"Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote in message
news:s-***@comcast.com...
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>> "Rich" <***@someplace.not> wrote in message
>
> [...]
>
>>>> so, if you're using 1/18 of a gallon to go each mile when only 1/35 is
>>>> necessary (or probably less), then you're using roughly double what is
>>>> necessary, and thus wasting half of what you ise.
>>> Assuming that those sardine cans on wheels in Europe would do the job.
>>> They would not haul my family, so they would not fit my needs. My 1994
>>> Honda Accord gets about 30 mpg fully loaded, which ain't too bad.
>>
>> Which is better than most US cars.
>
> There's a wide variation in what Americans drive. Probably wider than
> in Europe.
That's true. I've never seen a Hummer in Europe, and few trucks and SUV's
:-)
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>>> And why is it that reasons don't count?
>>>>>> Because they all boil down to we can't be bothered to even see the
>>>>>> problem (as you exemplify), much less fix it.
>>>>> How do you plan to shrink America to reduce driving and distances?
>>>> It's not s shrinking thing. Let me give you an example. The bank I
>>>> used to go to was about a block north of the grocery store that is
>>>> closest to my house. Both are on a major north-south artery. So, if I
>>>> want to go by the bank to get money to spend at the store, I need to
>>>> leave the south-bound lane of the highway and cross the north-bound
>>>> lane of the highway (average idle time in the median, five minutes).
>>>> Then I get into the parking lot, get out of my car, go into the bank,
>>>> get the money, go back out to the car, get in, cross the median again
>>>> (5 more minutes at idle), drive a block South, and drive into the
>>>> grocery store parking lot. There are large deep ditches between the two
>>>> businesses, making walking impossible, even if the traffic and lack of
>>>> sidewalks didn't make it impractical. If walking were possible, it
>>>> would take less time than the time spent just crossing the median ONCE.
>>> So do cars traveling south have this problem?
>>
>> Obviously. Cars leaving the South-bound lane and crossing the
>> North-bound lane ARE travelling South. If you're asking about cars
>> travelling North, they have the same problem + 1/2, if they want to visit
>> the bank before the store. If they want to visit the store before the
>> bank, then they "only" have to merge out into traffic after leaving the
>> store, drive the one block which is impossible to walk, enter the bank
>> parking lot, do their banking, get back into the car, leave the parking
>> lot, cross the median, and head back South.
>
> Is this a highway, freeway, or what?
It is a US Highway.
> CA road design is set up with the idea that you should have to do as many
> U-turns as is physically possible, and to make it interesting they forbit
> U-Turns on a semi-random basis and freeway entrances can be either on
> the right or the left. I missed one a bit ago and had to drive over a mile
> to find an intersection that allowed U-turns.
>
> I think most road design is done after wild parties. That would explain
> a lot. :-)
So you _do_ see a problem here, and one that wastes gas...
>>>> This type of completely idiotic design is repeated over and over when
>>>> you start to look around you.
>>> Everything should be planned for your convenience I agree, not matter
>>> how much anyone else is inconvenienced.
>>
>> Everyone is inconvenienced by that. Just ask the employees of the bank.
>
> Then either the bank is poorly located, or the location changed after the
> bank was there. Many businesses are poorly located BTW. I guess it's a
> matter of cost on their side.
Actually, both the bank and the store are in good locations. The problem is
that at some point I think one of the businesses in between decided that too
much use was being made of their parking lot for through traffic, and there
is no back street running behind. If the bank, the store, and other
businesses who would benefit from it thought to pay a small maintenance fee
to that business to open the way back up, that would help a lot. I have no
idea if that has been tried, but it seems like it might work to me.
>>> This particular example does not, in my eyes, make any point worth
>>> making.
>>
>> Of course not. If you don't want to see the problem, there is no way to
>> induce you to see it.
>
> Your illustration is not clear. I see what you wrote, not what you mean.
The point is that you have to cross highway traffic twice in your car to
travel a block because the way things are laid out makes it impossible to go
in your car directly between the two businesses and the traffic situation
and physical design make walking impractical. It is possible for the truly
suicidal, but if you wind up in the hospital you don't save any time. So
you are spending extra time and gas because of poor layout.
>> You are completely unwilling to grasp how this flawed design results in
>> additional gas consumption for everyone.
>
> You are completely unwilling to make yourself clear.
>
> And even so, you have one unclear example. It's hardly a condemnation of
> everything American, although few need more.
It's everywhere, as you yourself pointed out. You have to go a mile out of
your way, sometimes, to even get your car headed in the right direction to
reach your destination.
>>>> This is plain and simple waste built into how we construct our
>>>> environment.
>>> No matter how you place things, people traveling the other way are gonna
>>> have to drive or travel extra distance.
>>
>> You apparently have missed the point that if you made it possible to walk
>> or even connected the parking lots, it would *not* be necessary to drive
>> the extra distance.
>
> My point stands. That you can't see it is sad, but what can I do?
Apparently nothing, because you _do_ see my point.
> And why is it impossible to walk the distance?
