.  It might mean more dead lake in
the Adirondacks.  So, are electric cars good?  It depends on where you
live.  If you have a kid with asthma in NYC, they might be a great
idea.  If you like trout fishing in the Adirondacks, they might not
be.
   -----
    Electric cars do allow cities to export dirty air to rural locations.
That is what the subways do now.  NYC does NOT use fewer BTUs per person
than average because of transit.  They do it by having people live in spaces
with lower square footage than a single-wide trailer and with rents and
charges in the millions for a 1 room apartment.  But that is the lifestyle
pushed by pro-transit people.  Remember the people here who said that 800
square feet for a family was very ample?  Yes, there are strong correlates
of transit and my point is that most of the outcomes would be considered
negative by most people most of the time.

[Warm Worm]

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public

school

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its
operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it

'turned

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee

pays

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus

routes

Post by Pat

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big

college

Post by Pat

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too,

because

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization

to

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
foot

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article.

George and Jack have got a quite impressive record in this

category.

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina
If intentionally or by accident am be left to the judgement of

others.

Post by Pat

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Warm Worm
I admit to wondering if they might be a little young.

The point of the article is quite clear. Transit has to find many

more

Post by Warm Worm

groups to throw money at them in order to survive. Riders are

irrelevant to

Post by Warm Worm

the financial picture. Our local TTA gets 11% from the riders. That

is

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by Warm Worm

close to nothing, yet it does not get anywhere near as many riders

as

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
they

Post by Warm Worm

think they ought to have, based on some philosophy or other.

Whatever it takes for the betterment of everyone and the Earth...
Cars currently seem like an unsustainable illusion... like the dirt
under the rug...

The real radicals know that it is now how you travel, but ALL travel is
bad, unless by walking only. That is supposed to be healthy. Transit

buses

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
do not save fuel compared to cars. Thus transit is a lifestyle not an
environmental issue. So you are not into sustainability, but lifestyle.

A

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
lifestyle few enjoy.

I think you're wrong on both counts. For many, transit is
"transportation of last resort". It is what you use if you cannot
afford any other means of transportation whether it be a poor person
in a poor area of Rochester or a fairly well-to-do Manhattan-ite who
still can't afford a car.
-----
Transit may well be the method of last resort for a few people. But of
course individuals cannot fulfill that need now as a result of the
anti-jitney laws. In rural areas, such laws are routinely ignored, but not
in some cities. But in NYC there are the dollar cars, illegal, but

popular.

Post by Pat
That is the solution, but made illegal by greedy transit operators.
Even many of the so-called middle class of
Westchester or LI can't afford to take a car into Manhattan, even if
they can afford to take it to the train station.
Ideally, everyone would have their own water-permeable, substainable
route into work for their chauffeur driven, CO2 powered vehicle. But
alas, that's not the case. I think few people want to take transit,
but many people need to.
Your problem, George, is that you have never gotten past the concept
of disjointness and into the whole non-disjoint world of reality. You
view transit as solely a transportation issue (with maybe a tinge of
environmentalism). But in reality, its much more than that. It is a
social program. It is a political issue. It is a anti-poverty program/
issue.
---
When I post about the solutions (illegal) worked out by people at low

cost,

Post by Pat
you get upset and ignore that.
The other thing, George, is that the argument for or against the
economics of transit depends nearly entirely on how you calculate
costs.
------
All I hear here is "secret subsities" and other nonsense.
One can argue anything you want and be right, as long as you
ignore everything else. Unfortunately, one cannot take all costs,
factors, issues and un-intended consequences into account because its
way too complex.
If you look at the operating costs of transit v. a car, you get one
answer. It is neither right nor wronig, it's an answer. Just an
answer and nothing more.
If you take into account subsidies, you get another answer.
If you take into account the fact that you need less lanes of roadway,
you get another answer.
If you take into account the roadway demand for peak hours (when it's
most critical), you get another answer.
If you take into account acid rain pollution v. solids, you get
another answer.
If you take into account externality such as off-site pollution, you
get another answer.
If you take into account additional access to health care, you get
another answer.
If you take into account additional access to employment you get
another answer.
If you take into account additional access to education you get
another answer.
If you take into account people owning cars to get to transit you get
another answer.
If you take into account peoples' time you get another answer.
George, there is no "right" answer. There is not "single" answer.
The answer depends on your perspective -- and do some extent it
depends on what you want the answer to be. And it depends on who you
are. The answer is different for a rich person or a poor one.
You-all need to expand your horizons and look at the bigger pictures.
So here's the next question, what's better: a hamburger or a veggie
burger? What's better, McDonalds or Burger King? Yankees or Mets.
Cubs or Bears?
-----
So you are back to lifestyle, Yankees or Mets. If I say that you get
upset, yet you end with that very statement.

