Discussion:
Cars/Taxes/Commuting/Downtown: This article hits all the hot buttons
(too old to reply)
Pat
2007-04-21 13:37:31 UTC
Permalink
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_for_biz_district_cars_regionalnews_david_seifman___city_hall_bureau_chief.htm
Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
2007-04-23 01:56:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city? Thats what I call a Commute. My father's
job is right smack in Midtown and
he bikes to work whenever he can. He could also take the Bus/ or light
rail. About 5 miles away. Is that a commute?
Pat
2007-04-23 03:25:02 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 22, 9:56 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city? Thats what I call a Commute. My father's
job is right smack in Midtown and
he bikes to work whenever he can. He could also take the Bus/ or light
rail. About 5 miles away. Is that a commute?
The biggest trend is cross-suburb commuting. Most jobs are now being
developed in the suburbs so people are commuting from one suburb to
another.

As for me, I work out of my house, so my commute is just to the home-
office.
George Conklin
2007-04-23 09:43:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85% of all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-04-23 19:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85% of all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.

Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.


Randy
Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
2007-04-23 21:16:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85% of all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
THANKYOU!
George did you no know that the population of people living in
Chicago is about 3 million, but
during the working hours its around 5 Million? Thats 2 million people
going in and out of the City in one day.
Hmm I wonder were all of those 2 million people live?
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-04-23 22:33:55 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 23, 5:16 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85% of all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
THANKYOU!
George did you no know that the population of people living in
Chicago is about 3 million, but
during the working hours its around 5 Million? Thats 2 million people
going in and out of the City in one day.
Hmm I wonder were all of those 2 million people live?
Georgie knows a lot of things, he is a Professor of Sociology, I think
at NC Central Univ. But he has this personal bias against anything he
considers "liberal". Amtrak, urban planning, environment, etc.

That bias will cause him to say things that run the gamut from
foolish, to stupid, to lies. It is unfortunate, but he has a long and
sordid history.


Take care, Randy
Pat
2007-04-23 22:55:42 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 23, 5:16 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85% of all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
THANKYOU!
George did you no know that the population of people living in
Chicago is about 3 million, but
during the working hours its around 5 Million? Thats 2 million people
going in and out of the City in one day.
Hmm I wonder were all of those 2 million people live?
There's a definite influx into the city during the workday -- you can
see it on the roads. But there is also a definite suburb to suburb
commute. NYC has something like 8 million people and there are
probably another 8 million (just a guess) in the surrounding areas.
Out of those 8 million in the outlying areas, some percentage goes
into the city -- my guess is they tend to be white-collar and
relatively affluent. Another HUGE percentage stay within their own
area to work -- probably relatively low income going and can't afford
to commute any farther. Then there is a growing segment that commute
between suburbs, say from upper Westchester to Yonkers and such. I
suppose in theory that if they leave their own municipality they are
communitng between suburbs. I have no proof, but I would guess that
they are high tech and manufacturing that has left the city and
probably not in the FIRE industries (ahhh, maybe real estate).

I don't want to get into the whole New Urbanist thing, but this why it
can't succeed. You can't control where people live and work. Someone
moves into a community like that (and I use the word "community"
loosely) and it is unlikely that their job will move with them. So
now they are commuting out. So much for the concept.

If downtown become more congested, it is more of a reason for
companies to grow in the suburbs out away from the core. This is esp
true of the growing companies that tend to be more high tech.
Lawyers, banking, etc. will never move, but for a lot of companies it
doesn't matter where you are -- even India.
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-04-23 23:16:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@yahoo.com
On Apr 23, 5:16 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85% of all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
THANKYOU!
George did you no know that the population of people living in
Chicago is about 3 million, but
during the working hours its around 5 Million? Thats 2 million people
going in and out of the City in one day.
Hmm I wonder were all of those 2 million people live?
There's a definite influx into the city during the workday -- you can
see it on the roads. But there is also a definite suburb to suburb
commute. NYC has something like 8 million people and there are
probably another 8 million (just a guess) in the surrounding areas.
Out of those 8 million in the outlying areas, some percentage goes
into the city -- my guess is they tend to be white-collar and
relatively affluent. Another HUGE percentage stay within their own
area to work -- probably relatively low income going and can't afford
to commute any farther. Then there is a growing segment that commute
between suburbs, say from upper Westchester to Yonkers and such. I
suppose in theory that if they leave their own municipality they are
communitng between suburbs. I have no proof, but I would guess that
they are high tech and manufacturing that has left the city and
probably not in the FIRE industries (ahhh, maybe real estate).
I don't want to get into the whole New Urbanist thing, but this why it
can't succeed. You can't control where people live and work. Someone
moves into a community like that (and I use the word "community"
loosely) and it is unlikely that their job will move with them. So
now they are commuting out. So much for the concept.
If downtown become more congested, it is more of a reason for
companies to grow in the suburbs out away from the core. This is esp
true of the growing companies that tend to be more high tech.
Lawyers, banking, etc. will never move, but for a lot of companies it
doesn't matter where you are -- even India.
As I said, Georgie has a very long history of fabrication, etc.

To oversimplify, the problem is the costs of growth. I think you may
be wrong about the percentage that stays in their own area. One of
the biggest problems is individuals commuting long distances in single
occupant vehicles.

We have a lot of freedom in the US. A person can live where they
want, work where they want, but involved in that freedom there are a
lot of public costs, public expenses for a variety of services the
govt and only govt can and will provide. Who pays those costs? That
is the question.

Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
Pat
2007-04-23 23:59:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by ***@yahoo.com
On Apr 23, 5:16 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85% of all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
THANKYOU!
George did you no know that the population of people living in
Chicago is about 3 million, but
during the working hours its around 5 Million? Thats 2 million people
going in and out of the City in one day.
Hmm I wonder were all of those 2 million people live?
There's a definite influx into the city during the workday -- you can
see it on the roads. But there is also a definite suburb to suburb
commute. NYC has something like 8 million people and there are
probably another 8 million (just a guess) in the surrounding areas.
Out of those 8 million in the outlying areas, some percentage goes
into the city -- my guess is they tend to be white-collar and
relatively affluent. Another HUGE percentage stay within their own
area to work -- probably relatively low income going and can't afford
to commute any farther. Then there is a growing segment that commute
between suburbs, say from upper Westchester to Yonkers and such. I
suppose in theory that if they leave their own municipality they are
communitng between suburbs. I have no proof, but I would guess that
they are high tech and manufacturing that has left the city and
probably not in the FIRE industries (ahhh, maybe real estate).
I don't want to get into the whole New Urbanist thing, but this why it
can't succeed. You can't control where people live and work. Someone
moves into a community like that (and I use the word "community"
loosely) and it is unlikely that their job will move with them. So
now they are commuting out. So much for the concept.
If downtown become more congested, it is more of a reason for
companies to grow in the suburbs out away from the core. This is esp
true of the growing companies that tend to be more high tech.
Lawyers, banking, etc. will never move, but for a lot of companies it
doesn't matter where you are -- even India.
As I said, Georgie has a very long history of fabrication, etc.
To oversimplify, the problem is the costs of growth. I think you may
be wrong about the percentage that stays in their own area. One of
the biggest problems is individuals commuting long distances in single
occupant vehicles.
We have a lot of freedom in the US. A person can live where they
want, work where they want, but involved in that freedom there are a
lot of public costs, public expenses for a variety of services the
govt and only govt can and will provide. Who pays those costs? That
is the question.
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
Nassau County (NY) is probably the ultimate suburb. There are 94,000
people going into Manhattan and 66,000 going into Queen. That's the
typical inward commuting. But they also have 50,000 going into
Suffolk with is away from NYC. So there's a definite inter-suburb
commute. But the whopper is that they have 360,000 people who commute
within the county.

Suffolk County is even clearer. They have 41,000 going into
Manhattan; 25,000 going to Queens; and 10,000 going to Brooklyn. But
they have 91,000 commuting to Nassau County. The inter-suburb commute
is larger than the commute into the city. Plus they 492,000 commuting
within the county.

They also have 9 commuting to Singapore and 3 commuting to Nepal. So
there you go.
Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
2007-04-24 00:09:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by ***@yahoo.com
On Apr 23, 5:16 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85% of all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
THANKYOU!
George did you no know that the population of people living in
Chicago is about 3 million, but
during the working hours its around 5 Million? Thats 2 million people
going in and out of the City in one day.
Hmm I wonder were all of those 2 million people live?
There's a definite influx into the city during the workday -- you can
see it on the roads. But there is also a definite suburb to suburb
commute. NYC has something like 8 million people and there are
probably another 8 million (just a guess) in the surrounding areas.
Out of those 8 million in the outlying areas, some percentage goes
into the city -- my guess is they tend to be white-collar and
relatively affluent. Another HUGE percentage stay within their own
area to work -- probably relatively low income going and can't afford
to commute any farther. Then there is a growing segment that commute
between suburbs, say from upper Westchester to Yonkers and such. I
suppose in theory that if they leave their own municipality they are
communitng between suburbs. I have no proof, but I would guess that
they are high tech and manufacturing that has left the city and
probably not in the FIRE industries (ahhh, maybe real estate).
I don't want to get into the whole New Urbanist thing, but this why it
can't succeed. You can't control where people live and work. Someone
moves into a community like that (and I use the word "community"
loosely) and it is unlikely that their job will move with them. So
now they are commuting out. So much for the concept.
If downtown become more congested, it is more of a reason for
companies to grow in the suburbs out away from the core. This is esp
true of the growing companies that tend to be more high tech.
Lawyers, banking, etc. will never move, but for a lot of companies it
doesn't matter where you are -- even India.
As I said, Georgie has a very long history of fabrication, etc.
To oversimplify, the problem is the costs of growth. I think you may
be wrong about the percentage that stays in their own area. One of
the biggest problems is individuals commuting long distances in single
occupant vehicles.
We have a lot of freedom in the US. A person can live where they
want, work where they want, but involved in that freedom there are a
lot of public costs, public expenses for a variety of services the
govt and only govt can and will provide. Who pays those costs? That
is the question.
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
Nassau County (NY) is probably the ultimate suburb. There are 94,000
people going into Manhattan and 66,000 going into Queen. That's the
typical inward commuting. But they also have 50,000 going into
Suffolk with is away from NYC. So there's a definite inter-suburb
commute. But the whopper is that they have 360,000 people who commute
within the county.
Suffolk County is even clearer. They have 41,000 going into
Manhattan; 25,000 going to Queens; and 10,000 going to Brooklyn. But
they have 91,000 commuting to Nassau County. The inter-suburb commute
is larger than the commute into the city. Plus they 492,000 commuting
within the county.
They also have 9 commuting to Singapore and 3 commuting to Nepal. So
there you go.
Im not sure were your going with this. What does commutes going from
suburb to suburb have to
do with YOUR problem with City commuting? The fact of the matter is
there are more people coming in from the suburbs to the city for work
then people in the city going to the suburbs. So bad city commuting
is the Suburbs fault.
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-04-24 00:14:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by ***@yahoo.com
On Apr 23, 5:16 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85% of all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
THANKYOU!
George did you no know that the population of people living in
Chicago is about 3 million, but
during the working hours its around 5 Million? Thats 2 million people
going in and out of the City in one day.
Hmm I wonder were all of those 2 million people live?
There's a definite influx into the city during the workday -- you can
see it on the roads. But there is also a definite suburb to suburb
commute. NYC has something like 8 million people and there are
probably another 8 million (just a guess) in the surrounding areas.
Out of those 8 million in the outlying areas, some percentage goes
into the city -- my guess is they tend to be white-collar and
relatively affluent. Another HUGE percentage stay within their own
area to work -- probably relatively low income going and can't afford
to commute any farther. Then there is a growing segment that commute
between suburbs, say from upper Westchester to Yonkers and such. I
suppose in theory that if they leave their own municipality they are
communitng between suburbs. I have no proof, but I would guess that
they are high tech and manufacturing that has left the city and
probably not in the FIRE industries (ahhh, maybe real estate).
I don't want to get into the whole New Urbanist thing, but this why it
can't succeed. You can't control where people live and work. Someone
moves into a community like that (and I use the word "community"
loosely) and it is unlikely that their job will move with them. So
now they are commuting out. So much for the concept.
If downtown become more congested, it is more of a reason for
companies to grow in the suburbs out away from the core. This is esp
true of the growing companies that tend to be more high tech.
Lawyers, banking, etc. will never move, but for a lot of companies it
doesn't matter where you are -- even India.
As I said, Georgie has a very long history of fabrication, etc.
To oversimplify, the problem is the costs of growth. I think you may
be wrong about the percentage that stays in their own area. One of
the biggest problems is individuals commuting long distances in single
occupant vehicles.
We have a lot of freedom in the US. A person can live where they
want, work where they want, but involved in that freedom there are a
lot of public costs, public expenses for a variety of services the
govt and only govt can and will provide. Who pays those costs? That
is the question.
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
Nassau County (NY) is probably the ultimate suburb. There are 94,000
people going into Manhattan and 66,000 going into Queen. That's the
typical inward commuting. But they also have 50,000 going into
Suffolk with is away from NYC. So there's a definite inter-suburb
commute. But the whopper is that they have 360,000 people who commute
within the county.
Suffolk County is even clearer. They have 41,000 going into
Manhattan; 25,000 going to Queens; and 10,000 going to Brooklyn. But
they have 91,000 commuting to Nassau County. The inter-suburb commute
is larger than the commute into the city. Plus they 492,000 commuting
within the county.
They also have 9 commuting to Singapore and 3 commuting to Nepal. So
there you go.
Cute, very cute, ok now lets go on.

