Mass Transit, More people use it then you think

Post by William
A while back we were talking about mass transit, some people were
telling me that only the poor, generally ethenic or people who need to
ride buses etc do. In Minneapolis's 400,000 population about 60% of
that is white. 40% of people who work in downtown Minneapolis take
*the bus alone* to work and back, excluding the light rail. Whenever I
get on the light rail, just about every race is represented equally
quantity wise. Most people who work in downtown don't want to deal
with the huge amount of traffic going in and out of the city. The
light rail obviously has its own track, but even the bus has it's own
lane and in some cases it's own street. Our "Metro Transit" (
http://www.metrotransit.org ) completely avoids traffic. The Light
Rail aways has the right of way when it comes to intersections,
meaning the only place it has to stop is at all of it's stations. When
it comes to rush hour, taking the bus or train is substantially faster
then driving your car.

There have been lawsuits in the West on the subidy light rail riders get
compared to bus riders. The facts are well-documented.

k***@lycos.com

2007-07-05 21:35:01 UTC

There have been lawsuits in the West on the subidy light rail riders get
compared to bus riders. The facts are well-documented.

Got a cite for this?

Pat

2007-06-30 14:35:00 UTC

Post by William
A while back we were talking about mass transit, some people were
telling me that only the poor, generally ethenic or people who need to
ride buses etc do. In Minneapolis's 400,000 population about 60% of
that is white. 40% of people who work in downtown Minneapolis take
*the bus alone* to work and back, excluding the light rail. Whenever I
get on the light rail, just about every race is represented equally
quantity wise. Most people who work in downtown don't want to deal
with the huge amount of traffic going in and out of the city. The
light rail obviously has its own track, but even the bus has it's own
lane and in some cases it's own street. Our "Metro Transit" (http://www.metrotransit.org) completely avoids traffic. The Light
Rail aways has the right of way when it comes to intersections,
meaning the only place it has to stop is at all of it's stations. When
it comes to rush hour, taking the bus or train is substantially faster
then driving your car.

May be true there, but not here. Car is much quicker.

Rail goes south in the morning about 9:00 and gets back about 6:00.
It goes north about 9:00 PM and gets back about 6:00 AM. Oh, and it's
only freight. So it's good if you are logs, or scap metal, or coal
but not so good for people.

If you take the bus, you'll have to stand on the corner and wait until
September when the school opens up to see a bus go by.

george conklin

2007-06-30 14:40:08 UTC

Post by William
A while back we were talking about mass transit, some people were
telling me that only the poor, generally ethenic or people who need to
ride buses etc do. In Minneapolis's 400,000 population about 60% of
that is white. 40% of people who work in downtown Minneapolis take
*the bus alone* to work and back, excluding the light rail. Whenever I
get on the light rail, just about every race is represented equally
quantity wise. Most people who work in downtown don't want to deal
with the huge amount of traffic going in and out of the city. The
light rail obviously has its own track, but even the bus has it's own
lane and in some cases it's own street. Our "Metro Transit"
(http://www.metrotransit.org) completely avoids traffic. The Light
Rail aways has the right of way when it comes to intersections,
meaning the only place it has to stop is at all of it's stations. When
it comes to rush hour, taking the bus or train is substantially faster
then driving your car.

May be true there, but not here. Car is much quicker.
Rail goes south in the morning about 9:00 and gets back about 6:00.
It goes north about 9:00 PM and gets back about 6:00 AM. Oh, and it's
only freight. So it's good if you are logs, or scap metal, or coal
but not so good for people.
If you take the bus, you'll have to stand on the corner and wait until
September when the school opens up to see a bus go by.

Actually the city with the longest commute times are those who are most
dependent on mass transit, which is slow if you consider door-to-door
travel.

William

2007-06-30 15:23:43 UTC

Post by William
A while back we were talking about mass transit, some people were
telling me that only the poor, generally ethenic or people who need to
ride buses etc do. In Minneapolis's 400,000 population about 60% of
that is white. 40% of people who work in downtown Minneapolis take
*the bus alone* to work and back, excluding the light rail. Whenever I
get on the light rail, just about every race is represented equally
quantity wise. Most people who work in downtown don't want to deal
with the huge amount of traffic going in and out of the city. The
light rail obviously has its own track, but even the bus has it's own
lane and in some cases it's own street. Our "Metro Transit"
(http://www.metrotransit.org) completely avoids traffic. The Light
Rail aways has the right of way when it comes to intersections,
meaning the only place it has to stop is at all of it's stations. When
it comes to rush hour, taking the bus or train is substantially faster
then driving your car.

May be true there, but not here. Car is much quicker.
Rail goes south in the morning about 9:00 and gets back about 6:00.
It goes north about 9:00 PM and gets back about 6:00 AM. Oh, and it's
only freight. So it's good if you are logs, or scap metal, or coal
but not so good for people.
If you take the bus, you'll have to stand on the corner and wait until
September when the school opens up to see a bus go by.

Actually the city with the longest commute times are those who are most
dependent on mass transit, which is slow if you consider door-to-door
travel.

In the end, the need for a Mass transit system is a good thing. I'll
try to make an example, If theres five people who live far away from
each other but go to the same destination, so say there houses would
line up in a circle surrounding the destination. So it wouldn't be
efficient to car pool with each other, but if they live in much closer
proximity, then it would be more efficient to ride with each other.
What I'm trying to get at is density may seem like a bad thing, and
may seem like density is less efficient then more spread out, but with
density and closer living spaces comes
an easy route to carpool otherwise known as "Mass transit"
Here I drew a rough picture on Microsoft Word to show you what I
mean. Please take a look.

Loading Image...

george conklin

2007-06-30 16:30:50 UTC

Post by William
A while back we were talking about mass transit, some people were
telling me that only the poor, generally ethenic or people who need to
ride buses etc do. In Minneapolis's 400,000 population about 60% of
that is white. 40% of people who work in downtown Minneapolis take
*the bus alone* to work and back, excluding the light rail. Whenever I
get on the light rail, just about every race is represented equally
quantity wise. Most people who work in downtown don't want to deal
with the huge amount of traffic going in and out of the city. The
light rail obviously has its own track, but even the bus has it's own
lane and in some cases it's own street. Our "Metro Transit"
(http://www.metrotransit.org) completely avoids traffic. The Light
Rail aways has the right of way when it comes to intersections,
meaning the only place it has to stop is at all of it's stations. When
it comes to rush hour, taking the bus or train is substantially faster
then driving your car.

May be true there, but not here. Car is much quicker.
Rail goes south in the morning about 9:00 and gets back about 6:00.
It goes north about 9:00 PM and gets back about 6:00 AM. Oh, and it's
only freight. So it's good if you are logs, or scap metal, or coal
but not so good for people.
If you take the bus, you'll have to stand on the corner and wait until
September when the school opens up to see a bus go by.

Actually the city with the longest commute times are those who are most
dependent on mass transit, which is slow if you consider door-to-door
travel.

You think mass transit is a good thing because you want people to have to
use it. Transit buses don't save fuel and never will. So what are you
trying to accomplish? Factories are not downtown and most jobs are located
where they need to be, and not at some artifical node.

William

2007-06-30 16:55:39 UTC

Post by William
A while back we were talking about mass transit, some people were
telling me that only the poor, generally ethenic or people who need to
ride buses etc do. In Minneapolis's 400,000 population about 60% of
that is white. 40% of people who work in downtown Minneapolis take
*the bus alone* to work and back, excluding the light rail. Whenever I
get on the light rail, just about every race is represented equally
quantity wise. Most people who work in downtown don't want to deal
with the huge amount of traffic going in and out of the city. The
light rail obviously has its own track, but even the bus has it's own
lane and in some cases it's own street. Our "Metro Transit"
(http://www.metrotransit.org) completely avoids traffic. The Light
Rail aways has the right of way when it comes to intersections,
meaning the only place it has to stop is at all of it's stations. When
it comes to rush hour, taking the bus or train is substantially faster
then driving your car.