No George, you continue to miss points. The point of the final
examples is that there are no "right" answers.
There are expensive answers to everything which always require high
taxes and no flexibility.
It depends on the
individual. Let me give you another example, if you can handle it.
Many people think electric cars are "the solution" because they don't
pollute. Sure, if all cars/trucks/trains were electric, you might get
pristine air in Manhattan. Many would view that as a good thing. But
electric cars don't just pull electricity out of the air (unless they
are lightening powered). So the externality is more pollution in
Ohio, Pennsylvania and upstate NY. It might mean more dead lake in
the Adirondacks. So, are electric cars good? It depends on where you
live. If you have a kid with asthma in NYC, they might be a great
idea. If you like trout fishing in the Adirondacks, they might not
be.
-----
Electric cars do allow cities to export dirty air to rural locations.
That is what the subways do now. NYC does NOT use fewer BTUs per person
than average because of transit. They do it by having people live in spaces
with lower square footage than a single-wide trailer and with rents and
charges in the millions for a 1 room apartment. But that is the lifestyle
pushed by pro-transit people. Remember the people here who said that 800
square feet for a family was very ample? Yes, there are strong correlates
of transit and my point is that most of the outcomes would be considered
negative by most people most of the time.

Agreed about the real estate, at least out here in Vancouver, BC,
Canada. Much of it is ridiculously unaffordable and/or unliveable.
I'd like to see solutions, but how do we agree on what the problems or
their causes are?

As a related side-note, we seem to have an ostensibly-increasing, or at
least increasingly-visible number of security guards in and around town
slinking around like cockroaches at bedtime.
Security from whom or from what? Members of our own communities? Why
should that be, (given a healthy community)? What? It's not healthy? Oh
ok. "Good solution".

[Kris Krieger]

Warm Worm <***@domain.invalid> wrote in news:gb92nu$che$***@aioe.org:

[snip]

Post by Warm Worm
As a related side-note, we seem to have an ostensibly-increasing, or at
least increasingly-visible number of security guards in and around town
slinking around like cockroaches at bedtime.
Security from whom or from what? Members of our own communities? Why
should that be, (given a healthy community)? What? It's not healthy? Oh
ok. "Good solution".

If a ship is sinking, a decision has to be made regarding repairs, evacuations,
asignalling for help, and so on, regardless of whether a few people have
nothing better to offer than complaining about any and all efforts to deal with
the situation.

These days, tho' there are far too many poeple who have nothing better to offer
than bitching that ANY and ALL attempted solutions will somehow inconvenience
them, or don't live up to their personal concept of perfection, o rworst of
all, are "stupid". Those people are teh type who will bitch because tehy have
to pay taxes to pay for the fire dep.t an dpolice, but buy, if *their* house
catches fire or somone tries to rob *them*, jump up and down screaming as to
how *they* are "supposed" to be protected.

You get a lot of people who scream and holler as to how they're opposed to
taxes and "big governemnt" - UNTIL *their* services or payments are on the
chopping block. Then it's like, Oh, we meant that everyone else was to cut
back, not us!

Blyecch! =>8-p

[Warm Worm]

Post by Kris Krieger
[snip]

Post by Warm Worm
As a related side-note, we seem to have an ostensibly-increasing, or at
least increasingly-visible number of security guards in and around town
slinking around like cockroaches at bedtime.
Security from whom or from what? Members of our own communities? Why
should that be, (given a healthy community)? What? It's not healthy? Oh
ok. "Good solution".

If a ship is sinking, a decision has to be made regarding repairs, evacuations,
asignalling for help, and so on, regardless of whether a few people have
nothing better to offer than complaining about any and all efforts to deal with
the situation.

