Transit use increase?

[Jack May]

We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing transit
use. Of course the people making these statements are using extremely
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to anything longer
term.

A more realistic analysis is at

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080715/NEWS09/807150360/1001

Popularity of mass transit questioned
Transit systems from Los Angeles to New York are benefiting from a bump up
in passengers fueled by record gasoline prices

Despite the recent spike in ridership, TheBus carries fewer passengers than
in the 1980s. Newer, faster train systems are helping boost the popularity
of public transit. However, ridership on these systems, on average, is lower
than anticipated, according to an April report by the Federal Transit
Administration.

In Honolulu, mass transit was the preferred means of getting to work for
33,929 people, or 5.4 percent of commuters, in 2006, according to the Census
Bureau. That compared with 67 percent of people who drove alone. Nationally,
mass transit was preferred by 4.8 percent of commuters, while nearly 76
percent drove to work alone

The study found that 19 recently opened federally subsidized train projects
are expected to carry, on average, 74.5 percent of their originally forecast
ridership. Two of the projects exceeded initial ridership forecasts, six
were between 60 percent and 80 percent of forecasts, and 10 had ridership
levels well below forecasts.

One of the biggest ridership disappointments occurred on the 11-mile Tren
Urbano, or urban train, in San Juan, Puerto Rico. That system, which opened
in late 2004, is expected to carry just 23.6 percent of its originally
forecast ridership. That's 86,796 fewer average weekday boardings than
expected.

At the other end of the spectrum, a Salt Lake City Medical Center spur is
expected to surpass ridership estimates by 217 percent, or 11,741 average
weekday boardings.

The FTA study also found that 10 urban rail systems built in the 1980s are
now carrying, on average, just 42.4 percent of their originally forecast
ridership.

"The energy crises of the '70s and '80s proved that there is a knee-jerk
reaction" to high gasoline prices, Prevedouros said. "But then people
eventually realize that the buses and trains are not workable for their
lifestyle so they buy a small car."

Recently built rail systems, on average, experienced 40 percent cost
overruns, according to an April report by the Federal Transit
Administration.
The agency analyzed 21 federally subsidized train projects that began
operations since 2000.

The biggest cost overrun occurred on the 11-mile Tren Urbano, or urban
train, in San Juan, Puerto Rico. That system cost $2.23 billion when it
opened in late 2004. That was more than double the $1.09 billion cost that
was predicted during the project's planning phase.

The price tag for Honolulu's planned 20-mile elevated commuter rail is
currently estimated at $3.7 billion. That figure includes a 27 percent, or
$1 billion buffer, which city officials hope will cover all cost overruns.

Honolulu taxpayers are expected to bear about $3 billion of the project's
costs via a half-percentage point excise tax surcharge that expires in 2022.
The FTA is expected to cover remaining costs.

According to the FTA report, the average time from a city's selection of a
route to the launch of service was 7.9 years.

[Gordon]

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing
transit use. Of course the people making these statements are using
extremely short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to
anything longer term.

Total BS. One or two poorly concieved and designed systems
do not represent the whole of mass transit.

And not a word about Portland's MAX system which is seeing
increased increased use based on year over year comparisons.
And beating it's expectations.

[Nobody]

Post by Gordon

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing
transit use. Of course the people making these statements are using
extremely short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to
anything longer term.

Total BS. One or two poorly concieved and designed systems
do not represent the whole of mass transit.
And not a word about Portland's MAX system which is seeing
increased increased use based on year over year comparisons.
And beating it's expectations.

For all the griping about "high" gasoline prices, they'll have to go a
helluva lot higher (as in exponentially) before major numbers of
commuters switch to transit.

Transit isn't always able to provide the flexibility of route and
time, though I use Metro Vancouver's "SkyTrain" regularly, mostly
because of lack of parking in Vancouver, BC's core to fit my
destination.

Let's be realistic: you/I as an average commuter by car have already
accepted the cost of our regular route, be it 10 miles/16 km or 25
miles/40km... or shorter or longer. You/I know what "your" cost will
be.

If you've built that cost into your personal finances, doubling the
gasoline/fuel price is "relatively" minor, compared to the "total"
cost of running the vehicle you use: i.e. capital cost + insurance +
maintenance.

If you think the fuel component is the major cost, then... (mebbe you
shouldn't own a vehicle)(grin).

As for Portland's MAX: well, it's often thrown out as the Glowing
Example of urban light-rail transit.

For the Tri-Met area's regular commuters, maybe it is, but observing
as a visitor, service into and thru DT PDX is s-l-o-w, and compared to
Vancouver (BC)'s SkyTrain infrequent.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Nobody
Transit isn't always able to provide the flexibility of route and
time, though I use Metro Vancouver's "SkyTrain" regularly, mostly
because of lack of parking in Vancouver, BC's core to fit my
destination.

People find transit superior for their trips for a variety of
reasons. Cost is only one of the reasons.

Parking is a major problem in congested areas. The cost of providing
parking spaces is not cheap--garages aren't cheap to build, parking
lots take up considerable amounts of land (lost opportunity cost and
maintenance expense).

During the holiday shopping season, some suburban shopping centers get
so crowded the radio reports the parking lots are full and warns
shoppers to stay away; there is no room for anymore cars.

The vast majority of travel will continue to be by auto (or
airplane). But why are some people so freaked out that a few more
people choose to ride transit? What are they so terribly afraid of?
Why is it even an issue?

[Nobody]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Nobody
Transit isn't always able to provide the flexibility of route and
time, though I use Metro Vancouver's "SkyTrain" regularly, mostly
because of lack of parking in Vancouver, BC's core to fit my
destination.

People find transit superior for their trips for a variety of
reasons. Cost is only one of the reasons.
Parking is a major problem in congested areas. The cost of providing
parking spaces is not cheap--garages aren't cheap to build, parking
lots take up considerable amounts of land (lost opportunity cost and
maintenance expense).
During the holiday shopping season, some suburban shopping centers get
so crowded the radio reports the parking lots are full and warns
shoppers to stay away; there is no room for anymore cars.

<giggle> As a former radio broadcaster, I recall in my, um, early
days on air at a "small market" station, one day warning listeners of
special problems with traffic/parking.

Well, the Sales Manager received a number of nasty 'phone calls from
businesses/advertisers threatening him in no uncertain terms to tell
that Great Twit Announcer to DESIST advising prospective customers
about the traffic problems... their wish was that everyone descend on
Downtown and shop/shop/shop and buy/buy/buy regardless of the
problem... otherwise the ad revenue stream would dry up to the
station.

<grin>

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
The vast majority of travel will continue to be by auto (or
airplane). But why are some people so freaked out that a few more
people choose to ride transit? What are they so terribly afraid of?
Why is it even an issue?

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Nobody

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Nobody
Transit isn't always able to provide the flexibility of route and
time, though I use Metro Vancouver's "SkyTrain" regularly, mostly
because of lack of parking in Vancouver, BC's core to fit my
destination.

People find transit superior for their trips for a variety of
reasons. Cost is only one of the reasons.
Parking is a major problem in congested areas. The cost of providing
parking spaces is not cheap--garages aren't cheap to build, parking
lots take up considerable amounts of land (lost opportunity cost and
maintenance expense).
During the holiday shopping season, some suburban shopping centers get
so crowded the radio reports the parking lots are full and warns
shoppers to stay away; there is no room for anymore cars.

<giggle> As a former radio broadcaster, I recall in my, um, early
days on air at a "small market" station, one day warning listeners of
special problems with traffic/parking.
Well, the Sales Manager received a number of nasty 'phone calls from
businesses/advertisers threatening him in no uncertain terms to tell
that Great Twit Announcer to DESIST advising prospective customers
about the traffic problems... their wish was that everyone descend on
Downtown and shop/shop/shop and buy/buy/buy regardless of the
problem... otherwise the ad revenue stream would dry up to the
station.

A bit like Ibsen's "Enemy of the People".

[Jym Dyer]

<giggle> As a former radio broadcaster, I recall in my, um,
early days on air at a "small market" station, one day warning
listeners of special problems with traffic/parking.
Well, the Sales Manager received a number of nasty 'phone
calls from businesses/advertisers threatening him in no
uncertain terms to tell that Great Twit Announcer to DESIST
advising prospective customers about the traffic problems...
their wish was that everyone descend on Downtown and
shop/shop/shop and buy/buy/buy regardless of the problem...
otherwise the ad revenue stream would dry up to the station.

=v= Note that most radio programming aimed at motorists is
unrealistically upbeat and very pandering. A terrible crash
with fatalities is soft-pedaled into a wee bit of a slowdown
and you might want to get into the left lane when passing by.
Severe problems at rush hour? Well, just play a tape loop of
helicopter sounds and authoritatively tell people they can get
home if great numbers of them hop off the exits and drive home
via residential surface streets.

=v= I've heard things such an oil refinery in the midst of a
conflagration and a horrific war protest via self-immolation
reported solely in terms of their possible impact on traffic.
Just get over into the right lane and you'll be okay, and now
it's time for some car ads to tell you how wonderful cars are.
<_Jym_>

P.S.: The Xmas Shopping Season started around Labor Day this
year, and it's your patriotic duty to get out there and buy
as much cheap crap from China as you can fit into your SUV,
which had better be big enough to fit all that crap, because
otherwise the terrorists win. Be sure to keep tanking up,
too, because you don't want to run out of gas.

[Steve Sobol]

Post by Jym Dyer
=v= Note that most radio programming aimed at motorists is
unrealistically upbeat and very pandering. A terrible crash
with fatalities is soft-pedaled into a wee bit of a slowdown

Not in the large cities in which I've lived -- Cleveland, Ohio, and
Los Angeles (OK, we're not *in* Los Angeles, we're in what charitably
might be called the exurbs - but I listen to several radio stations
that report L.A. traffic exclusively).

Not in most other large cities I've driven through, either.

Post by Jym Dyer
=v= I've heard things such an oil refinery in the midst of a
conflagration and a horrific war protest via self-immolation
reported solely in terms of their possible impact on traffic.

Where?

[Jym Dyer]

Post by Steve Sobol

Post by Jym Dyer
=v= I've heard things such an oil refinery in the midst of a
conflagration and a horrific war protest via self-immolation
reported solely in terms of their possible impact on traffic.

Where?

=v= Oil refinery fire: Richmond, California.
Self-immolation: Chicago.
<_Jym_>

[Jack May]

Post by Nobody
Transit isn't always able to provide the flexibility of route and
time, though I use Metro Vancouver's "SkyTrain" regularly, mostly
because of lack of parking in Vancouver, BC's core to fit my
destination.

?People find transit superior for their trips for a variety of
?reasons. Cost is only one of the reasons.

Oh the Nobel prize award that proves you wrong is wrong. Give it up, you
are hopelessly liar.

That is a lie. We know the main consideration is the cost of the time of
people. You know that but you can't deal with reality and want it continue
to live in a fantasy world.

?Parking is a major problem in congested areas. The cost of providing
?parking spaces is not cheap--garages aren't cheap to build, parking
?lots take up considerable amounts of land (lost opportunity cost and
maintenance expense).

Time is the main cost but since you are congenital liar, you don't care


?The vast majority of travel will continue to be by auto (or
?airplane). But why are some people so freaked out that a few more
?people choose to ride transit? What are they so terribly afraid of?
?Why is it even an issue?

People are concerned that transit is so expensive that it destroys the
entire transportation system leads to degradation of society, but you know
that and just continue your stream if total lies.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May
Oh the Nobel prize award that proves you wrong is wrong. Give it up, you
are hopelessly liar.

I cannot make anything of the above. Can anyone help?