May be true there, but not here. Car is much quicker.
Rail goes south in the morning about 9:00 and gets back about 6:00.
It goes north about 9:00 PM and gets back about 6:00 AM. Oh, and it's
only freight. So it's good if you are logs, or scap metal, or coal
but not so good for people.
If you take the bus, you'll have to stand on the corner and wait until
September when the school opens up to see a bus go by.

Actually the city with the longest commute times are those who are most
dependent on mass transit, which is slow if you consider door-to-door
travel.

So 10 people riding in the same vehicle and only paying $1.50 round
trip rather then 10 people driving themselves to work
is not accomplishing anything?

george conklin

2007-06-30 17:25:09 UTC

Post by William
A while back we were talking about mass transit, some people were
telling me that only the poor, generally ethenic or people who need to
ride buses etc do. In Minneapolis's 400,000 population about 60% of
that is white. 40% of people who work in downtown Minneapolis take
*the bus alone* to work and back, excluding the light rail. Whenever I
get on the light rail, just about every race is represented equally
quantity wise. Most people who work in downtown don't want to deal
with the huge amount of traffic going in and out of the city. The
light rail obviously has its own track, but even the bus has it's own
lane and in some cases it's own street. Our "Metro Transit"
(http://www.metrotransit.org) completely avoids traffic. The Light
Rail aways has the right of way when it comes to intersections,
meaning the only place it has to stop is at all of it's stations. When
it comes to rush hour, taking the bus or train is substantially faster
then driving your car.

May be true there, but not here. Car is much quicker.
Rail goes south in the morning about 9:00 and gets back about 6:00.
It goes north about 9:00 PM and gets back about 6:00 AM. Oh, and it's
only freight. So it's good if you are logs, or scap metal, or coal
but not so good for people.
If you take the bus, you'll have to stand on the corner and wait until
September when the school opens up to see a bus go by.

Actually the city with the longest commute times are those who are most
dependent on mass transit, which is slow if you consider door-to-door
travel.

So 10 people riding in the same vehicle and only paying $1.50 round
trip rather then 10 people driving themselves to work
is not accomplishing anything?

How are 10 people all going to work in the same place at the same time?
The era of the factory whistle blowing and everyone starting work at the
same time is over with. The only semi-legal DC SLUG system seems to work,
but transit advocates are not amused.

William

2007-06-30 17:41:07 UTC

Post by William
A while back we were talking about mass transit, some people were
telling me that only the poor, generally ethenic or people who need to
ride buses etc do. In Minneapolis's 400,000 population about 60% of
that is white. 40% of people who work in downtown Minneapolis take
*the bus alone* to work and back, excluding the light rail. Whenever I
get on the light rail, just about every race is represented equally
quantity wise. Most people who work in downtown don't want to deal
with the huge amount of traffic going in and out of the city. The
light rail obviously has its own track, but even the bus has it's own
lane and in some cases it's own street. Our "Metro Transit"
(http://www.metrotransit.org) completely avoids traffic. The Light
Rail aways has the right of way when it comes to intersections,
meaning the only place it has to stop is at all of it's stations. When
it comes to rush hour, taking the bus or train is substantially faster
then driving your car.

May be true there, but not here. Car is much quicker.
Rail goes south in the morning about 9:00 and gets back about 6:00.
It goes north about 9:00 PM and gets back about 6:00 AM. Oh, and it's
only freight. So it's good if you are logs, or scap metal, or coal
but not so good for people.
If you take the bus, you'll have to stand on the corner and wait until
September when the school opens up to see a bus go by.

Actually the city with the longest commute times are those who are most
dependent on mass transit, which is slow if you consider door-to-door
travel.

So 10 people riding in the same vehicle and only paying $1.50 round
trip rather then 10 people driving themselves to work
is not accomplishing anything?

George that statement is something us 21st century kids would call
"retarded". Theres more then 10 people who take the bus. It was just
an example to show how "carpooling" or in this contex Mass transit is
more efficient then having ever person in the city having one car to
themselves and drive that to work.
Theres 400,000 people in Minneapolis, and of all the people who work
downtown 40% of them take the bus and your telling me not one of them
is going to leave for work at the same time as another, or has to be
at work at the same time? It's the bus George, it comes about ever 5
to 10 min. Sometimes you need to come off of your throne to really see
what I'm saying.

pigsty1953@yahoo.com

2007-06-30 18:00:16 UTC

Post by William
A while back we were talking about mass transit, some people were
telling me that only the poor, generally ethenic or people who need
to
ride buses etc do. In Minneapolis's 400,000 population about 60% of
that is white. 40% of people who work in downtown Minneapolis take
*the bus alone* to work and back, excluding the light rail.
Whenever I
get on the light rail, just about every race is represented equally
quantity wise. Most people who work in downtown don't want to deal
with the huge amount of traffic going in and out of the city. The
light rail obviously has its own track, but even the bus has it's own
lane and in some cases it's own street. Our "Metro Transit"
(http://www.metrotransit.org) completely avoids traffic. The Light
Rail aways has the right of way when it comes to intersections,
meaning the only place it has to stop is at all of it's stations.
When
it comes to rush hour, taking the bus or train is substantially
faster
then driving your car.

May be true there, but not here. Car is much quicker.
Rail goes south in the morning about 9:00 and gets back about 6:00.
It goes north about 9:00 PM and gets back about 6:00 AM. Oh, and it's
only freight. So it's good if you are logs, or scap metal, or coal
but not so good for people.
If you take the bus, you'll have to stand on the corner and wait until
September when the school opens up to see a bus go by.

Actually the city with the longest commute times are those who are most
dependent on mass transit, which is slow if you consider door-to-door
travel.

So 10 people riding in the same vehicle and only paying $1.50 round
trip rather then 10 people driving themselves to work
is not accomplishing anything?

And George is retarded as we have shown so many times. Nice Catch
William.

Randy

Pat

2007-06-30 23:06:09 UTC

Post by William
A while back we were talking about mass transit, some people were
telling me that only the poor, generally ethenic or people who need
to
ride buses etc do. In Minneapolis's 400,000 population about 60% of
that is white. 40% of people who work in downtown Minneapolis take
*the bus alone* to work and back, excluding the light rail.
Whenever I
get on the light rail, just about every race is represented equally
quantity wise. Most people who work in downtown don't want to deal
with the huge amount of traffic going in and out of the city. The
light rail obviously has its own track, but even the bus has it's own
lane and in some cases it's own street. Our "Metro Transit"
(http://www.metrotransit.org) completely avoids traffic. The Light
Rail aways has the right of way when it comes to intersections,
meaning the only place it has to stop is at all of it's stations.
When
it comes to rush hour, taking the bus or train is substantially
faster
then driving your car.

May be true there, but not here. Car is much quicker.
Rail goes south in the morning about 9:00 and gets back about 6:00.
It goes north about 9:00 PM and gets back about 6:00 AM. Oh, and it's
only freight. So it's good if you are logs, or scap metal, or coal
but not so good for people.
If you take the bus, you'll have to stand on the corner and wait until
September when the school opens up to see a bus go by.

Actually the city with the longest commute times are those who are most
dependent on mass transit, which is slow if you consider door-to-door
travel.

So 10 people riding in the same vehicle and only paying $1.50 round
trip rather then 10 people driving themselves to work
is not accomplishing anything?

In this town, the closest thing we have to Mass Transit is driving to
church tomorrow morning.

george conklin

2007-07-01 00:25:27 UTC

Post by William
A while back we were talking about mass transit, some people were
telling me that only the poor, generally ethenic or people who
need
to
ride buses etc do. In Minneapolis's 400,000 population about 60% of
that is white. 40% of people who work in downtown Minneapolis take
*the bus alone* to work and back, excluding the light rail. Whenever I
get on the light rail, just about every race is represented equally
quantity wise. Most people who work in downtown don't want to deal
with the huge amount of traffic going in and out of the city. The
light rail obviously has its own track, but even the bus has
it's
own
lane and in some cases it's own street. Our "Metro Transit"
(http://www.metrotransit.org) completely avoids traffic. The Light
Rail aways has the right of way when it comes to intersections,
meaning the only place it has to stop is at all of it's
stations.
When
it comes to rush hour, taking the bus or train is substantially faster
then driving your car.

