Travel Radius using cell phone data

[Jack May]

Interesting research in the news today about how much people travel in
normal life. The answer is most people don't travel much beyond home and
work.

http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/S/SCI_CELL_PHONE_TRACKING?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-06-05-01-28-03

"Researchers secretly tracked the locations of 100,000 people outside the
United States through their cell phone use and concluded that most people
rarely stray more than a few miles from home."

"It also yielded somewhat surprising results that reveal how little people
move around in their daily lives. Nearly three-quarters of those studied
mainly stayed within a 20-mile-wide circle for half a year."

"The scientists would not say where the study was done, only describing the
location as an industrialized nation. The study was based on cell phone
records from a private company, whose name also was not disclosed."

"Study co-author Cesar Hidalgo, a physics researcher at Northeastern, said
he and his colleagues didn't know the individual phone numbers because they
were disguised into "ugly" 26-digit-and-letter codes. They started with 6
million phone numbers and chose the 100,000 at random to provide "an extra
layer" of anonymity for the research subjects, he said."


I used the data from the San Jose Mercury news and the best I could
interpret in the at times badly worded Wired article.

A curve fit of the data says Cumulative probability =
1.2559*Radius^(-0.7277) R^2 = .9964

Radius is the distance in miles that a person predominantly stays within.
Not surprisingly gas station locations, gas sales location and road surface
have similar power law distributions as people mobility with power
coefficients of -.77. -.79 and -.83

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/104/17/7301?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Geoffrey+West&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

There is also a study with a similar result where dollar bills were tracked
to see how people move around.
http://people.esam.northwestern.edu/~brockmann/index_assets/Brockmann_EPJ2008.pdf

Both distributions are of course a power law cumulative distribution as are
almost all complex system real world statistics. Real world statistics
are not even remotely Gaussian ( bell curve). Mean and variance are almost
meaningless on power law statistics which is why efficiency data for
different modes of transportation are essentially worthless. I don't even
have much confidence in the R^2 value calculated by Excel given above,
although the curve fit looks fairly good.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Jack May
Interesting research in the news today about how much people travel in
normal life. The answer is most people don't travel much beyond home and
work.
http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/S/SCI_CELL_PHONE_TRACKING?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-06-05-01-28-03
"Researchers secretly tracked the locations of 100,000 people outside the
United States through their cell phone use and concluded that most people
rarely stray more than a few miles from home."
"It also yielded somewhat surprising results that reveal how little people
move around in their daily lives. Nearly three-quarters of those studied
mainly stayed within a 20-mile-wide circle for half a year."
"The scientists would not say where the study was done, only describing
the location as an industrialized nation. The study was based on cell
phone records from a private company, whose name also was not disclosed."
"Study co-author Cesar Hidalgo, a physics researcher at Northeastern, said
he and his colleagues didn't know the individual phone numbers because
they were disguised into "ugly" 26-digit-and-letter codes. They started
with 6 million phone numbers and chose the 100,000 at random to provide
"an extra layer" of anonymity for the research subjects, he said."
I used the data from the San Jose Mercury news and the best I could
interpret in the at times badly worded Wired article.
A curve fit of the data says Cumulative probability =
1.2559*Radius^(-0.7277) R^2 = .9964
Radius is the distance in miles that a person predominantly stays within.
Not surprisingly gas station locations, gas sales location and road
surface have similar power law distributions as people mobility with power
coefficients of -.77. -.79 and -.83
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/104/17/7301?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Geoffrey+West&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
There is also a study with a similar result where dollar bills were
tracked to see how people move around.
http://people.esam.northwestern.edu/~brockmann/index_assets/Brockmann_EPJ2008.pdf
Both distributions are of course a power law cumulative distribution as
are almost all complex system real world statistics. Real world
statistics are not even remotely Gaussian ( bell curve). Mean and
variance are almost meaningless on power law statistics which is why
efficiency data for different modes of transportation are essentially
worthless. I don't even have much confidence in the R^2 value calculated
by Excel given above, although the curve fit looks fairly good.

I tend to leave my cell phone at home unless I'm traveling farther than 100
miles or so. Maybe others are similar.

[Jack May]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Jack May
Interesting research in the news today about how much people travel in
normal life. The answer is most people don't travel much beyond home and
work.
http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/S/SCI_CELL_PHONE_TRACKING?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-06-05-01-28-03
"Researchers secretly tracked the locations of 100,000 people outside the
United States through their cell phone use and concluded that most people
rarely stray more than a few miles from home."
"It also yielded somewhat surprising results that reveal how little
people move around in their daily lives. Nearly three-quarters of those
studied mainly stayed within a 20-mile-wide circle for half a year."
"The scientists would not say where the study was done, only describing
the location as an industrialized nation. The study was based on cell
phone records from a private company, whose name also was not disclosed."
"Study co-author Cesar Hidalgo, a physics researcher at Northeastern,
said he and his colleagues didn't know the individual phone numbers
because they were disguised into "ugly" 26-digit-and-letter codes. They
started with 6 million phone numbers and chose the 100,000 at random to
provide "an extra layer" of anonymity for the research subjects, he
said."
I used the data from the San Jose Mercury news and the best I could
interpret in the at times badly worded Wired article.
A curve fit of the data says Cumulative probability =
1.2559*Radius^(-0.7277) R^2 = .9964
Radius is the distance in miles that a person predominantly stays within.
Not surprisingly gas station locations, gas sales location and road
surface have similar power law distributions as people mobility with
power coefficients of -.77. -.79 and -.83
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/104/17/7301?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Geoffrey+West&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
There is also a study with a similar result where dollar bills were
tracked to see how people move around.
http://people.esam.northwestern.edu/~brockmann/index_assets/Brockmann_EPJ2008.pdf
Both distributions are of course a power law cumulative distribution as
are almost all complex system real world statistics. Real world
statistics are not even remotely Gaussian ( bell curve). Mean and
variance are almost meaningless on power law statistics which is why
efficiency data for different modes of transportation are essentially
worthless. I don't even have much confidence in the R^2 value calculated
by Excel given above, although the curve fit looks fairly good.

I tend to leave my cell phone at home unless I'm traveling farther than
100 miles or so. Maybe others are similar.

I always carry my cell phone with me when I travel probably like most
people. Airports often have "Park and Call" lots. The idea is when you
arrive at your airport destination, you call them on their cell phone as
they sit in the "Park and Call" lot and come and pick you up. If the plane
is going to be late, I call them from my take off airport so they know that
they have more time before they need to leave home. Also if there is a mix
up of some type at the airport where they are not seeing me, then I can call
them to straighten it out.

On business trips I have to use the phone to call in my hours worked for the
day

When I am visiting relatives I seldom use the cell phone, but if for some
reason I need it its there and it so small that I do worry about carrying
it. I use the buy 1000 minutes for a year for $100 service so that if I
lose the phone or it is stolen, I have not lost much.

Losing a cell phone where you pay by the month means you are responsible for
paying the total bill run up by the person that got your phone. Those
bills have run over $20K for some unfortunate people.

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by Jack May
Interesting research in the news today about how much people travel in
normal life. The answer is most people don't travel much beyond home and
work.
http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/S/SCI_CELL_PHONE_TRACKING?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-06-05-01-28-03
"Researchers secretly tracked the locations of 100,000 people outside the
United States through their cell phone use and concluded that most people
rarely stray more than a few miles from home."
"It also yielded somewhat surprising results that reveal how little people
move around in their daily lives. Nearly three-quarters of those studied
mainly stayed within a 20-mile-wide circle for half a year."

According to research done 119 years ago, that's not as much surprising
as one may be inclined to think.
Mr. Lill 1) "discovered" the power law function for relative frequency
of travel as a function of distance.

Again unsurprisingly, little has changend.

1) Lill, E. (1889): Die Grundgesetze des Personenverkehrs. Zeitschrift
der Eisenbahnen und Dampfschifffahrt der österreichisch-ungarischen
Monarchie. II. Jg., 35: 697-706 und 36: 713-725.
Translated: The basic laws of personal transport; Journal of Railways
and steamboatshipping of the Austro Hungarian monarchy.

Tadej

[Jack May]

Post by Jack May
Interesting research in the news today about how much people travel in
normal life. The answer is most people don't travel much beyond home and
work.
http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/S/SCI_CELL_PHONE_TRACKING?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-06-05-01-28-03
"Researchers secretly tracked the locations of 100,000 people outside the
United States through their cell phone use and concluded that most people
rarely stray more than a few miles from home."
"It also yielded somewhat surprising results that reveal how little
people move around in their daily lives. Nearly three-quarters of those
studied mainly stayed within a 20-mile-wide circle for half a year."