[Tadej Brezina]

Post by Jack May

Post by Nobody
Transit isn't always able to provide the flexibility of route and
time, though I use Metro Vancouver's "SkyTrain" regularly, mostly
because of lack of parking in Vancouver, BC's core to fit my
destination.

?People find transit superior for their trips for a variety of
?reasons. Cost is only one of the reasons.
Oh the Nobel prize award that proves you wrong is wrong. Give it up, you
are hopelessly liar.

Jack, could you finally give us the name of this nobel prize winner and
the related sources of his published research that seems to to support
your claims. Two incredibly simple things to do, for those willing to
read about the alleged findings more. Thanks in advance.
Otherwise the only unreliable person here, is you.
Which was proven many times over up to now, as far as I remember.

best regards
Tadej

[Rick Powell]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
The vast majority of travel will continue to be by auto (or
airplane).  But why are some people so freaked out that a few more
people choose to ride transit?  What are they so terribly afraid of?
Why is it even an issue?

"Some people" are probably "freaked" by the idea that an ever-
shrinking pie of infrastructure funding (notably gas tax revenue) will
be diverted to a transportation mode they seldom or never use, while
the modes they do use will suffer from the resulting inattention.
This is the game of "us vs. them" in infrastructure management and
funding, rather than growing the pie and making sure all modes are
integrated, appropriately implemented and well-funded.

RP

[Jack May]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
The vast majority of travel will continue to be by auto (or
airplane). But why are some people so freaked out that a few more
people choose to ride transit? What are they so terribly afraid of?
Why is it even an issue?

?"Some people" are probably "freaked" by the idea that an ever-
?shrinking pie of infrastructure funding (notably gas tax revenue) will
?be diverted to a transportation mode they seldom or never use, while
?the modes they do use will suffer from the resulting inattention.
?This is the game of "us vs. them" in infrastructure management and
?funding, rather than growing the pie and making sure all modes are
?integrated, appropriately implemented and well-funded.

To support all modes the pie would have to be grown by around two or three
orders of magnitude. There is no possible way to raise taxes to support
that for modes that provide almost no useful capacity and capability for
massive amounts of money. Its only mentally screwed up transit supporters
that think they deserve unlimited amounts of money to do almost nothing.

People use roads and cars for the vast majority of their transportation.
Even the most mentally screwed up transit supporters eventually start to
realize that people will never use transit for much of their transportation.

[Clark Toddman]

Post by Jack May
People use roads and cars for the vast majority of their transportation.
Even the most mentally screwed up transit supporters eventually start to
realize that people will never use transit for much of their
transportation.

What about NYC or Tokyo? Those cities would collapse if you took away their
mass transit systems.

[Miles Bader]

Post by Clark Toddman
What about NYC or Tokyo? Those cities would collapse if you took away their
mass transit systems.

I suspect Jack's never actually been in a real city...

-Miles

[Pat]

Post by Miles Bader

Post by Clark Toddman
What about NYC or Tokyo? Those cities would collapse if you took away their
mass transit systems.

I suspect Jack's never actually been in a real city...

Please define: "real city". Are you implying that if certain cities
don't meet some arbitrary standard then they are not a "real city".
Further, is "real city" a compliment or an insult? From my mindset,
if you set "New York is one of 6 'real cities' in the US", then it is
definitely an insult.

I live in a city. We have a mayor and 5 aldermen. We have a library,
police department and (paid) fire department. We have hotels,
restaurants, etc. We are the second biggest city in the county. Are
we a "real city" (gee, I hope not). Oh, by the way, we have a
population of about 4,500 (if that matters).

Post by Miles Bader
-Miles
--
Road, n. A strip of land along which one may pass from where it is too
tiresome to be to where it is futile to go.

[George Conklin]

Post by Miles Bader

Post by Clark Toddman
What about NYC or Tokyo? Those cities would collapse if you took away their
mass transit systems.

I suspect Jack's never actually been in a real city...

Please define: "real city". Are you implying that if certain cities
don't meet some arbitrary standard then they are not a "real city".
Further, is "real city" a compliment or an insult? From my mindset,
if you set "New York is one of 6 'real cities' in the US", then it is
definitely an insult.

I live in a city. We have a mayor and 5 aldermen. We have a library,
police department and (paid) fire department. We have hotels,
restaurants, etc. We are the second biggest city in the county. Are
we a "real city" (gee, I hope not). Oh, by the way, we have a
population of about 4,500 (if that matters).

Post by Miles Bader
-Miles
--
Road, n. A strip of land along which one may pass from where it is too
tiresome to be to where it is futile to go.

I have 15 different definitions of what a city is, legally and otherwise.
But when people say "real city" these days, they mean if you don't live in
Manhattan, you are a hick.

[Pat]

Post by Miles Bader

Post by Clark Toddman
What about NYC or Tokyo? Those cities would collapse if you took away

their

Post by Miles Bader

Post by Clark Toddman
mass transit systems.

I suspect Jack's never actually been in a real city...

Please define: "real city".  Are you implying that if certain cities
don't meet some arbitrary standard then they are not a "real city".
Further, is "real city" a compliment or an insult?  From my mindset,
if you set "New York is one of 6 'real cities' in the US", then it is
definitely an insult.
I live in a city.  We have a mayor and 5 aldermen.  We have a library,
police department and (paid) fire department.  We have hotels,
restaurants, etc.  We are the second biggest city in the county.  Are
we a "real city" (gee, I hope not).  Oh, by the way, we have a
population of about 4,500 (if that matters).

Post by Miles Bader
-Miles
--
Road, n. A strip of land along which one may pass from where it is too
tiresome to be to where it is futile to go.

I have 15 different definitions of what a city is, legally and otherwise.
But when people say "real city" these days, they mean if you don't live in
Manhattan, you are a hick.

Add a 16th. In NY all land is within counties. County are completely
subdivided into towns or cities -- there are no "unincorporated
places" or such. So towns and cities are effectively equal (i.e.
county subdivision) except one is under "town law" and one is under
"city law". There are differences in the courts, highway dept, etc.

Then within cities there are "Class A Cities" and such. I think it
goes to Class C.

Then, of course, we have a "real city" which encompasses multiple
counties.

As for your definition of "real city", then I guess I'm a super-hick.

[Bolwerk]

Post by Pat

Post by Miles Bader

Post by Clark Toddman
What about NYC or Tokyo? Those cities would collapse if you took away their
mass transit systems.

I suspect Jack's never actually been in a real city...

Please define: "real city". Are you implying that if certain cities
don't meet some arbitrary standard then they are not a "real city".
Further, is "real city" a compliment or an insult? From my mindset,
if you set "New York is one of 6 'real cities' in the US", then it is
definitely an insult.

Oh, yeah, you're the one who thinks that only imaginary people live in
cities.

Post by Pat
I live in a city. We have a mayor and 5 aldermen. We have a library,
police department and (paid) fire department. We have hotels,
restaurants, etc. We are the second biggest city in the county. Are
we a "real city" (gee, I hope not). Oh, by the way, we have a
population of about 4,500 (if that matters).

Post by Miles Bader
-Miles
--
Road, n. A strip of land along which one may pass from where it is too
tiresome to be to where it is futile to go.

[Jack May]

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Pat

Post by Miles Bader

Post by Clark Toddman
What about NYC or Tokyo? Those cities would collapse if you took away their
mass transit systems.

I suspect Jack's never actually been in a real city...

Please define: "real city". Are you implying that if certain cities
don't meet some arbitrary standard then they are not a "real city".
Further, is "real city" a compliment or an insult? From my mindset,
if you set "New York is one of 6 'real cities' in the US", then it is
definitely an insult.

Oh, yeah, you're the one who thinks that only imaginary people live in
cities.

The research from places like Los Alamos labs is clear that large cities are
only scale free power law distribution of characteristics with a modestly
changed exponent of the distribution. You are extremely ignorant of what
we now about the characteristics of cities of all sizes. Should keep your
mouth closed since all you do is confirm your ignorance.

[Bolwerk]

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Pat

Post by Miles Bader

Post by Clark Toddman
What about NYC or Tokyo? Those cities would collapse if you took away their
mass transit systems.

I suspect Jack's never actually been in a real city...

Please define: "real city". Are you implying that if certain cities
don't meet some arbitrary standard then they are not a "real city".
Further, is "real city" a compliment or an insult? From my mindset,
if you set "New York is one of 6 'real cities' in the US", then it is
definitely an insult.

Oh, yeah, you're the one who thinks that only imaginary people live in
cities.

The research from places like Los Alamos labs is clear that large cities are
only scale free power law distribution of characteristics with a modestly
changed exponent of the distribution. You are extremely ignorant of what
we now about the characteristics of cities of all sizes. Should keep your
mouth closed since all you do is confirm your ignorance.

Where did this digressive non-sequitur come from? Whatever algorithm
you use to generate replies appears to have some bugs in it.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May
The research from places like Los Alamos labs is clear that large
cities are only scale free power law distribution of characteristics
with a modestly changed exponent of the distribution. You are
extremely ignorant of what we now about the characteristics of cities
of all sizes. Should keep your mouth closed since all you do is
confirm your ignorance.

Where did this digressive non-sequitur come from? Whatever algorithm
you use to generate replies appears to have some bugs in it.

Come now, you know where it came from.

[Jym Dyer]

Post by Jym Dyer
= Jack May

= Bolwerk

Post by Jym Dyer
The research from places like Los Alamos labs is clear that
large cities are only scale free power law distribution of
characteristics with a modestly changed exponent of the
distribution.

Where did this digressive non-sequitur come from?

=v= Why, "places like Los Alamos labs," of course!

=v= Jack May has written "power law distribution" drivel before,
but as never ever provided a reference or citation to explain
its supposed application to the things we talk about, no matter
how many times he's been asked about it. Perhaps "places like
Los Alamos labs" is suposed to hint at a reference or citation,
though.

=v= Mind you, on the rare occasions when he *has* produced a
reference or citation, they've been very easy to debunk. Which
could well explain his reticence, plus his preemptive attacks
on our alleged stupidity and blather about how he doesn't have
time to run Google for us.
<_Jym_>

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Pat

Post by Miles Bader

Post by Clark Toddman
What about NYC or Tokyo? Those cities would collapse if you took away their
mass transit systems.

I suspect Jack's never actually been in a real city...

Please define: "real city". Are you implying that if certain cities
don't meet some arbitrary standard then they are not a "real city".
Further, is "real city" a compliment or an insult? From my mindset,
if you set "New York is one of 6 'real cities' in the US", then it is
definitely an insult.

Oh, yeah, you're the one who thinks that only imaginary people live in
cities.

The research from places like Los Alamos labs is clear that large cities are
only scale free power law distribution of characteristics with a modestly
changed exponent of the distribution.

Giacomo fi na fi na nae, Giacomo fi na nae.

[Clark Toddman]

Post by Miles Bader

Post by Clark Toddman
What about NYC or Tokyo? Those cities would collapse if you took away their
mass transit systems.

I suspect Jack's never actually been in a real city...
-Miles

Notice his lack of a response? Probably because he doesn't have a valid one.

[Jym Dyer]

Post by Clark Toddman

Post by Miles Bader
I suspect Jack's never actually been in a real city...

Notice his lack of a response? Probably because he doesn't
have a valid one.

=v= Jack May has never let that stop him before.
<_Jym_>

[Jack May]

Post by Clark Toddman

Post by Miles Bader

Post by Clark Toddman
What about NYC or Tokyo? Those cities would collapse if you took away their
mass transit systems.

I suspect Jack's never actually been in a real city...
-Miles

Notice his lack of a response? Probably because he doesn't have a valid one.

I responded. I just don't sit here all the time waiting for your extremely
ignorant posts. I have much more important things in my life than
apparently you have.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May

Post by Clark Toddman

Post by Miles Bader

Post by Clark Toddman
What about NYC or Tokyo? Those cities would collapse if you took away their
mass transit systems.