I will accept your correction about intercounty commuting. But when
you are talking about intercounty commutes you are talking about large
areas. Also I wonder how many of those that are counted are wives
that might work at the local mall, as opposed to a husband that takes
the LIRR to his job in Manhattan.

There are commutes and there are COMMUTES, if you know what I mean.

I will repeat what I said before, people are commuting further then
ever.
That is the problem.


Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
2007-04-24 00:39:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Pat
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by ***@yahoo.com
On Apr 23, 5:16 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85% of all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
THANKYOU!
George did you no know that the population of people living in
Chicago is about 3 million, but
during the working hours its around 5 Million? Thats 2 million people
going in and out of the City in one day.
Hmm I wonder were all of those 2 million people live?
There's a definite influx into the city during the workday -- you can
see it on the roads. But there is also a definite suburb to suburb
commute. NYC has something like 8 million people and there are
probably another 8 million (just a guess) in the surrounding areas.
Out of those 8 million in the outlying areas, some percentage goes
into the city -- my guess is they tend to be white-collar and
relatively affluent. Another HUGE percentage stay within their own
area to work -- probably relatively low income going and can't afford
to commute any farther. Then there is a growing segment that commute
between suburbs, say from upper Westchester to Yonkers and such. I
suppose in theory that if they leave their own municipality they are
communitng between suburbs. I have no proof, but I would guess that
they are high tech and manufacturing that has left the city and
probably not in the FIRE industries (ahhh, maybe real estate).
I don't want to get into the whole New Urbanist thing, but this why it
can't succeed. You can't control where people live and work. Someone
moves into a community like that (and I use the word "community"
loosely) and it is unlikely that their job will move with them. So
now they are commuting out. So much for the concept.
If downtown become more congested, it is more of a reason for
companies to grow in the suburbs out away from the core. This is esp
true of the growing companies that tend to be more high tech.
Lawyers, banking, etc. will never move, but for a lot of companies it
doesn't matter where you are -- even India.
As I said, Georgie has a very long history of fabrication, etc.
To oversimplify, the problem is the costs of growth. I think you may
be wrong about the percentage that stays in their own area. One of
the biggest problems is individuals commuting long distances in single
occupant vehicles.
We have a lot of freedom in the US. A person can live where they
want, work where they want, but involved in that freedom there are a
lot of public costs, public expenses for a variety of services the
govt and only govt can and will provide. Who pays those costs? That
is the question.
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
Nassau County (NY) is probably the ultimate suburb. There are 94,000
people going into Manhattan and 66,000 going into Queen. That's the
typical inward commuting. But they also have 50,000 going into
Suffolk with is away from NYC. So there's a definite inter-suburb
commute. But the whopper is that they have 360,000 people who commute
within the county.
Suffolk County is even clearer. They have 41,000 going into
Manhattan; 25,000 going to Queens; and 10,000 going to Brooklyn. But
they have 91,000 commuting to Nassau County. The inter-suburb commute
is larger than the commute into the city. Plus they 492,000 commuting
within the county.
They also have 9 commuting to Singapore and 3 commuting to Nepal. So
there you go.
Cute, very cute, ok now lets go on.
I will accept your correction about intercounty commuting. But when
you are talking about intercounty commutes you are talking about large
areas. Also I wonder how many of those that are counted are wives
that might work at the local mall, as opposed to a husband that takes
the LIRR to his job in Manhattan.
There are commutes and there are COMMUTES, if you know what I mean.
I will repeat what I said before, people are commuting further then
ever.
That is the problem.
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
True, very true. Cities are pretty big, but in comprarison to all of
those suburbs people are crossing through?
Sure theres times were you may have to sit in some traffic in the city
because so many people work there,
but thats what mass transit is for. Mass transit happens to be very
cheap. I went to the downtown central Library and a ticket to downtown
and back costed me about two bucks. I also could of taken the light
rail down. Mass transit is more efficient because its taking Masses of
people to and fro. Alot better then
that one man drving from or "across" the suburbs in his huge suburban.
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-04-24 00:53:32 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 23, 8:39 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Pat
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by ***@yahoo.com
On Apr 23, 5:16 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85% of all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
THANKYOU!
George did you no know that the population of people living in
Chicago is about 3 million, but
during the working hours its around 5 Million? Thats 2 million people
going in and out of the City in one day.
Hmm I wonder were all of those 2 million people live?
There's a definite influx into the city during the workday -- you can
see it on the roads. But there is also a definite suburb to suburb
commute. NYC has something like 8 million people and there are
probably another 8 million (just a guess) in the surrounding areas.
Out of those 8 million in the outlying areas, some percentage goes
into the city -- my guess is they tend to be white-collar and
relatively affluent. Another HUGE percentage stay within their own
area to work -- probably relatively low income going and can't afford
to commute any farther. Then there is a growing segment that commute
between suburbs, say from upper Westchester to Yonkers and such. I
suppose in theory that if they leave their own municipality they are
communitng between suburbs. I have no proof, but I would guess that
they are high tech and manufacturing that has left the city and
probably not in the FIRE industries (ahhh, maybe real estate).
I don't want to get into the whole New Urbanist thing, but this why it
can't succeed. You can't control where people live and work. Someone
moves into a community like that (and I use the word "community"
loosely) and it is unlikely that their job will move with them. So
now they are commuting out. So much for the concept.
If downtown become more congested, it is more of a reason for
companies to grow in the suburbs out away from the core. This is esp
true of the growing companies that tend to be more high tech.
Lawyers, banking, etc. will never move, but for a lot of companies it
doesn't matter where you are -- even India.
As I said, Georgie has a very long history of fabrication, etc.
To oversimplify, the problem is the costs of growth. I think you may
be wrong about the percentage that stays in their own area. One of
the biggest problems is individuals commuting long distances in single
occupant vehicles.
We have a lot of freedom in the US. A person can live where they
want, work where they want, but involved in that freedom there are a
lot of public costs, public expenses for a variety of services the
govt and only govt can and will provide. Who pays those costs? That
is the question.
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
Nassau County (NY) is probably the ultimate suburb. There are 94,000
people going into Manhattan and 66,000 going into Queen. That's the
typical inward commuting. But they also have 50,000 going into
Suffolk with is away from NYC. So there's a definite inter-suburb
commute. But the whopper is that they have 360,000 people who commute
within the county.
Suffolk County is even clearer. They have 41,000 going into
Manhattan; 25,000 going to Queens; and 10,000 going to Brooklyn. But
they have 91,000 commuting to Nassau County. The inter-suburb commute
is larger than the commute into the city. Plus they 492,000 commuting
within the county.
They also have 9 commuting to Singapore and 3 commuting to Nepal. So
there you go.
Cute, very cute, ok now lets go on.
I will accept your correction about intercounty commuting. But when
you are talking about intercounty commutes you are talking about large
areas. Also I wonder how many of those that are counted are wives
that might work at the local mall, as opposed to a husband that takes
the LIRR to his job in Manhattan.
There are commutes and there are COMMUTES, if you know what I mean.
I will repeat what I said before, people are commuting further then
ever.
That is the problem.
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
True, very true. Cities are pretty big, but in comprarison to all of
those suburbs people are crossing through?
Sure theres times were you may have to sit in some traffic in the city
because so many people work there,
but thats what mass transit is for. Mass transit happens to be very
cheap. I went to the downtown central Library and a ticket to downtown
and back costed me about two bucks. I also could of taken the light
rail down. Mass transit is more efficient because its taking Masses of
people to and fro. Alot better then
that one man drving from or "across" the suburbs in his huge suburban.
My friend, again I will ask you to slow down.
It is not intra-city commuting we are talking about at this particular
juncture. That is where mass transit works very well and as it is
intended.

Pat mentioned commutes inside two fairly large counties on LI. That
is where the problems begin. Both those counties have their own mass
transit system, primarily busses, but there is also the LIRR.
Unfortunately the LIRR was not designed for intercounty commuting, or
commuting between the two counties.

You may be interested, the LIRR was designed as competition to the New
Haven RR, as a long distance RR unsing the ferry at the east end of LI
to connect to New England.

The system is nice, and I am sure they are glad they have it, but it
is very expensive given the relatively low population densities. Now
we are beginning to discuss the problems relative to this.


Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
2007-04-24 02:53:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@yahoo.com
On Apr 23, 8:39 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Pat
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by ***@yahoo.com
On Apr 23, 5:16 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85% of all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
THANKYOU!
George did you no know that the population of people living in
Chicago is about 3 million, but
during the working hours its around 5 Million? Thats 2 million people
going in and out of the City in one day.
Hmm I wonder were all of those 2 million people live?
There's a definite influx into the city during the workday -- you can
see it on the roads. But there is also a definite suburb to suburb
commute. NYC has something like 8 million people and there are
probably another 8 million (just a guess) in the surrounding areas.
Out of those 8 million in the outlying areas, some percentage goes
into the city -- my guess is they tend to be white-collar and
relatively affluent. Another HUGE percentage stay within their own
area to work -- probably relatively low income going and can't afford
to commute any farther. Then there is a growing segment that commute
between suburbs, say from upper Westchester to Yonkers and such. I
suppose in theory that if they leave their own municipality they are
communitng between suburbs. I have no proof, but I would guess that
they are high tech and manufacturing that has left the city and
probably not in the FIRE industries (ahhh, maybe real estate).
I don't want to get into the whole New Urbanist thing, but this why it
can't succeed. You can't control where people live and work. Someone
moves into a community like that (and I use the word "community"
loosely) and it is unlikely that their job will move with them. So
now they are commuting out. So much for the concept.
If downtown become more congested, it is more of a reason for
companies to grow in the suburbs out away from the core. This is esp
true of the growing companies that tend to be more high tech.
Lawyers, banking, etc. will never move, but for a lot of companies it
doesn't matter where you are -- even India.
As I said, Georgie has a very long history of fabrication, etc.
To oversimplify, the problem is the costs of growth. I think you may
be wrong about the percentage that stays in their own area. One of
the biggest problems is individuals commuting long distances in single
occupant vehicles.
We have a lot of freedom in the US. A person can live where they
want, work where they want, but involved in that freedom there are a
lot of public costs, public expenses for a variety of services the
govt and only govt can and will provide. Who pays those costs? That
is the question.
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
Nassau County (NY) is probably the ultimate suburb. There are 94,000
people going into Manhattan and 66,000 going into Queen. That's the
typical inward commuting. But they also have 50,000 going into
Suffolk with is away from NYC. So there's a definite inter-suburb
commute. But the whopper is that they have 360,000 people who commute
within the county.
Suffolk County is even clearer. They have 41,000 going into
Manhattan; 25,000 going to Queens; and 10,000 going to Brooklyn. But
they have 91,000 commuting to Nassau County. The inter-suburb commute
is larger than the commute into the city. Plus they 492,000 commuting
within the county.
They also have 9 commuting to Singapore and 3 commuting to Nepal. So
there you go.
Cute, very cute, ok now lets go on.
I will accept your correction about intercounty commuting. But when
you are talking about intercounty commutes you are talking about large
areas. Also I wonder how many of those that are counted are wives
that might work at the local mall, as opposed to a husband that takes
the LIRR to his job in Manhattan.
There are commutes and there are COMMUTES, if you know what I mean.
I will repeat what I said before, people are commuting further then
ever.
That is the problem.
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
True, very true. Cities are pretty big, but in comprarison to all of
those suburbs people are crossing through?
Sure theres times were you may have to sit in some traffic in the city
because so many people work there,
but thats what mass transit is for. Mass transit happens to be very
cheap. I went to the downtown central Library and a ticket to downtown
and back costed me about two bucks. I also could of taken the light
rail down. Mass transit is more efficient because its taking Masses of
people to and fro. Alot better then
that one man drving from or "across" the suburbs in his huge suburban.
My friend, again I will ask you to slow down.
It is not intra-city commuting we are talking about at this particular
juncture. That is where mass transit works very well and as it is
intended.
Pat mentioned commutes inside two fairly large counties on LI. That
is where the problems begin. Both those counties have their own mass
transit system, primarily busses, but there is also the LIRR.
Unfortunately the LIRR was not designed for intercounty commuting, or
commuting between the two counties.
You may be interested, the LIRR was designed as competition to the New
Haven RR, as a long distance RR unsing the ferry at the east end of LI
to connect to New England.
The system is nice, and I am sure they are glad they have it, but it
is very expensive given the relatively low population densities. Now
we are beginning to discuss the problems relative to this.
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
I think that Mass transit is the answer, I really do.
Trains are more effieciant and more accountable on when you are going
to arrive.
Cars add more pollution into the air waiting in traffic. Iam sorry,the
American car Love obsession must end.
Pat
2007-04-24 14:37:36 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 23, 10:53 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
On Apr 23, 8:39 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Pat
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by ***@yahoo.com
On Apr 23, 5:16 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85% of all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
THANKYOU!
George did you no know that the population of people living in
Chicago is about 3 million, but
during the working hours its around 5 Million? Thats 2 million people
going in and out of the City in one day.
Hmm I wonder were all of those 2 million people live?
There's a definite influx into the city during the workday -- you can
see it on the roads. But there is also a definite suburb to suburb
commute. NYC has something like 8 million people and there are
probably another 8 million (just a guess) in the surrounding areas.
Out of those 8 million in the outlying areas, some percentage goes
into the city -- my guess is they tend to be white-collar and
relatively affluent. Another HUGE percentage stay within their own
area to work -- probably relatively low income going and can't afford
to commute any farther. Then there is a growing segment that commute
between suburbs, say from upper Westchester to Yonkers and such. I
suppose in theory that if they leave their own municipality they are
communitng between suburbs. I have no proof, but I would guess that
they are high tech and manufacturing that has left the city and
probably not in the FIRE industries (ahhh, maybe real estate).
I don't want to get into the whole New Urbanist thing, but this why it
can't succeed. You can't control where people live and work. Someone
moves into a community like that (and I use the word "community"
loosely) and it is unlikely that their job will move with them. So
now they are commuting out. So much for the concept.
If downtown become more congested, it is more of a reason for
companies to grow in the suburbs out away from the core. This is esp
true of the growing companies that tend to be more high tech.
Lawyers, banking, etc. will never move, but for a lot of companies it
doesn't matter where you are -- even India.
As I said, Georgie has a very long history of fabrication, etc.
To oversimplify, the problem is the costs of growth. I think you may
be wrong about the percentage that stays in their own area. One of
the biggest problems is individuals commuting long distances in single
occupant vehicles.
We have a lot of freedom in the US. A person can live where they
want, work where they want, but involved in that freedom there are a
lot of public costs, public expenses for a variety of services the
govt and only govt can and will provide. Who pays those costs? That
is the question.
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
Nassau County (NY) is probably the ultimate suburb. There are 94,000
people going into Manhattan and 66,000 going into Queen. That's the
typical inward commuting. But they also have 50,000 going into
Suffolk with is away from NYC. So there's a definite inter-suburb
commute. But the whopper is that they have 360,000 people who commute
within the county.
Suffolk County is even clearer. They have 41,000 going into
Manhattan; 25,000 going to Queens; and 10,000 going to Brooklyn. But
they have 91,000 commuting to Nassau County. The inter-suburb commute
is larger than the commute into the city. Plus they 492,000 commuting
within the county.
They also have 9 commuting to Singapore and 3 commuting to Nepal. So
there you go.
Cute, very cute, ok now lets go on.
I will accept your correction about intercounty commuting. But when
you are talking about intercounty commutes you are talking about large
areas. Also I wonder how many of those that are counted are wives
that might work at the local mall, as opposed to a husband that takes
the LIRR to his job in Manhattan.
There are commutes and there are COMMUTES, if you know what I mean.
I will repeat what I said before, people are commuting further then
ever.
That is the problem.
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
True, very true. Cities are pretty big, but in comprarison to all of
those suburbs people are crossing through?
Sure theres times were you may have to sit in some traffic in the city
because so many people work there,
but thats what mass transit is for. Mass transit happens to be very
cheap. I went to the downtown central Library and a ticket to downtown
and back costed me about two bucks. I also could of taken the light
rail down. Mass transit is more efficient because its taking Masses of
people to and fro. Alot better then
that one man drving from or "across" the suburbs in his huge suburban.
My friend, again I will ask you to slow down.
It is not intra-city commuting we are talking about at this particular
juncture. That is where mass transit works very well and as it is
intended.
Pat mentioned commutes inside two fairly large counties on LI. That
is where the problems begin. Both those counties have their own mass
transit system, primarily busses, but there is also the LIRR.
Unfortunately the LIRR was not designed for intercounty commuting, or
commuting between the two counties.
You may be interested, the LIRR was designed as competition to the New
Haven RR, as a long distance RR unsing the ferry at the east end of LI
to connect to New England.
The system is nice, and I am sure they are glad they have it, but it
is very expensive given the relatively low population densities. Now
we are beginning to discuss the problems relative to this.
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
I think that Mass transit is the answer, I really do.
Trains are more effieciant and more accountable on when you are going
to arrive.
Cars add more pollution into the air waiting in traffic. Iam sorry,the
American car Love obsession must end.
You are missing the point COMPLETELY because you are refusing to
listing to what is being discussed.