According to research done 119 years ago, that's not as much surprising as
one may be inclined to think.
Mr. Lill 1) "discovered" the power law function for relative frequency of
travel as a function of distance.
Again unsurprisingly, little has changend.
1) Lill, E. (1889): Die Grundgesetze des Personenverkehrs. Zeitschrift der
Eisenbahnen und Dampfschifffahrt der österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie.
II. Jg., 35: 697-706 und 36: 713-725.
Translated: The basic laws of personal transport; Journal of Railways and
steamboatshipping of the Austro Hungarian monarchy.
Tadej

The big change is that it has been discovered in the last couple of decades
that all most all complex systems have power law distributions.

Knowing that power laws are a fundamental characteristic of nature and man
made thing alike is a much bigger breakthrough than somebody using a power
law distribution. It is one of the major discoveries of the last decades.
We can now design systems without doing horrible things like assuming
Gaussian distribution as was mainly done in the past

This work has the primary goal to find the power for the power law
distribution of the characteristics of how people move around. That
information is extremely important for disease propagation understanding and
other fields of research.

[RicodJour]

Post by Jack May

Post by Jack May
Interesting research in the news today about how much people travel in
normal life. The answer is most people don't travel much beyond home and
work.
http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/S/SCI_CELL_PHONE_TRACKING?SITE=...
"Researchers secretly tracked the locations of 100,000 people outside the
United States through their cell phone use and concluded that most people
rarely stray more than a few miles from home."
"It also yielded somewhat surprising results that reveal how little
people move around in their daily lives. Nearly three-quarters of those
studied mainly stayed within a 20-mile-wide circle for half a year."

According to research done 119 years ago, that's not as much surprising as
one may be inclined to think.
Mr. Lill 1) "discovered" the power law function for relative frequency of
travel as a function of distance.
Again unsurprisingly, little has changend.
1) Lill, E. (1889): Die Grundgesetze des Personenverkehrs. Zeitschrift der
Eisenbahnen und Dampfschifffahrt der österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie.
II. Jg., 35: 697-706 und 36: 713-725.
Translated: The basic laws of personal transport; Journal of Railways and
steamboatshipping of the Austro Hungarian monarchy.
Tadej

The big change is that it has been discovered in the last couple of decades
that all most all complex systems have power law distributions.
Knowing that power laws are a fundamental characteristic of nature and man
made thing alike is a much bigger breakthrough than somebody using a power
law distribution. It is one of the major discoveries of the last decades.
We can now design systems without doing horrible things like assuming
Gaussian distribution as was mainly done in the past
This work has the primary goal to find the power for the power law
distribution of the characteristics of how people move around. That
information is extremely important for disease propagation understanding and
other fields of research.

All I get out of it was that they're using our cell phones to track
us. So I guess the power law is, we're the power, we write the law,
now be a good cow and wear this bell so you don't stray.

R

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Jack May

Post by Jack May
Interesting research in the news today about how much people travel in
normal life. The answer is most people don't travel much beyond home and
work.
http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/S/SCI_CELL_PHONE_TRACKING?SITE=...
"Researchers secretly tracked the locations of 100,000 people outside the
United States through their cell phone use and concluded that most people
rarely stray more than a few miles from home."
"It also yielded somewhat surprising results that reveal how little
people move around in their daily lives. Nearly three-quarters of those
studied mainly stayed within a 20-mile-wide circle for half a year."

According to research done 119 years ago, that's not as much surprising as
one may be inclined to think.
Mr. Lill 1) "discovered" the power law function for relative frequency of
travel as a function of distance.
Again unsurprisingly, little has changend.
1) Lill, E. (1889): Die Grundgesetze des Personenverkehrs. Zeitschrift der
Eisenbahnen und Dampfschifffahrt der österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie.
II. Jg., 35: 697-706 und 36: 713-725.
Translated: The basic laws of personal transport; Journal of Railways and
steamboatshipping of the Austro Hungarian monarchy.
Tadej

The big change is that it has been discovered in the last couple of decades
that all most all complex systems have power law distributions.
Knowing that power laws are a fundamental characteristic of nature and man
made thing alike is a much bigger breakthrough than somebody using a power
law distribution. It is one of the major discoveries of the last decades.
We can now design systems without doing horrible things like assuming
Gaussian distribution as was mainly done in the past
This work has the primary goal to find the power for the power law
distribution of the characteristics of how people move around. That
information is extremely important for disease propagation understanding and
other fields of research.

All I get out of it was that they're using our cell phones to track
us. So I guess the power law is, we're the power, we write the law,
now be a good cow and wear this bell so you don't stray.
------------------------------------------------------

Another possible conclusion is that since most trips aren't going very far
anyway, we would be wiser to concentrate our resources on making local
transportation cheaper, safer, and more efficient, rather than on long haul
highways :-).

[RicodJour]

On Jun 8, 1:25 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by RicodJour

Post by Jack May

Post by Jack May
Interesting research in the news today about how much people travel in
normal life. The answer is most people don't travel much beyond home and
work.
http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/S/SCI_CELL_PHONE_TRACKING?SITE=...
"Researchers secretly tracked the locations of 100,000 people outside the
United States through their cell phone use and concluded that most people
rarely stray more than a few miles from home."
"It also yielded somewhat surprising results that reveal how little
people move around in their daily lives. Nearly three-quarters of those
studied mainly stayed within a 20-mile-wide circle for half a year."

According to research done 119 years ago, that's not as much surprising as
one may be inclined to think.
Mr. Lill 1) "discovered" the power law function for relative frequency of
travel as a function of distance.
Again unsurprisingly, little has changend.
1) Lill, E. (1889): Die Grundgesetze des Personenverkehrs. Zeitschrift der
Eisenbahnen und Dampfschifffahrt der österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie.
II. Jg., 35: 697-706 und 36: 713-725.
Translated: The basic laws of personal transport; Journal of Railways and
steamboatshipping of the Austro Hungarian monarchy.
Tadej

The big change is that it has been discovered in the last couple of decades
that all most all complex systems have power law distributions.
Knowing that power laws are a fundamental characteristic of nature and man
made thing alike is a much bigger breakthrough than somebody using a power
law distribution. It is one of the major discoveries of the last decades.
We can now design systems without doing horrible things like assuming
Gaussian distribution as was mainly done in the past
This work has the primary goal to find the power for the power law
distribution of the characteristics of how people move around. That
information is extremely important for disease propagation understanding and
other fields of research.

All I get out of it was that they're using our cell phones to track
us. So I guess the power law is, we're the power, we write the law,
now be a good cow and wear this bell so you don't stray.
------------------------------------------------------
Another possible conclusion is that since most trips aren't going very far
anyway, we would be wiser to concentrate our resources on making local
transportation cheaper, safer, and more efficient, rather than on long haul
highways :-).

We have too many fat people in desperate need of exercise and we
already have bicycles, so that issue has been solved.

R

[Amy Blankenship]

"RicodJour" <***@worldemail.com> wrote in message news:e0de7abf-641c-4b40-a0e8-***@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 8, 1:25 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by RicodJour

Post by Jack May

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Jack May
Interesting research in the news today about how much people travel in
normal life. The answer is most people don't travel much beyond home and
work.
http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/S/SCI_CELL_PHONE_TRACKING?SITE=...
"Researchers secretly tracked the locations of 100,000 people outside the
United States through their cell phone use and concluded that most people
rarely stray more than a few miles from home."
"It also yielded somewhat surprising results that reveal how little
people move around in their daily lives. Nearly three-quarters of those
studied mainly stayed within a 20-mile-wide circle for half a year."

According to research done 119 years ago, that's not as much surprising
as
one may be inclined to think.
Mr. Lill 1) "discovered" the power law function for relative frequency of
travel as a function of distance.
Again unsurprisingly, little has changend.
1) Lill, E. (1889): Die Grundgesetze des Personenverkehrs. Zeitschrift der
Eisenbahnen und Dampfschifffahrt der österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie.
II. Jg., 35: 697-706 und 36: 713-725.
Translated: The basic laws of personal transport; Journal of Railways and
steamboatshipping of the Austro Hungarian monarchy.
Tadej

The big change is that it has been discovered in the last couple of decades
that all most all complex systems have power law distributions.
Knowing that power laws are a fundamental characteristic of nature and man
made thing alike is a much bigger breakthrough than somebody using a power
law distribution. It is one of the major discoveries of the last decades.
We can now design systems without doing horrible things like assuming
Gaussian distribution as was mainly done in the past
This work has the primary goal to find the power for the power law
distribution of the characteristics of how people move around. That
information is extremely important for disease propagation understanding and
other fields of research.

All I get out of it was that they're using our cell phones to track
us. So I guess the power law is, we're the power, we write the law,
now be a good cow and wear this bell so you don't stray.
------------------------------------------------------
Another possible conclusion is that since most trips aren't going very far
anyway, we would be wiser to concentrate our resources on making local
transportation cheaper, safer, and more efficient, rather than on long haul
highways :-).

We have too many fat people in desperate need of exercise and we
already have bicycles, so that issue has been solved.

----------------------------------------------------
Maybe in your town. In my town, riding a bike on a public street is
tantamount to suicide.