May be true there, but not here. Car is much quicker.
Rail goes south in the morning about 9:00 and gets back about 6:00.
It goes north about 9:00 PM and gets back about 6:00 AM. Oh, and it's
only freight. So it's good if you are logs, or scap metal, or coal
but not so good for people.
If you take the bus, you'll have to stand on the corner and wait until
September when the school opens up to see a bus go by.

Actually the city with the longest commute times are those who are most
dependent on mass transit, which is slow if you consider door-to-door
travel.

You think mass transit is a good thing because you want people to
have
to
use it. Transit buses don't save fuel and never will. So what are you
trying to accomplish? Factories are not downtown and most jobs are located
where they need to be, and not at some artifical node.

So 10 people riding in the same vehicle and only paying $1.50 round
trip rather then 10 people driving themselves to work
is not accomplishing anything?

You ignore the simple fact that today's employment centers are not
downtown. Simple fact.

pigsty1953@yahoo.com

2007-06-30 17:59:19 UTC

Post by William
A while back we were talking about mass transit, some people were
telling me that only the poor, generally ethenic or people who need to
ride buses etc do. In Minneapolis's 400,000 population about 60% of
that is white. 40% of people who work in downtown Minneapolis take
*the bus alone* to work and back, excluding the light rail. Whenever I
get on the light rail, just about every race is represented equally
quantity wise. Most people who work in downtown don't want to deal
with the huge amount of traffic going in and out of the city. The
light rail obviously has its own track, but even the bus has it's own
lane and in some cases it's own street. Our "Metro Transit"
(http://www.metrotransit.org) completely avoids traffic. The Light
Rail aways has the right of way when it comes to intersections,
meaning the only place it has to stop is at all of it's stations. When
it comes to rush hour, taking the bus or train is substantially faster
then driving your car.

May be true there, but not here. Car is much quicker.
Rail goes south in the morning about 9:00 and gets back about 6:00.
It goes north about 9:00 PM and gets back about 6:00 AM. Oh, and it's
only freight. So it's good if you are logs, or scap metal, or coal
but not so good for people.
If you take the bus, you'll have to stand on the corner and wait until
September when the school opens up to see a bus go by.

Actually the city with the longest commute times are those who are most
dependent on mass transit, which is slow if you consider door-to-door
travel.

Oh George this is so very much fun. People want alternatives to
driving 100 miles each way to work in a single occupancy vehicle.
That is the reason they vote for transit.

What are they trying to accomplish voting for money for transit<
george?

As I said they want an alternative.

Transit moves a lot of people, 30 or so in busses that might otherwise
be in single occupancy vehicles, thousands in Metrolink tranis in th
LA area. Why don't you check some transit websites to see ridership
stats, instead of your usual lying and twisted stats.

But you could not stand to do that, as it would show your damn lying.

Randy

William

2007-06-30 19:02:07 UTC

Post by george conklin
You think mass transit is a good thing because you want people to have to
use it. Transit buses don't save fuel and never will. So what are you
trying to accomplish?

Okay time to do some hard core math. Lets say theres about 15
people on a bus, and buses use a lot of gas right? But, if all 15 of
those people weren't on that bus instead they were driving there cars
and trucks by themselves then right? Hmm this is tough.

Do 15 cars and trucks = < or > then one Bus? Yea I'll go with > (The
alligator wants to eat the 15 car and trucks because they use more
gas)

Oh yea and George you know that fancy confusing word I keep using?
"Liiiight Raaaail"
It actually uses this thing called electricity. Most train systems use
electricity. So in a way
transit is saving money because trains save a lot of gas. Hmm, come to
think of it, trains don't use any gasoline at all! Wow! It must save
some fuel then right?

Pat

2007-06-30 23:11:11 UTC

Post by george conklin
You think mass transit is a good thing because you want people to have to
use it. Transit buses don't save fuel and never will. So what are you
trying to accomplish?

Okay time to do some hard core math. Lets say theres about 15
people on a bus, and buses use a lot of gas right? But, if all 15 of
those people weren't on that bus instead they were driving there cars
and trucks by themselves then right? Hmm this is tough.
Do 15 cars and trucks = < or > then one Bus? Yea I'll go with > (The
alligator wants to eat the 15 car and trucks because they use more
gas)
Oh yea and George you know that fancy confusing word I keep using?
"Liiiight Raaaail"
It actually uses this thing called electricity. Most train systems use
electricity. So in a way
transit is saving money because trains save a lot of gas. Hmm, come to
think of it, trains don't use any gasoline at all! Wow! It must save
some fuel then right?

Don't go there William. Light rail doesn't run on electricity and it
isn't all that clean. Most light rail systems run on coal. Yes:
coal. That includes YOUR light rail system. Where do you think they
get the electricity from. The burn coal, ship the electricity to you
city folks as "clean" energy and pollute the shit out of the rural
folks air. You are, in effect, exporting you pollution.

Look at a map of NY. Guess what county has the WORSE ozone? It's not
NYC or LI area. It's the farthest west county (Chautauqua) which is
out in the middle of nowhere. It is closer to Cleveland and Pittsburg
and Toronto that NYC. But it has terrible ozone. Why? Cause of all
of the coal that is burned in the mid-west to create electricity for
NYC et al.

YOUR train system is polluting MY air.

pigsty1953@yahoo.com

2007-06-30 23:43:34 UTC

Post by george conklin
You think mass transit is a good thing because you want people to have to
use it. Transit buses don't save fuel and never will. So what are you
trying to accomplish?

Okay time to do some hard core math. Lets say theres about 15
people on a bus, and buses use a lot of gas right? But, if all 15 of
those people weren't on that bus instead they were driving there cars
and trucks by themselves then right? Hmm this is tough.
Do 15 cars and trucks = < or > then one Bus? Yea I'll go with > (The
alligator wants to eat the 15 car and trucks because they use more
gas)
Oh yea and George you know that fancy confusing word I keep using?
"Liiiight Raaaail"
It actually uses this thing called electricity. Most train systems use
electricity. So in a way
transit is saving money because trains save a lot of gas. Hmm, come to
think of it, trains don't use any gasoline at all! Wow! It must save
some fuel then right?

Don't go there William. Light rail doesn't run on electricity and it
coal. That includes YOUR light rail system. Where do you think they
get the electricity from. The burn coal, ship the electricity to you
city folks as "clean" energy and pollute the shit out of the rural
folks air. You are, in effect, exporting you pollution.
Look at a map of NY. Guess what county has the WORSE ozone? It's not
NYC or LI area. It's the farthest west county (Chautauqua) which is
out in the middle of nowhere. It is closer to Cleveland and Pittsburg
and Toronto that NYC. But it has terrible ozone. Why? Cause of all
of the coal that is burned in the mid-west to create electricity for
NYC et al.
YOUR train system is polluting MY air.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Umm Pat, you decided to live in rural NY, no one put the proverbial
gun to your head. I think a lot more things then LR are polluting
your air.

You know there have been a lot of studies about coal pollution.
People in the midwest and south want cheap electric rates. And esp
in the south they have the political muscle to get that.

Oh btw, I believe you are wrong about midwest power plants burning
coal for NYC. Most of it comes from local power sources that are fed
on natural gas and fuel oil.

Also the NYS Power Auth which has hydro power and a lot of it comes
from Hydro Quebec.

All I ask is that you be fair.

Randy

pigsty1953@yahoo.com

2007-06-30 23:46:13 UTC

Post by george conklin
You think mass transit is a good thing because you want people to have to
use it. Transit buses don't save fuel and never will. So what are you
trying to accomplish?