Ever seen the movie, 'Ship of Fools'?
Maybe the ship'll hit the bottom before the crow's nest goes under. ;)

Post by Kris Krieger
These days, tho' there are far too many poeple who have nothing better to offer
than bitching that ANY and ALL attempted solutions will somehow inconvenience
them, or don't live up to their personal concept of perfection, o rworst of
all, are "stupid". Those people are teh type who will bitch because tehy have
to pay taxes to pay for the fire dep.t an dpolice, but buy, if *their* house
catches fire or somone tries to rob *them*, jump up and down screaming as to
how *they* are "supposed" to be protected.

I wonder, though, if the world is really any safer or more secure for
all that protection.

Post by Kris Krieger
You get a lot of people who scream and holler as to how they're opposed to
taxes and "big governemnt" - UNTIL *their* services or payments are on the
chopping block. Then it's like, Oh, we meant that everyone else was to cut
back, not us!
Blyecch! =>8-p

Oh ya, hypocrisies, double standards and contradictions. Gotta luv those. :)

[Kris Krieger]

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Kris Krieger
[snip]

Post by Warm Worm
As a related side-note, we seem to have an ostensibly-increasing, or
at least increasingly-visible number of security guards in and around
town slinking around like cockroaches at bedtime.
Security from whom or from what? Members of our own communities? Why
should that be, (given a healthy community)? What? It's not healthy?
Oh ok. "Good solution".

If a ship is sinking, a decision has to be made regarding repairs,
evacuations, asignalling for help, and so on, regardless of whether a
few people have nothing better to offer than complaining about any and
all efforts to deal with the situation.

Ever seen the movie, 'Ship of Fools'?
Maybe the ship'll hit the bottom before the crow's nest goes under. ;)

Post by Kris Krieger
These days, tho' there are far too many poeple who have nothing better
to offer than bitching that ANY and ALL attempted solutions will
somehow inconvenience them, or don't live up to their personal concept
of perfection, o rworst of all, are "stupid". Those people are teh
type who will bitch because tehy have to pay taxes to pay for the fire
dep.t an dpolice, but buy, if *their* house catches fire or somone
tries to rob *them*, jump up and down screaming as to how *they* are
"supposed" to be protected.

I wonder, though, if the world is really any safer or more secure for
all that protection.

If youre defining "safety/security" as meaning "nothing bad will *ever*
happen", then no, *nothing* can make one 100% safe/secure. If nothng else,
it's not outside the realm of possibility that one could be beaned by a
meteorite.

Popele love to talk about "saving money" by nixing First Responders and so
on - UNTIL it's *their* ass on the line. Then they want it all.

Personally, I'd rather contribute to having a fire dep.t and not need it,
than not have one when I do need it. ((Yes, I have several fire
extinguishers around the house and so on, but still...)) The FD is also
often the paramedic responder.

If some a-hole speeder runs down a child, yes, I *want* to be able to call
911 and have the paramedics arrive vey quickly. I'd also like the police
to get there ASAP so that they have a better chance of nailing the dumbf*ck
POS speeder's ass. I don't mind that one bit.

Nor do I at all mind the unmarked-car neighborhood police patrols, esp.
given thet this area had suffered a rash of break-ins prior to their
institution.

SO, apologies if that all sounded rude, not my intention, but, in terms of
real-life human costs, this is a point about which I fully admit to feeling
passionate, and I fully admit that, when "safety/security" is treated like
nothing more than a philosophical exercise, well, I don't have any patience
whatsoever for that. Once one has seen someone who's been run down and had
to deal with the *real-life* situation of the victim being critically
injured, one doesn't jerk around with hypotheticals. A person's life is
IMO worth far more then philosophical objections.

OTOH, if, by safety/security, you means reactions to world terrorism,
that's a different matter from neighborhood safety...the two do have an
area of potential overlap, but the day-to-day realities remain different.

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Kris Krieger
You get a lot of people who scream and holler as to how they're opposed
to taxes and "big governemnt" - UNTIL *their* services or payments are
on the chopping block. Then it's like, Oh, we meant that everyone else
was to cut back, not us!
Blyecch! =>8-p

Oh ya, hypocrisies, double standards and contradictions. Gotta luv those. :)

In at least some cases, it's not even hypocrisy, as much as old-fashioned
"numbskulledness" - people tend to not see their own imperfections, or
their own habits. There was a town that was in the news some years back
because the entire town got involved in some sort of "keep big gov.t out"
protest. It was a "fort town" - IOW, the town owed its very existence to
the fact that there was a major US fort there. The town also took gov.t
money. When others began noting the stupidity of protesting that upon
which one depends, it all went away very quickly.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Sep 21, 8:13 am, "George Conklin" <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
...