Yeah, mass transit works well for getting people into and out of the
cities. Okay, motion made and seconded. All in agreement. Next
subject.

The point is that cities are becoming less and less influential as the
suburbs grow and attain their "economic independence". In large,
mature suburbs it isn't so much a question of getting people into the
city -- it is more a question of how do you move people between the
suburbs and more and more jobs are there. It isn't moving people from
Virginia into DC but a growing concern is how do you move people from
one part of Virginia to another part of DC or maybe to Delaware. Or
how do you move someone from one part of Long Island to another part
of Long Island. For these purposes, I don't think mass transit will
work because the commuting pattern is no longer the legs of a spider
-- it has become the web of a spider. This has happened already in
some areas -- Silicone Valley for one -- where the suburban area has
it's high-tech jobs and so much of the commuting is between the
suburbs.

Don't worry, cities will always exist. They will be the government
centers for a long time. therefore they will keep many government
functions plus law offices, FIRE, etc. But you will see more and more
"new" jobs being in the burbs and that will be the problem.
Baxter
2007-04-25 02:51:24 UTC
Permalink
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Pat
The point is that cities are becoming less and less influential as the
suburbs grow and attain their "economic independence".
Bullshit. As the suburbs grow, they become more and more a part of the
city.

You think Portland is one city? No, it's 27 cities - all merged together.
Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
2007-04-25 23:48:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
On Apr 23, 10:53 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
On Apr 23, 8:39 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Okay> > > > > > > On Apr 23, 6:55 pm, Pat
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Pat
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by ***@yahoo.com
On Apr 23, 5:16 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85% of all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
THANKYOU!
George did you no know that the population of people living in
Chicago is about 3 million, but
during the working hours its around 5 Million? Thats 2 million people
going in and out of the City in one day.
Hmm I wonder were all of those 2 million people live?
There's a definite influx into the city during the workday -- you can
see it on the roads. But there is also a definite suburb to suburb
commute. NYC has something like 8 million people and there are
probably another 8 million (just a guess) in the surrounding areas.
Out of those 8 million in the outlying areas, some percentage goes
into the city -- my guess is they tend to be white-collar and
relatively affluent. Another HUGE percentage stay within their own
area to work -- probably relatively low income going and can't afford
to commute any farther. Then there is a growing segment that commute
between suburbs, say from upper Westchester to Yonkers and such. I
suppose in theory that if they leave their own municipality they are
communitng between suburbs. I have no proof, but I would guess that
they are high tech and manufacturing that has left the city and
probably not in the FIRE industries (ahhh, maybe real estate).
I don't want to get into the whole New Urbanist thing, but this why it
can't succeed. You can't control where people live and work. Someone
moves into a community like that (and I use the word "community"
loosely) and it is unlikely that their job will move with them. So
now they are commuting out. So much for the concept.
If downtown become more congested, it is more of a reason for
companies to grow in the suburbs out away from the core. This is esp
true of the growing companies that tend to be more high tech.
Lawyers, banking, etc. will never move, but for a lot of companies it
doesn't matter where you are -- even India.
As I said, Georgie has a very long history of fabrication, etc.
To oversimplify, the problem is the costs of growth. I think you may
be wrong about the percentage that stays in their own area. One of
the biggest problems is individuals commuting long distances in single
occupant vehicles.
We have a lot of freedom in the US. A person can live where they
want, work where they want, but involved in that freedom there are a
lot of public costs, public expenses for a variety of services the
govt and only govt can and will provide. Who pays those costs? That
is the question.
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
Nassau County (NY) is probably the ultimate suburb. There are 94,000
people going into Manhattan and 66,000 going into Queen. That's the
typical inward commuting. But they also have 50,000 going into
Suffolk with is away from NYC. So there's a definite inter-suburb
commute. But the whopper is that they have 360,000 people who commute
within the county.
Suffolk County is even clearer. They have 41,000 going into
Manhattan; 25,000 going to Queens; and 10,000 going to Brooklyn. But
they have 91,000 commuting to Nassau County. The inter-suburb commute
is larger than the commute into the city. Plus they 492,000 commuting
within the county.
They also have 9 commuting to Singapore and 3 commuting to Nepal. So
there you go.
Cute, very cute, ok now lets go on.
I will accept your correction about intercounty commuting. But when
you are talking about intercounty commutes you are talking about large
areas. Also I wonder how many of those that are counted are wives
that might work at the local mall, as opposed to a husband that takes
the LIRR to his job in Manhattan.
There are commutes and there are COMMUTES, if you know what I mean.
I will repeat what I said before, people are commuting further then
ever.
That is the problem.
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
True, very true. Cities are pretty big, but in comprarison to all of
those suburbs people are crossing through?
Sure theres times were you may have to sit in some traffic in the city
because so many people work there,
but thats what mass transit is for. Mass transit happens to be very
cheap. I went to the downtown central Library and a ticket to downtown
and back costed me about two bucks. I also could of taken the light
rail down. Mass transit is more efficient because its taking Masses of
people to and fro. Alot better then
that one man drving from or "across" the suburbs in his huge suburban.
My friend, again I will ask you to slow down.
It is not intra-city commuting we are talking about at this particular
juncture. That is where mass transit works very well and as it is
intended.
Pat mentioned commutes inside two fairly large counties on LI. That
is where the problems begin. Both those counties have their own mass
transit system, primarily busses, but there is also the LIRR.
Unfortunately the LIRR was not designed for intercounty commuting, or
commuting between the two counties.
You may be interested, the LIRR was designed as competition to the New
Haven RR, as a long distance RR unsing the ferry at the east end of LI
to connect to New England.
The system is nice, and I am sure they are glad they have it, but it
is very expensive given the relatively low population densities. Now
we are beginning to discuss the problems relative to this.
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
I think that Mass transit is the answer, I really do.
Trains are more effieciant and more accountable on when you are going
to arrive.
Cars add more pollution into the air waiting in traffic. Iam sorry,the
American car Love obsession must end.
You are missing the point COMPLETELY because you are refusing to
listing to what is being discussed.
Yeah, mass transit works well for getting people into and out of the
cities. Okay, motion made and seconded. All in agreement. Next
subject.
The point is that cities are becoming less and less influential as the
suburbs grow and attain their "economic independence". In large,
mature suburbs it isn't so much a question of getting people into the
city -- it is more a question of how do you move people between the
suburbs and more and more jobs are there. It isn't moving people from
Virginia into DC but a growing concern is how do you move people from
one part of Virginia to another part of DC or maybe to Delaware. Or
how do you move someone from one part of Long Island to another part
of Long Island. For these purposes, I don't think mass transit will
work because the commuting pattern is no longer the legs of a spider
-- it has become the web of a spider. This has happened already in
some areas -- Silicone Valley for one -- where the suburban area has
it's high-tech jobs and so much of the commuting is between the
suburbs.
Don't worry, cities will always exist. They will be the government
centers for a long time. therefore they will keep many government
functions plus law offices, FIRE, etc. But you will see more and more
"new" jobs being in the burbs and that will be the problem.
Okay I see your point. And I will say that it is a good thing that
more jobs
are poping up in the suburbs to reduce rush hour traffic into the
city.
Well obviously mass transit does not work for long and wide distances.
Buses and
trains don't work so well in suburbs either. Its not a very good one
but I think
right now the only way to avoid long hours spent in traffic jams is to
live as close to
were you work as possible.
george conklin
2007-04-26 11:25:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
On Apr 23, 10:53 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
On Apr 23, 8:39 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Okay> > > > > > > On Apr 23, 6:55 pm, Pat
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Pat
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by ***@yahoo.com
On Apr 23, 5:16 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
On Apr 23, 5:43 am, "George Conklin"
Post by Pat
"Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
On Apr 21, 8:37 am, Pat
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr.
Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel
living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York
City market, 85% of all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep
repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong.
And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan
with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a
multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA
Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You
are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
THANKYOU!
George did you no know that the population of people
living in
Chicago is about 3 million, but
during the working hours its around 5 Million? Thats 2
million people
going in and out of the City in one day.
Hmm I wonder were all of those 2 million people live?
There's a definite influx into the city during the
workday -- you can
see it on the roads. But there is also a definite suburb
to suburb
commute. NYC has something like 8 million people and there
are
probably another 8 million (just a guess) in the
surrounding areas.
Out of those 8 million in the outlying areas, some
percentage goes
into the city -- my guess is they tend to be white-collar and
relatively affluent. Another HUGE percentage stay within
their own
area to work -- probably relatively low income going and
can't afford
to commute any farther. Then there is a growing segment
that commute
between suburbs, say from upper Westchester to Yonkers and
such. I
suppose in theory that if they leave their own municipality
they are
communitng between suburbs. I have no proof, but I would
guess that
they are high tech and manufacturing that has left the city
and
probably not in the FIRE industries (ahhh, maybe real
estate).
I don't want to get into the whole New Urbanist thing, but
this why it
can't succeed. You can't control where people live and
work. Someone
moves into a community like that (and I use the word
"community"
loosely) and it is unlikely that their job will move with
them. So
now they are commuting out. So much for the concept.
If downtown become more congested, it is more of a reason for
companies to grow in the suburbs out away from the core.
This is esp
true of the growing companies that tend to be more high tech.
Lawyers, banking, etc. will never move, but for a lot of
companies it
doesn't matter where you are -- even India.
As I said, Georgie has a very long history of fabrication, etc.
To oversimplify, the problem is the costs of growth. I think
you may
be wrong about the percentage that stays in their own area.
One of
the biggest problems is individuals commuting long distances
in single
occupant vehicles.
We have a lot of freedom in the US. A person can live where they
want, work where they want, but involved in that freedom
there are a
lot of public costs, public expenses for a variety of
services the
govt and only govt can and will provide. Who pays those
costs? That
is the question.
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
Nassau County (NY) is probably the ultimate suburb. There are 94,000
people going into Manhattan and 66,000 going into Queen.
That's the
typical inward commuting. But they also have 50,000 going into
Suffolk with is away from NYC. So there's a definite inter-suburb
commute. But the whopper is that they have 360,000 people who
commute
within the county.
Suffolk County is even clearer. They have 41,000 going into
Manhattan; 25,000 going to Queens; and 10,000 going to Brooklyn. But
they have 91,000 commuting to Nassau County. The inter-suburb
commute
is larger than the commute into the city. Plus they 492,000 commuting
within the county.
They also have 9 commuting to Singapore and 3 commuting to Nepal. So
there you go.
Cute, very cute, ok now lets go on.
I will accept your correction about intercounty commuting. But when
you are talking about intercounty commutes you are talking about large
areas. Also I wonder how many of those that are counted are wives
that might work at the local mall, as opposed to a husband that takes
the LIRR to his job in Manhattan.
There are commutes and there are COMMUTES, if you know what I mean.
I will repeat what I said before, people are commuting further then
ever.
That is the problem.
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
True, very true. Cities are pretty big, but in comprarison to all of
those suburbs people are crossing through?
Sure theres times were you may have to sit in some traffic in the city
because so many people work there,
but thats what mass transit is for. Mass transit happens to be very
cheap. I went to the downtown central Library and a ticket to downtown
and back costed me about two bucks. I also could of taken the light
rail down. Mass transit is more efficient because its taking Masses of
people to and fro. Alot better then
that one man drving from or "across" the suburbs in his huge suburban.
My friend, again I will ask you to slow down.
It is not intra-city commuting we are talking about at this particular
juncture. That is where mass transit works very well and as it is
intended.
Pat mentioned commutes inside two fairly large counties on LI. That
is where the problems begin. Both those counties have their own mass
transit system, primarily busses, but there is also the LIRR.
Unfortunately the LIRR was not designed for intercounty commuting, or
commuting between the two counties.
You may be interested, the LIRR was designed as competition to the New
Haven RR, as a long distance RR unsing the ferry at the east end of LI
to connect to New England.
The system is nice, and I am sure they are glad they have it, but it
is very expensive given the relatively low population densities. Now
we are beginning to discuss the problems relative to this.
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
I think that Mass transit is the answer, I really do.
Trains are more effieciant and more accountable on when you are going
to arrive.
Cars add more pollution into the air waiting in traffic. Iam sorry,the
American car Love obsession must end.
You are missing the point COMPLETELY because you are refusing to
listing to what is being discussed.
Yeah, mass transit works well for getting people into and out of the
cities. Okay, motion made and seconded. All in agreement. Next
subject.
The point is that cities are becoming less and less influential as the
suburbs grow and attain their "economic independence". In large,
mature suburbs it isn't so much a question of getting people into the
city -- it is more a question of how do you move people between the
suburbs and more and more jobs are there. It isn't moving people from
Virginia into DC but a growing concern is how do you move people from
one part of Virginia to another part of DC or maybe to Delaware. Or
how do you move someone from one part of Long Island to another part
of Long Island. For these purposes, I don't think mass transit will
work because the commuting pattern is no longer the legs of a spider
-- it has become the web of a spider. This has happened already in
some areas -- Silicone Valley for one -- where the suburban area has
it's high-tech jobs and so much of the commuting is between the
suburbs.
Don't worry, cities will always exist. They will be the government
centers for a long time. therefore they will keep many government
functions plus law offices, FIRE, etc. But you will see more and more
"new" jobs being in the burbs and that will be the problem.
Okay I see your point. And I will say that it is a good thing that
more jobs
are poping up in the suburbs to reduce rush hour traffic into the
city.
Well obviously mass transit does not work for long and wide distances.
Buses and
trains don't work so well in suburbs either. Its not a very good one
but I think
right now the only way to avoid long hours spent in traffic jams is to
live as close to
were you work as possible.
As density goes up, commute times go up too.
Pat
2007-04-26 15:39:20 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 25, 7:48 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
On Apr 23, 8:39 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Okay> > > > > > > On Apr 23, 6:55 pm, Pat
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by Pat
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by ***@yahoo.com
On Apr 23, 5:16 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85% of all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
THANKYOU!
George did you no know that the population of people living in
Chicago is about 3 million, but
during the working hours its around 5 Million? Thats 2 million people
going in and out of the City in one day.
Hmm I wonder were all of those 2 million people live?
There's a definite influx into the city during the workday -- you can
see it on the roads. But there is also a definite suburb to suburb
commute. NYC has something like 8 million people and there are
probably another 8 million (just a guess) in the surrounding areas.
Out of those 8 million in the outlying areas, some percentage goes
into the city -- my guess is they tend to be white-collar and
relatively affluent. Another HUGE percentage stay within their own
area to work -- probably relatively low income going and can't afford
to commute any farther. Then there is a growing segment that commute
between suburbs, say from upper Westchester to Yonkers and such. I
suppose in theory that if they leave their own municipality they are
communitng between suburbs. I have no proof, but I would guess that
they are high tech and manufacturing that has left the city and
probably not in the FIRE industries (ahhh, maybe real estate).
I don't want to get into the whole New Urbanist thing, but this why it
can't succeed. You can't control where people live and work. Someone
moves into a community like that (and I use the word "community"
loosely) and it is unlikely that their job will move with them. So
now they are commuting out. So much for the concept.
If downtown become more congested, it is more of a reason for
companies to grow in the suburbs out away from the core. This is esp
true of the growing companies that tend to be more high tech.
Lawyers, banking, etc. will never move, but for a lot of companies it
doesn't matter where you are -- even India.
As I said, Georgie has a very long history of fabrication, etc.
To oversimplify, the problem is the costs of growth. I think you may
be wrong about the percentage that stays in their own area. One of
the biggest problems is individuals commuting long distances in single
occupant vehicles.
We have a lot of freedom in the US. A person can live where they
want, work where they want, but involved in that freedom there are a
lot of public costs, public expenses for a variety of services the
govt and only govt can and will provide. Who pays those costs? That
is the question.
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
Nassau County (NY) is probably the ultimate suburb. There are 94,000
people going into Manhattan and 66,000 going into Queen. That's the
typical inward commuting. But they also have 50,000 going into
Suffolk with is away from NYC. So there's a definite inter-suburb
commute. But the whopper is that they have 360,000 people who commute
within the county.
Suffolk County is even clearer. They have 41,000 going into
Manhattan; 25,000 going to Queens; and 10,000 going to Brooklyn. But
they have 91,000 commuting to Nassau County. The inter-suburb commute
is larger than the commute into the city. Plus they 492,000 commuting