Okay time to do some hard core math. Lets say theres about 15
people on a bus, and buses use a lot of gas right? But, if all 15 of
those people weren't on that bus instead they were driving there cars
and trucks by themselves then right? Hmm this is tough.
Do 15 cars and trucks = < or > then one Bus? Yea I'll go with > (The
alligator wants to eat the 15 car and trucks because they use more
gas)
Oh yea and George you know that fancy confusing word I keep using?
"Liiiight Raaaail"
It actually uses this thing called electricity. Most train systems use
electricity. So in a way
transit is saving money because trains save a lot of gas. Hmm, come to
think of it, trains don't use any gasoline at all! Wow! It must save
some fuel then right?

Umm Pat, you decided to live in rural NY, no one put the proverbial
gun to your head. I think a lot more things then LR are polluting
your air.
You know there have been a lot of studies about coal pollution.
People in the midwest and south want cheap electric rates. And esp
in the south they have the political muscle to get that.
Oh btw, I believe you are wrong about midwest power plants burning
coal for NYC. Most of it comes from local power sources that are fed
on natural gas and fuel oil.
Also the NYS Power Auth which has hydro power and a lot of it comes
from Hydro Quebec.
All I ask is that you be fair.
Randy- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Oh also don't forget the Niagara Power Project and Messina Power Proj,
both hydro.

2007-06-30 23:55:02 UTC

Post by ***@yahoo.com
Oh btw, I believe you are wrong about midwest power plants burning
coal for NYC.

You are right about the electricity not flowing from the midwest to NYC,
but he is spot on about pollution which drifts east. Even as far east
as NYC itself, electricity generation (mostly from midwestern coal
plants) is a bigger air polluter than vehicles.

pigsty1953@yahoo.com

2007-07-02 23:55:23 UTC

Post by ***@yahoo.com
Oh btw, I believe you are wrong about midwest power plants burning
coal for NYC.

I have to believe you are smarter then that. There are other things
that pollute NYS pristene wilderness besides power plants. Things
like cars and trucks.

Also you conveniently ignored my post about the political muscle of
the south and midwest to keep their electric rates low.

Randy

William

2007-07-01 00:31:43 UTC

Post by george conklin
You think mass transit is a good thing because you want people to have to
use it. Transit buses don't save fuel and never will. So what are you
trying to accomplish?

Okay time to do some hard core math. Lets say theres about 15
people on a bus, and buses use a lot of gas right? But, if all 15 of
those people weren't on that bus instead they were driving there cars
and trucks by themselves then right? Hmm this is tough.
Do 15 cars and trucks = < or > then one Bus? Yea I'll go with > (The
alligator wants to eat the 15 car and trucks because they use more
gas)
Oh yea and George you know that fancy confusing word I keep using?
"Liiiight Raaaail"
It actually uses this thing called electricity. Most train systems use
electricity. So in a way
transit is saving money because trains save a lot of gas. Hmm, come to
think of it, trains don't use any gasoline at all! Wow! It must save
some fuel then right?

The same thing that powers the light rail here probably powers your
computer as well.
It does pollute, and it is not all that clean, but I think its one
step above using fuel (Bueses). And we don't have to
import electricty from one of the most dangerous areas in the world
too. Also we can get electricty from things like
wind turbines and other things of the sort. The answer to our power
demand isn't electricty created by coal, as it has a large play in
global warming, but it's a step above fuel. And we can create
electricty from things like the wind, and water too. But you can't put
this all on the city. If the city wasn't so desnly populated then
those people would be living else where, urban sprawl would be yet
ever faster at devouring small towns. If there was no mass transit
sytem, there would be more people driving there cars by themselves to
work.

Stephen Sprunk

2007-07-01 00:57:19 UTC

Post by Pat
Don't go there William. Light rail doesn't run on electricity and it
coal. That includes YOUR light rail system. Where do you think they
get the electricity from. The burn coal, ship the electricity to you
city folks as "clean" energy and pollute the shit out of the rural
folks air. You are, in effect, exporting you pollution.

Most of our electricity here comes from NG and nuclear; there's a few coal
plants left, and the utility's been trying to shut them down for decades,
but it's taken them until now to get past all the tree-huggers who won't let
them build new nuke plants to replace the coal plants. Same situation all
across the country.

We've got some wind too, and many areas have hydro. You can't really say
which source is powering anything due to the way the electric grids work.
However, electric vehicles (particularly rail) allow you to innovate on the
generation side (to reduce cost, reduce emissions, whatever). Until there's
a sea change in the industry -- which will take decades to be complete --
cars are burning fossil fuels, creating easily-avoidable pollution and
making terrorists rich.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

george conklin

2007-07-01 12:24:31 UTC

Most of our electricity here comes from NG and nuclear; there's a few coal
plants left, and the utility's been trying to shut them down for decades,
but it's taken them until now to get past all the tree-huggers who won't
let them build new nuke plants to replace the coal plants. Same situation
all across the country.
We've got some wind too, and many areas have hydro. You can't really say
which source is powering anything due to the way the electric grids work.
However, electric vehicles (particularly rail) allow you to innovate on
the generation side (to reduce cost, reduce emissions, whatever). Until
there's a sea change in the industry -- which will take decades to be
complete -- cars are burning fossil fuels, creating easily-avoidable
pollution and making terrorists rich.

Wow...you go any lengths to hate cars. Most electricity is still
generated by coal, so cars are much cleaner in practice than using
electricity would be. Sorry about that.

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-01 15:05:05 UTC

Most of our electricity here comes from NG and nuclear; there's a few
coal plants left, and the utility's been trying to shut them down for
decades, but it's taken them until now to get past all the tree-huggers
who won't let them build new nuke plants to replace the coal plants.
Same situation all across the country.
We've got some wind too, and many areas have hydro. You can't really say
which source is powering anything due to the way the electric grids work.
However, electric vehicles (particularly rail) allow you to innovate on
the generation side (to reduce cost, reduce emissions, whatever). Until
there's a sea change in the industry -- which will take decades to be
complete -- cars are burning fossil fuels, creating easily-avoidable
pollution and making terrorists rich.

Wow...you go any lengths to hate cars. Most electricity is still
generated by coal, so cars are much cleaner in practice than using
electricity would be. Sorry about that.

It's amazing how often you project hatred on others. You must be a seething
mass of it.

george conklin

2007-07-01 23:21:09 UTC

Most of our electricity here comes from NG and nuclear; there's a few
coal plants left, and the utility's been trying to shut them down for
decades, but it's taken them until now to get past all the tree-huggers
who won't let them build new nuke plants to replace the coal plants.
Same situation all across the country.
We've got some wind too, and many areas have hydro. You can't really
say which source is powering anything due to the way the electric grids
work. However, electric vehicles (particularly rail) allow you to
innovate on the generation side (to reduce cost, reduce emissions,
whatever). Until there's a sea change in the industry -- which will
take decades to be complete -- cars are burning fossil fuels, creating
easily-avoidable pollution and making terrorists rich.

Wow...you go any lengths to hate cars. Most electricity is still
generated by coal, so cars are much cleaner in practice than using
electricity would be. Sorry about that.

It's amazing how often you project hatred on others. You must be a
seething mass of it.

I like cars, modern cities, and single-family housing. The world does not
need to be "saved" you.
We are doing fine without you, thanks.

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-02 01:05:33 UTC

"george conklin" <***@nxu.edu> wrote in message news:FFWhi.2694$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
...

Post by Amy Blankenship
It's amazing how often you project hatred on others. You must be a
seething mass of it.

I like cars, modern cities, and single-family housing. The world does not
need to be "saved" you.
We are doing fine without you, thanks.

Why, then, do you feel it is so important to "save" the world from pedicab
drivers?

george conklin

2007-07-02 01:12:48 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It's amazing how often you project hatred on others. You must be a
seething mass of it.

I like cars, modern cities, and single-family housing. The world does
not need to be "saved" you.
We are doing fine without you, thanks.

Why, then, do you feel it is so important to "save" the world from pedicab
drivers?

I like the modern world. Pedicab drivers are from the last century,
which fits in quite well with you dreamers who think the world was a better
place when people died young. It fits in with your false belief that the
past was better than the present, and that we must return to the past to
save our children.