Post by George Conklin
Transit may well be the method of last resort for a few people. But of
course individuals cannot fulfill that need now as a result of the
anti-jitney laws. In rural areas, such laws are routinely ignored, but not
in some cities. But in NYC there are the dollar cars, illegal, but popular.
That is the solution, but made illegal by greedy transit operators.

Why "jitney" is discouraged in someplaces, I don't care.
Many major cities encourage car-pooling even designating
special lanes that carry 2 or more people, that is a form
of "jitney".

Also, I'll mention that I enjoy "mass transit" even if I need
to stand. It's fun, try it sometime. Someone else drives
and I get to see the scenery or admire the gals, sometimes
striking up a convo, or reading a paper.
You may need to be patient, but on the plus side it gives
one a chance to unwind, while driving in rush-hours traffic
can be aggravating, especially if you're in hurry.
Ken

[George Conklin]

Post by Ken S. Tucker
...

Post by George Conklin
Transit may well be the method of last resort for a few people. But of
course individuals cannot fulfill that need now as a result of the
anti-jitney laws. In rural areas, such laws are routinely ignored, but not
in some cities. But in NYC there are the dollar cars, illegal, but popular.
That is the solution, but made illegal by greedy transit operators.

Why "jitney" is discouraged in someplaces, I don't care.
Many major cities encourage car-pooling

As I have pointed out millions of times, car pooling is designed to fail
and has nothing to do with jitneys. Car pooling is a fake solution pushed
by pro-transit operators because they know it cannot work. It has failed
nicely, just as designed.

[Ken S. Tucker]

Post by George Conklin

Post by Ken S. Tucker
...

Post by George Conklin
Transit may well be the method of last resort for a few people. But

of

Post by Ken S. Tucker

Post by George Conklin
course individuals cannot fulfill that need now as a result of the
anti-jitney laws. In rural areas, such laws are routinely ignored, but

not

Post by Ken S. Tucker

Post by George Conklin
in some cities. But in NYC there are the dollar cars, illegal, but

popular.

Post by Ken S. Tucker

Post by George Conklin
That is the solution, but made illegal by greedy transit operators.

Why "jitney" is discouraged in someplaces, I don't care.
Many major cities encourage car-pooling

As I have pointed out millions of times,

oops, 999,999
Ken

[George Conklin]

messagenews:69c7e0d1-583a-4bd1-b4c4-***@n38g2000prl.googlegroups.co
m...

Post by Ken S. Tucker

Post by George Conklin

Post by Ken S. Tucker
...

Post by George Conklin
Transit may well be the method of last resort for a few people.

But

Post by Ken S. Tucker

Post by George Conklin
of

Post by Ken S. Tucker

Post by George Conklin
course individuals cannot fulfill that need now as a result of the
anti-jitney laws. In rural areas, such laws are routinely ignored, but

not

Post by Ken S. Tucker

Post by George Conklin
in some cities. But in NYC there are the dollar cars, illegal, but

popular.

Post by Ken S. Tucker

Post by George Conklin
That is the solution, but made illegal by greedy transit operators.

Why "jitney" is discouraged in someplaces, I don't care.
Many major cities encourage car-pooling

As I have pointed out millions of times,

oops, 999,999
Ken

Yes, designed to fail so transit becomes the only alternative.

[Warm Worm]

Post by Pat

Post by Warm Worm

Post by george conklin

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

Post by Warm Worm

Post by george conklin

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public

school

Post by Warm Worm

Post by george conklin

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it

'turned

Post by Warm Worm

Post by george conklin

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee

pays

Post by Warm Worm

Post by george conklin

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big college
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too,

because

Post by Warm Worm

Post by george conklin

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to

foot

Post by Warm Worm

Post by george conklin

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article.

George and Jack have got a quite impressive record in this category.
If intentionally or by accident am be left to the judgement of others.

I admit to wondering if they might be a little young.

The point of the article is quite clear. Transit has to find many

more

Post by Warm Worm

Post by george conklin
groups to throw money at them in order to survive. Riders are

irrelevant to

Post by Warm Worm

Post by george conklin
the financial picture. Our local TTA gets 11% from the riders. That is
close to nothing, yet it does not get anywhere near as many riders as

they

Post by Warm Worm

Post by george conklin
think they ought to have, based on some philosophy or other.