[RicodJour]

On Jun 8, 1:56 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by RicodJour
On Jun 8, 1:25 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by RicodJour

Post by Jack May

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Jack May
Interesting research in the news today about how much people travel in
normal life. The answer is most people don't travel much beyond home and
work.
http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/S/SCI_CELL_PHONE_TRACKING?SITE=...
"Researchers secretly tracked the locations of 100,000 people outside the
United States through their cell phone use and concluded that most people
rarely stray more than a few miles from home."
"It also yielded somewhat surprising results that reveal how little
people move around in their daily lives. Nearly three-quarters of those
studied mainly stayed within a 20-mile-wide circle for half a year."

According to research done 119 years ago, that's not as much surprising
as
one may be inclined to think.
Mr. Lill 1) "discovered" the power law function for relative frequency of
travel as a function of distance.
Again unsurprisingly, little has changend.
1) Lill, E. (1889): Die Grundgesetze des Personenverkehrs. Zeitschrift der
Eisenbahnen und Dampfschifffahrt der österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie.
II. Jg., 35: 697-706 und 36: 713-725.
Translated: The basic laws of personal transport; Journal of Railways and
steamboatshipping of the Austro Hungarian monarchy.
Tadej

The big change is that it has been discovered in the last couple of decades
that all most all complex systems have power law distributions.
Knowing that power laws are a fundamental characteristic of nature and man
made thing alike is a much bigger breakthrough than somebody using a power
law distribution. It is one of the major discoveries of the last decades.
We can now design systems without doing horrible things like assuming
Gaussian distribution as was mainly done in the past
This work has the primary goal to find the power for the power law
distribution of the characteristics of how people move around. That
information is extremely important for disease propagation understanding and
other fields of research.

All I get out of it was that they're using our cell phones to track
us. So I guess the power law is, we're the power, we write the law,
now be a good cow and wear this bell so you don't stray.
------------------------------------------------------
Another possible conclusion is that since most trips aren't going very far
anyway, we would be wiser to concentrate our resources on making local
transportation cheaper, safer, and more efficient, rather than on long haul
highways :-).

We have too many fat people in desperate need of exercise and we
already have bicycles, so that issue has been solved.
----------------------------------------------------
Maybe in your town. In my town, riding a bike on a public street is
tantamount to suicide.

You wrote earlier, "Another possible conclusion is that since most
trips aren't going very far
anyway, we would be wiser to concentrate our resources on making local
transportation cheaper, safer, and more efficient,". So you know what
you have to do.

It's the right political climate for making your town safer to bike.
Election year, gas prices skyrocketing, etc. Hell, there's a "green"
channel on cable now. Find some politicos who would like to support
your photo opportunity for them. It all starts with awareness.

I was originally going to write something about breaking an egg to
make an omelet. Unfortunately, all too often, it does require some
horrendous accident to shake people up and put some grieving relative
on a mission to get things changed.

R

[Jack May]

"RicodJour" <***@worldemail.com> wrote in message news:f40ee1d3-81dd-4bae-8518-***@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 8, 1:56 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<
It's the right political climate for making your town safer to bike.
Election year, gas prices skyrocketing, etc. Hell, there's a "green"
channel on cable now. Find some politicos who would like to support
your photo opportunity for them. It all starts with awareness.

Oh yea lets just get those delivery trucks off of the road so that we all
starve to death and can't work. Sorry we are not going to destroy our
economy and civilization for a bike advocate that seems to have
understanding of life.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by RicodJour
On Jun 8, 1:56 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<
It's the right political climate for making your town safer to bike.
Election year, gas prices skyrocketing, etc. Hell, there's a "green"
channel on cable now. Find some politicos who would like to support
your photo opportunity for them. It all starts with awareness.
Oh yea lets just get those delivery trucks off of the road so that we all
starve to death and can't work. Sorry we are not going to destroy our
economy and civilization for a bike advocate that seems to have
understanding of life.

The most efficient and cost effective way to transport goods long distances
is rail.

[RicodJour]

On Jun 8, 9:11 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by RicodJour
On Jun 8, 1:56 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<
It's the right political climate for making your town safer to bike.
Election year, gas prices skyrocketing, etc. Hell, there's a "green"
channel on cable now. Find some politicos who would like to support
your photo opportunity for them. It all starts with awareness.
Oh yea lets just get those delivery trucks off of the road so that we all
starve to death and can't work. Sorry we are not going to destroy our
economy and civilization for a bike advocate that seems to have
understanding of life.

The most efficient and cost effective way to transport goods long distances
is rail.

Not by boat/barge?

R

[Jack May]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by RicodJour
On Jun 8, 1:56 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<
It's the right political climate for making your town safer to bike.
Election year, gas prices skyrocketing, etc. Hell, there's a "green"
channel on cable now. Find some politicos who would like to support
your photo opportunity for them. It all starts with awareness.
Oh yea lets just get those delivery trucks off of the road so that we all
starve to death and can't work. Sorry we are not going to destroy our
economy and civilization for a bike advocate that seems to have
understanding of life.

The most efficient and cost effective way to transport goods long
distances is rail.

That was discussed in misc.transport.road

There is a high cost of transferring the goods to a truck so that they can
get to their destination. Since 1800's rail can not be shaped into an
efficient transportation network (hierarchical, door to door, highly
flexible 2D routing) the cost of transport with rail is often too expensive
to use. Of course the shipping experts know full well which mode or
combination of modes is most cost effective.

[RicodJour]

Post by RicodJour
<
It's the right political climate for making your town safer to bike.
Election year, gas prices skyrocketing, etc. Hell, there's a "green"
channel on cable now. Find some politicos who would like to support
your photo opportunity for them. It all starts with awareness.

That's what I wrote. Your quoting system seems a bit fooked up.

Post by RicodJour
Oh yea lets just get those delivery trucks off of the road so that we all
starve to death and can't work. Sorry we are not going to destroy our
economy and civilization for a bike advocate that seems to have
understanding of life.

Well, thanks, I understand life up to a point, but it is a pretty
complex subject - give me the weekend to cram. ;)

If I'm a bike advocate, what are you, a gas advocate? I haven't made
up my mind whether you are a smart man with an unbelievably literal
and narrow-minded view, or you're just slow. No one said anything
about abandoning any infrastructure or eliminating delivery trucks,
and either event wouldn't destroy our economy or civilization. People
are amazingly adaptable...most people.

R

[Jack May]

Post by RicodJour
Well, thanks, I understand life up to a point, but it is a pretty
complex subject - give me the weekend to cram. ;)
If I'm a bike advocate, what are you, a gas advocate? I haven't made
up my mind whether you are a smart man with an unbelievably literal
and narrow-minded view, or you're just slow. No one said anything
about abandoning any infrastructure or eliminating delivery trucks,
and either event wouldn't destroy our economy or civilization. People
are amazingly adaptable...most people.

I am a high tech engineer and I am in categories called "innovators" and
"early adopters". By pushing bikes, you are in a category called
"technology laggards". Technology laggard think that long obsolete
technology is superior to present and future technology. I think
essentially the opposite that newer technology is better than older
technology since it would be killed off if it were inferior to past
technology.

Technology acceptance is an evolutionary process and it is extremely
unlikely that a technology that is inferior to past technology would ever
become dominant. Obsolete technologies, because they are inferior for
most modern requirements tend to die off because people do not use them
since they don't meet the needs of most people any longer.

Technology laggards in all technology fields act just like you. They
constantly lie and make up theories that are unlikely to every be true.
They are forced to do this to justify their support for inferior obsolete
technology. Technology laggards are about 15 percent of the population.
The other 85 percent of the population tend to totally dismiss the arguments
of technology laggards who seldom understand why they and their arguments
are rejected so often.

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by Jack May

Post by RicodJour
Well, thanks, I understand life up to a point, but it is a pretty
complex subject - give me the weekend to cram. ;)
If I'm a bike advocate, what are you, a gas advocate? I haven't made
up my mind whether you are a smart man with an unbelievably literal
and narrow-minded view, or you're just slow. No one said anything
about abandoning any infrastructure or eliminating delivery trucks,
and either event wouldn't destroy our economy or civilization. People
are amazingly adaptable...most people.

I am a high tech engineer and I am in categories called "innovators" and
"early adopters". By pushing bikes, you are in a category called
"technology laggards". Technology laggard think that long obsolete
technology is superior to present and future technology. I think
essentially the opposite that newer technology is better than older
technology since it would be killed off if it were inferior to past
technology.

That's basicly your problem, your're nothing else but the apple from the
tree you fell off: The more high tech the better it MUST be for the/in
the future.

Post by Jack May
Technology acceptance is an evolutionary process and it is extremely
unlikely that a technology that is inferior to past technology would ever
become dominant. Obsolete technologies, because they are inferior for
most modern requirements tend to die off because people do not use them
since they don't meet the needs of most people any longer.
Technology laggards in all technology fields act just like you. They
constantly lie and make up theories that are unlikely to every be true.
They are forced to do this to justify their support for inferior obsolete
technology. Technology laggards are about 15 percent of the population.
The other 85 percent of the population tend to totally dismiss the arguments
of technology laggards who seldom understand why they and their arguments
are rejected so often.