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-02 12:35:36 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It's amazing how often you project hatred on others. You must be a
seething mass of it.

I like cars, modern cities, and single-family housing. The world does
not need to be "saved" you.
We are doing fine without you, thanks.

Why, then, do you feel it is so important to "save" the world from
pedicab drivers?

I like the modern world. Pedicab drivers are from the last century,
which fits in quite well with you dreamers who think the world was a
better place when people died young. It fits in with your false belief
that the past was better than the present, and that we must return to the
past to save our children.

So, you're trying to convince me that the world needs to be "saved" from
things you don't like, but somehow it affronts you when I do the same? Is
this a gender issue, George?

george conklin

2007-07-02 13:53:38 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It's amazing how often you project hatred on others. You must be a
seething mass of it.

I like cars, modern cities, and single-family housing. The world does
not need to be "saved" you.
We are doing fine without you, thanks.

Why, then, do you feel it is so important to "save" the world from
pedicab drivers?

I like the modern world. Pedicab drivers are from the last century,
which fits in quite well with you dreamers who think the world was a
better place when people died young. It fits in with your false belief
that the past was better than the present, and that we must return to the
past to save our children.

So, you're trying to convince me that the world needs to be "saved" from
things you don't like, but somehow it affronts you when I do the same? Is
this a gender issue, George?

Urbanization is not a gender issue. Nor will going back to 1920 save
children, as you so foolishly believe. Pedicab drivers are from the last
century. Horses work too, but bringing them back is not a solution to
population concentrations.

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-02 14:45:41 UTC

"george conklin" <***@nxu.edu> wrote in message news:Cr7ii.2824$***@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
...

Post by Amy Blankenship
So, you're trying to convince me that the world needs to be "saved" from
things you don't like, but somehow it affronts you when I do the same?
Is this a gender issue, George?

Admitting there IS a problem is the first step. Congratulations.

george conklin

2007-07-02 16:37:50 UTC

Admitting there IS a problem is the first step. Congratulations.

The current trends to concentrate populations in a few areas are NOT
going to be reversed, either in the USA nor in the rest of the world.
Modern urbanization is not a problem that smart growth can solve. Smart
growth will make it all worse. People are solving their problems by selling
useless farmland and building houses on them, a less intensive use. Smart
growth is not a solution to any problem: it IS the problem.

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-02 18:20:09 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
So, you're trying to convince me that the world needs to be "saved"
from things you don't like, but somehow it affronts you when I do the
same? Is this a gender issue, George?

Urbanization is not a gender issue. Nor will going back to 1920 save
children, as you so foolishly believe. Pedicab drivers are from the
last century. Horses work too, but bringing them back is not a solution
to population concentrations.

Admitting there IS a problem is the first step. Congratulations.

The current trends to concentrate populations in a few areas are NOT
going to be reversed, either in the USA nor in the rest of the world.
Modern urbanization is not a problem that smart growth can solve. Smart
growth will make it all worse. People are solving their problems by
selling useless farmland and building houses on them, a less intensive
use. Smart growth is not a solution to any problem: it IS the problem.

Don't let this backtracking discourage you. You took the first step. You
CAN be cured!

george conklin

2007-07-02 21:10:28 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
So, you're trying to convince me that the world needs to be "saved"
from things you don't like, but somehow it affronts you when I do the
same? Is this a gender issue, George?

Urbanization is not a gender issue. Nor will going back to 1920 save
children, as you so foolishly believe. Pedicab drivers are from the
last century. Horses work too, but bringing them back is not a
solution to population concentrations.

Admitting there IS a problem is the first step. Congratulations.

The current trends to concentrate populations in a few areas are NOT
going to be reversed, either in the USA nor in the rest of the world.
Modern urbanization is not a problem that smart growth can solve. Smart
growth will make it all worse. People are solving their problems by
selling useless farmland and building houses on them, a less intensive
use. Smart growth is not a solution to any problem: it IS the problem.

Don't let this backtracking discourage you. You took the first step. You
CAN be cured!

The past is not the ideal you think it was. In fact, today is the good old
times.

Pat

2007-07-02 17:50:39 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It's amazing how often you project hatred on others. You must be a
seething mass of it.

I like cars, modern cities, and single-family housing. The world does
not need to be "saved" you.
We are doing fine without you, thanks.

Why, then, do you feel it is so important to "save" the world from pedicab
drivers?

I like the modern world. Pedicab drivers are from the last century,

You like the modern world.
You do NOT like things from the last century.
You are from the last century.
Ergo, YOU do not like YOU.

That explains things !!!

Post by george conklin
which fits in quite well with you dreamers who think the world was a better
place when people died young. It fits in with your false belief that the
past was better than the present, and that we must return to the past to
save our children.

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-02 18:19:02 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It's amazing how often you project hatred on others. You must be a
seething mass of it.

I like cars, modern cities, and single-family housing. The world does
not need to be "saved" you.
We are doing fine without you, thanks.

Why, then, do you feel it is so important to "save" the world from pedicab
drivers?

I like the modern world. Pedicab drivers are from the last century,

You like the modern world.
You do NOT like things from the last century.
You are from the last century.
Ergo, YOU do not like YOU.
That explains things !!!

George does not like anyone over 7. He also hates future generations. Sad,
just sad.

george conklin

2007-07-02 21:24:55 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It's amazing how often you project hatred on others. You must be a
seething mass of it.

I like cars, modern cities, and single-family housing. The world does
not need to be "saved" you.
We are doing fine without you, thanks.

Why, then, do you feel it is so important to "save" the world from pedicab
drivers?

I like the modern world. Pedicab drivers are from the last century,

You like the modern world.
You do NOT like things from the last century.
You are from the last century.
Ergo, YOU do not like YOU.
That explains things !!!

George does not like anyone over 7. He also hates future generations.
Sad, just sad.

Smart growth hates children, as you do.

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-02 22:30:20 UTC

Post by Pat
You like the modern world.
You do NOT like things from the last century.
You are from the last century.
Ergo, YOU do not like YOU.
That explains things !!!

George does not like anyone over 7. He also hates future generations.
Sad, just sad.

Smart growth hates children, as you do.

At least I have friends my own age.

george conklin

2007-07-02 21:24:29 UTC

Post by Amy Blankenship
It's amazing how often you project hatred on others. You must be a
seething mass of it.

I like cars, modern cities, and single-family housing. The world does
not need to be "saved" you.
We are doing fine without you, thanks.

Why, then, do you feel it is so important to "save" the world from pedicab
drivers?

I like the modern world. Pedicab drivers are from the last century,

You like the modern world.

The modern city is not the city of 1920, nor the city as smart growth
would like to make it.

Stephen Sprunk

2007-07-01 18:59:15 UTC

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Most of our electricity here comes from NG and nuclear; there's a few
coal plants left, and the utility's been trying to shut them down for
decades, but it's taken them until now to get past all the tree-huggers
who won't let them build new nuke plants to replace the coal plants.
Same situation all across the country.
We've got some wind too, and many areas have hydro. You can't really say
which source is powering anything due to the way the electric grids work.
However, electric vehicles (particularly rail) allow you to innovate on
the generation side (to reduce cost, reduce emissions, whatever). Until
there's a sea change in the industry -- which will take decades to be
complete -- cars are burning fossil fuels, creating easily-avoidable
pollution and making terrorists rich.

Wow...you go any lengths to hate cars. Most electricity is still
generated by coal, so cars are much cleaner in practice than using
electricity would be. Sorry about that.

Here, according to ERCOT, coal provides 37.4% of actual production and 20.4%
of total capacity (NG production is used for peaking needs above baseline
consumption). So, your unsupported assertions are yet again proven wrong by
actual data. Sorry about that.

Perhaps other regions have a higher mix of coal; if so, that just proves my
point. They could easily switch to cleaner sources of energy without
affecting the electric vehicle fleet, or at least they could if the
tree-huggers weren't in their way.