Whatever it takes for the betterment of everyone and the Earth...
Cars currently seem like an unsustainable illusion... like the dirt
under the rug...

The real radicals know that it is now how you travel, but ALL travel is
bad, unless by walking only. That is supposed to be healthy. Transit buses
do not save fuel compared to cars. Thus transit is a lifestyle not an
environmental issue. So you are not into sustainability, but lifestyle. A
lifestyle few enjoy.

Transportation will change, George-- hopefully for the better.

Incidentally, I was awoken this morning by the SOUND of a motorized
pressure-washer. For a more liveable urbansphere, there will need to be
a lot less NOISE too.

NOISE may be one of those UNDERRATED urban CONCERNS.

(I also prefer sail boats over motor boats.)

What brings you to urban planning, by the way?

[george conklin]

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public school
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it 'turned a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee pays
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big college
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too, because
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to foot
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?


Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article. The
point is that Rochester faces the same struggles as other transit
systems, and it the face of declining public subsidies it marketed
itself to the (semi-)private section and they found it a valuable
enough service to pay for it. That's a good thing. They are selling
their product on the open market and people are willing to pay for
it. Good for them.

For the colleges it's probably a simple economic equation. Either pay
for more parking lots plus create their own transportation system for
may the bus system. It must have been cheaper to pay for the service
than to replicate it themselves.

----

Students pay to park.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public school
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it 'turned a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee pays
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big college
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too, because
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to foot
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article. The
point is that Rochester faces the same struggles as other transit
systems, and it the face of declining public subsidies it marketed
itself to the (semi-)private section and they found it a valuable
enough service to pay for it. That's a good thing. They are selling
their product on the open market and people are willing to pay for
it. Good for them.
For the colleges it's probably a simple economic equation. Either pay
for more parking lots plus create their own transportation system for
may the bus system. It must have been cheaper to pay for the service
than to replicate it themselves.
----
Students pay to park.

I've always thought that it's a supreme irony of college life that if you've
_already_ paid to be there, you get to pay more to park there. However, if
you _haven't_ paid to be there, you get to park free. Neat, huh? :-)

[Warm Worm]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public school
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it 'turned a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee pays
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big college
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too, because
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to foot
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article. The
point is that Rochester faces the same struggles as other transit
systems, and it the face of declining public subsidies it marketed
itself to the (semi-)private section and they found it a valuable
enough service to pay for it. That's a good thing. They are selling
their product on the open market and people are willing to pay for
it. Good for them.
For the colleges it's probably a simple economic equation. Either pay
for more parking lots plus create their own transportation system for
may the bus system. It must have been cheaper to pay for the service
than to replicate it themselves.
----
Students pay to park.

I've always thought that it's a supreme irony of college life that if you've
_already_ paid to be there, you get to pay more to park there. However, if
you _haven't_ paid to be there, you get to park free. Neat, huh? :-)

How about coming over to alt.architecture once and awhile? Seems I only
get to see you when Pat crossposts. ;)

[george conklin]

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public school
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it 'turned a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee pays
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big college
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too, because
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to foot
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article. The
point is that Rochester faces the same struggles as other transit
systems, and it the face of declining public subsidies it marketed
itself to the (semi-)private section and they found it a valuable
enough service to pay for it. That's a good thing. They are selling
their product on the open market and people are willing to pay for
it. Good for them.
For the colleges it's probably a simple economic equation. Either pay
for more parking lots plus create their own transportation system for
may the bus system. It must have been cheaper to pay for the service
than to replicate it themselves.
----
Students pay to park.

I've always thought that it's a supreme irony of college life that if
you've _already_ paid to be there, you get to pay more to park there.
However, if you _haven't_ paid to be there, you get to park free. Neat,
huh? :-)

How about coming over to alt.architecture once and awhile? Seems I only
get to see you when Pat crossposts. ;)

Architechs love Smart Growth because they see it as a way to increase
their fees.

[Warm Worm]

Post by george conklin

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public school
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it 'turned a
profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee pays
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses. Rochester is a pretty big college
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too, because
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to foot
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transit
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article. The
point is that Rochester faces the same struggles as other transit
systems, and it the face of declining public subsidies it marketed
itself to the (semi-)private section and they found it a valuable
enough service to pay for it. That's a good thing. They are selling
their product on the open market and people are willing to pay for
it. Good for them.
For the colleges it's probably a simple economic equation. Either pay
for more parking lots plus create their own transportation system for
may the bus system. It must have been cheaper to pay for the service
than to replicate it themselves.
----
Students pay to park.