I suspect Jack's never actually been in a real city...
-Miles

Notice his lack of a response? Probably because he doesn't have a valid one.

I responded. I just don't sit here all the time waiting for your extremely
ignorant posts. I have much more important things in my life than
apparently you have.

I'm intrigued. Give us a clue.

[Jack May]

Post by Miles Bader

Post by Clark Toddman
What about NYC or Tokyo? Those cities would collapse if you took away their
mass transit systems.

I suspect Jack's never actually been in a real city...

Of course I have been in lots of real cities. Unlike you I can think and
see option rather than just ignorantly thinking only transit is the only
possible choice.. I live in the SF Bay area with major cities. Since you
are totally ignorant of major cities, you will find that those cities have a
large percentage of their travel use cars also.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May

Post by Miles Bader

Post by Clark Toddman
What about NYC or Tokyo? Those cities would collapse if you took away their
mass transit systems.

I suspect Jack's never actually been in a real city...

Of course I have been in lots of real cities. Unlike you I can think and
see option rather than just ignorantly thinking only transit is the only
possible choice.. I live in the SF Bay area with major cities. Since you
are totally ignorant of major cities, you will find that those cities have a
large percentage of their travel use cars also.

From the syntax, I'd say "Jack May" was a pseudonym and he was a wetback.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Clark Toddman

Post by Jack May
People use roads and cars for the vast majority of their transportation.
Even the most mentally screwed up transit supporters eventually start to
realize that people will never use transit for much of their
transportation.

What about NYC or Tokyo? Those cities would collapse if you took away their
mass transit systems.

Jack will rise to the occasion with some recondite piece of casusitry.
I think he may have been trained by the Jesuits.

[George Conklin]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Clark Toddman

Post by Jack May
People use roads and cars for the vast majority of their

transportation.

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Clark Toddman

Post by Jack May
Even the most mentally screwed up transit supporters eventually start to
realize that people will never use transit for much of their transportation.

What about NYC or Tokyo? Those cities would collapse if you took away their
mass transit systems.

Jack will rise to the occasion with some recondite piece of casusitry.
I think he may have been trained by the Jesuits.

Jack is simply speaking how the majority want to live. If NYC is the
"real" city, most people will not live there. They don't want to either.
Most of the middle class moved to NJ as soon as they could. Transit was
built to get low-income workers from Brooklyn and other more remote places
to Manhattan cheaply so the banks and others could pay the lowest possible
wages. In NC, Wachovia built huge downtown expensive buildings in
Charlotte, and then demanded transit to get them to those buildings cheaply.
And guess what. Wachovia went broke too. And citi is going to keep workers
there because it is still cheaper than NYC.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Clark Toddman

Post by Jack May
People use roads and cars for the vast majority of their

transportation.

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Clark Toddman

Post by Jack May
Even the most mentally screwed up transit supporters eventually start

to

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Clark Toddman

Post by Jack May
realize that people will never use transit for much of their transportation.

What about NYC or Tokyo? Those cities would collapse if you took away

their

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Clark Toddman
mass transit systems.

Jack will rise to the occasion with some recondite piece of casusitry.
I think he may have been trained by the Jesuits.

Jack is simply speaking how the majority want to live. If NYC is the
"real" city, most people will not live there. They don't want to either.
Most of the middle class moved to NJ as soon as they could. Transit was
built to get low-income workers from Brooklyn and other more remote places
to Manhattan cheaply so the banks and others could pay the lowest possible
wages. In NC, Wachovia built huge downtown expensive buildings in
Charlotte, and then demanded transit to get them to those buildings cheaply.
And guess what. Wachovia went broke too. And citi is going to keep workers
there because it is still cheaper than NYC.

No one goes there nowadays, it's too crowded.

Yogi Berra

[Clark F Morris]

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 08:55:19 -0400, "George Conklin"

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Clark Toddman

Post by Jack May
People use roads and cars for the vast majority of their

transportation.

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Clark Toddman

Post by Jack May
Even the most mentally screwed up transit supporters eventually start

to

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Clark Toddman

Post by Jack May
realize that people will never use transit for much of their transportation.

What about NYC or Tokyo? Those cities would collapse if you took away

their

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Clark Toddman
mass transit systems.

Jack will rise to the occasion with some recondite piece of casusitry.
I think he may have been trained by the Jesuits.

Jack is simply speaking how the majority want to live. If NYC is the
"real" city, most people will not live there. They don't want to either.
Most of the middle class moved to NJ as soon as they could. Transit was
built to get low-income workers from Brooklyn and other more remote places
to Manhattan cheaply so the banks and others could pay the lowest possible
wages. In NC, Wachovia built huge downtown expensive buildings in
Charlotte, and then demanded transit to get them to those buildings cheaply.
And guess what. Wachovia went broke too. And citi is going to keep workers
there because it is still cheaper than NYC.

And the populations of New York City and the state of North Carolina
were roughly equal in the 2000 census (both a little over 8 million).

[George Conklin]

Post by Clark F Morris
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 08:55:19 -0400, "George Conklin"

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Clark Toddman

Post by Jack May
People use roads and cars for the vast majority of their

transportation.

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Clark Toddman

Post by Jack May
Even the most mentally screwed up transit supporters eventually start

to

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Clark Toddman

Post by Jack May
realize that people will never use transit for much of their transportation.

What about NYC or Tokyo? Those cities would collapse if you took away

their

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Clark Toddman
mass transit systems.

Jack will rise to the occasion with some recondite piece of casusitry.
I think he may have been trained by the Jesuits.

Jack is simply speaking how the majority want to live. If NYC is the
"real" city, most people will not live there. They don't want to either.
Most of the middle class moved to NJ as soon as they could. Transit was
built to get low-income workers from Brooklyn and other more remote places
to Manhattan cheaply so the banks and others could pay the lowest possible
wages. In NC, Wachovia built huge downtown expensive buildings in
Charlotte, and then demanded transit to get them to those buildings cheaply.
And guess what. Wachovia went broke too. And citi is going to keep workers
there because it is still cheaper than NYC.

And the populations of New York City and the state of North Carolina
were roughly equal in the 2000 census (both a little over 8 million).

So? As density goes up, so do the costs of doing business. But Wachovia
decided to build huge buildings, put in transit and other things. They lost
control of costs and went out of business.

[g***@yahoo.com]

Post by Clark F Morris
And the populations of New York City and the state of North Carolina
were roughly equal in the 2000 census (both a little over 8 million).

Last I checked, the population of just the city of São Paulo and the
entire state of California were estimated to be about 22 million. That is
city population, not including São Paulo suburbs.

Of course, New York city is probably effectively larger when you consider
the huge metroplex that it is part of.

Neither metropolitan area could be the crowded, ugly, economically vital
mess that they are without good passenger train service of various types.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by g***@yahoo.com

Post by Clark F Morris
And the populations of New York City and the state of North Carolina
were roughly equal in the 2000 census (both a little over 8 million).

Last I checked, the population of just the city of São Paulo and the
entire state of California were estimated to be about 22 million. That is
city population, not including São Paulo suburbs.
Of course, New York city is probably effectively larger when you consider
the huge metroplex that it is part of.
Neither metropolitan area could be the crowded, ugly, economically vital
mess that they are without good passenger train service of various types.

In fact, if you ignore the different jurisidctions, it is probably the
biggest suburban rail network in the world.

[Jishnu Mukerji]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by g***@yahoo.com

Post by Clark F Morris
And the populations of New York City and the state of North Carolina
were roughly equal in the 2000 census (both a little over 8 million).

Last I checked, the population of just the city of São Paulo and the
entire state of California were estimated to be about 22 million.
That is
city population, not including São Paulo suburbs.
Of course, New York city is probably effectively larger when you consider
the huge metroplex that it is part of.
Neither metropolitan area could be the crowded, ugly, economically vital
mess that they are without good passenger train service of various types.

In fact, if you ignore the different jurisidctions, it is probably the
biggest suburban rail network in the world.

Not if you consider the Tokyo suburban rail network to be part of the
world under consideration, by a long shot I would imagine.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Clark Toddman

Post by Jack May
People use roads and cars for the vast majority of their

transportation.

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Clark Toddman

Post by Jack May
Even the most mentally screwed up transit supporters eventually start

to

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Clark Toddman

Post by Jack May
realize that people will never use transit for much of their transportation.

What about NYC or Tokyo? Those cities would collapse if you took away

their

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Clark Toddman
mass transit systems.

Jack will rise to the occasion with some recondite piece of casusitry.
I think he may have been trained by the Jesuits.

Jack is simply speaking how the majority want to live. If NYC is the
"real" city, most people will not live there. They don't want to either.
Most of the middle class moved to NJ as soon as they could. Transit was
built to get low-income workers from Brooklyn and other more remote places
to Manhattan cheaply so the banks and others could pay the lowest possible
wages. In NC, Wachovia built huge downtown expensive buildings in
Charlotte, and then demanded transit to get them to those buildings cheaply.
And guess what. Wachovia went broke too. And citi is going to keep workers
there because it is still cheaper than NYC.

So it would have been better for the proles to have stayed where they
were unemployed, and the jobs to rmain unfilled, or what?

[Jack May]

Post by Clark Toddman

Post by Jack May
People use roads and cars for the vast majority of their transportation.
Even the most mentally screwed up transit supporters eventually start
to realize that people will never use transit for much of their
transportation.

What about NYC or Tokyo? Those cities would collapse if you took away
their mass transit systems.

Jack will rise to the occasion with some recondite piece of casusitry. I
think he may have been trained by the Jesuits.

I responded what is what is know from the research at Los Alamos National
Labs. I was never part of the Catholic brain washing and have no respect
for it. That is far more than the usually totally ignorant response from
the lowest segments of society that think transit is so great

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May

Post by Clark Toddman

Post by Jack May
People use roads and cars for the vast majority of their transportation.
Even the most mentally screwed up transit supporters eventually start
to realize that people will never use transit for much of their
transportation.

What about NYC or Tokyo? Those cities would collapse if you took away
their mass transit systems.

Jack will rise to the occasion with some recondite piece of casusitry. I
think he may have been trained by the Jesuits.

I responded what is what is know from the research at Los Alamos National
Labs. I was never part of the Catholic brain washing and have no respect
for it. That is far more than the usually totally ignorant response from
the lowest segments of society that think transit is so great

I'm no fan of Old Red Socks either, but at least the Js learn the
language of whatever country they are operating in properly.

[Jym Dyer]

Post by Jack May
I responded what is what is know from the research at Los
Alamos National Labs.

=v= Actually what you wrote was "places like Los Alamos labs."
Could you be more specific? Which research, published where?
Since we're all so ignorant in your eyes, it seems that your
really ought to give the actual reference to enlighten us.
<_Jym_>

[George Conklin]

Post by Jack May

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
The vast majority of travel will continue to be by auto (or
airplane). But why are some people so freaked out that a few more
people choose to ride transit? What are they so terribly afraid of?
Why is it even an issue?

?"Some people" are probably "freaked" by the idea that an ever-
?shrinking pie of infrastructure funding (notably gas tax revenue) will
?be diverted to a transportation mode they seldom or never use, while
?the modes they do use will suffer from the resulting inattention.
?This is the game of "us vs. them" in infrastructure management and
?funding, rather than growing the pie and making sure all modes are
?integrated, appropriately implemented and well-funded.
To support all modes the pie would have to be grown by around two or three
orders of magnitude. There is no possible way to raise taxes to support
that for modes that provide almost no useful capacity and capability for
massive amounts of money. Its only mentally screwed up transit supporters
that think they deserve unlimited amounts of money to do almost nothing.
People use roads and cars for the vast majority of their transportation.
Even the most mentally screwed up transit supporters eventually start to
realize that people will never use transit for much of their

transportation.
Well, people in New York City DO use transit for almost everything. Been
there, done that. But you have to give up most of your freedoms to do that.
You have to shop at expensive local stores and carry everything home in
little baggies. You have to have everything else delivered at great costs.
But mostly you have to live in tiny apartments smaller than a single-wide tr
ailer and pay the average of $2,500 (market rate) for the place too. And
your electricity is the most expensive in the nation.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Well, people in New York City DO use transit for almost everything.  Been
there, done that.  But you have to give up most of your freedoms to do that.