85 % of people dismiss what the tv ads don't preach to them every day.
T.

[Jack May]

Post by Tadej Brezina
That's basicly your problem, your're nothing else but the apple from the
tree you fell off: The more high tech the better it MUST be for the/in the
future.

Technology has an extremely high success record. What do you propose to do
that has a much higher success record than the technology development which
is a major driver in the US economy and employment?

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Jack May

Post by RicodJour
Well, thanks, I understand life up to a point, but it is a pretty
complex subject - give me the weekend to cram. ;)
If I'm a bike advocate, what are you, a gas advocate? I haven't made
up my mind whether you are a smart man with an unbelievably literal
and narrow-minded view, or you're just slow. No one said anything
about abandoning any infrastructure or eliminating delivery trucks,
and either event wouldn't destroy our economy or civilization. People
are amazingly adaptable...most people.

I am a high tech engineer and I am in categories called "innovators" and
"early adopters". By pushing bikes, you are in a category called
"technology laggards". Technology laggard think that long obsolete
technology is superior to present and future technology. I think
essentially the opposite that newer technology is better than older
technology since it would be killed off if it were inferior to past
technology.

In other words, his Dad can beat up your Dad.

So there.

[Jack May]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Jack May

Post by RicodJour
Well, thanks, I understand life up to a point, but it is a pretty
complex subject - give me the weekend to cram. ;)
If I'm a bike advocate, what are you, a gas advocate? I haven't made
up my mind whether you are a smart man with an unbelievably literal
and narrow-minded view, or you're just slow. No one said anything
about abandoning any infrastructure or eliminating delivery trucks,
and either event wouldn't destroy our economy or civilization. People
are amazingly adaptable...most people.

I am a high tech engineer and I am in categories called "innovators" and
"early adopters". By pushing bikes, you are in a category called
"technology laggards". Technology laggard think that long obsolete
technology is superior to present and future technology. I think
essentially the opposite that newer technology is better than older
technology since it would be killed off if it were inferior to past
technology.

In other words, his Dad can beat up your Dad.

No, that is what evolution is all about, including technology evolution.
The winner survive and the losers go away.

No wonder you like long obsolete transportation modes since you apparently
don't understand evolution in society.

[RicodJour]

Post by Jack May

Post by RicodJour
Well, thanks, I understand life up to a point, but it is a pretty
complex subject - give me the weekend to cram. ;)
If I'm a bike advocate, what are you, a gas advocate? I haven't made
up my mind whether you are a smart man with an unbelievably literal
and narrow-minded view, or you're just slow. No one said anything
about abandoning any infrastructure or eliminating delivery trucks,
and either event wouldn't destroy our economy or civilization. People
are amazingly adaptable...most people.

I am a high tech engineer and I am in categories called "innovators" and
"early adopters". By pushing bikes, you are in a category called
"technology laggards". Technology laggard think that long obsolete
technology is superior to present and future technology. I think
essentially the opposite that newer technology is better than older
technology since it would be killed off if it were inferior to past
technology.

Putting yourself in categories and labeling yourself, or other people,
is stupid, but if you're going to do it, at least do so with
intelligence. Try the word Luddite.

You know exactly nothing - seems to be a recurring theme with you -
about me and my predilections\background\interests, so what exactly
gives you this amazing ability to fail in all of your assumptions? I
mean the odds of being so entirely wrong are miniscule - a normal
distribution with normal intelligence should have you operating at
better than 50%.

Post by Jack May
Technology acceptance is an evolutionary process and it is extremely
unlikely that a technology that is inferior to past technology would ever
become dominant. Obsolete technologies, because they are inferior for
most modern requirements tend to die off because people do not use them
since they don't meet the needs of most people any longer.

So, the wheel is obsolete? No, wait, you mean legs are obsolete.
Wait, wait, I'll get it! You mean people moving through their own
power is obsolete! Damn, I knew I should have paid more attention in
your class - Preconceived Engineering Notions for Twits.

As far as your superior technology winning out, please explain the
loss of Betamax, Commodore Amiga computers, and Ideal Bars (my
favorite cookie which Nabisco no longer makes).

Post by Jack May
Technology laggards in all technology fields act just like you. They
constantly lie and make up theories that are unlikely to every be true.
They are forced to do this to justify their support for inferior obsolete
technology. Technology laggards are about 15 percent of the population.
The other 85 percent of the population tend to totally dismiss the arguments
of technology laggards who seldom understand why they and their arguments
are rejected so often.

93.7% of all statistics are made up.

If you could see the technology I have on hand - literally within
arm's reach, you'd realize how stupid such comments are.

There is no reason for cars to go away, they just have to be made a
lot more efficient. As our preeminent gas advocate, I'm sure you're
aware that Henry Ford's Model T's gas mileage was right up there with
what we expect from cars today. Now that's evolution at work!
Instead of constantly striving for improvement in efficiency we get
bean counters, starched shirts and politicos dumbing down one of our
most important tools.

I'll leave you with a little research topic. What are the three most
efficient forms of human transportation based on calories consumed
versus pound/miles? Have the paper on my desk in the morning.

R

[Jack May]

Post by RicodJour

Post by Jack May

Post by RicodJour
Well, thanks, I understand life up to a point, but it is a pretty
complex subject - give me the weekend to cram. ;)
If I'm a bike advocate, what are you, a gas advocate? I haven't made
up my mind whether you are a smart man with an unbelievably literal
and narrow-minded view, or you're just slow. No one said anything
about abandoning any infrastructure or eliminating delivery trucks,
and either event wouldn't destroy our economy or civilization. People
are amazingly adaptable...most people.

I am a high tech engineer and I am in categories called "innovators" and
"early adopters". By pushing bikes, you are in a category called
"technology laggards". Technology laggard think that long obsolete
technology is superior to present and future technology. I think
essentially the opposite that newer technology is better than older
technology since it would be killed off if it were inferior to past
technology.

Putting yourself in categories and labeling yourself, or other people,
is stupid, but if you're going to do it, at least do so with
intelligence. Try the word Luddite.

These are these are the standard discriptions of innovation adoption curves.

http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_rogers_innovation_adoption_curve.html

Just because you do not understand technology does not make you correct.
People that support transit are the nearest to being Luddites. Innovators
and early adopters are far away from being Luddites. This is all common
knowledge.

Post by RicodJour
So, the wheel is obsolete? No, wait, you mean legs are obsolete.
Wait, wait, I'll get it! You mean people moving through their own
power is obsolete! Damn, I knew I should have paid more attention in
your class - Preconceived Engineering Notions for Twits.

A technology is generally considered to be obsolete when it has reached the
"Laggard" stage of the curve in the above reference. Passenger rail
transit use peaked in the 1890's and was essentially at the end with just
the laggards holding on by the 1960's

Post by RicodJour
As far as your superior technology winning out, please explain the
loss of Betamax, Commodore Amiga computers, and Ideal Bars (my
favorite cookie which Nabisco no longer makes).

Post by Jack May
Technology laggards in all technology fields act just like you. They
constantly lie and make up theories that are unlikely to every be true.
They are forced to do this to justify their support for inferior obsolete
technology. Technology laggards are about 15 percent of the population.
The other 85 percent of the population tend to totally dismiss the arguments
of technology laggards who seldom understand why they and their arguments
are rejected so often.

93.7% of all statistics are made up.

There is a lot of work that has gone into understanding market changes
represented in the curve above. All you are doing is just showing that you
know very little about what happens in society. The statistics are well
researched and solid.

[RicodJour]

Post by Jack May

Post by RicodJour

Post by Jack May

Post by RicodJour
Well, thanks, I understand life up to a point, but it is a pretty
complex subject - give me the weekend to cram. ;)
If I'm a bike advocate, what are you, a gas advocate? I haven't made
up my mind whether you are a smart man with an unbelievably literal
and narrow-minded view, or you're just slow. No one said anything
about abandoning any infrastructure or eliminating delivery trucks,
and either event wouldn't destroy our economy or civilization. People
are amazingly adaptable...most people.

I am a high tech engineer and I am in categories called "innovators" and
"early adopters". By pushing bikes, you are in a category called
"technology laggards". Technology laggard think that long obsolete
technology is superior to present and future technology. I think
essentially the opposite that newer technology is better than older
technology since it would be killed off if it were inferior to past
technology.

Putting yourself in categories and labeling yourself, or other people,
is stupid, but if you're going to do it, at least do so with
intelligence. Try the word Luddite.

These are these are the standard discriptions of innovation adoption curves.
http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_rogers_innovation_adoptio...
Just because you do not understand technology does not make you correct.
People that support transit are the nearest to being Luddites. Innovators
and early adopters are far away from being Luddites. This is all common
knowledge.

Post by RicodJour
So, the wheel is obsolete? No, wait, you mean legs are obsolete.
Wait, wait, I'll get it! You mean people moving through their own
power is obsolete! Damn, I knew I should have paid more attention in
your class - Preconceived Engineering Notions for Twits.