S

george conklin

2007-07-01 23:22:09 UTC

Wow...you go any lengths to hate cars. Most electricity is still
generated by coal, so cars are much cleaner in practice than using
electricity would be. Sorry about that.

Here, according to ERCOT, coal provides 37.4% of actual production and
20.4% of total capacity (NG production is used for peaking needs above
baseline consumption). So, your unsupported assertions are yet again
proven wrong by actual data. Sorry about that.
Perhaps other regions have a higher mix of coal; if so, that just proves my
point. They could easily switch to cleaner sources of energy without
affecting the electric vehicle fleet, or at least they could if the
tree-huggers weren't in their way.

Environmental groups are attacking electric cars for the reasons I just
posted. Tell them.

george conklin

2007-07-01 23:28:29 UTC

Wow...you go any lengths to hate cars. Most electricity is still
generated by coal, so cars are much cleaner in practice than using
electricity would be. Sorry about that.

Here, according to ERCOT, coal provides 37.4% of actual production and
20.4% of total capacity (NG production is used for peaking needs above
baseline consumption). So, your unsupported assertions are yet again
proven wrong by actual data. Sorry about that.
Perhaps other regions have a higher mix of coal; if so, that just proves my
point. They could easily switch to cleaner sources of energy without
affecting the electric vehicle fleet, or at least they could if the
tree-huggers weren't in their way.

Here are the FActs, which you seem to ignore:

Coal. Historically, most generation of electricity in the United States has
been from coal. Coal-fired generation became even more important following
the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 due to concerns over the availability of
petroleum imports, increasing petroleum costs, and curtailments of natural
gas. In 1978, the passage of the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act and
the Natural Gas Policy Act encouraged further use of coal by electric
utilities. Although both Federal and State environmental laws and
regulations existed during the 1970's, renewed interest in environmental
issues raised concerns about electric power plant emissions, particularly
from those plants burning coal. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
established a goal of a 10-million-ton reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions
and a 2-million-ton reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions from 1980 levels
by 2000. Coal-fired generation continued to provide more than 56 percent of
the total net generation by electric utilities and approximately 17 percent
of gross generation at nonutility facilities in 1998.
----------

So coal is 56% of the total. As I said, coal produces most of the total.
Most is more than half. Give it up.

Stephen Sprunk

2007-07-02 03:30:29 UTC

Post by Stephen Sprunk
Most of our electricity here comes from NG and nuclear; there's a few
coal plants left, and the utility's been trying to shut them down for
decades, but it's taken them until now to get past all the tree-huggers
who won't let them build new nuke plants to replace the coal plants.
Same situation all across the country.
We've got some wind too, and many areas have hydro. You can't
really say which source is powering anything due to the way the
electric grids work. However, electric vehicles (particularly rail)
allow
you to innovate on the generation side (to reduce cost, reduce
emissions, whatever). Until there's a sea change in the industry
-- which will take decades to be complete -- cars are burning fossil
fuels, creating easily-avoidable pollution and making terrorists rich.

Wow...you go any lengths to hate cars. Most electricity is still
generated by coal, so cars are much cleaner in practice than using
electricity would be. Sorry about that.

Here, according to ERCOT, coal provides 37.4% of actual production and
20.4% of total capacity (NG production is used for peaking needs above
baseline consumption). So, your unsupported assertions are yet again
proven wrong by actual data. Sorry about that.
Perhaps other regions have a higher mix of coal; if so, that just proves
my point. They could easily switch to cleaner sources of energy without
affecting the electric vehicle fleet, or at least they could if the
tree-huggers weren't in their way.

...
Coal-fired generation continued to provide more than 56 percent of the
total net generation by electric utilities and approximately 17 percent of
gross generation at nonutility facilities in 1998.
----------
So coal is 56% of the total. As I said, coal produces most of the total.
Most is more than half. Give it up.

First of all, I said "here", and ERCOT says I'm right for "here". See the
above official numbers. Looking at FERC's maps, odds are it's true for the
western US grid as well, in addition to the Texas grid. It's the eastern
grid that is busy burning coal instead of investing in renewables, hydro,
wind, and nuclear.

Second, coal is 56% of "net generation by utilities" but only 17% of "gross
generation at nonutilit[ies]". Without anything to adjust between gross and
net figures, and without knowing what percent of generation is done at
utilities vs. non-utilities, it's impossible to say whether coal is 50% of
total generation nationwide or not. Your numbers (as usual) do not support
that claim.

Third, you completely missed (yet again) that even if coal _is_ over 50% of
generation, that just proves my point.

S

marcus cornelius felix

2007-07-03 02:18:31 UTC

Post by george conklin
You think mass transit is a good thing because you want people to have to
use it. Transit buses don't save fuel and never will. So what are you
trying to accomplish?

Okay time to do some hard core math. Lets say theres about 15
people on a bus, and buses use a lot of gas right? But, if all 15 of
those people weren't on that bus instead they were driving there cars
and trucks by themselves then right? Hmm this is tough.
Do 15 cars and trucks = < or > then one Bus? Yea I'll go with > (The
alligator wants to eat the 15 car and trucks because they use more
gas)
Oh yea and George you know that fancy confusing word I keep using?
"Liiiight Raaaail"
It actually uses this thing called electricity. Most train systems use
electricity. So in a way
transit is saving money because trains save a lot of gas. Hmm, come to
think of it, trains don't use any gasoline at all! Wow! It must save
some fuel then right?

not in potland oregon. light rail here uses no coal.

george conklin

2007-07-03 10:50:51 UTC

Post by george conklin
You think mass transit is a good thing because you want people to have to
use it. Transit buses don't save fuel and never will. So what are you
trying to accomplish?

Okay time to do some hard core math. Lets say theres about 15
people on a bus, and buses use a lot of gas right? But, if all 15 of
those people weren't on that bus instead they were driving there cars
and trucks by themselves then right? Hmm this is tough.
Do 15 cars and trucks = < or > then one Bus? Yea I'll go with > (The
alligator wants to eat the 15 car and trucks because they use more
gas)
Oh yea and George you know that fancy confusing word I keep using?
"Liiiight Raaaail"
It actually uses this thing called electricity. Most train systems use
electricity. So in a way
transit is saving money because trains save a lot of gas. Hmm, come to
think of it, trains don't use any gasoline at all! Wow! It must save
some fuel then right?

not in potland oregon. light rail here uses no coal.

No you destroy salmon.

pigsty1953@yahoo.com

2007-07-03 18:29:46 UTC

Post by george conklin
You think mass transit is a good thing because you want people to have to
use it. Transit buses don't save fuel and never will. So what are you
trying to accomplish?

Okay time to do some hard core math. Lets say theres about 15
people on a bus, and buses use a lot of gas right? But, if all 15 of
those people weren't on that bus instead they were driving there cars
and trucks by themselves then right? Hmm this is tough.
Do 15 cars and trucks = < or > then one Bus? Yea I'll go with > (The
alligator wants to eat the 15 car and trucks because they use more
gas)
Oh yea and George you know that fancy confusing word I keep using?
"Liiiight Raaaail"
It actually uses this thing called electricity. Most train systems use
electricity. So in a way
transit is saving money because trains save a lot of gas. Hmm, come to
think of it, trains don't use any gasoline at all! Wow! It must save
some fuel then right?

not in potland oregon. light rail here uses no coal.

No you destroy salmon.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

NOW CONK IS WORRIED ABOUT WILD LIFE. WHAT NEXT YOU USELESS PIECE OF
SHIT. ARE YOU INFAVOR OF REMOVING THE DAMS ON THE COLUMBIA AND SNAKE
RIVERS SO THAT SALMON CAN MOVE UP RIVER TO SPAWN, YOU USLESS IGNORANT
PIECE OF SHIT. THIS IS SO VERY MUCH FUN.

CONK IF YOU WANT TO NOT SEE ME CALLING YOU WHAT I WILL CONTINUE TO
CALL YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP.

NOW YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT SALMON OF ALL THINGS. CONK YOUR REP
CONTINUES IN ITS DEATH SPIRAL. NO ONE HERE OF IN ANY NEWS GROUP HAS
ANY USE OR REPECT FOR YOU.