So many of my errands now are scheduled to avoid highway congestion,
both traditional rush hour, and modern day leisure travel and shopping
travel.

There's a growing summer recreation spot near me and the traffic is
very bad. I have to go well out of my way to avoid it.

At certain times shopping traffic is bad. I just don't go out at
those times if I can avoid it. Saturdays between 11 am and 2 pm are
gridlock (shopping, soccer, etc.) From Thanksgiving to Christmas it's
a zoo as well.

Forget about taking a trip that will require driving on the NJ Tpk on
a weekend (Sat. or Sun.) afternoon. It's jammed, a half hour to
travel one mile. (As an aside, the NJ Tpk is an independent
authority. It gets its money from tolls it chooses to set. For years
they've talked about widening it, there is land available. But
nothing is done. Why?)

It used to be these problems were limited to a few older cities. But
now new cities and their far-out suburbs suffer from these problems,
too. You can't get away from it. (A while back this newsgroup
discussed I-95 problems--at a great many parts along the way it is
badly congested).


So, from all this problems, it is clear one does not have "freedom"
supposedly offered by the automobile.

But mostly you have to live in tiny apartments smaller than a single-wide
trailer and pay the average of $2,500 (market rate) for the place too.

Well, for all it's supposed problems, a heck of a lot of people sure
want to live in New York City, pay a premium for housing space, and
"suffer" using the transit system.

There are obviously conveniences in using one's private car. But
using the NYC transit system has conveniences, too. It is real nice
not to have to worry about parking and the issues above. It's nice
walking to a corner and knowing in a moment there will be a bus or
subway to take one to their destination. It's nice being able to walk
a block or so to almost anything. It's not for everyone, but
obviuosly many people do choose it.

[Pat]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Well, people in New York City DO use transit for almost everything.  Been
there, done that.  But you have to give up most of your freedoms to do that.

So many of my errands now are scheduled to avoid highway congestion,
both traditional rush hour, and modern day leisure travel and shopping
travel.
There's a growing summer recreation spot near me and the traffic is
very bad.  I have to go well out of my way to avoid it.
At certain times shopping traffic is bad.  I just don't go out at
those times if I can avoid it.  Saturdays between 11 am and 2 pm are
gridlock (shopping, soccer, etc.)  From Thanksgiving to Christmas it's
a zoo as well.
Forget about taking a trip that will require driving on the NJ Tpk on
a weekend (Sat. or Sun.) afternoon.  It's jammed, a half hour to
travel one mile.  (As an aside, the NJ Tpk is an independent
authority.  It gets its money from tolls it chooses to set.  For years
they've talked about widening it, there is land available.  But
nothing is done.  Why?)
It used to be these problems were limited to a few older cities.  But
now new cities and their far-out suburbs suffer from these problems,
too.  You can't get away from it.  (A while back this newsgroup
discussed I-95 problems--at a great many parts along the way it is
badly congested).
So, from all this problems, it is clear one does not have "freedom"
supposedly offered by the automobile.

So why the heck would you live in some God-foresaken place like that?
What's wrong with you? Get a life.

But regardless, please stay where you are and continue to live is such
unbearable condition. I don't want you here. We don't have traffic
jams or gridlocks. We don't have transit or subways or even taxis.
But just have a nice place to live and not-too-bad traffic.

Ever notice that there's a strong correlation between the amount of
public transportation you have and the amount of gridlock you
have? ;-)

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

But mostly you have to live in tiny apartments smaller than a single-wide
trailer and pay the average of $2,500 (market rate) for the place too.

Well, for all it's supposed problems, a heck of a lot of people sure
want to live in New York City, pay a premium for housing space, and
"suffer" using the transit system.
There are obviously conveniences in using one's private car.  But
using the NYC transit system has conveniences, too.  It is real nice
not to have to worry about parking and the issues above.  It's nice
walking to a corner and knowing in a moment there will be a bus or
subway to take one to their destination.  It's nice being able to walk
a block or so to almost anything.  It's not for everyone, but
obviuosly many people do choose it.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Pat
So why the heck would you live in some God-foresaken place like that?
What's wrong with you?  Get a life.

Job, family, friends, house.

Anyway, the point was that many places are no different. I was
shocked many times when I found myself stuck in a traffic jam on the
Interstate in a rural area or in gridlock in a small city. Indeed, on
one journey the expressway through a major city was ok until it got to
the suburbs where it jammed up.

Post by Pat
But regardless, please stay where you are and continue to live is such
unbearable condition.  I don't want you here.  We don't have traffic
jams or gridlocks.  

Where is your idylic location?

Post by Pat
Ever notice that there's a strong correlation between the amount of
public transportation you have and the amount of gridlock you
have?    ;-)

Actually, no.

[Pat]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Pat
So why the heck would you live in some God-foresaken place like that?
What's wrong with you?  Get a life.

Job, family, friends, house.
Anyway, the point was that many places are no different.  I was
shocked many times when I found myself stuck in a traffic jam on the
Interstate in a rural area or in gridlock in a small city.  Indeed, on
one journey the expressway through a major city was ok until it got to
the suburbs where it jammed up.

Post by Pat
But regardless, please stay where you are and continue to live is such
unbearable condition.  I don't want you here.  We don't have traffic
jams or gridlocks.  

Where is your idylic location?

Upstate NY. But by "upstate" I mean "upstate" by upstate standards,
not "upstate" by downstate standards. Much of what "downstate"
considers "upstate", upstaters consider to be downstate. So when I
say "upstate", I mean "upstate".

We are so far upstate that we're in Appalachia.

We are so far upstate that if we want to see a Yankees game, we pay $7
a seat to watch them in Toronto.

We are so far upstate that we know that one pro football team really
plays in NY -- but it ain't the Giants or Jets.

We are so far upstate that we wonder why Metro North only goes one
direction.

We are so far upstate that we think of "The Thruway" as Route 90, not
Route 87. Route 87 is "The Northway".

We are so far upstate that we think of the NYC reservoirs as a
convenient place to stop and take a leak when nature calls.

We are so far upstate that we think of a 3 story building as being too
tall.

We are so far upstate that people like "Pizza Hut".

We are so far upstate that when people say "The Park" they are
referring to "inside the blue line" when out east. Our "Park" around
here is small, only about 100 square miles.

We are so far upstate that my son's high school has a trap team and
are allowed to bring guns to school.

We are so far upstate that our Sheriff's department has snowmobiles
and jet skis.

We are so far upstate that we live in the "real world", I guess not a
"real city".

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Pat
Ever notice that there's a strong correlation between the amount of
public transportation you have and the amount of gridlock you
have?    ;-)

Actually, no.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Pat

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Pat
So why the heck would you live in some God-foresaken place like that?
What's wrong with you? Get a life.

Job, family, friends, house.
Anyway, the point was that many places are no different. I was
shocked many times when I found myself stuck in a traffic jam on the
Interstate in a rural area or in gridlock in a small city. Indeed, on
one journey the expressway through a major city was ok until it got to
the suburbs where it jammed up.

Post by Pat
But regardless, please stay where you are and continue to live is such
unbearable condition. I don't want you here. We don't have traffic
jams or gridlocks.

Where is your idylic location?

Upstate NY. But by "upstate" I mean "upstate" by upstate standards,
not "upstate" by downstate standards. Much of what "downstate"
considers "upstate", upstaters consider to be downstate. So when I
say "upstate", I mean "upstate".
We are so far upstate that we're in Appalachia.
We are so far upstate that if we want to see a Yankees game, we pay $7
a seat to watch them in Toronto.
We are so far upstate that we know that one pro football team really
plays in NY -- but it ain't the Giants or Jets.
We are so far upstate that we wonder why Metro North only goes one
direction.
We are so far upstate that we think of "The Thruway" as Route 90, not
Route 87. Route 87 is "The Northway".
We are so far upstate that we think of the NYC reservoirs as a
convenient place to stop and take a leak when nature calls.
We are so far upstate that we think of a 3 story building as being too
tall.
We are so far upstate that people like "Pizza Hut".
We are so far upstate that when people say "The Park" they are
referring to "inside the blue line" when out east. Our "Park" around
here is small, only about 100 square miles.
We are so far upstate that my son's high school has a trap team and
are allowed to bring guns to school.
We are so far upstate that our Sheriff's department has snowmobiles
and jet skis.

So, er, do you speak French?

[Pat]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Pat
So why the heck would you live in some God-foresaken place like that?
What's wrong with you?  Get a life.

Job, family, friends, house.
Anyway, the point was that many places are no different.  I was
shocked many times when I found myself stuck in a traffic jam on the
Interstate in a rural area or in gridlock in a small city.  Indeed, on
one journey the expressway through a major city was ok until it got to
the suburbs where it jammed up.

Post by Pat
But regardless, please stay where you are and continue to live is such
unbearable condition.  I don't want you here.  We don't have traffic
jams or gridlocks.  

Where is your idylic location?

Upstate NY.  But by "upstate" I mean "upstate" by upstate standards,
not "upstate" by downstate standards.  Much of what "downstate"
considers "upstate", upstaters consider to be downstate.  So when I
say "upstate", I mean "upstate".
We are so far upstate that we're in Appalachia.
We are so far upstate that if we want to see a Yankees game, we pay $7
a seat to watch them in Toronto.
We are so far upstate that we know that one pro football team really
plays in NY -- but it ain't the Giants or Jets.
We are so far upstate that we wonder why Metro North only goes one
direction.
We are so far upstate that we think of "The Thruway" as Route 90, not
Route 87.  Route 87 is "The Northway".
We are so far upstate that we think of the NYC reservoirs as a
convenient place to stop and take a leak when nature calls.
We are so far upstate that we think of a 3 story building as being too
tall.
We are so far upstate that people like "Pizza Hut".
We are so far upstate that when people say "The Park" they are
referring to "inside the blue line" when out east.  Our "Park" around
here is small, only about 100 square miles.
We are so far upstate that my son's high school has a trap team and
are allowed to bring guns to school.
We are so far upstate that our Sheriff's department has snowmobiles
and jet skis.

So, er, do you speak French?
--
Corporate society looks after everything.  All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions.  -From “Rollerball”

No but my son speaks a little Seneca. That teach that in our school
-- which is on their Territory.

Hard to get used to the new language. It used to be called the
Reservation but now the parlance has changed to Territory because its
aboriginal land. I'm just a couple of hundred yards outside the
Nation, but most of the city is build on the Rez.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Pat
So why the heck would you live in some God-foresaken place like that?
What's wrong with you? Get a life.

Job, family, friends, house.
Anyway, the point was that many places are no different. I was
shocked many times when I found myself stuck in a traffic jam on the
Interstate in a rural area or in gridlock in a small city. Indeed, on
one journey the expressway through a major city was ok until it got to
the suburbs where it jammed up.

Post by Pat
But regardless, please stay where you are and continue to live is such
unbearable condition. I don't want you here. We don't have traffic
jams or gridlocks.

Where is your idylic location?

Post by Pat
Ever notice that there's a strong correlation between the amount of
public transportation you have and the amount of gridlock you
have? ;-)

Actually, no.

The last time I was in Lafayette I-10 looked pretty jammed up in the
late afternoon.