A technology is generally considered to be obsolete when it has reached the
"Laggard" stage of the curve in the above reference. Passenger rail
transit use peaked in the 1890's and was essentially at the end with just
the laggards holding on by the 1960's

You are simply stuck in a time warp. You are a throwback to the
1950's - tail fins instead of real improvements and rigid mindsets
instead of solving problems.

"Generally considered"...what weasel words. Unfortunately for you,
the world isn't stuck in your same time warp and outside forces are in
play.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7577420

I'm not a 'bike advocate'. I'm a common sense advocate. Light Rail is
another mode of transportation whose time has come and gone and has
come again.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/myths/m_por_2007-10a.htm
http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog-archives-menu.htm

R

[RicodJour]

Post by Jack May

Post by RicodJour
If I'm a bike advocate, what are you, a gas advocate? I haven't made
up my mind whether you are a smart man with an unbelievably literal
and narrow-minded view, or you're just slow. No one said anything
about abandoning any infrastructure or eliminating delivery trucks,
and either event wouldn't destroy our economy or civilization. People
are amazingly adaptable...most people.

I am a high tech engineer and I am in categories called "innovators" and
"early adopters". By pushing bikes, you are in a category called
"technology laggards". Technology laggard think that long obsolete
technology is superior to present and future technology. I think
essentially the opposite that newer technology is better than older
technology since it would be killed off if it were inferior to past
technology.
Technology acceptance is an evolutionary process and it is extremely
unlikely that a technology that is inferior to past technology would ever
become dominant. Obsolete technologies, because they are inferior for
most modern requirements tend to die off because people do not use them
since they don't meet the needs of most people any longer.
Technology laggards in all technology fields act just like you. They
constantly lie and make up theories that are unlikely to every be true.
They are forced to do this to justify their support for inferior obsolete
technology. Technology laggards are about 15 percent of the population.
The other 85 percent of the population tend to totally dismiss the arguments
of technology laggards who seldom understand why they and their arguments
are rejected so often.

Too bad that there aren't any _real_ engineers in the bicycle world.
I guess they're all just mucking about there since they couldn't get
any 'high tech engineer' jobs. Damn laggards!

R

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by RicodJour
On Jun 8, 1:56 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<
It's the right political climate for making your town safer to bike.
Election year, gas prices skyrocketing, etc. Hell, there's a "green"
channel on cable now. Find some politicos who would like to support
your photo opportunity for them. It all starts with awareness.
Oh yea lets just get those delivery trucks off of the road so that we all
starve to death and can't work. Sorry we are not going to destroy our
economy and civilization for a bike advocate that seems to have
understanding of life.

Jack: as usually unable to differentiate in your views and statements
allways blatanty exagerating in extremes, nobody mentioned before.

RicodJour did not say to ban trucks from roads but propagated a
multi-transport-means friendly land transport regime, where the
environment and society friendly cycling doesn't put you at a lethal risk.

Probably you should overthink "your civilization" viewed in that light.

Tadej

[Jack May]

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by RicodJour
On Jun 8, 1:56 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Jack: as usually unable to differentiate in your views and statements
allways blatanty exagerating in extremes, nobody mentioned before.
RicodJour did not say to ban trucks from roads but propagated a
multi-transport-means friendly land transport regime, where the
environment and society friendly cycling doesn't put you at a lethal risk.

Multiple transport modes cost lots of money, more than most transportation
agencies have. The result is all modes are then poorly funded and all of
the operate poorly. So


In the SF Bay area 64% of the transportation funds is used for transit to
carry a small percentage of the people. 24% is spent on roads which are
congested and falling apart from lack of sufficient funds. RicodJour made
a desire to do something that does great damage to society and Tadej you
were patting him on the back for something that is very stupid to do.

The result of his fantasy would be to destroy the road infrastructure so
that food and supplies could not be delivered. The economy would suffer as
well from people not being able to travel efficiently in terms of the cost
of time. What you think is an exaggeration is just your ignorance of how
things work in society.

[RicodJour]

Post by Jack May

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by RicodJour
On Jun 8, 1:56 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Jack: as usually unable to differentiate in your views and statements
allways blatanty exagerating in extremes, nobody mentioned before.
RicodJour did not say to ban trucks from roads but propagated a
multi-transport-means friendly land transport regime, where the
environment and society friendly cycling doesn't put you at a lethal risk.

Multiple transport modes cost lots of money, more than most transportation
agencies have. The result is all modes are then poorly funded and all of
the operate poorly. So

Right. Technology doesn't trump finance, and if you can't afford, or
won't afford the technology, then all the technology won't help.

Post by Jack May
In the SF Bay area 64% of the transportation funds is used for transit to
carry a small percentage of the people. 24% is spent on roads which are
congested and falling apart from lack of sufficient funds. RicodJour made
a desire to do something that does great damage to society and Tadej you
were patting him on the back for something that is very stupid to do.

Right, I'm to blame for the great damage to society. I'm so sorry.
Don't know what came over me. Sheesh.
While you're concerned about society, so are many other people, and
they're doing something about it.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_9222248

An excerpt: "Parking at many BART and train stations is filling up
earlier and earlier. Seating is becoming a luxury on more peak-hour
trains and buses, and transit officials are wondering how to increase
service at a time when state and local budgets are strapped. The
economy is on edge and filling buses' diesel tanks has never been more
expensive.
"Just getting 15 miles per gallon from here to Santa Clara was getting
to be too much," said Brian Heidl, a mechanical engineer, as he waited
for the 6:42 a.m. Altamont Commuter Express train in Livermore on
Wednesday.
"I was practically paying $400 a month just in gas," Heidl said, to
keep his 1987 Ford Ranger pickup making the 60-mile trip along some of
the area's most congested freeway segments, on Interstates 580 and
680.
Now, he pays about $225 for his monthly ACE ticket "and I get to sleep
the whole way and not have to worry about the traffic."

Poor bastard. Having to sleep instead of sitting in traffic!

Another excerpt: "In the Bay Area, where gas prices have been among
the highest in the nation, the effect has been dramatic. Riders have
flocked to ACE and Capitol Corridor trains, which run from the
Sacramento area to San Jose via the East Bay. On both services,
ridership rose 13.6 percent in the first quarter of 2008 compared with
the same quarter last year."

Hmmm. Run that obsolete thing by me again...

Post by Jack May
The result of his fantasy would be to destroy the road infrastructure so
that food and supplies could not be delivered. The economy would suffer as
well from people not being able to travel efficiently in terms of the cost
of time. What you think is an exaggeration is just your ignorance of how
things work in society.

There's a guy in another newsgroup who said just two months ago that
gas in his area would never hit $4 a gallon. Oops. He just couldn't
conceive of gas prices that high. I think there's a lot of that going
around. You can't conceive that the roadways can themselves be a huge
problem. They take far more maintenance than most other forms of
transit, and, oops, they require a lot of oil to make. Your beloved
road system is becoming an albatross. There's an old saying about not
buying a house you can't afford to maintain, and the same goes for
transportation infrastructure.

We are not in the 1950's. The US is no longer the dominant super
power dictating to the world how things will be. The dollar is no
longer the strongest currency in the world. Adapt or die. You are
intent on dying. I'm not. But stick around. I'm sure that even an
old dog like you can learn a few new tricks - whether you want to
learn them or not, you will.

R

[Amy Blankenship]

"RicodJour" <***@worldemail.com> wrote in message news:f40ee1d3-81dd-4bae-8518-***@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 8, 1:56 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by RicodJour
On Jun 8, 1:25 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship
Another possible conclusion is that since most trips aren't going very far
anyway, we would be wiser to concentrate our resources on making local
transportation cheaper, safer, and more efficient, rather than on long haul
highways :-).

We have too many fat people in desperate need of exercise and we
already have bicycles, so that issue has been solved.
----------------------------------------------------
Maybe in your town. In my town, riding a bike on a public street is
tantamount to suicide.

You wrote earlier, "Another possible conclusion is that since most
trips aren't going very far
anyway, we would be wiser to concentrate our resources on making local
transportation cheaper, safer, and more efficient,". So you know what
you have to do.

It's the right political climate for making your town safer to bike.
Election year, gas prices skyrocketing, etc. Hell, there's a "green"
channel on cable now. Find some politicos who would like to support
your photo opportunity for them. It all starts with awareness.

I was originally going to write something about breaking an egg to
make an omelet. Unfortunately, all too often, it does require some
horrendous accident to shake people up and put some grieving relative
on a mission to get things changed.
-----------------------------------

It was the right climate here after Katrina, but business as usual is way
more powerful than any voice for change. And if people getting killed all
the time ever changed anything, there'd have been changes already. We have
one stretch of road with at least one accident a week.

[Jack May]

"RicodJour" <***@worldemail.com> wrote in message news:e0de7abf-641c-4b40-a0e8-***@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 8, 1:25 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by RicodJour
We have too many fat people in desperate need of exercise and we
already have bicycles, so that issue has been solved.