within the county.
They also have 9 commuting to Singapore and 3 commuting to Nepal. So
there you go.
Cute, very cute, ok now lets go on.
I will accept your correction about intercounty commuting. But when
you are talking about intercounty commutes you are talking about large
areas. Also I wonder how many of those that are counted are wives
that might work at the local mall, as opposed to a husband that takes
the LIRR to his job in Manhattan.
There are commutes and there are COMMUTES, if you know what I mean.
I will repeat what I said before, people are commuting further then
ever.
That is the problem.
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
True, very true. Cities are pretty big, but in comprarison to all of
those suburbs people are crossing through?
Sure theres times were you may have to sit in some traffic in the city
because so many people work there,
but thats what mass transit is for. Mass transit happens to be very
cheap. I went to the downtown central Library and a ticket to downtown
and back costed me about two bucks. I also could of taken the light
rail down. Mass transit is more efficient because its taking Masses of
people to and fro. Alot better then
that one man drving from or "across" the suburbs in his huge suburban.
My friend, again I will ask you to slow down.
It is not intra-city commuting we are talking about at this particular
juncture. That is where mass transit works very well and as it is
intended.
Pat mentioned commutes inside two fairly large counties on LI. That
is where the problems begin. Both those counties have their own mass
transit system, primarily busses, but there is also the LIRR.
Unfortunately the LIRR was not designed for intercounty commuting, or
commuting between the two counties.
You may be interested, the LIRR was designed as competition to the New
Haven RR, as a long distance RR unsing the ferry at the east end of LI
to connect to New England.
The system is nice, and I am sure they are glad they have it, but it
is very expensive given the relatively low population densities. Now
we are beginning to discuss the problems relative to this.
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
I think that Mass transit is the answer, I really do.
Trains are more effieciant and more accountable on when you are going
to arrive.
Cars add more pollution into the air waiting in traffic. Iam sorry,the
American car Love obsession must end.
You are missing the point COMPLETELY because you are refusing to
listing to what is being discussed.
Yeah, mass transit works well for getting people into and out of the
cities. Okay, motion made and seconded. All in agreement. Next
subject.
The point is that cities are becoming less and less influential as the
suburbs grow and attain their "economic independence". In large,
mature suburbs it isn't so much a question of getting people into the
city -- it is more a question of how do you move people between the
suburbs and more and more jobs are there. It isn't moving people from
Virginia into DC but a growing concern is how do you move people from
one part of Virginia to another part of DC or maybe to Delaware. Or
how do you move someone from one part of Long Island to another part
of Long Island. For these purposes, I don't think mass transit will
work because the commuting pattern is no longer the legs of a spider
-- it has become the web of a spider. This has happened already in
some areas -- Silicone Valley for one -- where the suburban area has
it's high-tech jobs and so much of the commuting is between the
suburbs.
Don't worry, cities will always exist. They will be the government
centers for a long time. therefore they will keep many government
functions plus law offices, FIRE, etc. But you will see more and more
"new" jobs being in the burbs and that will be the problem.
Okay I see your point. And I will say that it is a good thing that
more jobs
are poping up in the suburbs to reduce rush hour traffic into the
city.
Well obviously mass transit does not work for long and wide distances.
Buses and
trains don't work so well in suburbs either. Its not a very good one
but I think
right now the only way to avoid long hours spent in traffic jams is to
live as close to
were you work as possible.
I work out of my house, so conjestion for me is stopping to kick the
dog out of the way when he's blocking the stairway.
Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
2007-04-27 21:01:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Okay I see your point. And I will say that it is a good thing that
more jobs
are poping up in the suburbs to reduce rush hour traffic into the
city.
Well obviously mass transit does not work for long and wide distances.
Buses and
trains don't work so well in suburbs either. Its not a very good one
but I think
right now the only way to avoid long hours spent in traffic jams is to
live as close to
were you work as possible.
I work out of my house, so conjestion for me is stopping to kick the
dog out of the way when he's blocking the stairway.
Haha nice. But that doesent solve the problem. Not everyone can work
out of the house.
I think suburbs should of been planned out better so some sort of
transit besides Locomotives can fit in somehow. Whatever happend to
the grid system?
Pat
2007-04-28 04:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On Apr 27, 5:01 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Okay I see your point. And I will say that it is a good thing that
more jobs
are poping up in the suburbs to reduce rush hour traffic into the
city.
Well obviously mass transit does not work for long and wide distances.
Buses and
trains don't work so well in suburbs either. Its not a very good one
but I think
right now the only way to avoid long hours spent in traffic jams is to
live as close to
were you work as possible.
I work out of my house, so conjestion for me is stopping to kick the
dog out of the way when he's blocking the stairway.
Haha nice. But that doesent solve the problem. Not everyone can work
out of the house.
I think suburbs should of been planned out better so some sort of
transit besides Locomotives can fit in somehow. Whatever happend to
the grid system?
The grid system worked too well and therefore planners put an end to
it.
Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
2007-04-29 13:39:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
On Apr 27, 5:01 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Okay I see your point. And I will say that it is a good thing that
more jobs
are poping up in the suburbs to reduce rush hour traffic into the
city.
Well obviously mass transit does not work for long and wide distances.
Buses and
trains don't work so well in suburbs either. Its not a very good one
but I think
right now the only way to avoid long hours spent in traffic jams is to
live as close to
were you work as possible.
I work out of my house, so conjestion for me is stopping to kick the
dog out of the way when he's blocking the stairway.
Haha nice. But that doesent solve the problem. Not everyone can work
out of the house.
I think suburbs should of been planned out better so some sort of
transit besides Locomotives can fit in somehow. Whatever happend to
the grid system?
The grid system worked too well and therefore planners put an end to
it.
Yet another reason why I "dislike" the suburbs.
Anymouse
2007-04-29 16:35:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
On Apr 27, 5:01 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Okay I see your point. And I will say that it is a good thing that
more jobs
are poping up in the suburbs to reduce rush hour traffic into the
city.
Well obviously mass transit does not work for long and wide distances.
Buses and
trains don't work so well in suburbs either. Its not a very good one
but I think
right now the only way to avoid long hours spent in traffic jams is to
live as close to
were you work as possible.
I work out of my house, so conjestion for me is stopping to kick the
dog out of the way when he's blocking the stairway.
Haha nice. But that doesent solve the problem. Not everyone can work
out of the house.
I think suburbs should of been planned out better so some sort of
transit besides Locomotives can fit in somehow. Whatever happend to
the grid system?
The grid system worked too well and therefore planners put an end to
it.
The grid system worked well for pedestrians, but when combined with cars it
could be dangerous. More at wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_hierarchy#History
Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
2007-04-29 19:41:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
On Apr 27, 5:01 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Okay I see your point. And I will say that it is a good thing that
more jobs
are poping up in the suburbs to reduce rush hour traffic into the
city.
Well obviously mass transit does not work for long and wide distances.
Buses and
trains don't work so well in suburbs either. Its not a very good one
but I think
right now the only way to avoid long hours spent in traffic jams is to
live as close to
were you work as possible.
I work out of my house, so conjestion for me is stopping to kick the
dog out of the way when he's blocking the stairway.
Haha nice. But that doesent solve the problem. Not everyone can work
out of the house.
I think suburbs should of been planned out better so some sort of
transit besides Locomotives can fit in somehow. Whatever happend to
the grid system?
The grid system worked too well and therefore planners put an end to
it.
The grid system worked well for pedestrians, but when combined with cars it
could be dangerous. More at wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_hierarchy#History
Well I dont see your point, at all, but ill somewhat give you the
benifit of the doubt
, but would curvy roads and culdisacs be better then the grid system?
Ehh I get the shivers just typing that.
Anymouse
2007-04-29 22:57:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
On Apr 27, 5:01 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Okay I see your point. And I will say that it is a good thing that
more jobs
are poping up in the suburbs to reduce rush hour traffic into the
city.
Well obviously mass transit does not work for long and wide distances.
Buses and
trains don't work so well in suburbs either. Its not a very good one
but I think
right now the only way to avoid long hours spent in traffic jams
is
to
live as close to
were you work as possible.
I work out of my house, so conjestion for me is stopping to kick the
dog out of the way when he's blocking the stairway.
Haha nice. But that doesent solve the problem. Not everyone can work
out of the house.
I think suburbs should of been planned out better so some sort of
transit besides Locomotives can fit in somehow. Whatever happend to
the grid system?
The grid system worked too well and therefore planners put an end to
it.
The grid system worked well for pedestrians, but when combined with cars it
could be dangerous. More at
wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_hierarchy#History
Well I dont see your point, at all, but ill somewhat give you the
benifit of the doubt
, but would curvy roads and culdisacs be better then the grid system?
Ehh I get the shivers just typing that.
I do think that the grid is better if your only dealing with pedestrians,
but it was abandoned because of car use in residential areas. Quote: "The
prototypical street hierarchy was first elaborated by Ludwig Hilberseimer in
his City Plan of 1927. The chief priority of planners such as Hilberseimer
was in making it safe for primary school-age children to walk to school and
to increase the speed of the vehicular circulation system." Now there are
suggestions that hierarchal streets may be more dangerous for automobiles,
however that wasn't known when they started constructing them. Personally I
think pedestrian grid streets are better. Grid streets are still used in
many apartments.
George Conklin
2007-04-29 23:14:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
On Apr 27, 5:01 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Okay I see your point. And I will say that it is a good thing that
more jobs
are poping up in the suburbs to reduce rush hour traffic into the
city.
Well obviously mass transit does not work for long and wide distances.
Buses and
trains don't work so well in suburbs either. Its not a very
good
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
one
but I think
right now the only way to avoid long hours spent in traffic jams
is
to
live as close to
were you work as possible.
I work out of my house, so conjestion for me is stopping to kick the
dog out of the way when he's blocking the stairway.
Haha nice. But that doesent solve the problem. Not everyone can work
out of the house.
I think suburbs should of been planned out better so some sort of
transit besides Locomotives can fit in somehow. Whatever happend to
the grid system?
The grid system worked too well and therefore planners put an end to
it.
The grid system worked well for pedestrians, but when combined with
cars
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
it
could be dangerous. More at
wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_hierarchy#History
Well I dont see your point, at all, but ill somewhat give you the
benifit of the doubt
, but would curvy roads and culdisacs be better then the grid system?
Ehh I get the shivers just typing that.
I do think that the grid is better if your only dealing with pedestrians,
but it was abandoned because of car use in residential areas. Quote: "The
prototypical street hierarchy was first elaborated by Ludwig Hilberseimer in
his City Plan of 1927. The chief priority of planners such as Hilberseimer
was in making it safe for primary school-age children to walk to school and
to increase the speed of the vehicular circulation system." Now there are
suggestions that hierarchal streets may be more dangerous for automobiles,
however that wasn't known when they started constructing them. Personally I
think pedestrian grid streets are better. Grid streets are still used in
many apartments.
Current planner want ONLY grid streets.
Anymouse
2007-04-30 04:18:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
On Apr 27, 5:01 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Okay I see your point. And I will say that it is a good thing that
more jobs
are poping up in the suburbs to reduce rush hour traffic into
the
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
city.
Well obviously mass transit does not work for long and wide
distances.
Buses and
trains don't work so well in suburbs either. Its not a very
good
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
one
but I think
right now the only way to avoid long hours spent in traffic jams
is
to
live as close to
were you work as possible.
I work out of my house, so conjestion for me is stopping to kick
the
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
dog out of the way when he's blocking the stairway.
Haha nice. But that doesent solve the problem. Not everyone can work
out of the house.
I think suburbs should of been planned out better so some sort of
transit besides Locomotives can fit in somehow. Whatever happend to
the grid system?
The grid system worked too well and therefore planners put an end to
it.
The grid system worked well for pedestrians, but when combined with
cars
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
it
could be dangerous. More at
wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_hierarchy#History
Well I dont see your point, at all, but ill somewhat give you the
benifit of the doubt
, but would curvy roads and culdisacs be better then the grid system?
Ehh I get the shivers just typing that.
I do think that the grid is better if your only dealing with pedestrians,
but it was abandoned because of car use in residential areas. Quote: "The
prototypical street hierarchy was first elaborated by Ludwig Hilberseimer
in
Post by Anymouse
his City Plan of 1927. The chief priority of planners such as
Hilberseimer
was in making it safe for primary school-age children to walk to school
and
Post by Anymouse
to increase the speed of the vehicular circulation system." Now there are
suggestions that hierarchal streets may be more dangerous for
automobiles,
however that wasn't known when they started constructing them. Personally
I
Post by Anymouse
think pedestrian grid streets are better. Grid streets are still used in
many apartments.
Current planner want ONLY grid streets.
I prefer that they at least add pedestrian grid streets onto the car road
hierarchy, but I think we should wait for the free market to arrive at that
decision.
Clark F Morris
2007-04-30 13:05:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
On Apr 27, 5:01 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Okay I see your point. And I will say that it is a good thing that
more jobs
are poping up in the suburbs to reduce rush hour traffic into
the
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
city.
Well obviously mass transit does not work for long and wide
distances.
Buses and
trains don't work so well in suburbs either. Its not a very
good
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
one
but I think
right now the only way to avoid long hours spent in traffic jams
is
to
live as close to
were you work as possible.
I work out of my house, so conjestion for me is stopping to kick
the
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
dog out of the way when he's blocking the stairway.
Haha nice. But that doesent solve the problem. Not everyone can work
out of the house.
I think suburbs should of been planned out better so some sort of
transit besides Locomotives can fit in somehow. Whatever happend to
the grid system?
The grid system worked too well and therefore planners put an end to
it.
The grid system worked well for pedestrians, but when combined with
cars
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
it
could be dangerous. More at
wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_hierarchy#History
Well I dont see your point, at all, but ill somewhat give you the
benifit of the doubt
, but would curvy roads and culdisacs be better then the grid system?
Ehh I get the shivers just typing that.
I do think that the grid is better if your only dealing with pedestrians,
but it was abandoned because of car use in residential areas. Quote: "The
prototypical street hierarchy was first elaborated by Ludwig Hilberseimer
in
Post by Anymouse
his City Plan of 1927. The chief priority of planners such as Hilberseimer
was in making it safe for primary school-age children to walk to school
and
Post by Anymouse
to increase the speed of the vehicular circulation system." Now there are
suggestions that hierarchal streets may be more dangerous for automobiles,
however that wasn't known when they started constructing them. Personally
I
Post by Anymouse
think pedestrian grid streets are better. Grid streets are still used in
many apartments.
Current planner want ONLY grid streets.
I prefer that they at least add pedestrian grid streets onto the car road
hierarchy, but I think we should wait for the free market to arrive at that
decision.
How do you get free market when all of the facilities involved are
either tax provided or mandated on the developer? There are planners
who view pedestrians as a nuisance.
Anymouse
2007-04-30 20:05:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
On Apr 27, 5:01 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Okay I see your point. And I will say that it is a good
thing
that
more jobs
are poping up in the suburbs to reduce rush hour traffic into
the
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
city.
Well obviously mass transit does not work for long and wide
distances.
Buses and
trains don't work so well in suburbs either. Its not a very
good
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
one
but I think
right now the only way to avoid long hours spent in traffic jams
is
to
live as close to
were you work as possible.
I work out of my house, so conjestion for me is stopping to kick
the
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
dog out of the way when he's blocking the stairway.
Haha nice. But that doesent solve the problem. Not everyone can work
out of the house.
I think suburbs should of been planned out better so some sort of
transit besides Locomotives can fit in somehow. Whatever happend to
the grid system?
The grid system worked too well and therefore planners put an end to
it.
The grid system worked well for pedestrians, but when combined with
cars
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
it
could be dangerous. More at
wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_hierarchy#History
Well I dont see your point, at all, but ill somewhat give you the
benifit of the doubt
, but would curvy roads and culdisacs be better then the grid system?
Ehh I get the shivers just typing that.
I do think that the grid is better if your only dealing with pedestrians,
but it was abandoned because of car use in residential areas. Quote: "The
prototypical street hierarchy was first elaborated by Ludwig Hilberseimer
in
Post by Anymouse
his City Plan of 1927. The chief priority of planners such as Hilberseimer
was in making it safe for primary school-age children to walk to school
and
Post by Anymouse
to increase the speed of the vehicular circulation system." Now there are
suggestions that hierarchal streets may be more dangerous for automobiles,
however that wasn't known when they started constructing them. Personally
I