I've always thought that it's a supreme irony of college life that if
you've _already_ paid to be there, you get to pay more to park there.
However, if you _haven't_ paid to be there, you get to park free. Neat,
huh? :-)

How about coming over to alt.architecture once and awhile? Seems I only
get to see you when Pat crossposts. ;)

Architechs love Smart Growth because they see it as a way to increase
their fees.

Is this like a 3-second sound-bite?

[Kris Krieger]

[snip]

Post by Warm Worm

Post by george conklin

Post by Warm Worm
How about coming over to alt.architecture once and awhile? Seems I
only get to see you when Pat crossposts. ;)

Architechs love Smart Growth because they see it as a way to increase
their fees.

Is this like a 3-second sound-bite?

More like a 3-second a$$ bite :p

[Warm Worm]

Post by Kris Krieger
[snip]

Post by Warm Worm

Post by george conklin

Post by Warm Worm
How about coming over to alt.architecture once and awhile? Seems I
only get to see you when Pat crossposts. ;)

Architechs love Smart Growth because they see it as a way to increase
their fees.

Is this like a 3-second sound-bite?

More like a 3-second a$$ bite :p

I might be ok with that if Amy were somehow involved.

[Kris Krieger]

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Kris Krieger
[snip]

Post by Warm Worm

Post by george conklin

Post by Warm Worm
How about coming over to alt.architecture once and awhile? Seems I
only get to see you when Pat crossposts. ;)

Architechs love Smart Growth because they see it as a way to increase
their fees.

Is this like a 3-second sound-bite?

More like a 3-second a$$ bite :p

I might be ok with that if Amy were somehow involved.

<LOL!>

Woof ;)

[Warm Worm]

Post by Kris Krieger

Post by Warm Worm

Post by Kris Krieger
[snip]

Post by Warm Worm

Post by george conklin

Post by Warm Worm
How about coming over to alt.architecture once and awhile? Seems I
only get to see you when Pat crossposts. ;)

Architechs love Smart Growth because they see it as a way to increase
their fees.

Is this like a 3-second sound-bite?

More like a 3-second a$$ bite :p

I might be ok with that if Amy were somehow involved.

<LOL!>
Woof ;)

;)

BTW, I stuck my head briefly inside a candy shop yesterday, and on a
box, they had a frontal pic of a woman's lower half wearing only this
skimpy "g-string" composed solely of those little round candies on
strings. You know the ones I mean? (Maybe I should go back and take a
photo.)
After all that candy, though, I would probably be would put off the main
course.

It's an urban planning thing which relates to the neglect of important
beaver habitat in favor of "candy".

[Kris Krieger]

Post by Pat

Post by Pat

news:d350f52b-a8fd-416d-990c-91272a6b6ac1

@l43g2000hsh.googlegroups.com..

Post by Pat
.

Post by Pat

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyre

gion

Post by Pat

"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public school
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it 'turned

a

Post by Pat

profit.'

Naw, it's just like lots of employee benefits where the employee pays
part and the employer pays part: health insurance, 401(k), etc.
It makes sense for the colleges to pay to keep beneficial bus routes
rather than run their own busses.  Rochester is a pretty big college
town (for part of it, at least).
Using your definition, your college should be shut down, too, because
it doesn't make a profit and relies on public subsidies.
If it can get a private (or at least semi-public) organization to foot
part of they bill, good for them because in the poor parts of
Rochester, they rely on public transport for almost all of their
transportation needs.
----
  I see we are back to the rant "If jails don't make money, then transi

t

Post by Pat
must lose money too."

Are you implying that your college is a jail? You're just keeping
kids off the street for 4 years?
Anyway, I think you completely missed the point of the article. The
point is that Rochester faces the same struggles as other transit
systems, and it the face of declining public subsidies it marketed
itself to the (semi-)private section and they found it a valuable
enough service to pay for it. That's a good thing. They are selling
their product on the open market and people are willing to pay for
it. Good for them.