[Pat]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Pat
So why the heck would you live in some God-foresaken place like that?
What's wrong with you?  Get a life.

Job, family, friends, house.
Anyway, the point was that many places are no different.  I was
shocked many times when I found myself stuck in a traffic jam on the
Interstate in a rural area or in gridlock in a small city.  Indeed, on
one journey the expressway through a major city was ok until it got to
the suburbs where it jammed up.

Post by Pat
But regardless, please stay where you are and continue to live is such
unbearable condition.  I don't want you here.  We don't have traffic
jams or gridlocks.  

Where is your idylic location?

Post by Pat
Ever notice that there's a strong correlation between the amount of
public transportation you have and the amount of gridlock you
have?    ;-)

Actually, no.

The last time I was in Lafayette I-10 looked pretty jammed up in the
late afternoon.
--
Corporate society looks after everything.  All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions.  -From “Rollerball”

We were jammed up a little this afternoon, too. I got stuck behind a
tractor for half a mile or so.

My son's school high is 9 miles away. It takes 10 minutes to get
there. Took 11 to get home after being behind the tractor.

[George Conklin]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Well, people in New York City DO use transit for almost everything. Been
there, done that. But you have to give up most of your freedoms to do

that.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
So many of my errands now are scheduled to avoid highway congestion,
both traditional rush hour, and modern day leisure travel and shopping
travel.
There's a growing summer recreation spot near me and the traffic is
very bad. I have to go well out of my way to avoid it.
At certain times shopping traffic is bad. I just don't go out at
those times if I can avoid it. Saturdays between 11 am and 2 pm are
gridlock (shopping, soccer, etc.) From Thanksgiving to Christmas it's
a zoo as well.
Forget about taking a trip that will require driving on the NJ Tpk on
a weekend (Sat. or Sun.) afternoon. It's jammed, a half hour to
travel one mile. (As an aside, the NJ Tpk is an independent
authority. It gets its money from tolls it chooses to set. For years
they've talked about widening it, there is land available. But
nothing is done. Why?)
It used to be these problems were limited to a few older cities. But
now new cities and their far-out suburbs suffer from these problems,
too. You can't get away from it. (A while back this newsgroup
discussed I-95 problems--at a great many parts along the way it is
badly congested).
So, from all this problems, it is clear one does not have "freedom"
supposedly offered by the automobile.

So why the heck would you live in some God-foresaken place like that?
What's wrong with you? Get a life.

But regardless, please stay where you are and continue to live is such
unbearable condition. I don't want you here. We don't have traffic
jams or gridlocks. We don't have transit or subways or even taxis.
But just have a nice place to live and not-too-bad traffic.

Ever notice that there's a strong correlation between the amount of
public transportation you have and the amount of gridlock you
have? ;-)

----

The longest commutes in terms of time in the USA are in New York City. Too
much transit.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

But mostly you have to live in tiny apartments smaller than a single-wide
trailer and pay the average of $2,500 (market rate) for the place too.

Well, for all it's supposed problems, a heck of a lot of people sure
want to live in New York City, pay a premium for housing space, and
"suffer" using the transit system.
There are obviously conveniences in using one's private car. But
using the NYC transit system has conveniences, too. It is real nice
not to have to worry about parking and the issues above. It's nice
walking to a corner and knowing in a moment there will be a bus or
subway to take one to their destination. It's nice being able to walk
a block or so to almost anything. It's not for everyone, but
obviuosly many people do choose it.

[George Conklin]

Well, people in New York City DO use transit for almost everything. Been
there, done that. But you have to give up most of your freedoms to do

that.

So many of my errands now are scheduled to avoid highway congestion,
both traditional rush hour, and modern day leisure travel and shopping
travel.

----

Same thing for transit.

[Jym Dyer]

Post by George Conklin
Well, people in New York City DO use transit for almost
everything. Been there, done that. But you have to give
up most of your freedoms to do that.

=v= No you don't. I sure didn't.

Post by George Conklin
You have to shop at expensive local stores and carry
everything home in little baggies.

=v= No you don't. I bought my food at various coöps (including
the largest in the nation) and/or at the open-air Greenmarkets,
and got it home in a bike trailer.

Post by George Conklin
You have to have everything else delivered at great costs.

=v= No you don't. Delivery costs aren't "great," and even the
worst are much, much cheaper than owning a car. I've been able
to move everything I own with a human-powered cargo bike (which
I rented from George Bliss at the Bike Hub), others have hired
Revolution Rickshaws to do the same. The subway is pretty cool
about letting you bring large items aboard (though not during
rush hour), and many people do deliveries via taxi. All cheaper
and freer than being burdened with a stupid car.

Post by George Conklin
But mostly you have to live in tiny apartments smaller than
a single-wide trailer and pay the average of $2,500 (market
rate) for the place too. And your electricity is the most
expensive in the nation.

=v= Your numbers are off: Apartments larger than even a
double-wide trailer cost half that much in decent parts of
Brooklyn and even some parts of Manhattan. Also, Con-Ed is
cheaper than PG&E.
<_Jym_>

[George Conklin]

Post by Jym Dyer

Post by George Conklin
Well, people in New York City DO use transit for almost
everything. Been there, done that. But you have to give
up most of your freedoms to do that.

=v= No you don't. I sure didn't.

Post by George Conklin
You have to shop at expensive local stores and carry
everything home in little baggies.

=v= No you don't. I bought my food at various coöps (including
the largest in the nation) and/or at the open-air Greenmarkets,
and got it home in a bike trailer.

Post by George Conklin
You have to have everything else delivered at great costs.

=v= No you don't. Delivery costs aren't "great," and even the
worst are much, much cheaper than owning a car. I've been able
to move everything I own with a human-powered cargo bike (which
I rented from George Bliss at the Bike Hub), others have hired
Revolution Rickshaws to do the same. The subway is pretty cool
about letting you bring large items aboard (though not during
rush hour), and many people do deliveries via taxi. All cheaper
and freer than being burdened with a stupid car.

Post by George Conklin
But mostly you have to live in tiny apartments smaller than
a single-wide trailer and pay the average of $2,500 (market
rate) for the place too. And your electricity is the most
expensive in the nation.

=v= Your numbers are off: Apartments larger than even a
double-wide trailer cost half that much in decent parts of
Brooklyn and even some parts of Manhattan. Also, Con-Ed is
cheaper than PG&E.
<_Jym_>
--
Green Bay Steelers for Truth

You can move eveything you own by bicycle? I didn't know you were
homeless too.

[Jym Dyer]

Post by George Conklin

I've been able to move everything I own with a human-powered
cargo bike (which I rented from George Bliss at the Bike Hub),
others have hired Revolution Rickshaws to do the same.

You can move eveything you own by bicycle? I didn't know you
were homeless too.

=x= Here's a tip: If you're trying to make a joke, it works a
whole lot better if your joke's premise is blitheringly idiotic.
<_Jym_>

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by Nobody
Let's be realistic: you/I as an average commuter by car have already
accepted the cost of our regular route, be it 10 miles/16 km or 25
miles/40km... or shorter or longer. You/I know what "your" cost will
be.

Well, people "accepted" the costs that existed when they purchased their
car and/or decided where to live. The costs have gone up since then,
but it takes a while for folks to make changes to significant things
like that. People are already changing the types of cars they buy.

Post by Nobody
If you've built that cost into your personal finances, doubling the
gasoline/fuel price is "relatively" minor, compared to the "total"
cost of running the vehicle you use: i.e. capital cost + insurance +
maintenance.
If you think the fuel component is the major cost, then... (mebbe you
shouldn't own a vehicle)(grin).

Indeed. I spend less than 1% of my gross income on gasoline; gas could
quadruple in price and I really wouldn't care -- if anything, I'd drive
more because traffic would be lighter. The poor, who can barely afford
to drive, own/lease cheap cars they don't maintain, and don't carry
insurance will be affected a lot more...

S

[Jack May]

Post by Gordon

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing
transit use. Of course the people making these statements are using
extremely short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to
anything longer term.

Total BS. One or two poorly concieved and designed systems
do not represent the whole of mass transit.

Total BS on your part. There is national data in there.

Post by Gordon
And not a word about Portland's MAX system which is seeing
increased increased use based on year over year comparisons.
And beating it's expectations.

The MAX system is well know to have destroyed the transportation system of
Portland. Transit is not a total transportation system.

[g***@yahoo.com]

Post by Jack May
The MAX system is well know to have destroyed the transportation system of
Portland. Transit is not a total transportation system.

The transportation system of Portland looks much as it did before MAX was
built, except that there is no way that anyone would want to put the
highway bridge under the West Hills, like MAX was.

MAX removed highway lanes on Burnside and Interstate Avenue, but those
streets were under-utilized anyway, due to the construction of interstate
highways.

It was probably a bad idea to remove the freight connection between
Cornelius Pass and Beaverton. Now, freight trains must make an additional
33 mile detour around Beaverton and Hillsboro.

In virtually all of the MAX line construction projects, parallel highways
were actually widened as part of the project. When MAX was added to
Gresham, I-84 was widened. When MAX was added to Beaverton, US26 was
widened in places where it could be (it is physically impossible to widen
it in the canyon). Road improvement projects were slight when the airport
line was put in, but that line required minimal grading because the route
had been graded and even some tunnels and bridges built in the 1970s.
Interstate Avenue MAX was built at the same time construction has been
done on I-5, though the I-5 construction has taken years longer to
complete.

There are two things that have destroyed the transportation system of Portland:

1. The refusal to increase the state gasoline tax to keep pace with the
cost of road projects. This has led to huge shortfalls in the amount that
can be done to improve roads. It is illegal by Oregon state constitution
to use gasoline taxes for any other purpose other than road projects, and
thus the standard nonsense about how transit robs road projects of money
just doesn't apply. Improvements to roads are simply too expensive for
people to want to pay sufficient taxes to support.

2. Transit projects (such as MAX) that could have made a serious impact on
road traffic were built to meet the desires of developers and only
secondarily to serve as a transportation service. The Portland
Streetcar's 5 mph average speed, vs. similar lines in Europe that operate
at 14 mph, speaks volumes on that issue.

[George Conklin]

Post by g***@yahoo.com
It was probably a bad idea to remove the freight connection between
Cornelius Pass and Beaverton. Now, freight trains must make an additional
33 mile detour around Beaverton and Hillsboro.

This is the whole problem with moving people by rail. Not only is the
cost high, but right away it is going to disrupt money-making freight
movements and put more heavy trucks on the highways. This is the exact
opposite of what we need to be encouraging.

[Gordon]

I sort of, kind of, agree with you. But You are off
base in a few areas.

Post by g***@yahoo.com

Post by Jack May
The MAX system is well know to have destroyed the transportation
system of Portland. Transit is not a total transportation system.

The transportation system of Portland looks much as it did before MAX
was built, except that there is no way that anyone would want to put
the highway bridge under the West Hills, like MAX was.

The Vista Ridge Tunnel is definitly a bottle neck for western
commuters. There are very little options for expanding highways
through the west hills.

Post by g***@yahoo.com
MAX removed highway lanes on Burnside and Interstate Avenue, but those
streets were under-utilized anyway, due to the construction of
interstate highways.
It was probably a bad idea to remove the freight connection between
Cornelius Pass and Beaverton. Now, freight trains must make an
additional 33 mile detour around Beaverton and Hillsboro.

That line did not go to Hillsboro when it was taken up for
MAX construction. At one time it did. The connection to
Hillsboro ran (still runs) along TV Highway to the south.
From the wye in hillsboro the track still runs north through
Cornelius Pass and connects to the BNSF at Linton. The line
that was taken up was used to move cars to the Beaverton
interchange just west of Murry Bvld. It only saw one train
per day.