Post by Anymouse
think pedestrian grid streets are better. Grid streets are still used in
many apartments.
Current planner want ONLY grid streets.
I prefer that they at least add pedestrian grid streets onto the car road
hierarchy, but I think we should wait for the free market to arrive at that
decision.
How do you get free market when all of the facilities involved are
either tax provided or mandated on the developer? There are planners
who view pedestrians as a nuisance.
The governments should stop giving tax provided facilities and mandating to
the developers.
George Conklin
2007-05-01 12:07:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anymouse
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
On Apr 27, 5:01 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Okay I see your point. And I will say that it is a good
thing
that
more jobs
are poping up in the suburbs to reduce rush hour traffic into
the
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
city.
Well obviously mass transit does not work for long and wide
distances.
Buses and
trains don't work so well in suburbs either. Its not a very
good
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
one
but I think
right now the only way to avoid long hours spent in traffic
jams
is
to
live as close to
were you work as possible.
I work out of my house, so conjestion for me is stopping to kick
the
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
dog out of the way when he's blocking the stairway.
Haha nice. But that doesent solve the problem. Not everyone can work
out of the house.
I think suburbs should of been planned out better so some sort of
transit besides Locomotives can fit in somehow. Whatever
happend
Post by Anymouse
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
to
the grid system?
The grid system worked too well and therefore planners put an
end
Post by Anymouse
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
to
it.
The grid system worked well for pedestrians, but when combined with
cars
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
it
could be dangerous. More at
wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_hierarchy#History
Well I dont see your point, at all, but ill somewhat give you the
benifit of the doubt
, but would curvy roads and culdisacs be better then the grid system?
Ehh I get the shivers just typing that.
I do think that the grid is better if your only dealing with pedestrians,
but it was abandoned because of car use in residential areas. Quote: "The
prototypical street hierarchy was first elaborated by Ludwig Hilberseimer
in
Post by Anymouse
his City Plan of 1927. The chief priority of planners such as Hilberseimer
was in making it safe for primary school-age children to walk to school
and
Post by Anymouse
to increase the speed of the vehicular circulation system." Now there are
suggestions that hierarchal streets may be more dangerous for automobiles,
however that wasn't known when they started constructing them. Personally
I
Post by Anymouse
think pedestrian grid streets are better. Grid streets are still used in
many apartments.
Current planner want ONLY grid streets.
I prefer that they at least add pedestrian grid streets onto the car road
hierarchy, but I think we should wait for the free market to arrive at that
decision.
How do you get free market when all of the facilities involved are
either tax provided or mandated on the developer? There are planners
who view pedestrians as a nuisance.
The governments should stop giving tax provided facilities and mandating to
the developers.
Deveopers already have to put in their own facilties and only later are they
taken over by governments IF they meet certain standards.
George Conklin
2007-05-01 12:06:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
On Apr 27, 5:01 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Okay I see your point. And I will say that it is a good
thing
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
that
more jobs
are poping up in the suburbs to reduce rush hour traffic into
the
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
city.
Well obviously mass transit does not work for long and wide
distances.
Buses and
trains don't work so well in suburbs either. Its not a very
good
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
one
but I think
right now the only way to avoid long hours spent in traffic
jams
is
to
live as close to
were you work as possible.
I work out of my house, so conjestion for me is stopping to kick
the
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
dog out of the way when he's blocking the stairway.
Haha nice. But that doesent solve the problem. Not everyone can work
out of the house.
I think suburbs should of been planned out better so some sort of
transit besides Locomotives can fit in somehow. Whatever happend to
the grid system?
The grid system worked too well and therefore planners put an end to
it.
The grid system worked well for pedestrians, but when combined with
cars
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
it
could be dangerous. More at
wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_hierarchy#History
Well I dont see your point, at all, but ill somewhat give you the
benifit of the doubt
, but would curvy roads and culdisacs be better then the grid system?
Ehh I get the shivers just typing that.
I do think that the grid is better if your only dealing with pedestrians,
but it was abandoned because of car use in residential areas. Quote: "The
prototypical street hierarchy was first elaborated by Ludwig Hilberseimer
in
Post by Anymouse
his City Plan of 1927. The chief priority of planners such as Hilberseimer
was in making it safe for primary school-age children to walk to school
and
Post by Anymouse
to increase the speed of the vehicular circulation system." Now there are
suggestions that hierarchal streets may be more dangerous for automobiles,
however that wasn't known when they started constructing them. Personally
I
Post by Anymouse
think pedestrian grid streets are better. Grid streets are still used in
many apartments.
Current planner want ONLY grid streets.
I prefer that they at least add pedestrian grid streets onto the car road
hierarchy, but I think we should wait for the free market to arrive at that
decision.
How do you get free market when all of the facilities involved are
either tax provided or mandated on the developer? There are planners
who view pedestrians as a nuisance.
Wrong again. Planners view cars as a nuisance and want everyone to walk in
mixed-use development, even though that is impossible in a modern economy.
Mill houses are NOT an ideal-type.
Clark F Morris
2007-05-01 14:55:19 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 01 May 2007 12:06:36 GMT, "George Conklin"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
On Apr 27, 5:01 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Okay I see your point. And I will say that it is a good
thing
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
that
more jobs
are poping up in the suburbs to reduce rush hour traffic
into
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
the
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
city.
Well obviously mass transit does not work for long and wide
distances.
Buses and
trains don't work so well in suburbs either. Its not a very
good
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
one
but I think
right now the only way to avoid long hours spent in traffic
jams
is
to
live as close to
were you work as possible.
I work out of my house, so conjestion for me is stopping to
kick
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
the
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
dog out of the way when he's blocking the stairway.
Haha nice. But that doesent solve the problem. Not everyone can work
out of the house.
I think suburbs should of been planned out better so some sort
of
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
transit besides Locomotives can fit in somehow. Whatever happend
to
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
the grid system?
The grid system worked too well and therefore planners put an end
to
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
it.
The grid system worked well for pedestrians, but when combined with
cars
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
it
could be dangerous. More at
wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_hierarchy#History
Well I dont see your point, at all, but ill somewhat give you the
benifit of the doubt
, but would curvy roads and culdisacs be better then the grid
system?
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Ehh I get the shivers just typing that.
I do think that the grid is better if your only dealing with
pedestrians,
"The
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
prototypical street hierarchy was first elaborated by Ludwig
Hilberseimer
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
in
Post by Anymouse
his City Plan of 1927. The chief priority of planners such as Hilberseimer
was in making it safe for primary school-age children to walk to
school
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
and
Post by Anymouse
to increase the speed of the vehicular circulation system." Now there
are
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
suggestions that hierarchal streets may be more dangerous for automobiles,
however that wasn't known when they started constructing them.
Personally
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
I
Post by Anymouse
think pedestrian grid streets are better. Grid streets are still used
in
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
many apartments.
Current planner want ONLY grid streets.
I prefer that they at least add pedestrian grid streets onto the car road
hierarchy, but I think we should wait for the free market to arrive at
that
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
decision.
How do you get free market when all of the facilities involved are
either tax provided or mandated on the developer? There are planners
who view pedestrians as a nuisance.
Wrong again. Planners view cars as a nuisance and want everyone to walk in
mixed-use development, even though that is impossible in a modern economy.
Mill houses are NOT an ideal-type.
You aren't seeing some of the planners we have in Nova Scotia. You
also are ignoring the planners in the suburbs who like acre zoning or
even multi-acre zoning. As I may have said in a previous post,
planners are like economists, if you laid them in a line from New York
to Los Angeles, they still would point in all directions.
George Conklin
2007-05-02 00:12:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clark F Morris
On Tue, 01 May 2007 12:06:36 GMT, "George Conklin"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
On Apr 27, 5:01 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Okay I see your point. And I will say that it is a good
thing
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
that
more jobs
are poping up in the suburbs to reduce rush hour traffic
into
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
the
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
city.
Well obviously mass transit does not work for long and wide
distances.
Buses and
trains don't work so well in suburbs either. Its not a very
good
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
one
but I think
right now the only way to avoid long hours spent in traffic
jams
is
to
live as close to
were you work as possible.
I work out of my house, so conjestion for me is stopping to
kick
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
the
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
dog out of the way when he's blocking the stairway.
Haha nice. But that doesent solve the problem. Not everyone
can
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
work
out of the house.
I think suburbs should of been planned out better so some sort
of
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
transit besides Locomotives can fit in somehow. Whatever happend
to
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
the grid system?
The grid system worked too well and therefore planners put an end
to
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
it.
The grid system worked well for pedestrians, but when combined with
cars
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
it
could be dangerous. More at
wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_hierarchy#History
Well I dont see your point, at all, but ill somewhat give you the
benifit of the doubt
, but would curvy roads and culdisacs be better then the grid
system?
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Ehh I get the shivers just typing that.
I do think that the grid is better if your only dealing with
pedestrians,
"The
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
prototypical street hierarchy was first elaborated by Ludwig
Hilberseimer
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
in
Post by Anymouse
his City Plan of 1927. The chief priority of planners such as Hilberseimer
was in making it safe for primary school-age children to walk to
school
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
and
Post by Anymouse
to increase the speed of the vehicular circulation system." Now there
are
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
suggestions that hierarchal streets may be more dangerous for automobiles,
however that wasn't known when they started constructing them.
Personally
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
I
Post by Anymouse
think pedestrian grid streets are better. Grid streets are still used
in
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
many apartments.
Current planner want ONLY grid streets.
I prefer that they at least add pedestrian grid streets onto the car road
hierarchy, but I think we should wait for the free market to arrive at
that
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
decision.
How do you get free market when all of the facilities involved are
either tax provided or mandated on the developer? There are planners
who view pedestrians as a nuisance.
Wrong again. Planners view cars as a nuisance and want everyone to walk in
mixed-use development, even though that is impossible in a modern economy.
Mill houses are NOT an ideal-type.
You aren't seeing some of the planners we have in Nova Scotia. You
also are ignoring the planners in the suburbs who like acre zoning or
even multi-acre zoning. As I may have said in a previous post,
planners are like economists, if you laid them in a line from New York
to Los Angeles, they still would point in all directions.
The planners around here are 100% Smart Growth, APA clones. They all say
the same thing. More density; infill; no large stores; walk.
Amy Blankenship
2007-05-01 15:14:18 UTC
Permalink
"George Conklin" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:g3GZh.2609$***@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
...
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
The grid system worked too well and therefore planners put an
end
to
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
it.
The grid system worked well for pedestrians, but when combined with
cars
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
it
could be dangerous. More at
wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_hierarchy#History
Well I dont see your point, at all, but ill somewhat give you the
benifit of the doubt
, but would curvy roads and culdisacs be better then the grid
system?
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Ehh I get the shivers just typing that.
I do think that the grid is better if your only dealing with
pedestrians,
"The
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
prototypical street hierarchy was first elaborated by Ludwig
Hilberseimer
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
in
Post by Anymouse
his City Plan of 1927. The chief priority of planners such as Hilberseimer
was in making it safe for primary school-age children to walk to
school
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
and
Post by Anymouse
to increase the speed of the vehicular circulation system." Now there
are
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
suggestions that hierarchal streets may be more dangerous for automobiles,
however that wasn't known when they started constructing them.
Personally
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
I
Post by Anymouse
think pedestrian grid streets are better. Grid streets are still used
in
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
many apartments.
Current planner want ONLY grid streets.
I prefer that they at least add pedestrian grid streets onto the car road
hierarchy, but I think we should wait for the free market to arrive at
that
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
decision.
How do you get free market when all of the facilities involved are
either tax provided or mandated on the developer? There are planners
who view pedestrians as a nuisance.
Wrong again. Planners view cars as a nuisance and want everyone to walk in
mixed-use development, even though that is impossible in a modern economy.
Mill houses are NOT an ideal-type.
You're so right, George. Planners who believe that communities should still
function if something goes wrong with the auto-based transportation system
are completely stupid, because nothing could ever happen to affect cars and
our ability to use them.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/30/highway.collapse.ap/index.html
George Conklin
2007-05-02 00:13:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
...
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
The grid system worked too well and therefore planners put an
end
to
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
Post by Pat
it.
The grid system worked well for pedestrians, but when combined with
cars
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Anymouse
it
could be dangerous. More at
wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_hierarchy#History
Well I dont see your point, at all, but ill somewhat give you the
benifit of the doubt
, but would curvy roads and culdisacs be better then the grid
system?
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Ehh I get the shivers just typing that.
I do think that the grid is better if your only dealing with
pedestrians,
"The
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
prototypical street hierarchy was first elaborated by Ludwig
Hilberseimer
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
in
Post by Anymouse
his City Plan of 1927. The chief priority of planners such as Hilberseimer
was in making it safe for primary school-age children to walk to
school
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
and
Post by Anymouse
to increase the speed of the vehicular circulation system." Now there
are
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
suggestions that hierarchal streets may be more dangerous for automobiles,
however that wasn't known when they started constructing them.
Personally
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
I
Post by Anymouse
think pedestrian grid streets are better. Grid streets are still used
in
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
Post by George Conklin
Post by Anymouse
many apartments.
Current planner want ONLY grid streets.
I prefer that they at least add pedestrian grid streets onto the car road
hierarchy, but I think we should wait for the free market to arrive at
that
Post by Clark F Morris
Post by Anymouse
decision.
How do you get free market when all of the facilities involved are
either tax provided or mandated on the developer? There are planners
who view pedestrians as a nuisance.
Wrong again. Planners view cars as a nuisance and want everyone to walk in
mixed-use development, even though that is impossible in a modern economy.
Mill houses are NOT an ideal-type.
You're so right, George. Planners who believe that communities should still
function if something goes wrong with the auto-based transportation system
are completely stupid, because nothing could ever happen to affect cars and
our ability to use them.
You are wrong historically. The large industrial city was based on fixed
rail transit, not cars. The so-called sprawl has always been part of
cities. It is not auto-dependent. That lie never seems to die, even though
it has been 100%+ debunked many times.
Amy Blankenship
2007-05-02 01:18:48 UTC
Permalink
"George Conklin" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:PIQZh.2744$***@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
...
Post by George Conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
Wrong again. Planners view cars as a nuisance and want everyone to
walk
in
mixed-use development, even though that is impossible in a modern
economy.
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
Mill houses are NOT an ideal-type.
You're so right, George. Planners who believe that communities should
still
Post by Amy Blankenship
function if something goes wrong with the auto-based transportation system
are completely stupid, because nothing could ever happen to affect cars
and
Post by Amy Blankenship
our ability to use them.
You are wrong historically. The large industrial city was based on fixed
rail transit, not cars. The so-called sprawl has always been part of
cities. It is not auto-dependent. That lie never seems to die, even though
it has been 100%+ debunked many times.
Er, George. What, specifically, in what I said are you saying is wrong
historically? That you're so right?