And really, is it any different from newspapers and magazines being
"subsidized" by selling ad space? Maybe the transit system sells ad space
to businesses - and maybe businesses figure it's to their benfit if their
employees can get to work reliably and on time, *and* not all stressed out
from driiving and having ot look for a parking space.

Post by Pat
For the colleges it's probably a simple economic equation. Either pay
for more parking lots plus create their own transportation system for
may the bus system. It must have been cheaper to pay for the service
than to replicate it themselves.

Hey Pat, stop confusing the issue with facts! <LOL!>

[Warm Worm]

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

"It has, for instance, reached agreements with the local public school
district, colleges and private businesses to help subsidize its operations."
So, more people agreed to subsidize the operation, not that it 'turned a
profit.'

In the name of profit, people can all too often fall by the wayside.

[Kris Krieger]

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

No, but it's interesting, thanks for the link!

Sometimes my mind turns to trying to think how suburban areas could better-
utilize public transportation, such as a system of feeders (trollies, maybe?)
that could go from suburban neighborhoods (with frequent stops so all are
within reasonable walking distance) to central transport areas. Of course,
our *current* infrastructure is going to hell in a handbasket, and new
infrastructure would add to those costs... :(

[george conklin]

Post by Kris Krieger

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregion

No, but it's interesting, thanks for the link!
Sometimes my mind turns to trying to think how suburban areas could better-
utilize public transportation, such as a system of feeders (trollies, maybe?)
that could go from suburban neighborhoods (with frequent stops so all are
within reasonable walking distance) to central transport areas.

Exept that nothing is left in the so-called central transport areas. Jobs
are dispersed, as is shopping. Industry could never afford to go to
expensive central locations, far from markets, sources and supplies.

[Kris Krieger]

Post by george conklin

news:d350f52b-a8fd-416d-990c-

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregio
n

No, but it's interesting, thanks for the link!
Sometimes my mind turns to trying to think how suburban areas could better-
utilize public transportation, such as a system of feeders (trollies, maybe?)
that could go from suburban neighborhoods (with frequent stops so all
are within reasonable walking distance) to central transport areas.

Exept that nothing is left in the so-called central transport areas.
Jobs
are dispersed, as is shopping. Industry could never afford to go to
expensive central locations, far from markets, sources and supplies.

That might be true of where you live. I guess it's still different here -
most jobs aer still in the city, as is evidenced by teh daily flow of
automobile traffic.

Also, you misinterpreted what I meant by 'central transport areas". I didn't
mean "city center", I meant more along the lines of park'n'rides, and I've
seen plenty of those in the places I've lived (seven US states and 2 Canadian
provinces). Break-ins are fairly common at park'n'rides because most are not
monitored, but there is no way to get to them other than drive. Not
everybody *can* live right across the street, or even down the block, from
where they work. Ratther than constantly coming up with possible reasons why
things "couldn't" work, it's more constrcutive to think of how things *could*
possibly work to improve situations.

[george conklin]

Post by Kris Krieger

Post by george conklin

news:d350f52b-a8fd-416d-990c-

Post by Pat
I guess you've all probably read this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/nyregion/15rochester.html?ref=nyregio
n

No, but it's interesting, thanks for the link!
Sometimes my mind turns to trying to think how suburban areas could better-
utilize public transportation, such as a system of feeders (trollies, maybe?)
that could go from suburban neighborhoods (with frequent stops so all
are within reasonable walking distance) to central transport areas.

Exept that nothing is left in the so-called central transport areas.
Jobs
are dispersed, as is shopping. Industry could never afford to go to
expensive central locations, far from markets, sources and supplies.

That might be true of where you live. I guess it's still different here -
most jobs aer still in the city, as is evidenced by teh daily flow of
automobile traffic.

Most jobs may be in a city, but they are not centrally located, nor have
they been for 50 years. Even in NYC 80+% of commutes are suburb to suburb.

Post by Kris Krieger
Also, you misinterpreted what I meant by 'central transport areas". I didn't
mean "city center", I meant more along the lines of park'n'rides, and I've
seen plenty of those in the places I've lived (seven US states and 2 Canadian
provinces). Break-ins are fairly common at park'n'rides because most are not
monitored, but there is no way to get to them other than drive. Not
everybody *can* live right across the street, or even down the block, from
where they work. Ratther than constantly coming up with possible reasons why
things "couldn't" work, it's more constrcutive to think of how things *could*
possibly work to improve situations.

It makes no sense to concentrate employment in one place.