Post by g***@yahoo.com
In virtually all of the MAX line construction projects, parallel
highways were actually widened as part of the project. When MAX was
added to Gresham, I-84 was widened. When MAX was added to Beaverton,
US26 was widened in places where it could be (it is physically
impossible to widen it in the canyon). Road improvement projects were
slight when the airport line was put in, but that line required
minimal grading because the route had been graded and even some
tunnels and bridges built in the 1970s. Interstate Avenue MAX was
built at the same time construction has been done on I-5, though the
I-5 construction has taken years longer to complete.

Yes, but OTOH, Federal money that could have been used to expand the
highway system have been spent on building MAX. So Sunset Highway
is still only 4 lanes wide in areas where it needs to be 6, and
217 is a parking lot durring rush hour, but no money can be found
to expand it.

US26 was not widend as part of the West side MAX project. that happened
years later. There was no construction on I-5 as part of the Interstate
max line construction. The MArine Drive interchange was rebuilt years
earlier, and the Delta Park Bottleneck is only now being widened.
The I-5 preservation that was happening durring MAX construction was
a separate project and did nothing to add capacity.

Post by g***@yahoo.com
1. The refusal to increase the state gasoline tax to keep pace with
the cost of road projects. This has led to huge shortfalls in the
amount that can be done to improve roads. It is illegal by Oregon
state constitution to use gasoline taxes for any other purpose other
than road projects, and thus the standard nonsense about how transit
robs road projects of money just doesn't apply. Improvements to roads
are simply too expensive for people to want to pay sufficient taxes to
support.

Gas taxes are not the only source of revenue for road improvments.
The other major funding source is federal funding. Federal funds can be
directed by local authorities (in this case the Metro council) So your
statement is only half correct. See my comment above. Although I
use and like the MAX system, I think that Metro's priorities
are out of ballance. I would like to see a moratorium on MAX
construction and see a concerted effort made to improve the
roads.

Post by g***@yahoo.com
2. Transit projects (such as MAX) that could have made a serious
impact on road traffic were built to meet the desires of developers
and only secondarily to serve as a transportation service. The
Portland Streetcar's 5 mph average speed, vs. similar lines in Europe
that operate at 14 mph, speaks volumes on that issue.

Oooo kaaayyy. I'm not sure how the average speed of the Portland
Street car relates to anything.

[Jack May]

Post by Gordon
I sort of, kind of, agree with you. But You are off
base in a few areas.

Post by g***@yahoo.com

Post by Jack May
The MAX system is well know to have destroyed the transportation
system of Portland. Transit is not a total transportation system.

The transportation system of Portland looks much as it did before MAX
was built, except that there is no way that anyone would want to put
the highway bridge under the West Hills, like MAX was.

The Vista Ridge Tunnel is definitly a bottle neck for western
commuters. There are very little options for expanding highways
through the west hills.

Yea but there always seems to be room to expand transit which takes a lot
more space than getting the space needed for roads. Portland just has a
bunch of born losers in Government who have no capability to develop
solutions.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Jack May
Yea but there always seems to be room to expand transit which takes a lot
more space than getting the space needed for roads.

A transit can carry far more people per time unit than a lane of
highway, which is critical during peak travel times. Where land is
scarce--as in many places these days--this is a significant issue.

In addition, rail lines can snake around buildings, more easily placed
above or below ground, than a highway.

[George Conklin]

Post by Jack May
Yea but there always seems to be room to expand transit which takes a lot
more space than getting the space needed for roads.

A transit can carry far more people per time unit than a lane of
highway, which is critical during peak travel times. Where land is
scarce--as in many places these days--this is a significant issue.

In addition, rail lines can snake around buildings, more easily placed
above or below ground, than a highway.

---

Funny, the last I saw a city street, they went all around buildings. You
really must think we all grew up under tea leaves.

[g***@yahoo.com]

Post by Gordon

Post by g***@yahoo.com
It was probably a bad idea to remove the freight connection between
Cornelius Pass and Beaverton. Now, freight trains must make an
additional 33 mile detour around Beaverton and Hillsboro.

That line did not go to Hillsboro when it was taken up for
MAX construction. At one time it did. The connection to
Hillsboro ran (still runs) along TV Highway to the south.
From the wye in hillsboro the track still runs north through
Cornelius Pass and connects to the BNSF at Linton. The line
that was taken up was used to move cars to the Beaverton
interchange just west of Murry Bvld. It only saw one train
per day.

The line on which MAX was built had a right of way that extended all the
way to Forest Grove. The rail was even still there in places. Hillsboro
to Forest Grove remains in service today, as does the ex-Oregon Electric
line north from the Tualatin Valley Highway to Merlo Road, to serve an
auto parts and auto dealership. When MAX was built, it removed from
service the line that went from the end of the current freight line at
Merlo Road northwest to Orenco, then directly north to Bower's Junction.
This line was a reasonably important connector even when BNSF owned it,
but now that the Portland & Western operates the Astoria line plus all the
ex-Oregon Electric trackage, there is even more freight movement. It was
importnat enough that BNSF put continuously welded rail down, and in fact
today the line from TV highway to Merlo road still has continuously welded
rail.

Originally, as part of the MAX construction proposal, there was to be a
replacement line parallel to the new MAX line, just as there is from Merlo
Road to the auto parts warehouse, but short term the new arrangement of
routing all the traffic through Hillsboro is cheaper. Long term, it
increases the prices of anything moving on the line due to increased
transportation costs, and therefore I'm not sure that it is cheaper for
everyone involved.

Post by Gordon
US26 was not widend as part of the West side MAX project. that happened
years later.

Yes, it was part of the same project. It took years longer to complete,
and there have been several projects since then, but a considerable number
of improvements were done to US26 as part of adding the light rail line
along the north edge of the highway. There are several volumes of
documents I was mailed because I participated in the regular monthly
public advisory meetings, and some of those discuss these highway
improvements.

It is one of the reasons why George claims that MAX went over budget: he
looks at numbers that show construction continuing in 1999 and 2000, when
the line was completed and in operation in 1998. The additional
construction expenses he is looking at are actually part of the highway
project that was included with the MAX line, but took considerably longer
to get started and completed.

Post by Gordon
Gas taxes are not the only source of revenue for road improvments.
The other major funding source is federal funding. Federal funds can be
directed by local authorities (in this case the Metro council) So your
statement is only half correct. See my comment above. Although I
use and like the MAX system, I think that Metro's priorities
are out of ballance. I would like to see a moratorium on MAX
construction and see a concerted effort made to improve the
roads.

There's also local property and assorted other taxes that go to roads -
but those have many other demands on them.

The local matching funds have to be there to get the federal funds, and
that used to be the gas taxes for the roads. Not increasing the gas taxes
for the past 14 years or so hasn't helped road improvements at all.

Post by Gordon
Oooo kaaayyy. I'm not sure how the average speed of the Portland
Street car relates to anything.

I was using it as an exmple of how the expensive transit projects in
Portland differ from places where the goal is to get people off the roads,
and reduce the need for larger and more expensive road projects.

We wouldn't need to spend huge amounts of money on new roads if the
transit systems that were being built were designed to take people off the
roads. Average speed has a huge factor to play in how many people are
attracted to transit. The Portland Streetcar was a fairly expensive
project, and could have helped reduce road congestion in a number of
places downtown. Instead, by operating at less than half the speed of
what is good industry practice, it doesn't attract anywhere near the
riders that it should be.

As long as we continue to built expensive projects that are not designed
to provide the best service possible for that money, our overall
transportation system will continue to decline.

[g***@yahoo.com]

Post by Gordon

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing
transit use. Of course the people making these statements are using
extremely short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to
anything longer term.

Total BS. One or two poorly concieved and designed systems
do not represent the whole of mass transit.
And not a word about Portland's MAX system which is seeing
increased increased use based on year over year comparisons.
And beating it's expectations.

The sad thing about MAX is that transit use in the Portland area is
somewhere around half the market share that Seattle has, and Seattle
doesn't even have its first light rail line operating yet. Also, the bus
tunnel has been limited due to light rail construction and Sounder
expansion and service has been slow due to track capacity limitations.

Seattle's first light rail line opens in 2009, track work for more Sounder
service has recently been completed, and the bus tunnel should stop having
construction limitations fairly soon. A huge portion of Seattle's light
rail line is grade separated, and while that is expensive it also means
higher average speeds will be possible.

MAX is an OK rail system, but with the ridership that Seattle has gotten
from its buses alone, I think it will soon be put to shame.

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing transit
use. Of course the people making these statements are using extremely
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to anything longer
term.

I'll add a little bit more of that:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-01-auto-sales_N.htm

(USA car sales 26.6% down.)


Hans-Joachim

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing transit
use. Of course the people making these statements are using extremely
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to anything longer
term.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-01-auto-sales_N.htm

I always wonder how you can drive to any town of any size and see enough new
cars sitting in dealership parking lots for every man, woman, and child who
lives there. I don't understand the economics of a system that carries that
much inventory of expensive items.

[George Conklin]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing transit
use. Of course the people making these statements are using extremely
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to anything longer
term.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-01-auto-sales_N.htm
(USA car sales 26.6% down.)
Hans-Joachim

So what. Sales go up and down. Wait until this crap his the Euro.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing

transit

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
use. Of course the people making these statements are using extremely
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to anything

longer

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
term.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-01-auto-sales_N.htm
(USA car sales 26.6% down.)
Hans-Joachim

So what. Sales go up and down. Wait until this crap his the Euro.

It won't. Europe, except, regrettably, the UK, has kept responsible
control over lending.

[Clark F Morris]

On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 08:21:30 +0100, Martin Edwards

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing

transit

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
use. Of course the people making these statements are using extremely
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to anything

longer

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
term.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-01-auto-sales_N.htm
(USA car sales 26.6% down.)
Hans-Joachim

So what. Sales go up and down. Wait until this crap his the Euro.

It won't. Europe, except, regrettably, the UK, has kept responsible
control over lending.

From what I read in both the Wall Street Journal and my local Canadian
newspaper, the Halifax Chronicle Herald the problem already has hit
the EU.

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Clark F Morris
From what I read in both the Wall Street Journal and my local Canadian
newspaper, the Halifax Chronicle Herald the problem already has hit
the EU.

A gigantic amount of US real estate credits with junk quality have been
exported all over the world, hidden in innovative financial products. In
months to come, they will show up here and there, probably forcing
European banks, to write off some 500 billions or so in total. A major
amount is already done, and wasn't that good for profits. Not as bad as
in the USA, but without the news from USA, it would be called a major
turmoil.

That's not the worst risk. Currently, the stalemate following the
Lehman bankruptcy - nobody lends money to anybody - is the highest risk.
It's known, that lots of banks in Europe have to refinance in months to
come, which isn't easy, if the interbank market no longer exists for any
practical purpose.

The worst scenario would be a complete crash in the USA, which isn't
from the table yet. Luckily, European economies no longer depend on
exports to the USA as they used to do, thanks to the growth of the
intra-EU market, and thanks to the growth in China, but while Europe
won't get hit as badly as in 1929, it won't be easy to ride out
nonetheless.



So we all hope, that Winston Churchill had it right: "The Americans will
always do the right thing, after they've exhausted all the alternatives."

:-)
Hans-Joachim

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Martin Edwards
It won't. Europe, except, regrettably, the UK, has kept responsible
control over lending.

Unfortunately, that was impossible. Control of a global financial market
only works, if at least all the major economies are in the boat (G8 plus
a few others).

Unfortunately, Mr. Blair was always the obedient servant of Mr. Bush, if
the task has been, to avoid control of the international financial
markets. Worked this way every time, when the hysteric Germans suggested
tighter regulations.

So it's only fair, if ... hmmh, no, hitting Britain might not be fair,
but can you offer me some magic tool, which makes sure, that only
Blair + company plus their stooges in London City get hit?