OK, I admit it. I was wrong about that. But you have to realize I was
actually being sarcastic, so it doesn't *really* count as being wrong.
George Conklin
2007-05-02 12:05:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
...
Post by George Conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
Wrong again. Planners view cars as a nuisance and want everyone to
walk
in
mixed-use development, even though that is impossible in a modern
economy.
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
Mill houses are NOT an ideal-type.
You're so right, George. Planners who believe that communities should
still
Post by Amy Blankenship
function if something goes wrong with the auto-based transportation system
are completely stupid, because nothing could ever happen to affect cars
and
Post by Amy Blankenship
our ability to use them.
You are wrong historically. The large industrial city was based on fixed
rail transit, not cars. The so-called sprawl has always been part of
cities. It is not auto-dependent. That lie never seems to die, even though
it has been 100%+ debunked many times.
Er, George. What, specifically, in what I said are you saying is wrong
historically? That you're so right?
Growth of cities is NOT car-dependent. They grew largely at first with
fixed rail transit.
Amy Blankenship
2007-05-02 14:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
...
Post by George Conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
Wrong again. Planners view cars as a nuisance and want everyone to
walk
in
mixed-use development, even though that is impossible in a modern
economy.
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by George Conklin
Mill houses are NOT an ideal-type.
You're so right, George. Planners who believe that communities should
still
Post by Amy Blankenship
function if something goes wrong with the auto-based transportation system
are completely stupid, because nothing could ever happen to affect cars
and
Post by Amy Blankenship
our ability to use them.
You are wrong historically. The large industrial city was based on fixed
rail transit, not cars. The so-called sprawl has always been part of
cities. It is not auto-dependent. That lie never seems to die, even though
it has been 100%+ debunked many times.
Er, George. What, specifically, in what I said are you saying is wrong
historically? That you're so right?
Growth of cities is NOT car-dependent. They grew largely at first with
fixed rail transit.
Can you provide a quote where I actually said that growth of cities was car
dependent? I notice you say "is". Is it your contention that current
growth of cities is based on fixed rail transit? That's a very bold
statement.
Pat
2007-04-24 00:12:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by ***@yahoo.com
On Apr 23, 5:16 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85% of all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
THANKYOU!
George did you no know that the population of people living in
Chicago is about 3 million, but
during the working hours its around 5 Million? Thats 2 million people
going in and out of the City in one day.
Hmm I wonder were all of those 2 million people live?
There's a definite influx into the city during the workday -- you can
see it on the roads. But there is also a definite suburb to suburb
commute. NYC has something like 8 million people and there are
probably another 8 million (just a guess) in the surrounding areas.
Out of those 8 million in the outlying areas, some percentage goes
into the city -- my guess is they tend to be white-collar and
relatively affluent. Another HUGE percentage stay within their own
area to work -- probably relatively low income going and can't afford
to commute any farther. Then there is a growing segment that commute
between suburbs, say from upper Westchester to Yonkers and such. I
suppose in theory that if they leave their own municipality they are
communitng between suburbs. I have no proof, but I would guess that
they are high tech and manufacturing that has left the city and
probably not in the FIRE industries (ahhh, maybe real estate).
I don't want to get into the whole New Urbanist thing, but this why it
can't succeed. You can't control where people live and work. Someone
moves into a community like that (and I use the word "community"
loosely) and it is unlikely that their job will move with them. So
now they are commuting out. So much for the concept.
If downtown become more congested, it is more of a reason for
companies to grow in the suburbs out away from the core. This is esp
true of the growing companies that tend to be more high tech.
Lawyers, banking, etc. will never move, but for a lot of companies it
doesn't matter where you are -- even India.
As I said, Georgie has a very long history of fabrication, etc.
To oversimplify, the problem is the costs of growth. I think you may
be wrong about the percentage that stays in their own area. One of
the biggest problems is individuals commuting long distances in single
occupant vehicles.
We have a lot of freedom in the US. A person can live where they
want, work where they want, but involved in that freedom there are a
lot of public costs, public expenses for a variety of services the
govt and only govt can and will provide. Who pays those costs? That
is the question.
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
I picked Broward County, FL, because I think it's near Miami.