SHUT THE FUCK UP, SHUT THE FUCK UP, SHUT THE FUCK UP, SHUT THE FUCK
UP. HAVE I SAID IT ENOUGH TO GET THROUGH.

I WILL SAY IT AGAIN SHUT THE FUCK UP, SHUT THE FUCK UP, SHUT THE FUCK
UP, SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Randy

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-03 18:59:14 UTC

Post by george conklin
You think mass transit is a good thing because you want people
to
have to
use it. Transit buses don't save fuel and never will. So what
are
you
trying to accomplish?

Okay time to do some hard core math. Lets say theres about 15
people on a bus, and buses use a lot of gas right? But, if all 15 of
those people weren't on that bus instead they were driving there cars
and trucks by themselves then right? Hmm this is tough.
Do 15 cars and trucks = < or > then one Bus? Yea I'll go with > (The
alligator wants to eat the 15 car and trucks because they use more
gas)
Oh yea and George you know that fancy confusing word I keep using?
"Liiiight Raaaail"
It actually uses this thing called electricity. Most train systems use
electricity. So in a way
transit is saving money because trains save a lot of gas. Hmm, come to
think of it, trains don't use any gasoline at all! Wow! It must save
some fuel then right?

not in potland oregon. light rail here uses no coal.

No you destroy salmon.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

NOW CONK IS WORRIED ABOUT WILD LIFE. WHAT NEXT YOU USELESS PIECE OF
SHIT. ...

Do you think you could quit with that? It's not helpful, and I suspect no
one here has ever read to the end of one of your diatribes.

pigsty1953@yahoo.com

2007-07-03 19:35:14 UTC

On Jul 3, 2:59 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by george conklin
You think mass transit is a good thing because you want people
to
have to
use it. Transit buses don't save fuel and never will. So what
are
you
trying to accomplish?

Okay time to do some hard core math. Lets say theres about 15
people on a bus, and buses use a lot of gas right? But, if all 15 of
those people weren't on that bus instead they were driving there cars
and trucks by themselves then right? Hmm this is tough.
Do 15 cars and trucks = < or > then one Bus? Yea I'll go with > (The
alligator wants to eat the 15 car and trucks because they use more
gas)
Oh yea and George you know that fancy confusing word I keep using?
"Liiiight Raaaail"
It actually uses this thing called electricity. Most train systems use
electricity. So in a way
transit is saving money because trains save a lot of gas. Hmm, come to
think of it, trains don't use any gasoline at all! Wow! It must save
some fuel then right?

not in potland oregon. light rail here uses no coal.

No you destroy salmon.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

NOW CONK IS WORRIED ABOUT WILD LIFE. WHAT NEXT YOU USELESS PIECE OF
SHIT. ...

Do you think you could quit with that? It's not helpful, and I suspect no
one here has ever read to the end of one of your diatribes.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Ms Blankenship, I would suggest you ignore my diatribes. I have tried
as others have to be nice to the ignoramuses. But to no avail. So
since that does not work, and appearently you and others resorting to
logic and superior knowledge does not work any better, so I will
continue. They continue repeating their crapola and idiocy, and you
know the rest.

Randy

2007-07-04 05:45:26 UTC

Post by ***@yahoo.com
I would suggest you ignore my diatribes.

Excellent advice for every reader of the newsgroup.

pigsty1953@yahoo.com

2007-07-04 17:58:35 UTC

Post by ***@yahoo.com
I would suggest you ignore my diatribes.

Excellent advice for every reader of the newsgroup.

You are certainly free to do so, but you will miss out on so very
much. Don't you love to see Jackie Baby and Conk so badly
humiliated???

Randy

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-04 23:27:18 UTC

Post by ***@yahoo.com
I would suggest you ignore my diatribes.

Excellent advice for every reader of the newsgroup.

You are certainly free to do so, but you will miss out on so very
much. Don't you love to see Jackie Baby and Conk so badly
humiliated???

The thing is, it only makes YOU look bad. If you can hit them where they
live, lead them step by step into demonstrating their idiocy, THAT is
humiliating. Calling them names just makes you look unimaginative. It's
like when George tells everyone they "hate" this or that person or group.
That doesn't mean squat to the person he's trying to insult or whatever
that's for. It just makes him look stupid.

Scott M. Kozel

2007-07-05 02:12:38 UTC

Post by ***@yahoo.com
I would suggest you ignore my diatribes.

Excellent advice for every reader of the newsgroup.

You are certainly free to do so, but you will miss out on so very
much. Don't you love to see Jackie Baby and Conk so badly
humiliated???

It's binary thinking on Randy's part, that if you point out problems
with his "diatribes" as he himself calls them, that you must "love" Jack
and George. In fact, I have a considerable amount of disagreement with
Jack and George's posts, it's just that Randy's abusive screaming looks
far more absurd in comparison; and many posters on m.t.r (the roads
newsgroup) consider Randy to be an abusive goon. That is why I
killfiled Randy's posts.

george conklin

2007-07-05 13:17:31 UTC

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by ***@yahoo.com
I would suggest you ignore my diatribes.

Excellent advice for every reader of the newsgroup.

You are certainly free to do so, but you will miss out on so very
much. Don't you love to see Jackie Baby and Conk so badly
humiliated???

I did too.

pigsty1953@yahoo.com

2007-07-05 18:00:44 UTC

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by ***@yahoo.com
I would suggest you ignore my diatribes.

Excellent advice for every reader of the newsgroup.

You are certainly free to do so, but you will miss out on so very
much. Don't you love to see Jackie Baby and Conk so badly
humiliated???

I did too.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

What we all should do is killfile you. Nothing but lies, damn lies,
and twisted stats.
But it is no matter, I will continue to respond to the idiocy that you
post. It is a shame that your bosom buddy Buffoon Kozel won't see my
post to him. I hope someone sends it to him, as I hope someone sends
this to you.

Ms Blankenship would you be so kind.

George as I have said and I know others are going to read this, you
rep is in free fall, and you are in a death spiral.

Randy

pigsty1953@yahoo.com

2007-07-05 17:46:31 UTC

Post by Scott M. Kozel

Post by ***@yahoo.com
I would suggest you ignore my diatribes.

Excellent advice for every reader of the newsgroup.

You are certainly free to do so, but you will miss out on so very
much. Don't you love to see Jackie Baby and Conk so badly
humiliated???

Scoot, if you have the guts to respond, I have very good reasons for
calling you a bufoon.

Your conservative politics are buffoonery.

Your PPTA's are similar bufoonery, as I have said. There are NONE
that are happening or will happen very simply because they require too
much money from the public end to the private end.

You are way too concerned about trucks and the big retail outlest
profits. They will always make money. In the meantime the
transportation system is crumbling into dust, and you have NO idea
what to do.

I am not the only one that thinks you are a buffoon, but I am the only
one with the guts to tell you.

And I am signing this in words we both understand.

Shalom.

Randy

2007-07-05 00:51:34 UTC

Post by ***@yahoo.com
I would suggest you ignore my diatribes.

Excellent advice for every reader of the newsgroup.

You are certainly free to do so, but you will miss out on so very
much.

Nothing worth reading.

Scott en Aztlán

2007-07-09 04:48:13 UTC

Post by Pat
YOUR train system is polluting MY air.

not in potland oregon. light rail here uses no coal.

No you destroy salmon.

NOW CONK IS WORRIED ABOUT WILD LIFE. WHAT NEXT YOU USELESS PIECE OF
SHIT. ...

Do you think you could quit with that? It's not helpful, and I suspect no
one here has ever read to the end of one of your diatribes.

Actually, it's no worse than the crap that Conk and Jack post.

--
I hated Bush before it was cool.

William

2007-07-09 13:39:04 UTC

Post by Scott en AztlÃ¡n

Post by Pat
YOUR train system is polluting MY air.

not in potland oregon. light rail here uses no coal.

No you destroy salmon.