Beside using one of the most inefficient fuels sources, farming, bikes do
not even remotely meet the minimum transportation requirements of people.
It may be a total shock to you but people need to shop for food, go to work
and do a lot of things where a bike is not a rational solution.

Since you like bikes, my guess is that you don't have an adult type life.

[RicodJour]

Post by Jack May
Beside using one of the most inefficient fuels sources, farming, bikes do
not even remotely meet the minimum transportation requirements of people.

Inefficient? Hmm, let's see, I burn off excess calories, stay
healthy, don't need to go to the gym, _enjoy_ myself (difficult
concept for sum, contact me off line and I'll get you started on some
reading material), and it might 'cost' me an extra 500 calories per
hour. Now, in that hour I can easily bike into town, hit a couple of
stores and carry a small load each way - say ten or fifteen pounds.
That 500 calories is the equivalent of a peanut butter and jelly
sandwich, which costs me about fifty cents. Not no way, not no how am
I lugging (or is it lugging me?) a 3000 pound vehicle with me to do
those errands, and there's no way it would cost as little as fifty
cents in a car. Plus there's wear and tear on the car (obviously more
expensive than the wear and tear on the bike, and wear and tear on me
is called either exercise or experience depending on your viewpoint),
emissions and pollution, insurance requirements, licensing,
inspections (maybe you like having to pay other people to make sure
you take care of your own life, but I kind of resent it), etc.

You have exactly no idea what you are talking about when you use a
word like efficiency in promoting car travel in a car vs. bike
discussion. It makes you look silly. Choose another word or hone
your argument.

R

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by Jack May
Since you like bikes, my guess is that you don't have an adult type life.

Wow that's one masterpiece of ignorant bitterness!
So how was that thing about your trike you have to and do use due to
your illness? And you wrote you like it. You, handicapped to not being
able to ride a normal bike (two wheeled, longer distances in one piece)
call others capable to do so names?
I do understand, that due to your physical limitations and your
educational and professional orientation you defend your teched-up and
mechanized world that makes life easier for you. But calling other
people whose capacities aren't limited in this respect names, reveals
what a sorrow and miserable piece of shit you must be!

Disgusted
Tadej

[Jack May]

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Jack May
Since you like bikes, my guess is that you don't have an adult type life.

Wow that's one masterpiece of ignorant bitterness!
So how was that thing about your trike you have to and do use due to your
illness? And you wrote you like it. You, handicapped to not being able to
ride a normal bike (two wheeled, longer distances in one piece) call
others capable to do so names?

I decided not to get the trike, because I think I would still continue with
a very effective routing I use on my large trampoline in my back yard. When
the weather get bad enough where using the trampoline is not really
practical, I will probably get a Wii with their exercise software. We
don't have much bad weather in the SF Bay area :-)

In the past I would climb the stairs in my house during bad weather. Since
my disease makes my muscles go away when I exercise them too much, it is too
dangerous for me to continue to climb my stairs as a form of exercise. My
muscles come back after 10-20 minutes rest as long as I take my pills for
the disease. As long as I don't take my legs to their limits, I have few
limitations with the disease. If I don't sense my legs giving out, then I
could fall down the stair during exercise which could be deadly.

Post by Tadej Brezina
I do understand, that due to your physical limitations and your
educational and professional orientation you defend your teched-up and
mechanized world that makes life easier for you. But calling other people
whose capacities aren't limited in this respect names, reveals what a
sorrow and miserable piece of shit you must be!

What I am mainly pissed about is people hanging on to obsolete
transportation modes. That segment of society continues to cause major
damage to our transportation system and the society that depends on it.
Laggards are in all other forms of technology, but most of the time they are
harmless. They are not harmless in transportation.

[Jack May]

Post by RicodJour

Post by Jack May

Post by Jack May
Interesting research in the news today about how much people travel in
normal life. The answer is most people don't travel much beyond home and
work.
http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/S/SCI_CELL_PHONE_TRACKING?SITE=...
"Researchers secretly tracked the locations of 100,000 people outside the
United States through their cell phone use and concluded that most people
rarely stray more than a few miles from home."
"It also yielded somewhat surprising results that reveal how little
people move around in their daily lives. Nearly three-quarters of those
studied mainly stayed within a 20-mile-wide circle for half a year."

According to research done 119 years ago, that's not as much surprising as
one may be inclined to think.
Mr. Lill 1) "discovered" the power law function for relative frequency of
travel as a function of distance.
Again unsurprisingly, little has changend.
1) Lill, E. (1889): Die Grundgesetze des Personenverkehrs. Zeitschrift der
Eisenbahnen und Dampfschifffahrt der österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie.
II. Jg., 35: 697-706 und 36: 713-725.
Translated: The basic laws of personal transport; Journal of Railways and
steamboatshipping of the Austro Hungarian monarchy.
Tadej

The big change is that it has been discovered in the last couple of decades
that all most all complex systems have power law distributions.
Knowing that power laws are a fundamental characteristic of nature and man
made thing alike is a much bigger breakthrough than somebody using a power
law distribution. It is one of the major discoveries of the last decades.
We can now design systems without doing horrible things like assuming
Gaussian distribution as was mainly done in the past
This work has the primary goal to find the power for the power law
distribution of the characteristics of how people move around. That
information is extremely important for disease propagation understanding and
other fields of research.

All I get out of it was that they're using our cell phones to track
us. So I guess the power law is, we're the power, we write the law,
now be a good cow and wear this bell so you don't stray.
------------------------------------------------------
Another possible conclusion is that since most trips aren't going very far
anyway, we would be wiser to concentrate our resources on making local
transportation cheaper, safer, and more efficient, rather than on long
haul highways :-).

Depends if you want food to eat and products in the stores or emergency help
when planners can't predict that hurricanes will flood New Orleans. Also a
significant percent of the people do travel long distance much of the time.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Jack May

Post by RicodJour

Post by Jack May

Post by Jack May
Interesting research in the news today about how much people travel in
normal life. The answer is most people don't travel much beyond home and
work.
http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/S/SCI_CELL_PHONE_TRACKING?SITE=...
"Researchers secretly tracked the locations of 100,000 people outside the
United States through their cell phone use and concluded that most people
rarely stray more than a few miles from home."
"It also yielded somewhat surprising results that reveal how little
people move around in their daily lives. Nearly three-quarters of those
studied mainly stayed within a 20-mile-wide circle for half a year."

According to research done 119 years ago, that's not as much surprising as
one may be inclined to think.
Mr. Lill 1) "discovered" the power law function for relative frequency of
travel as a function of distance.
Again unsurprisingly, little has changend.
1) Lill, E. (1889): Die Grundgesetze des Personenverkehrs. Zeitschrift der
Eisenbahnen und Dampfschifffahrt der österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie.
II. Jg., 35: 697-706 und 36: 713-725.
Translated: The basic laws of personal transport; Journal of Railways and
steamboatshipping of the Austro Hungarian monarchy.
Tadej

The big change is that it has been discovered in the last couple of decades
that all most all complex systems have power law distributions.
Knowing that power laws are a fundamental characteristic of nature and man
made thing alike is a much bigger breakthrough than somebody using a power
law distribution. It is one of the major discoveries of the last decades.
We can now design systems without doing horrible things like assuming
Gaussian distribution as was mainly done in the past
This work has the primary goal to find the power for the power law
distribution of the characteristics of how people move around. That
information is extremely important for disease propagation understanding and
other fields of research.

All I get out of it was that they're using our cell phones to track
us. So I guess the power law is, we're the power, we write the law,
now be a good cow and wear this bell so you don't stray.
------------------------------------------------------
Another possible conclusion is that since most trips aren't going very
far anyway, we would be wiser to concentrate our resources on making
local transportation cheaper, safer, and more efficient, rather than on
long haul highways :-).

Depends if you want food to eat and products in the stores or emergency
help when planners can't predict that hurricanes will flood New Orleans.
Also a significant percent of the people do travel long distance much of
the time.

Er, Jack...When the hurricane struck, the road bridges into and out of New
Orleans weren't usable for the most part. So roads weren't able to solve
that problem.

[Jack May]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Jack May
Depends if you want food to eat and products in the stores or emergency
help when planners can't predict that hurricanes will flood New Orleans.
Also a significant percent of the people do travel long distance much of
the time.

Er, Jack...When the hurricane struck, the road bridges into and out of New
Orleans weren't usable for the most part. So roads weren't able to solve
that problem.

Letting the city infrastructure to become useless in stopping the flooding
of the city is the main problem.

I was in a large presentation (hundreds of people there) last week by
Stewart Brand, the famous expert on city development trends around the
world. He thinks the incompetence of the planning in New Orleans has killed
the city and New Orleans will never come back as a viable city again. I
tend to think he is probably correct.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Jack May

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Jack May
Depends if you want food to eat and products in the stores or emergency
help when planners can't predict that hurricanes will flood New Orleans.
Also a significant percent of the people do travel long distance much of
the time.