Of the people who work in Broward County, 566,000 live in Broward.
60,000 live in Miami-Dade and 38,000 live in Palm Beach.

Meanwhile, 155,000 Broward residents commute into Miam and 53,000
commute into Palm Beach.

So there is a definite inter-suburb commute. Interestingly, there
seems to be more of it in Long Island than in Miami but part of that
is probably because of the municipal structure of NYS. In Florida, LI
would probably be part of NYC by now.
1
rotten
2007-05-18 19:21:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by ***@yahoo.com
On Apr 23, 5:16 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85% of all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
THANKYOU!
George did you no know that the population of people living in
Chicago is about 3 million, but
during the working hours its around 5 Million? Thats 2 million people
going in and out of the City in one day.
Hmm I wonder were all of those 2 million people live?
There's a definite influx into the city during the workday -- you can
see it on the roads. But there is also a definite suburb to suburb
commute. NYC has something like 8 million people and there are
probably another 8 million (just a guess) in the surrounding areas.
Out of those 8 million in the outlying areas, some percentage goes
into the city -- my guess is they tend to be white-collar and
relatively affluent. Another HUGE percentage stay within their own
area to work -- probably relatively low income going and can't afford
to commute any farther. Then there is a growing segment that commute
between suburbs, say from upper Westchester to Yonkers and such. I
suppose in theory that if they leave their own municipality they are
communitng between suburbs. I have no proof, but I would guess that
they are high tech and manufacturing that has left the city and
probably not in the FIRE industries (ahhh, maybe real estate).
I don't want to get into the whole New Urbanist thing, but this why it
can't succeed. You can't control where people live and work. Someone
moves into a community like that (and I use the word "community"
loosely) and it is unlikely that their job will move with them. So
now they are commuting out. So much for the concept.
If downtown become more congested, it is more of a reason for
companies to grow in the suburbs out away from the core. This is esp
true of the growing companies that tend to be more high tech.
Lawyers, banking, etc. will never move, but for a lot of companies it
doesn't matter where you are -- even India.
As I said, Georgie has a very long history of fabrication, etc.
To oversimplify, the problem is the costs of growth. I think you may
be wrong about the percentage that stays in their own area. One of
the biggest problems is individuals commuting long distances in single
occupant vehicles.
We have a lot of freedom in the US. A person can live where they
want, work where they want, but involved in that freedom there are a
lot of public costs, public expenses for a variety of services the
govt and only govt can and will provide. Who pays those costs? That
is the question.
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
I reversed commuted for about 1 year, I lived in the city commuted out
to the suburbs to work.
Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
2007-05-18 22:34:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by ***@yahoo.com
On Apr 23, 5:16 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85% of all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
THANKYOU!
George did you no know that the population of people living in
Chicago is about 3 million, but
during the working hours its around 5 Million? Thats 2 million people
going in and out of the City in one day.
Hmm I wonder were all of those 2 million people live?
There's a definite influx into the city during the workday -- you can
see it on the roads. But there is also a definite suburb to suburb
commute. NYC has something like 8 million people and there are
probably another 8 million (just a guess) in the surrounding areas.
Out of those 8 million in the outlying areas, some percentage goes
into the city -- my guess is they tend to be white-collar and
relatively affluent. Another HUGE percentage stay within their own
area to work -- probably relatively low income going and can't afford
to commute any farther. Then there is a growing segment that commute
between suburbs, say from upper Westchester to Yonkers and such. I
suppose in theory that if they leave their own municipality they are
communitng between suburbs. I have no proof, but I would guess that
they are high tech and manufacturing that has left the city and
probably not in the FIRE industries (ahhh, maybe real estate).
I don't want to get into the whole New Urbanist thing, but this why it
can't succeed. You can't control where people live and work. Someone
moves into a community like that (and I use the word "community"
loosely) and it is unlikely that their job will move with them. So
now they are commuting out. So much for the concept.
If downtown become more congested, it is more of a reason for
companies to grow in the suburbs out away from the core. This is esp
true of the growing companies that tend to be more high tech.
Lawyers, banking, etc. will never move, but for a lot of companies it
doesn't matter where you are -- even India.
As I said, Georgie has a very long history of fabrication, etc.
To oversimplify, the problem is the costs of growth. I think you may
be wrong about the percentage that stays in their own area. One of
the biggest problems is individuals commuting long distances in single
occupant vehicles.
We have a lot of freedom in the US. A person can live where they
want, work where they want, but involved in that freedom there are a
lot of public costs, public expenses for a variety of services the
govt and only govt can and will provide. Who pays those costs? That
is the question.
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
I reversed commuted for about 1 year, I lived in the city commuted out
to the suburbs to work.
I do that for school. Makes the drive to school suck but on the
way home its nice to see my beautiful skyline.
george conklin
2007-05-18 23:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by ***@yahoo.com
On Apr 23, 5:16 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market,
85% of all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term.
Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
THANKYOU!
George did you no know that the population of people living in
Chicago is about 3 million, but
during the working hours its around 5 Million? Thats 2 million people
going in and out of the City in one day.
Hmm I wonder were all of those 2 million people live?
There's a definite influx into the city during the workday -- you can
see it on the roads. But there is also a definite suburb to suburb
commute. NYC has something like 8 million people and there are
probably another 8 million (just a guess) in the surrounding areas.
Out of those 8 million in the outlying areas, some percentage goes
into the city -- my guess is they tend to be white-collar and
relatively affluent. Another HUGE percentage stay within their own
area to work -- probably relatively low income going and can't afford
to commute any farther. Then there is a growing segment that commute
between suburbs, say from upper Westchester to Yonkers and such. I
suppose in theory that if they leave their own municipality they are
communitng between suburbs. I have no proof, but I would guess that
they are high tech and manufacturing that has left the city and
probably not in the FIRE industries (ahhh, maybe real estate).
I don't want to get into the whole New Urbanist thing, but this why it
can't succeed. You can't control where people live and work. Someone
moves into a community like that (and I use the word "community"
loosely) and it is unlikely that their job will move with them. So
now they are commuting out. So much for the concept.
If downtown become more congested, it is more of a reason for
companies to grow in the suburbs out away from the core. This is esp
true of the growing companies that tend to be more high tech.
Lawyers, banking, etc. will never move, but for a lot of companies it
doesn't matter where you are -- even India.
As I said, Georgie has a very long history of fabrication, etc.
To oversimplify, the problem is the costs of growth. I think you may
be wrong about the percentage that stays in their own area. One of
the biggest problems is individuals commuting long distances in single
occupant vehicles.
We have a lot of freedom in the US. A person can live where they
want, work where they want, but involved in that freedom there are a
lot of public costs, public expenses for a variety of services the
govt and only govt can and will provide. Who pays those costs? That
is the question.
Take care, Randy in S Dade, FL
I reversed commuted for about 1 year, I lived in the city commuted out
to the suburbs to work.
That call that reverse commuting.
George Conklin
2007-04-23 23:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@yahoo.com
On Apr 23, 5:16 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85% of all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
THANKYOU!
George did you no know that the population of people living in
Chicago is about 3 million, but
during the working hours its around 5 Million? Thats 2 million people
going in and out of the City in one day.
Hmm I wonder were all of those 2 million people live?
There's a definite influx into the city during the workday -- you can
see it on the roads. But there is also a definite suburb to suburb
commute. NYC has something like 8 million people and there are
probably another 8 million (just a guess) in the surrounding areas.
Out of those 8 million in the outlying areas, some percentage goes
into the city -- my guess is they tend to be white-collar and
relatively affluent. Another HUGE percentage stay within their own
area to work -- probably relatively low income going and can't afford
to commute any farther. Then there is a growing segment that commute
between suburbs, say from upper Westchester to Yonkers and such. I
suppose in theory that if they leave their own municipality they are
communitng between suburbs. I have no proof, but I would guess that
they are high tech and manufacturing that has left the city and
probably not in the FIRE industries (ahhh, maybe real estate).
I don't want to get into the whole New Urbanist thing, but this why it
can't succeed. You can't control where people live and work. Someone
moves into a community like that (and I use the word "community"
loosely) and it is unlikely that their job will move with them. So
now they are commuting out. So much for the concept.
If downtown become more congested, it is more of a reason for
companies to grow in the suburbs out away from the core. This is esp
true of the growing companies that tend to be more high tech.
Lawyers, banking, etc. will never move, but for a lot of companies it
doesn't matter where you are -- even India.
The 80% of commuters in the NYC region are in fact suburb to suburb, and
have been for many, many years.

Check a recent edition of J. John Palen's "The Urban World" for a discussion
of this factoid. Also, Plano Texas is headquarters to 5 Fortune 500
companies, the kind that used to be in NYC. 3/4 of Washington DC-area
workers actually work in the MD or VA suburbs, the book notes.

And so forth.
pigsty1953@yahoo.com
2007-04-23 23:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Conklin
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85%
of all
Post by Pat
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
THANKYOU!
George did you no know that the population of people living in
Chicago is about 3 million, but
during the working hours its around 5 Million? Thats 2 million people
going in and out of the City in one day.
Hmm I wonder were all of those 2 million people live?
There's a definite influx into the city during the workday -- you can
see it on the roads. But there is also a definite suburb to suburb
commute. NYC has something like 8 million people and there are
probably another 8 million (just a guess) in the surrounding areas.
Out of those 8 million in the outlying areas, some percentage goes
into the city -- my guess is they tend to be white-collar and
relatively affluent. Another HUGE percentage stay within their own
area to work -- probably relatively low income going and can't afford
to commute any farther. Then there is a growing segment that commute
between suburbs, say from upper Westchester to Yonkers and such. I
suppose in theory that if they leave their own municipality they are
communitng between suburbs. I have no proof, but I would guess that
they are high tech and manufacturing that has left the city and
probably not in the FIRE industries (ahhh, maybe real estate).
I don't want to get into the whole New Urbanist thing, but this why it
can't succeed. You can't control where people live and work. Someone
moves into a community like that (and I use the word "community"
loosely) and it is unlikely that their job will move with them. So
now they are commuting out. So much for the concept.
If downtown become more congested, it is more of a reason for
companies to grow in the suburbs out away from the core. This is esp
true of the growing companies that tend to be more high tech.
Lawyers, banking, etc. will never move, but for a lot of companies it
doesn't matter where you are -- even India.
The 80% of commuters in the NYC region are in fact suburb to suburb, and
have been for many, many years.
Check a recent edition of J. John Palen's "The Urban World" for a discussion
of this factoid. Also, Plano Texas is headquarters to 5 Fortune 500
companies, the kind that used to be in NYC. 3/4 of Washington DC-area
workers actually work in the MD or VA suburbs, the book notes.
And so forth.
George, we have been through this previously, and you keep using
something that people have disproven. You know that, you cannot be
that stupid. We have been through it on MTRA, and NYC transit, why
are you doing it here???

Now cut it out and go on to something else, ok.

I have an idea, why don't you address the costs of this and the long
distance commuting that a lot of people do. You can do it, I know you
can.