Hans-Joachim

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Martin Edwards
It won't. Europe, except, regrettably, the UK, has kept responsible
control over lending.

Unfortunately, that was impossible. Control of a global financial market
only works, if at least all the major economies are in the boat (G8 plus
a few others).
Unfortunately, Mr. Blair was always the obedient servant of Mr. Bush, if
the task has been, to avoid control of the international financial
markets. Worked this way every time, when the hysteric Germans suggested
tighter regulations.
So it's only fair, if ... hmmh, no, hitting Britain might not be fair,
but can you offer me some magic tool, which makes sure, that only
Blair + company plus their stooges in London City get hit?
Hans-Joachim

So far, no, but many of us here are racking our brains trying to think
one up.

[George Conklin]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing

transit

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
use. Of course the people making these statements are using extremely
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to anything

longer

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
term.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-01-auto-sales_N.htm
(USA car sales 26.6% down.)
Hans-Joachim

So what. Sales go up and down. Wait until this crap his the Euro.

It won't. Europe, except, regrettably, the UK, has kept responsible
control over lending.

Ok, smarty pants, here is a cut and paste from BBC:

A top German bank is on the brink of collapse after a 35bn euro ($48bn;
£27.2bn) rescue plan collapsed.

Germany's second-largest commercial property lender, Hypo Real Estate, said
a banking consortium had withdrawn their support for the deal.

Correspondents say its failure will put further strain on financial
institutions in other countries.

The news came after EU leaders at a Paris summit refused to commit to a
US-style rescue plan for banks.

[George Conklin]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing

transit

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
use. Of course the people making these statements are using extremely
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to anything

longer

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
term.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-01-auto-sales_N.htm
(USA car sales 26.6% down.)
Hans-Joachim

So what. Sales go up and down. Wait until this crap his the Euro.

It won't. Europe, except, regrettably, the UK, has kept responsible
control over lending.

The FTSE 100 index was down more than 5 percent in early trading as fears
grew that the financial crisis is spreading to the world economy.

The growing crisis has underlined the difficulty of taking concerted action
in Europe because its economies are far more integrated than its governing
structures.

-------

Well, they can take the train to work, so all will be ok.

[Pat]

Post by Jack May

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing

transit

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
use.    Of course the people making these statements are using

extremely

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to anything

longer

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
term.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-01-auto-sales_N.htm
(USA car sales 26.6% down.)
Hans-Joachim

  So what.  Sales go up and down.   Wait until this crap his the Euro.

It won't.  Europe, except, regrettably, the UK, has kept responsible
control over lending.

The FTSE 100 index was down more than 5 percent in early trading as fears
grew that the financial crisis is spreading to the world economy.
The growing crisis has underlined the difficulty of taking concerted action
in Europe because its economies are far more integrated than its governing
structures.
-------
Well, they can take the train to work, so all will be ok.

That's true. But it really isn't because of bad European lending,
it's more about them investing in American financial instruments that
are tanking.

[George Conklin]

Post by Jack May

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing

transit

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
use. Of course the people making these statements are using

extremely

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to anything

longer

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
term.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-01-auto-sales_N.htm
(USA car sales 26.6% down.)
Hans-Joachim

So what. Sales go up and down. Wait until this crap his the Euro.

It won't. Europe, except, regrettably, the UK, has kept responsible
control over lending.

The FTSE 100 index was down more than 5 percent in early trading as fears
grew that the financial crisis is spreading to the world economy.
The growing crisis has underlined the difficulty of taking concerted action
in Europe because its economies are far more integrated than its governing
structures.
-------
Well, they can take the train to work, so all will be ok.

That's true. But it really isn't because of bad European lending,
it's more about them investing in American financial instruments that
are tanking.

---

Nonsense. Just like Japan, it was overinvestment in under-yielding public
assets like trains.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May

Post by Jack May

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing

transit

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
use. Of course the people making these statements are using

extremely

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to

anything

Post by Jack May

Post by Jack May
longer

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
term.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-01-auto-sales_N.htm
(USA car sales 26.6% down.)
Hans-Joachim

So what. Sales go up and down. Wait until this crap his the Euro.

It won't. Europe, except, regrettably, the UK, has kept responsible
control over lending.

The FTSE 100 index was down more than 5 percent in early trading as fears
grew that the financial crisis is spreading to the world economy.
The growing crisis has underlined the difficulty of taking concerted

action

Post by Jack May
in Europe because its economies are far more integrated than its governing
structures.
-------
Well, they can take the train to work, so all will be ok.

That's true. But it really isn't because of bad European lending,
it's more about them investing in American financial instruments that
are tanking.
---
Nonsense. Just like Japan, it was overinvestment in under-yielding public
assets like trains.

Great is Diana of the Ephesians.

[g***@yahoo.com]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by George Conklin
Nonsense. Just like Japan, it was overinvestment in under-yielding public
assets like trains.

Great is Diana of the Ephesians.

Screamed for three solid hours while most in the crowd really had any idea
why they were in the stadium yelling to begin with.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by g***@yahoo.com

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by George Conklin
Nonsense. Just like Japan, it was overinvestment in under-yielding public
assets like trains.

Great is Diana of the Ephesians.

Screamed for three solid hours while most in the crowd really had any idea
why they were in the stadium yelling to begin with.

They were being manipulated by businessmen. Plus ça ahange.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Pat

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing

transit

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
use. Of course the people making these statements are using

extremely

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to anything

longer

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
term.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-01-auto-sales_N.htm
(USA car sales 26.6% down.)
Hans-Joachim

So what. Sales go up and down. Wait until this crap his the Euro.

It won't. Europe, except, regrettably, the UK, has kept responsible
control over lending.

The FTSE 100 index was down more than 5 percent in early trading as fears
grew that the financial crisis is spreading to the world economy.
The growing crisis has underlined the difficulty of taking concerted action
in Europe because its economies are far more integrated than its governing
structures.
-------
Well, they can take the train to work, so all will be ok.

That's true. But it really isn't because of bad European lending,
it's more about them investing in American financial instruments that
are tanking.

What is the missing clause in every accounts textbook? A debtor is an
asset /until he defaults/.

[George Conklin]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Pat

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing

transit

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
use. Of course the people making these statements are using

extremely

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to anything

longer

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
term.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-01-auto-sales_N.htm
(USA car sales 26.6% down.)
Hans-Joachim

So what. Sales go up and down. Wait until this crap his the Euro.

It won't. Europe, except, regrettably, the UK, has kept responsible
control over lending.

The FTSE 100 index was down more than 5 percent in early trading as fears
grew that the financial crisis is spreading to the world economy.
The growing crisis has underlined the difficulty of taking concerted action
in Europe because its economies are far more integrated than its governing
structures.
-------
Well, they can take the train to work, so all will be ok.

That's true. But it really isn't because of bad European lending,
it's more about them investing in American financial instruments that
are tanking.

What is the missing clause in every accounts textbook? A debtor is an
asset /until he defaults/.
--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

In fact there is about as much American capital abroad as there is foreign
capital in the United States, according to Krugman at the New York Times.

[Bolwerk]

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing

transit

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
use. Of course the people making these statements are using extremely
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to anything

longer

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
term.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-01-auto-sales_N.htm
(USA car sales 26.6% down.)
Hans-Joachim

So what. Sales go up and down. Wait until this crap his the Euro.

Heh. Somebody doesn't understand finance very well....

[Hans-Joachim Zierke]

Post by Bolwerk

Post by George Conklin
So what. Sales go up and down. Wait until this crap his the Euro.

Heh. Somebody doesn't understand finance very well....

Did you expect, that he understands /anything/ better than traffic
systems? You certainly can't have assumed /that/.

BTW: Fed and ECB have shown some nice examples of coordinated
professional effort, in the last weeks.


Hans-Joachim

[George Conklin]

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Bolwerk

Post by George Conklin
So what. Sales go up and down. Wait until this crap his the Euro.

Heh. Somebody doesn't understand finance very well....

Did you expect, that he understands /anything/ better than traffic
systems? You certainly can't have assumed /that/.

According to the new "The Economist," home-grown troubles in the UK
started a year or more ago, with a bank run on Nothern Rock (as I recall the
name), and now I'm wondering if my preferred shares in The Bank of Scotland
are going to be as worthless as Wachovia. And there are already adjustments
in the Euro by the way.

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
BTW: Fed and ECB have shown some nice examples of coordinated
professional effort, in the last weeks.
Hans-Joachim
--
EuroCity 163 Transalpin
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3156/2907478347_1a53a35a51_o.jpg

[George Conklin]

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing

transit

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
use. Of course the people making these statements are using extremely
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to anything

longer

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
term.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-01-auto-sales_N.htm
(USA car sales 26.6% down.)
Hans-Joachim

So what. Sales go up and down. Wait until this crap his the Euro.

Heh. Somebody doesn't understand finance very well....

I suggest you read this week's "The Economist," pages 77-83 before you post
your usual stupidity. So far, 5 banks in 7 countries have been rescued by
various means.

[George Conklin]

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing

transit

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
use. Of course the people making these statements are using extremely
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to anything

longer

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
term.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-01-auto-sales_N.htm
(USA car sales 26.6% down.)
Hans-Joachim

So what. Sales go up and down. Wait until this crap his the Euro.

Heh. Somebody doesn't understand finance very well....

Right. YOU don't know anything about anything, especially transit and
finance. The whole world is now in crisis, but how is transit going to
solve it?

[Bolwerk]

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing

transit

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
use. Of course the people making these statements are using

extremely

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to anything

longer

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
term.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-01-auto-sales_N.htm
(USA car sales 26.6% down.)
Hans-Joachim

So what. Sales go up and down. Wait until this crap his the Euro.

Heh. Somebody doesn't understand finance very well....

Right. YOU don't know anything about anything, especially transit and
finance. The whole world is now in crisis, but how is transit going to
solve it?

Where did I say transit is going to solve the financial crisis? Did you
hear that on the vine in your ass?

[George Conklin]

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing

transit

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
use. Of course the people making these statements are using

extremely

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to anything

longer

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
term.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-01-auto-sales_N.htm
(USA car sales 26.6% down.)
Hans-Joachim

So what. Sales go up and down. Wait until this crap his the Euro.

Heh. Somebody doesn't understand finance very well....

Right. YOU don't know anything about anything, especially transit and
finance. The whole world is now in crisis, but how is transit going to
solve it?

Where did I say transit is going to solve the financial crisis? Did you
hear that on the vine in your ass?

Let's see. I wrote that the same crisis was going to hit Europe. You said:
"> >> Heh. Somebody doesn't understand finance very well...."

Ok, idiot, tell me what happened in Europe today. Tell me why Japan
melted down in 1990. Japan overinveted in trains, and roads and other
things which let to no income. Like Smart Growth leads to inflated real
estate.

[Bolwerk]

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing

transit

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
use. Of course the people making these statements are using

extremely

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to

anything

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May
longer

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
term.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-01-auto-sales_N.htm
(USA car sales 26.6% down.)
Hans-Joachim

So what. Sales go up and down. Wait until this crap his the Euro.

Heh. Somebody doesn't understand finance very well....

Right. YOU don't know anything about anything, especially transit and
finance. The whole world is now in crisis, but how is transit going to
solve it?

Where did I say transit is going to solve the financial crisis? Did you
hear that on the vine in your ass?

"> >> Heh. Somebody doesn't understand finance very well...."

It's been hitting Europe for a while now. Europe just regulated its
financial system better and will feel mostly only secondary effects.
There's no way for it not to have an effect on, oh, the whole world.

Post by Jack May
Ok, idiot, tell me what happened in Europe today. Tell me why Japan
melted down in 1990. Japan overinveted in trains, and roads and other
things which let to no income.