Er, Jack...When the hurricane struck, the road bridges into and out of
New Orleans weren't usable for the most part. So roads weren't able to
solve that problem.

Letting the city infrastructure to become useless in stopping the flooding
of the city is the main problem.

Which the wouldn't have helped.

Post by Jack May
I was in a large presentation (hundreds of people there) last week by
Stewart Brand, the famous expert on city development trends around the
world. He thinks the incompetence of the planning in New Orleans has
killed the city and New Orleans will never come back as a viable city
again. I tend to think he is probably correct.

Well duh. They immediately re-elected Ray Nagin, who is a poor manager and
a coward to boot.

I think it will become viable again, it just has to hit complete rock bottom
so people will wake up.

[RicodJour]

Post by Jack May

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Jack May
Depends if you want food to eat and products in the stores or emergency
help when planners can't predict that hurricanes will flood New Orleans.
Also a significant percent of the people do travel long distance much of
the time.

Er, Jack...When the hurricane struck, the road bridges into and out of New
Orleans weren't usable for the most part. So roads weren't able to solve
that problem.

Letting the city infrastructure to become useless in stopping the flooding
of the city is the main problem.

Is that English? For the life of me, I can't parse that to make
sense.

Post by Jack May
I was in a large presentation (hundreds of people there) last week by
Stewart Brand, the famous expert on city development trends around the
world. He thinks the incompetence of the planning in New Orleans has killed
the city and New Orleans will never come back as a viable city again. I
tend to think he is probably correct.

The famous expert....sheesh. People everywhere are incompetent and
the world still turns - Stewart Brand, from your report, just proved
he is still human and makes mistakes. There are more restaurants open
now in New Orleans than there were before the hurricane hit. Logic is
not what grows a city, no matter how many times you click your heels
an wish.

And, for the record, I lived in NOLA for several years, I think it's a
horrible location to put a city unless you're solely concerned with
controlling river traffic and I've often said the Romans would never
have allowed a city to be built there. Still had great food and
music.

R

[RicodJour]

Post by Jack May

Post by RicodJour

Post by Jack May

Post by Jack May
Interesting research in the news today about how much people travel in
normal life. The answer is most people don't travel much beyond home and
work.
http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/S/SCI_CELL_PHONE_TRACKING?SITE=...
"Researchers secretly tracked the locations of 100,000 people outside the
United States through their cell phone use and concluded that most people
rarely stray more than a few miles from home."
"It also yielded somewhat surprising results that reveal how little
people move around in their daily lives. Nearly three-quarters of those
studied mainly stayed within a 20-mile-wide circle for half a year."

According to research done 119 years ago, that's not as much surprising as
one may be inclined to think.
Mr. Lill 1) "discovered" the power law function for relative frequency of
travel as a function of distance.
Again unsurprisingly, little has changend.
1) Lill, E. (1889): Die Grundgesetze des Personenverkehrs. Zeitschrift der
Eisenbahnen und Dampfschifffahrt der österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie.
II. Jg., 35: 697-706 und 36: 713-725.
Translated: The basic laws of personal transport; Journal of Railways and
steamboatshipping of the Austro Hungarian monarchy.
Tadej

The big change is that it has been discovered in the last couple of decades
that all most all complex systems have power law distributions.
Knowing that power laws are a fundamental characteristic of nature and man
made thing alike is a much bigger breakthrough than somebody using a power
law distribution. It is one of the major discoveries of the last decades.
We can now design systems without doing horrible things like assuming
Gaussian distribution as was mainly done in the past
This work has the primary goal to find the power for the power law
distribution of the characteristics of how people move around. That
information is extremely important for disease propagation understanding and
other fields of research.

All I get out of it was that they're using our cell phones to track
us. So I guess the power law is, we're the power, we write the law,
now be a good cow and wear this bell so you don't stray.
------------------------------------------------------
Another possible conclusion is that since most trips aren't going very far
anyway, we would be wiser to concentrate our resources on making local
transportation cheaper, safer, and more efficient, rather than on long
haul highways :-).

Depends if you want food to eat and products in the stores or emergency help
when planners can't predict that hurricanes will flood New Orleans. Also a
significant percent of the people do travel long distance much of the time.

You start the thread about how most people don't venture far afield,
now there's a significant segment that does long distance travel.
Interesting - totally spurious data based on _non_ US travel! Maybe I
should show you the efficacy of bike travel and the high numbers of
elderly that still bike based on Dutch data? That model works just
fine, but you'd toss it out because "them's not us". Same goes for
your non-US cell phone based travel data (NUSCPBTD).

Using a catastrophic event - one you apparently didn't follow very
closely - as a reason to maintain whatever it is you're selling, is
bogus. In an emergency they'll get the stuff there any way they can.
Roads are not immune to catastrophe.

R

[Jack May]

Post by Jack May

Post by RicodJour

Post by Jack May

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Jack May
Interesting research in the news today about how much people travel in
normal life. The answer is most people don't travel much beyond
home
and
work.
http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/S/SCI_CELL_PHONE_TRACKING?SITE=...
"Researchers secretly tracked the locations of 100,000 people
outside
the
United States through their cell phone use and concluded that most people
rarely stray more than a few miles from home."
"It also yielded somewhat surprising results that reveal how little
people move around in their daily lives. Nearly three-quarters of those
studied mainly stayed within a 20-mile-wide circle for half a year."

According to research done 119 years ago, that's not as much surprising
as
one may be inclined to think.
Mr. Lill 1) "discovered" the power law function for relative frequency
of
travel as a function of distance.
Again unsurprisingly, little has changend.
1) Lill, E. (1889): Die Grundgesetze des Personenverkehrs. Zeitschrift
der
Eisenbahnen und Dampfschifffahrt der österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie.
II. Jg., 35: 697-706 und 36: 713-725.
Translated: The basic laws of personal transport; Journal of Railways and
steamboatshipping of the Austro Hungarian monarchy.
Tadej

The big change is that it has been discovered in the last couple of decades
that all most all complex systems have power law distributions.
Knowing that power laws are a fundamental characteristic of nature and man
made thing alike is a much bigger breakthrough than somebody using a power
law distribution. It is one of the major discoveries of the last decades.
We can now design systems without doing horrible things like assuming
Gaussian distribution as was mainly done in the past
This work has the primary goal to find the power for the power law
distribution of the characteristics of how people move around. That
information is extremely important for disease propagation
understanding
and
other fields of research.

All I get out of it was that they're using our cell phones to track
us. So I guess the power law is, we're the power, we write the law,
now be a good cow and wear this bell so you don't stray.
------------------------------------------------------
Another possible conclusion is that since most trips aren't going very far
anyway, we would be wiser to concentrate our resources on making local
transportation cheaper, safer, and more efficient, rather than on long
haul highways :-).

Depends if you want food to eat and products in the stores or emergency help
when planners can't predict that hurricanes will flood New Orleans. Also a
significant percent of the people do travel long distance much of the time.

You start the thread about how most people don't venture far afield,
now there's a significant segment that does long distance travel.
Interesting - totally spurious data based on _non_ US travel! Maybe I
should show you the efficacy of bike travel and the high numbers of
elderly that still bike based on Dutch data? That model works just
fine, but you'd toss it out because "them's not us". Same goes for
your non-US cell phone based travel data (NUSCPBTD).

Everything in life has probabilities attached to them. Your arguments are
hard deterministic logic in a random world. Your arguments are worthless in
the real world.

Your arguments show a big lack of knowledge about society. If the bike were
still a great solution, they would be the dominant transportation mode in
the world. They are not the dominant mode of transportation in the world
and neither is 1800's transit.

You need to learn about technology evolution and how technology is developed
and adopted by society when it well matched to the real needs of society.
Right now you are just grasping at straws with negligible understanding of
how things work in society.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by RicodJour

Post by Jack May

Post by RicodJour

Post by Jack May

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Jack May
Interesting research in the news today about how much people travel in
normal life. The answer is most people don't travel much beyond
home
and
work.
http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/S/SCI_CELL_PHONE_TRACKING?SITE=...
"Researchers secretly tracked the locations of 100,000 people
outside
the
United States through their cell phone use and concluded that most people
rarely stray more than a few miles from home."
"It also yielded somewhat surprising results that reveal how little
people move around in their daily lives. Nearly three-quarters of those
studied mainly stayed within a 20-mile-wide circle for half a year."

According to research done 119 years ago, that's not as much surprising
as
one may be inclined to think.
Mr. Lill 1) "discovered" the power law function for relative frequency
of
travel as a function of distance.
Again unsurprisingly, little has changend.
1) Lill, E. (1889): Die Grundgesetze des Personenverkehrs. Zeitschrift
der
Eisenbahnen und Dampfschifffahrt der österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie.
II. Jg., 35: 697-706 und 36: 713-725.
Translated: The basic laws of personal transport; Journal of Railways
and
steamboatshipping of the Austro Hungarian monarchy.
Tadej

The big change is that it has been discovered in the last couple of decades
that all most all complex systems have power law distributions.
Knowing that power laws are a fundamental characteristic of nature and man
made thing alike is a much bigger breakthrough than somebody using a power
law distribution. It is one of the major discoveries of the last decades.
We can now design systems without doing horrible things like assuming
Gaussian distribution as was mainly done in the past
This work has the primary goal to find the power for the power law
distribution of the characteristics of how people move around. That
information is extremely important for disease propagation
understanding
and
other fields of research.