>
> And why is it necessary to shop at that store? In many cases optimizing
> routes leads one to shop at someplace farther than one would normally
> drive, but en-route for a combined trip.
I live in the country outside of town. The further into town I get, the
worse the congestion is. So, if I can shop closer to home I do. In the
end, I changed banks.
>>> But I have a solution for you, ATM or check. No trip to the bank
>>> necessary.
>>> Or were you looking for solutions?
>
> No response. You are not looking for solutions.
The solution was not relevant to the example, since the poor design would
still exist, regardless of using a different means to get money.
> [...]
>
>>>>> When I drive to work, or to the store to get groceries, how am I
>>>>> 'consuming, spending, or expending thoughtlessly or carelessly'?
>>>> See above. It's not just your solitary action.
>>> It's the sum of solitary actions, doing things necessary for survival.
>>> You have not shown the waste, or are you one of those eugenicists who
>>> thinks that survival is the problem and a few billion deaths desirable?
>>
>> Certainly I have.
>
> You've implied a waste, but it's based upon broad generalizations and
> your low opinion of Americans, not objective and checkable facts.
>
>> It is not my fault that you're actually not too stupid to see the point,
>
> Bravo, bravo.
>
>> but that you see the point and then turn your head away.
>
> I see your opinion, you've not substantiated anything as fact.
Except that you share the opinion, just on a different facet of the problem.
>> Those solitary actions are made necessary because people have not spoken
>> up to request another way of laying out the environment.
>
> Spoken up to whom? Are you under the impression that the government
> listens
> to the people?
Certainly one body you can speak to is government, and sometimes they do
listen, if they can get brownie points for doing so. You can also speak to
developers and speak up on forums like this. Every person who believes that
bad environments are not inevitable turns the tide a little more.
>> I'm not sure where your whole eugenics thing came from. I'm simply
>> requesting a bit more thought in how things are laid out.
>
> When things are built slowly over time, under many different conditions,
> what you consider obvious today was never obvious or a factor 50 years
> ago when that part of the road was build.
OK, but things are being built now, today. Why repeat the mistakes? When
things are maintained, why not put in small fixes that make things easier
and nicer?
>>>> It's the way your environment conspires to force you to have to drive
>>>> when perhaps you could walk.
>>> That's the problem with these clustered businesses you tout, they are
>>> all mostly remote from population centers. And if they were not
>>> remote, you'd have heavy trucking through the residential sections,
>>> with all the particulate pollution and other issues.
>>
>> Yes, they are. Because no one thought about things when they were laid
>> out.
>
> You've not addressed my objection or presented any solutions here, all
> you've got is vague complaints based, apparently, on your insurmountable
> problems with the bank.
The OP was not asking for solutions, since for him/her our status quo in the
US is an aberration. We can cooperate with each other when things are
built. How many times have you seen two businesses right up next to each
other whose parking lots would be contiguous but for a narrow strip of grass
with a curb around it? Better still, we can build in clusters so that the
car gets you to (many) shops, but you walk among them. In the Bay area, you
have this already, but the rest of us are not so lucky.
>> The pollution is going to happen anyway, but less if there is not such a
>> long drive to get to things.
>
> What do you consider a long drive? Let's see, it may be 2 or 3 miles to
> the nearest Raileys, but we go to the corner store when possible, they
> are more expensive and the produce ain't so good, so this is not the
> best option much of the time.
You tell me. You're the one who didn't want to put businesses close to
residential. How close is close?
>>>> It's also the fact that you may well be driving something that uses
>>>> more fuel than you need to do it.
>>> Or not. Your assumptions prove only that you are good at making
>>> assumptions, or is that assertions?
>>
>> I said "may well." I didn't say "is".
>
> Assumptions it is.
>
>> You are arguing in favor of the "typical" American way of doing things,
>
> I'm pointing out that there is little choice in the matter.
You're pointing out that we all believe there is little choice in the
matter. Of course there is choice.
>> so apparently you see that as an ok way of doing things, even if you do
>> not in this instance engage in it yourself.
>
> What would you force Americans to do?
Why is it always about force? What about education, advocacy, cooperation?
Why do you have such a low opinion of your fellow citizens that you think
that they cannot do better without force?
>>>>>>>> Because gas is cheap (compared with Europe)
>>>>>>> You greenies are the most unlikely shills for big oil.
>>>>>> The pre-tax price of gas in the UK, at least, is lower than here. I
>>>>>> suspect similar is true for Europe as a whole.
>>>>> American oil companies are making record windfall profits.
>>>> So who are the shills, exactly?
>>> You environmentalists who get all glassy-eyed at the thought of
>>> $10/gal gas.
>>
>> That doesn't even make any sense.
>
> That you don't understand it is not the same as it not making sense.
> Many greens *want* $10/gal gas because it will reduce that ikky
> driving. Al Gore's not gonna be inconvenienced, but will you?