Don't call the kettle black. How am I supposed to make up for all the
deficits in your critical thinking skills?

The fact that you place this on the shoulders of your straw man enemies
smart growth and publicly financed transit, small parts of the economy
of any country, means you're more ignorant of finance/economics than I
thought. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but almost any kind of
transportation at least carries ancillary economic benefits. Plenty of
things we waste our resources on don't. Trains just don't have to do
with it. How the hell do you think a densely populated country like
Japan is supposed to move people without rail anyway?

Post by Jack May
Like Smart Growth leads to inflated real estate.

I don't know what you mean. Smart growth, if anything, is in high
demand and brings in high returns for developers. Like smart growth or
not (and I generally don't, BTW), that's the way it is. If you want to
call that "inflated," fine, but the cost is more because of high demand
and low supply.

That's not quite the same thing as the type of speculative bubble that
happened in Florida and out west, where an excess supply of housing
("smart growth" and otherwise) was produced solely for people to sit on
until they could sell it at a profit. I'm sure speculation plays a part
in "smart growth" too, but I've never seen evidence that it's used
exceptionally to drive speculative investments.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing

transit

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
use. Of course the people making these statements are using

extremely

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to anything

longer

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
term.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-01-auto-sales_N.htm
(USA car sales 26.6% down.)
Hans-Joachim

So what. Sales go up and down. Wait until this crap his the Euro.

Heh. Somebody doesn't understand finance very well....

Right. YOU don't know anything about anything, especially transit and
finance. The whole world is now in crisis, but how is transit going to
solve it?

In the short term not at all. However, as more and more people are
priced out of car ownership, who knows?

[George Conklin]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing

transit

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
use. Of course the people making these statements are using

extremely

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to anything

longer

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
term.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-01-auto-sales_N.htm
(USA car sales 26.6% down.)
Hans-Joachim

So what. Sales go up and down. Wait until this crap his the Euro.

Heh. Somebody doesn't understand finance very well....

Right. YOU don't know anything about anything, especially transit and
finance. The whole world is now in crisis, but how is transit going to
solve it?

In the short term not at all. However, as more and more people are
priced out of car ownership, who knows?

So they will drive older cars.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing

transit

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
use. Of course the people making these statements are using

extremely

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to

anything

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May
longer

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
term.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-01-auto-sales_N.htm
(USA car sales 26.6% down.)
Hans-Joachim

So what. Sales go up and down. Wait until this crap his the Euro.

Heh. Somebody doesn't understand finance very well....

Right. YOU don't know anything about anything, especially transit and
finance. The whole world is now in crisis, but how is transit going to
solve it?

In the short term not at all. However, as more and more people are
priced out of car ownership, who knows?

So they will drive older cars.

Which burn more fuel which is also on an upward curve, may be illegal in
some jurisdictions due to emissions and will cost a fortune in repair
bills. I know a bit about this. In 1979 I bought a car for £2,200.
Two years later I tried to trade it and was offered £700 so I said fuck
it. Soon afterwards things started to go wrong with it and I had to
sell it two years later for £250, meanwhile going into hock up to my
eyes on repair bills. I now pay £237 a /quarter/ for an all carriers
card in the Greater Birmingham area (West Midlands County, but this is
confusing because the geographical West Midlands is much bigger). I can
even ride between Wolverhampton and Coventry all day on the
London-Wolverhampton Inter-city route if I so wish.

[George Conklin]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing

transit

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
use. Of course the people making these statements are using

extremely

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to

anything

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May
longer

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
term.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-01-auto-sales_N.htm
(USA car sales 26.6% down.)
Hans-Joachim

So what. Sales go up and down. Wait until this crap his the Euro.

Heh. Somebody doesn't understand finance very well....

Right. YOU don't know anything about anything, especially transit and
finance. The whole world is now in crisis, but how is transit going to
solve it?

In the short term not at all. However, as more and more people are
priced out of car ownership, who knows?

So they will drive older cars.

Which burn more fuel which is also on an upward curve, may be illegal in
some jurisdictions due to emissions and will cost a fortune in repair
bills.

Since 1996 all cars have the same emissions computers and are checked
yearly by a computerized system. Further, despite repairs, old cars are
always cheaper to run, according to Consumer Reports. (The biggest cost of
a new car is depreciation). I keep cars 15 years myself or maybe even 20.

[Nobody]

Post by George Conklin

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing

transit

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
use. Of course the people making these statements are using

extremely

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to

anything

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May
longer

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
term.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-01-auto-sales_N.htm
(USA car sales 26.6% down.)
Hans-Joachim

So what. Sales go up and down. Wait until this crap his the

Euro.

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk
Heh. Somebody doesn't understand finance very well....

Right. YOU don't know anything about anything, especially transit and
finance. The whole world is now in crisis, but how is transit going

to

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May
solve it?

In the short term not at all. However, as more and more people are
priced out of car ownership, who knows?

So they will drive older cars.

Which burn more fuel which is also on an upward curve, may be illegal in
some jurisdictions due to emissions and will cost a fortune in repair
bills.

Since 1996 all cars have the same emissions computers and are checked
yearly by a computerized system.

"All" cars, "same" emissions computers, "yearly"???

Checked by whom/how? Only if (presumably) one took the vehicle to a
"recognised" service facility at the "jack-boot demanded" interval...

Post by George Conklin
Further, despite repairs, old cars are
always cheaper to run, according to Consumer Reports. (The biggest cost of
a new car is depreciation). I keep cars 15 years myself or maybe even 20.

[George Conklin]

Post by Nobody

Post by George Conklin

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are increasing

transit

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
use. Of course the people making these statements are using

extremely

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to

anything

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May
longer

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
term.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-01-auto-sales_N.htm
(USA car sales 26.6% down.)
Hans-Joachim

So what. Sales go up and down. Wait until this crap his the

Euro.

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk
Heh. Somebody doesn't understand finance very well....

Right. YOU don't know anything about anything, especially transit and
finance. The whole world is now in crisis, but how is transit going

to

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May
solve it?

In the short term not at all. However, as more and more people are
priced out of car ownership, who knows?

So they will drive older cars.

Which burn more fuel which is also on an upward curve, may be illegal in
some jurisdictions due to emissions and will cost a fortune in repair
bills.

Since 1996 all cars have the same emissions computers and are checked
yearly by a computerized system.

"All" cars, "same" emissions computers, "yearly"???

Absolutely. Yearly inspections are required to renew your plates. The
computers in North Carolina are wired directly to a central data base.
Staring this year there is no inspection sticker on your car either. All
done by centralized computer. If you don't pass, you don't get your
renewal. They gave up on direct measurements of from the tailpipe because
of the uniform system. The computers monitor every car 100% of the time.
You can tell if you are in trouble when the "check engine" light comes on.

Post by Nobody
Checked by whom/how?

Each inspection station sends your car's compute reports directly to the
main data base. If you fail, you cannot get your license plate renewed.

[Nobody]

Post by Jack May

Post by Nobody

Post by George Conklin

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are

increasing

Post by Nobody

Post by George Conklin

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May
transit

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
use. Of course the people making these statements are using

extremely

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to

anything

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May
longer

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
term.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-01-auto-sales_N.htm
(USA car sales 26.6% down.)
Hans-Joachim

So what. Sales go up and down. Wait until this crap his the

Euro.

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk
Heh. Somebody doesn't understand finance very well....

Right. YOU don't know anything about anything, especially transit

and

Post by Nobody

Post by George Conklin

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May
finance. The whole world is now in crisis, but how is transit

going

Post by Nobody

Post by George Conklin
to

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May
solve it?

In the short term not at all. However, as more and more people are
priced out of car ownership, who knows?

So they will drive older cars.

Which burn more fuel which is also on an upward curve, may be illegal

in

Post by Nobody

Post by George Conklin

Post by Martin Edwards
some jurisdictions due to emissions and will cost a fortune in repair
bills.

Since 1996 all cars have the same emissions computers and are

checked

Post by Nobody

Post by George Conklin
yearly by a computerized system.

"All" cars, "same" emissions computers, "yearly"???

Absolutely. Yearly inspections are required to renew your plates. The
computers in North Carolina are wired directly to a central data base.
Staring this year there is no inspection sticker on your car either. All
done by centralized computer. If you don't pass, you don't get your
renewal. They gave up on direct measurements of from the tailpipe because
of the uniform system. The computers monitor every car 100% of the time.
You can tell if you are in trouble when the "check engine" light comes on.

Ah, one jurisdiction -- which is a bit different than "all".

I doubt whether different car manufacturers use the "same" on-board
emission sensor.

Post by Jack May

Post by Nobody
Checked by whom/how?

Each inspection station sends your car's compute reports directly to the
main data base. If you fail, you cannot get your license plate renewed.

"Aircare" (based on tailpipe emissions) was brought in for the Lower
Mainland of British Columbia (basically Metro Vancouver plus a bit
more) years ago.

It basically weeds out the truely gross polluter, but currently
exempts any model year newer than 2002.

So even it can hardly be described as "all".

[George Conklin]

Post by Nobody

Post by Jack May

Post by Nobody

Post by George Conklin

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
We are hearing the usual about how high gas prices are

increasing

Post by Nobody

Post by George Conklin

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May
transit

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
use. Of course the people making these statements are using

extremely

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
short term data, unnormalized for anything are referenced to

anything

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May
longer

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke

Post by Jack May
term.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2008-10-01-auto-sales_N.htm

Post by Nobody

Post by Jack May

Post by Nobody

Post by George Conklin

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
(USA car sales 26.6% down.)
Hans-Joachim

So what. Sales go up and down. Wait until this crap his the

Euro.

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk
Heh. Somebody doesn't understand finance very well....

Right. YOU don't know anything about anything, especially transit

and

Post by Nobody

Post by George Conklin

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May
finance. The whole world is now in crisis, but how is transit

going

Post by Nobody

Post by George Conklin
to

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Jack May
solve it?

In the short term not at all. However, as more and more people are
priced out of car ownership, who knows?

So they will drive older cars.

Which burn more fuel which is also on an upward curve, may be illegal

in

Post by Nobody

Post by George Conklin

Post by Martin Edwards
some jurisdictions due to emissions and will cost a fortune in repair
bills.

Since 1996 all cars have the same emissions computers and are

checked

Post by Nobody

Post by George Conklin
yearly by a computerized system.

"All" cars, "same" emissions computers, "yearly"???

Absolutely. Yearly inspections are required to renew your plates.

The

Post by Nobody

Post by Jack May
computers in North Carolina are wired directly to a central data base.
Staring this year there is no inspection sticker on your car either. All
done by centralized computer. If you don't pass, you don't get your
renewal. They gave up on direct measurements of from the tailpipe because
of the uniform system. The computers monitor every car 100% of the time.
You can tell if you are in trouble when the "check engine" light comes on.

Ah, one jurisdiction -- which is a bit different than "all".

The EPA imposes the rules, buddy.

Post by Nobody
I doubt whether different car manufacturers use the "same" on-board
emission sensor.

Well, then, you are just ignorant of the law, for about 12 years now.
Listen up.

Post by Nobody

Post by Jack May

Post by Nobody
Checked by whom/how?

Each inspection station sends your car's compute reports directly to the
main data base. If you fail, you cannot get your license plate renewed.

"Aircare" (based on tailpipe emissions) was brought in for the Lower
Mainland of British Columbia (basically Metro Vancouver plus a bit
more) years ago.
It basically weeds out the truely gross polluter, but currently
exempts any model year newer than 2002.
So even it can hardly be described as "all".

I do not think that cars sold in Canada are any different because there
is one market. It is just a matter of plugging in and looking at the car's
computer. Simple. More effective.