All I get out of it was that they're using our cell phones to track
us. So I guess the power law is, we're the power, we write the law,
now be a good cow and wear this bell so you don't stray.
------------------------------------------------------
Another possible conclusion is that since most trips aren't going very far
anyway, we would be wiser to concentrate our resources on making local
transportation cheaper, safer, and more efficient, rather than on long
haul highways :-).

Depends if you want food to eat and products in the stores or emergency help
when planners can't predict that hurricanes will flood New Orleans. Also a
significant percent of the people do travel long distance much of the time.

You start the thread about how most people don't venture far afield,
now there's a significant segment that does long distance travel.
Interesting - totally spurious data based on _non_ US travel! Maybe I
should show you the efficacy of bike travel and the high numbers of
elderly that still bike based on Dutch data? That model works just
fine, but you'd toss it out because "them's not us". Same goes for
your non-US cell phone based travel data (NUSCPBTD).
Everything in life has probabilities attached to them. Your arguments are
hard deterministic logic in a random world. Your arguments are worthless
in the real world.
Your arguments show a big lack of knowledge about society. If the bike
were still a great solution, they would be the dominant transportation
mode in the world. They are not the dominant mode of transportation in
the world and neither is 1800's transit.
You need to learn about technology evolution and how technology is
developed and adopted by society when it well matched to the real needs of
society. Right now you are just grasping at straws with negligible
understanding of how things work in society.

I think his arguments just show an expectation that you'll have some
consistency in _your_ arguments, and not switch to arguing the opposite
point when challenged. That doesn't have much to do with technology.

[Jack May]

Post by Amy Blankenship
I think his arguments just show an expectation that you'll have some
consistency in _your_ arguments, and not switch to arguing the opposite
point when challenged. That doesn't have much to do with technology.

I am very consistent. The problem is that people that support transit tend
to have very little understanding of our complex society. Most of what I
say is well proven in science and technology.

[Jack May]

Post by Amy Blankenship
------------------------------------------------------
Another possible conclusion is that since most trips aren't going very far
anyway, we would be wiser to concentrate our resources on making local
transportation cheaper, safer, and more efficient, rather than on long
haul highways :-).

I should have given some numbers to make the subject more intuitive.

Radius Percent of people Cumulative
Miles that predominantly stay Distribution
within that radius
0 100%
3.1 46% 54%
6.2 18% 36%
18.6 19% 17%
62.1 11% 6%
200 3%
(from curve fit)
623 1%
(from curve fit)

[Jack May]

Post by RicodJour
All I get out of it was that they're using our cell phones to track
us. So I guess the power law is, we're the power, we write the law,
now be a good cow and wear this bell so you don't stray.

Totally wrong.

Power laws are the statistical characteristics of almost all large complex
systems in nature or man made. The cell phones were used to measure the
parameters of the power law statistics.

With the parameters being known, then it becomes possible to design
realistic plans for example for emergency situations or the spread of
serious communicable diseases.

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by Jack May

Post by RicodJour
All I get out of it was that they're using our cell phones to track
us. So I guess the power law is, we're the power, we write the law,
now be a good cow and wear this bell so you don't stray.

Totally wrong.
Power laws are the statistical characteristics of almost all large complex
systems in nature or man made. The cell phones were used to measure the
parameters of the power law statistics.
With the parameters being known, then it becomes possible to design
realistic plans for example for emergency situations or the spread of
serious communicable diseases.

As usually you pick out those beans that fit your view and neglect the
others.
As it is correct, that power laws do occur in all kinds of systems and
their respective properties, your allegation (here and all through this
newsgroup) that they are the only ones or the only relevant ones is crap.
Other distributions like gaussian ones do also occur, just depending on
what kind of data you show or combine.

Tadej

[Jack May]

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by RicodJour
All I get out of it was that they're using our cell phones to track
us. So I guess the power law is, we're the power, we write the law,
now be a good cow and wear this bell so you don't stray.

As usually you pick out those beans that fit your view and neglect the
others.
As it is correct, that power laws do occur in all kinds of systems and
their respective properties, your allegation (here and all through this
newsgroup) that they are the only ones or the only relevant ones is crap.
Other distributions like gaussian ones do also occur, just depending on
what kind of data you show or combine.

Gaussian problem mainly occur in homework problems and with a large number
of independent sources. Complex systems almost invariably have power law
distributions and power spectrums. That has been well shown over the last
couple of decades.

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by Jack May

Post by Jack May
Interesting research in the news today about how much people travel in
normal life. The answer is most people don't travel much beyond home and
work.
http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/S/SCI_CELL_PHONE_TRACKING?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-06-05-01-28-03
"Researchers secretly tracked the locations of 100,000 people outside the
United States through their cell phone use and concluded that most people
rarely stray more than a few miles from home."
"It also yielded somewhat surprising results that reveal how little
people move around in their daily lives. Nearly three-quarters of those
studied mainly stayed within a 20-mile-wide circle for half a year."

According to research done 119 years ago, that's not as much surprising as
one may be inclined to think.
Mr. Lill 1) "discovered" the power law function for relative frequency of
travel as a function of distance.
Again unsurprisingly, little has changend.
1) Lill, E. (1889): Die Grundgesetze des Personenverkehrs. Zeitschrift der
Eisenbahnen und Dampfschifffahrt der österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie.
II. Jg., 35: 697-706 und 36: 713-725.
Translated: The basic laws of personal transport; Journal of Railways and
steamboatshipping of the Austro Hungarian monarchy.
Tadej

The big change is that it has been discovered in the last couple of decades
that all most all complex systems have power law distributions.
Knowing that power laws are a fundamental characteristic of nature and man
made thing alike is a much bigger breakthrough than somebody using a power
law distribution. It is one of the major discoveries of the last decades.
We can now design systems without doing horrible things like assuming
Gaussian distribution as was mainly done in the past

This work, you gave some numbers (where do they come from?) later in
this thread, approves the theory found by Mr. Lill in the 19th century
for today being still valid (not a surprise, as it has been verified
before). It just used technological gadgets for data gathering in
comparison to the 19th century methodology.

the knwoledge of power law distributions being in force with human
transport doesn't help you, if the conclusions drawn from the
informations are self delusional.

As given by your numbers and the quote below, the majority of human
transport trips is within a short (walkable and cycleable) distance.

Quote 1): "Nearly three-quarters of those studied mainly stayed within a
20-mile-wide circle for half a year."

Quote 1): "Knowing people's travel patterns can help design better
transportation systems and give doctors guidance in fighting the spread
of contagious diseases, he said."

So simply put, RicodJour's conclusions for the need to improve local
transport networks and modes instead of long distance ones is supported
by the named study, again.

1) ...
http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/S/SCI_CELL_PHONE_TRACKING?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-06-05-01-28-03

Tadej
PS: interesting would be the country this was at.

[Jack May]

Post by Tadej Brezina

Post by Jack May
Interesting research in the news today about how much people travel in
normal life. The answer is most people don't travel much beyond home
and work.
http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/S/SCI_CELL_PHONE_TRACKING?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-06-05-01-28-03
"Researchers secretly tracked the locations of 100,000 people outside
the United States through their cell phone use and concluded that most
people rarely stray more than a few miles from home."
"It also yielded somewhat surprising results that reveal how little
people move around in their daily lives. Nearly three-quarters of those
studied mainly stayed within a 20-mile-wide circle for half a year."

It was 48% not 2/3 but the long tails of power laws still represent a lot of
people which would mean more than half the people would not have adequate
transportation by your logic.

Post by Tadej Brezina
So simply put, RicodJour's conclusions for the need to improve local
transport networks and modes instead of long distance ones is supported by
the named study, again.

And ignore the 52% that go longer distance and ignore all the food and other
goods that need to be transported in. That idea is a total disaster.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Jack May

Post by Jack May
Interesting research in the news today about how much people travel in
normal life. The answer is most people don't travel much beyond home
and work.
http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/S/SCI_CELL_PHONE_TRACKING?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-06-05-01-28-03
"Researchers secretly tracked the locations of 100,000 people outside
the United States through their cell phone use and concluded that most
people rarely stray more than a few miles from home."
"It also yielded somewhat surprising results that reveal how little
people move around in their daily lives. Nearly three-quarters of
those studied mainly stayed within a 20-mile-wide circle for half a
year."

It was 48% not 2/3 but the long tails of power laws still represent a lot
of people which would mean more than half the people would not have
adequate transportation by your logic.

Kind of like now...