NOW CONK IS WORRIED ABOUT WILD LIFE. WHAT NEXT YOU USELESS PIECE OF
SHIT. ...

Do you think you could quit with that? It's not helpful, and I suspect no
one here has ever read to the end of one of your diatribes.

Actually, it's no worse than the crap that Conk and Jack post.
--
I hated Bush before it was cool.

Cursing unlimitedly only makes the arrogant(George) more arrogant.

Baxter

2007-07-03 18:54:29 UTC

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by marcus cornelius felix
not in potland oregon. light rail here uses no coal.

No you destroy salmon.

Actually, the biggest salmon kill in recent history had everything to do
with farming and nothing to do with power generation -- and it was approved
by Cheney.

The next biggest salmon killer is the sea lions cruising the Columbia.

george conklin

2007-07-01 00:26:15 UTC

Post by george conklin
You think mass transit is a good thing because you want people to have to
use it. Transit buses don't save fuel and never will. So what are you
trying to accomplish?

Okay time to do some hard core math.

That has been done by the Feds, who publish actual data, not your dreams.

Stephen Sprunk

2007-07-01 01:04:05 UTC

Post by george conklin
Transit buses don't save fuel and never will. So what are you
trying to accomplish?

Okay time to do some hard core math.

That has been done by the Feds, who publish actual data, not your dreams.

Funny thing is, when _we_ go pull the feds' data, it shows transit buses
_do_ save fuel. Are you still relying on old data that they've stated is
incorrect? That's what came out last time you tried to defend this FAct.

S

William

2007-07-01 02:29:23 UTC

Post by george conklin
Transit buses don't save fuel and never will. So what are you
trying to accomplish?

Okay time to do some hard core math.

That has been done by the Feds, who publish actual data, not your dreams.

Funny thing is, when _we_ go pull the feds' data, it shows transit buses
do save fuel. Are you still relying on old data that they've stated is
incorrect? That's what came out last time you tried to defend this fact.

Cool even the Feds agree with me. I suspected as much when George said
there was data more accurate then what I had
but he didn't share it with us.

William

2007-07-01 02:47:05 UTC

Okay I'm not going to end on Stephen's word. Can somone find the most
recent data
on metro transit feul costs?

Amy Blankenship

2007-07-01 15:22:57 UTC

Post by William
Okay I'm not going to end on Stephen's word. Can somone find the most
recent data
on metro transit feul costs?

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_20.html
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_24.html
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_27.html
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_28.html
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_transit_profile.html

HTH;

Amy

Stephen Sprunk

2007-07-01 03:41:12 UTC

Post by William
Okay I'm not going to end on Stephen's word. Can somone find
the most recent data on metro transit feul costs?

Here's the official government data:

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_20.html
or http://tinyurl.com/wy26b

If you want to follow the whole debate I was referring to where Conky was
caught using statistics the gov't had already said were incorrect, check out
the thread titled "Making Public Transit Profitable" in
misc.transport.urban-transit from March 2007. There's lots of other great
stats in that thread as well.

(Granted, the stats show buses are barely beating cars, but they're also
national averages. With some transit systems getting double the load
factors of others, there's a wide range of per-city figures.)

S

pigsty1953@yahoo.com

2007-07-02 23:58:27 UTC

Post by george conklin
You think mass transit is a good thing because you want people to have to
use it. Transit buses don't save fuel and never will. So what are you
trying to accomplish?

Okay time to do some hard core math.

That has been done by the Feds, who publish actual data, not your dreams.

GEORGE, WHAT PART OF SHUT THE FUCK UP DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND. YOU ARE
SPEWING NOTHING BUT LIES, AND I MEAN NOTHING, AS IS YOUR WONT.

YOU USELESS PIECE OF SHIT, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT REAL DATA IS.

YOU LIE AND TWIST EVERYTHING.

NOW FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR FREEFALLING REPUTATION ON THIS AND OTHER NEWS
GROUPS, SHUT THE FUCK UP.

YOU ARE WELL PAST A DEATH SPIRAL. YOU CANNOT PROVE OR CITE ANYTHING.

AGAIN SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Randy

William

2007-06-30 15:48:28 UTC

Post by William
A while back we were talking about mass transit, some people were
telling me that only the poor, generally ethenic or people who need to
ride buses etc do. In Minneapolis's 400,000 population about 60% of
that is white. 40% of people who work in downtown Minneapolis take
*the bus alone* to work and back, excluding the light rail. Whenever I
get on the light rail, just about every race is represented equally
quantity wise. Most people who work in downtown don't want to deal
with the huge amount of traffic going in and out of the city. The
light rail obviously has its own track, but even the bus has it's own
lane and in some cases it's own street. Our "Metro Transit"
(http://www.metrotransit.org) completely avoids traffic. The Light
Rail aways has the right of way when it comes to intersections,
meaning the only place it has to stop is at all of it's stations. When
it comes to rush hour, taking the bus or train is substantially faster
then driving your car.

May be true there, but not here. Car is much quicker.
Rail goes south in the morning about 9:00 and gets back about 6:00.
It goes north about 9:00 PM and gets back about 6:00 AM. Oh, and it's
only freight. So it's good if you are logs, or scap metal, or coal
but not so good for people.
If you take the bus, you'll have to stand on the corner and wait until
September when the school opens up to see a bus go by.

Actually the city with the longest commute times are those who are most
dependent on mass transit, which is slow if you consider door-to-door
travel.

In the end, the need for a mass transit system is better. More density
means
much more things are local. An analogy I'll use is if there is a kind
of disease that is very rare, and not very many people have it then
there is not going to be nearly as much research and money going to
into it to find a cure. But something like cancer, which is quite
common, there is a lot of money, research and causes going to find a
cure for it. Think of the road system as a disease, do a lot of people
use it in a specific area? Then the City will put a lot of money into
it to make it easier to get to and fro and to reduce traffic. If not
then that area will be almost neglected, as someone would be with a
very rare illness would.

Heres a rough picture I made on Microsoft Word to help explain
my point.

Loading Image...

William

2007-06-30 16:15:36 UTC

Post by William
A while back we were talking about mass transit, some people were
telling me that only the poor, generally ethenic or people who need to
ride buses etc do. In Minneapolis's 400,000 population about 60% of
that is white. 40% of people who work in downtown Minneapolis take
*the bus alone* to work and back, excluding the light rail. Whenever I
get on the light rail, just about every race is represented equally
quantity wise. Most people who work in downtown don't want to deal
with the huge amount of traffic going in and out of the city. The
light rail obviously has its own track, but even the bus has it's own
lane and in some cases it's own street. Our "Metro Transit"
(http://www.metrotransit.org) completely avoids traffic. The Light
Rail aways has the right of way when it comes to intersections,
meaning the only place it has to stop is at all of it's stations. When
it comes to rush hour, taking the bus or train is substantially faster
then driving your car.

May be true there, but not here. Car is much quicker.
Rail goes south in the morning about 9:00 and gets back about 6:00.
It goes north about 9:00 PM and gets back about 6:00 AM. Oh, and it's
only freight. So it's good if you are logs, or scap metal, or coal
but not so good for people.
If you take the bus, you'll have to stand on the corner and wait until
September when the school opens up to see a bus go by.

Actually the city with the longest commute times are those who are most
dependent on mass transit, which is slow if you consider door-to-door
travel.

In the end, the need for a mass transit system is better. More density
means
much more things are local. An analogy I'll use is if there is a kind
of disease that is very rare, and not very many people have it then
there is not going to be nearly as much research and money going to
into it to find a cure. But something like cancer, which is quite
common, there is a lot of money, research and causes going to find a
cure for it. Think of the road system as a disease someone might have,
do a lot of people
use it in a specific area? Then the City will put a lot of money into
it to make it easier to get to and fro and to reduce traffic. If not
then that area will be almost neglected, as someone would be with a
very rare illness would.

Heres a rough picture I made on Microsoft Word to help explain
my point.

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/8201/picture3zd9.png

pigsty1953@yahoo.com

2007-06-30 17:53:22 UTC