Randy
Clark F Morris
2007-04-24 00:08:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85% of all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
I have a hunch that George is closer to the truth than you might
think, especially if you redefine the commute to mean only to jobs in
Manhattan. That would count Newark, Elizabeth, White Plains,
Stamford, Bridgeport and New Haven as suburbs. Actually you might
even be able to count Philadelphia or Paoli as suburbs because there
probably is still commuting to Manhattan from both municipalities.
Even in the more traditional suburbs, I suspect that only a minority
of the commuters are Manhattan bound. Many are commuting within their
own suburb (or small city). It would be interesting to see what
percentage of travel within Queens, the Bronx and Brooklyn (not to or
from Manhattan) is by transit versus by car. I do know that many
trips would be painfully slow by transit because they are not viable
by subway.
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Randy
rotten
2007-05-18 19:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85% of all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
I don't know about NYC, but I have no doubt that true for the majority
of metropolitan areas in the US.
george conklin
2007-05-18 23:32:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by rotten
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85% of all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
I don't know about NYC, but I have no doubt that true for the majority
of metropolitan areas in the US.
It is true especially for NYC. It is in the textbooks we use too.
Pat
2007-05-19 03:36:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by rotten
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85% of all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
I don't know about NYC, but I have no doubt that true for the majority
of metropolitan areas in the US.
It is true especially for NYC. It is in the textbooks we use too.
Aaawwwkkkk <gasp, gasp>. You're arguing that something is true
because it's in a text book. <wait, I'm feeling faint and seeing
stars> The number of errors I've found in text books is increadible,
esp. in grade school books. Being in a book just means that it is
likely to be outdated.
george conklin
2007-05-19 11:20:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
Post by george conklin
Post by rotten
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85%
of
all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
I don't know about NYC, but I have no doubt that true for the majority
of metropolitan areas in the US.
It is true especially for NYC. It is in the textbooks we use too.
Aaawwwkkkk <gasp, gasp>. You're arguing that something is true
because it's in a text book.
This fact is NOT an error.
Amy Blankenship
2007-05-19 13:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Pat
Post by george conklin
Post by rotten
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85%
of
all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
I don't know about NYC, but I have no doubt that true for the majority
of metropolitan areas in the US.
It is true especially for NYC. It is in the textbooks we use too.
Aaawwwkkkk <gasp, gasp>. You're arguing that something is true
because it's in a text book.
This fact is NOT an error.
The gospel according to St. George.
george conklin
2007-05-19 15:01:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by george conklin
Post by Pat
Post by george conklin
Post by rotten
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market,
85% of
all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term.
Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
I don't know about NYC, but I have no doubt that true for the majority
of metropolitan areas in the US.
It is true especially for NYC. It is in the textbooks we use too.
Aaawwwkkkk <gasp, gasp>. You're arguing that something is true
because it's in a text book.
This fact is NOT an error.
The gospel according to St. George.
You need to start studying something other than your own base emotions.
Amy Blankenship
2007-05-19 17:43:45 UTC
Permalink
"george conklin" <***@nxu.edu> wrote in message news:8jE3i.17035$***@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
...
Post by george conklin
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by george conklin
Post by Pat
Post by george conklin
It is true especially for NYC. It is in the textbooks we use too.
Aaawwwkkkk <gasp, gasp>. You're arguing that something is true
because it's in a text book.
This fact is NOT an error.
The gospel according to St. George.
You need to start studying something other than your own base emotions.
Now that's just weird. While there is an Air Force Base about 30 miles away
from me and a Sea Bee base about 20 miles away from me, I don't really have
very many emotions about either one. But whatever, George...
Pat
2007-05-19 16:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Pat
Post by george conklin
Post by rotten
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85%
of
all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term. Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
I don't know about NYC, but I have no doubt that true for the majority
of metropolitan areas in the US.
It is true especially for NYC. It is in the textbooks we use too.
Aaawwwkkkk <gasp, gasp>. You're arguing that something is true
because it's in a text book.
This fact is NOT an error.
So if I write something and put it in a book, then that makes it
true??? I'll go tell Mary Shelley.
Amy Blankenship
2007-05-19 17:45:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
Post by george conklin
Post by Pat
Post by george conklin
Post by rotten
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85%
of
all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term.
Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
I don't know about NYC, but I have no doubt that true for the majority
of metropolitan areas in the US.
It is true especially for NYC. It is in the textbooks we use too.
Aaawwwkkkk <gasp, gasp>. You're arguing that something is true
because it's in a text book.
This fact is NOT an error.
So if I write something and put it in a book, then that makes it
true??? I'll go tell Mary Shelley.
George has to believe this, as the "editor" of an "academic" publication.
Putting things in writing, to George, makes them true, especially if the
audience is other college professors and students. It's what he lives for.

Hope this clarifies;

Amy
Pat
2007-05-19 18:34:21 UTC
Permalink
On May 19, 1:45 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Pat
Post by george conklin
Post by Pat
Post by george conklin
Post by rotten
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say
"The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market, 85%
of
all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term.
Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
I don't know about NYC, but I have no doubt that true for the majority
of metropolitan areas in the US.
It is true especially for NYC. It is in the textbooks we use too.
Aaawwwkkkk <gasp, gasp>. You're arguing that something is true
because it's in a text book.
This fact is NOT an error.
So if I write something and put it in a book, then that makes it
true??? I'll go tell Mary Shelley.
George has to believe this, as the "editor" of an "academic" publication.
Putting things in writing, to George, makes them true, especially if the
audience is other college professors and students. It's what he lives for.
Hope this clarifies;
Amy
Cool. I have lots and lots of space on my websites. I could put up a
few pages that say anything anyone wants. Maybe I should give Mr.
Cool a forum to put up a few things. Then it would be true. Maybe
Mr. Cool could even interview some of this friends to get stats, like
the old "4 out of 5 dentists" thing where they literally asked 5
dentists the question. Then it would be on the internet, have
statistics, etc. Heck, I could even name it "The Journal of Whatever-
I-Want" if that would lend credibility to it. How about The Journal
of Comparative Suburbia.
Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
2007-05-20 00:21:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
On May 19, 1:45 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Pat
Post by george conklin
Post by Pat
Post by george conklin
Post by rotten
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say
"The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market,
85%
of
all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term.
Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT doing
youself any good.
Randy
I don't know about NYC, but I have no doubt that true for the majority
of metropolitan areas in the US.
It is true especially for NYC. It is in the textbooks we use too.
Aaawwwkkkk <gasp, gasp>. You're arguing that something is true
because it's in a text book.
This fact is NOT an error.
So if I write something and put it in a book, then that makes it
true??? I'll go tell Mary Shelley.
George has to believe this, as the "editor" of an "academic" publication.
Putting things in writing, to George, makes them true, especially if the
audience is other college professors and students. It's what he lives for.
Hope this clarifies;
Amy
Cool. I have lots and lots of space on my websites. I could put up a
few pages that say anything anyone wants. Maybe I should give Mr.
Cool a forum to put up a few things. Then it would be true. Maybe
Mr. Cool could even interview some of this friends to get stats, like
the old "4 out of 5 dentists" thing where they literally asked 5
dentists the question. Then it would be on the internet, have
statistics, etc. Heck, I could even name it "The Journal of Whatever-
I-Want" if that would lend credibility to it. How about The Journal
of Comparative Suburbia.
Sounds good, but how come more of you old folks here don't make
profiles for your account here on gmail groups?
Pat
2007-05-20 01:36:34 UTC
Permalink
On May 19, 8:21 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
On May 19, 1:45 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Pat
Post by george conklin
Post by Pat
Post by george conklin
Post by rotten
Post by ***@yahoo.com
Post by George Conklin
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say
"The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market,
85%
of
all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep repeating
the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with hundreds
of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term.
Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT
doing
youself any good.
Randy
I don't know about NYC, but I have no doubt that true for the
majority
of metropolitan areas in the US.
It is true especially for NYC. It is in the textbooks we use too.
Aaawwwkkkk <gasp, gasp>. You're arguing that something is true
because it's in a text book.
This fact is NOT an error.
So if I write something and put it in a book, then that makes it
true??? I'll go tell Mary Shelley.
George has to believe this, as the "editor" of an "academic" publication.
Putting things in writing, to George, makes them true, especially if the
audience is other college professors and students. It's what he lives for.
Hope this clarifies;
Amy
Cool. I have lots and lots of space on my websites. I could put up a
few pages that say anything anyone wants. Maybe I should give Mr.
Cool a forum to put up a few things. Then it would be true. Maybe
Mr. Cool could even interview some of this friends to get stats, like
the old "4 out of 5 dentists" thing where they literally asked 5
dentists the question. Then it would be on the internet, have
statistics, etc. Heck, I could even name it "The Journal of Whatever-
I-Want" if that would lend credibility to it. How about The Journal
of Comparative Suburbia.
Sounds good, but how come more of you old folks here don't make
profiles for your account here on gmail groups?
It is beyond our level of technical proficency.

Actually, most young people don't have a problem putting up profiles
and stuff. Fogies like me don't because of privancy concerns. We
don't want to give anything we don't have to, to big brother. Heck, I
don't even use the "bonus card" from the local grocery store because I
don't want them to know what I am buying.
george conklin
2007-05-20 01:59:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
On May 19, 8:21 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
On May 19, 1:45 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Pat
Post by george conklin
Post by Pat
Post by george conklin
Post by rotten
On Apr 23, 5:43 am, "George Conklin"
Post by Amy Blankenship
wrote in
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool
woud say
"The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living
in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City
market,
85%
of
all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep
repeating
the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And
you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with
hundreds
of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of
subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term.
Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT
doing
youself any good.
Randy
I don't know about NYC, but I have no doubt that true for the
majority
of metropolitan areas in the US.
It is true especially for NYC. It is in the textbooks we use too.
Aaawwwkkkk <gasp, gasp>. You're arguing that something is true
because it's in a text book.
This fact is NOT an error.
So if I write something and put it in a book, then that makes it
true??? I'll go tell Mary Shelley.
George has to believe this, as the "editor" of an "academic" publication.
Putting things in writing, to George, makes them true, especially if the
audience is other college professors and students. It's what he lives for.
Hope this clarifies;
Amy
Cool. I have lots and lots of space on my websites. I could put up a
few pages that say anything anyone wants. Maybe I should give Mr.
Cool a forum to put up a few things. Then it would be true. Maybe
Mr. Cool could even interview some of this friends to get stats, like
the old "4 out of 5 dentists" thing where they literally asked 5
dentists the question. Then it would be on the internet, have
statistics, etc. Heck, I could even name it "The Journal of Whatever-
I-Want" if that would lend credibility to it. How about The Journal
of Comparative Suburbia.
Sounds good, but how come more of you old folks here don't make
profiles for your account here on gmail groups?
It is beyond our level of technical proficency.
Actually, most young people don't have a problem putting up profiles
and stuff. Fogies like me don't because of privancy concerns. We
don't want to give anything we don't have to, to big brother. Heck, I
don't even use the "bonus card" from the local grocery store because I
don't want them to know what I am buying.
I've had a home page since 1995. Still there.
george conklin
2007-05-20 01:58:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
On May 19, 1:45 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Pat
Post by george conklin
Post by Pat
Post by george conklin
Post by rotten
On Apr 23, 5:43 am, "George Conklin"
Post by Amy Blankenship
wrote in
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud
say
"The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living
in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market,
85%
of
all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep
repeating
the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with
hundreds
of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term.
Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT
doing
youself any good.
Randy
I don't know about NYC, but I have no doubt that true for the
majority
of metropolitan areas in the US.
It is true especially for NYC. It is in the textbooks we use too.
Aaawwwkkkk <gasp, gasp>. You're arguing that something is true
because it's in a text book.
This fact is NOT an error.
So if I write something and put it in a book, then that makes it
true??? I'll go tell Mary Shelley.
George has to believe this, as the "editor" of an "academic" publication.
Putting things in writing, to George, makes them true, especially if the
audience is other college professors and students. It's what he lives for.
Hope this clarifies;
Amy
Cool. I have lots and lots of space on my websites. I could put up a
few pages that say anything anyone wants. Maybe I should give Mr.
Cool a forum to put up a few things. Then it would be true. Maybe
Mr. Cool could even interview some of this friends to get stats, like
the old "4 out of 5 dentists" thing where they literally asked 5
dentists the question. Then it would be on the internet, have
statistics, etc. Heck, I could even name it "The Journal of Whatever-
I-Want" if that would lend credibility to it. How about The Journal
of Comparative Suburbia.
Sounds good, but how come more of you old folks here don't make
profiles for your account here on gmail groups?
No need. We are already listed on important sites.
Amy Blankenship
2007-05-20 03:02:10 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Cool. I have lots and lots of space on my websites. I could put up a
few pages that say anything anyone wants. Maybe I should give Mr.
Cool a forum to put up a few things. Then it would be true. Maybe
Mr. Cool could even interview some of this friends to get stats, like
the old "4 out of 5 dentists" thing where they literally asked 5
dentists the question. Then it would be on the internet, have
statistics, etc. Heck, I could even name it "The Journal of Whatever-
I-Want" if that would lend credibility to it. How about The Journal
of Comparative Suburbia.
Sounds good, but how come more of you old folks here don't make
profiles for your account here on gmail groups?
I use NNTP, and I couldn't care less what you see on whichever proprietary
interface you're using to access the group...
Rotten
2007-05-20 03:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
On May 19, 1:45 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
Post by Amy Blankenship
Post by Pat
Post by george conklin
Post by Pat
Post by george conklin
Post by rotten
On Apr 23, 5:43 am, "George Conklin"
Post by Amy Blankenship
wrote in
Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud
say
"The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
And as for commuting? Do you not know that peopel living
in the
suburbs typically
have jobs in the inner city?\
This is another flat-out lie. In the New York City market,
85%
of
all
commutes are suburb to suburb.
Georgie, we have been through this before, and you keep
repeating
the
falsehood. The author of that has been proven wrong. And you know
it.. There are two big train stations in Manhattan with
hundreds
of
rush hour trains, there are PATH trains, and a multitude of subway
lines that bring commuters in to Manhattan. Plus PA Bus Term.
Those
office blgs hold thousands and thousands of workers.
Again, quit your lying, quit using lying figures. You are NOT
doing
youself any good.
Randy
I don't know about NYC, but I have no doubt that true for the
majority
of metropolitan areas in the US.
It is true especially for NYC. It is in the textbooks we use too.
Aaawwwkkkk <gasp, gasp>. You're arguing that something is true
because it's in a text book.
This fact is NOT an error.
So if I write something and put it in a book, then that makes it
true??? I'll go tell Mary Shelley.
George has to believe this, as the "editor" of an "academic" publication.
Putting things in writing, to George, makes them true, especially if the
audience is other college professors and students. It's what he lives for.
Hope this clarifies;
Amy
Cool. I have lots and lots of space on my websites. I could put up a
few pages that say anything anyone wants. Maybe I should give Mr.
Cool a forum to put up a few things. Then it would be true. Maybe
Mr. Cool could even interview some of this friends to get stats, like
the old "4 out of 5 dentists" thing where they literally asked 5
dentists the question. Then it would be on the internet, have
statistics, etc. Heck, I could even name it "The Journal of Whatever-
I-Want" if that would lend credibility to it. How about The Journal
of Comparative Suburbia.
Sounds good, but how come more of you old folks here don't make
profiles for your account here on gmail groups?
Here on "gmail groups"? You know that not everyone here uses gmail groups
right?

Pat
2007-05-07 19:18:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat
Here's something new to argue about or as Mr. Cool woud say "The
Cities, Why I hate them"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04202007/news/regionalnews/8_fee_looms_fo...
Here's the latest update, for those who care.

http://www.nysun.com/article/53932

It is the first attempt to mitigate the impact of the proposal.
Loading...