I don't believe this. As it stands now, the vast majority of Americans have
no choice but to drive. If you took all cars away tomorrow, a significant
portion of the population would starve. That being said, high gas prices
might force people (a la your comment above) to rethink design of their
environment so that as new things are developed, less driving would be a
viable option. I certainly think that designing with the possibility in
mind that people could drive less is wise, given that it would be cost
prohibitive to rip down all the inefficient stuff that exists now when gas
prices do rise like that. Therefore, if we do not want to stick future
people (ourselves, our childre, or their children) with excessively high
cost to be able to do the things that are necessary (like buying food), we
would do well to at least make the attempt to build more efficient
developments now.
>>>>> And a large part of the price of every gallon bought in the US
>>>>> is state and federal taxes.
>>>> But not as large as in Europe.
>>> You got any numbers?
>>
>> http://www.aip.com.au/pricing/internationalprices.htm
>
> I'll check it later.
>
> [...]
>
>>>> It's all right, you're allowed to stay ignorant if you want.
>>> This from the woman who can't figure out to use an ATM or write a check
>>> to avoid that little extra trip to the bank? You ain't a genius Amy,
>>> you're more like a parrot.
>>
>> For one thing, it was an example. You may or may not be familiar with
>> the concept. Obviously (to me at least) when I was using that bank I
>> also had other things I needed to do like make deposits.
>
> Every day? Every time you went grocery shopping?
Once in a while was plenty excruciating.
>> For another thing, if I want to go to the bank to get money before
>> shopping, I should be able to do that without such a torturous route.
>
> It would be preferable yes, but you have other payment options and you
> refuse to even address that issue.
Because it is not relevant to the example. The example concerns the
physical design, just like when you missed a U-turn and had to go a mile to
the next one. It could be argued that you should never have missed that
U-Turn, but once it had happened DID it have to be so torturous to fix your
error?
>> Both the bank and the store have been in those locations for at least 10
>> years, before every grocery store had an atm at the checkout.
>
> So you don't have a *need* to go to the bank first? FYI, there's also
> direct deposit that will reduce your need to go to the bank to cash
> checks.
I don't bank there anymore. But I also don't like reconciling innumerable
atm receipts fron different stores, so I *prefer* to get cash before
shopping. And I am self-employed, so direct deposit is not an option for
me. Not that ANY of this is at all relevant to the example.
>>>>>>> And again, where is the waste?
>>>>>> If you are forced to get into the car and drive a block to accomplish
>>>>>> something you could do by walking that block, the waste of time and
>>>>>> gas is colossal (hint: you still do the same amount of walking to and
>>>>>> from parking lots, but you have to drive in between).
>>>>> Colossal?
>>>> Yes, when you have to repeat it over and over daily it is colossal.
>>> If you have to do anything over and over again on a daily basis, you
>>> can't
>>> plan your way outta a paper bag. This is another idiotic argument.
>>
>> But you apparently can't see that I am not talking about that one place.
>
> That's all you've talked about so far Amy. I refuse to believe that every
> establishment where you live is situated the same as your bank and grocery
> store. That would be physically impossible.
Let me give you another example. We have a brand new strip mall like you'd
see anywhere in the country (Bed, Bath, and Beyond, Petsmart, Barnes &
Nobles, etc.). It has three widely spaced "strips" that are so positioned
that you can walk along each one, but to get from one to another you have to
drive. In this case, it is not physically impossible to walk, but the
spacing and placement are such that you'd waste a lot of time doing it
because your car would be at one side or the other, and you'd have to walk
literally an extra mile or more if you did so. So even though those
businesses are all sort of clustered, you STILL have to drive out of one
parking lot into another to visit multiple businesses. This is made worse
by the fact that there are restaurants and a cinema scattered randomly
around the edges of the development and none of them are in easy walking
distance of anything else there.
Simply by placing the strips differently they could have easily made it
possible to walk from one to another and had the same amount of retail space
and parking.
>> I am talking about every place, because most places are equally poorly
>> designed.
>
> Can you show that this is more than just your opinion?
Come to my town and look around. You're lucky that you're in an area that
is fairly well laid out, but I am not. If you were anywhere else I'd say
just open your eyes and look aorund.
>> And I am not talking about just me, but about the bank employees, who may
>> want to shop after work, and everyone else who has to contend with these
>> small madnesses everywhere.
>
> I imagine that you have similar issues no matter where you live.
I don't see the same issues when I go other places, no. Copenhagen is very
efficient. Edinburgh as well. San Jose is very well done (at least in the
part I visited, near the Adobe building).
>>>> We budget 2-4 hours for a shopping trip, since you have to visit 4-5
>>>> parking lots to accmplish what needs to get done.
>>> Visit a mall fer chrissakes. You can walk till you drop.
>>
>> The mall is another 15 miles away, idiot. Plus there is no grocery store
>> at the mall.
>
> So there's exactly one grocery store where you live? Must be a crowded
> place to shop.
I am not sure what in my statement led you to that conclusion.
>>>>> And WRT time, it takes more time to walk.
>>>> In a typical American environment, you are quite right.
>>> In any environment. You walk much much slower than you drive.
>>
>> You don't have to park when you walk,
>
> Typically you need to park after getting where you walk, like at your
> bank (theoretically).
And you wouldn't have to do that if you'd driven there?
>> nor do you get stuck in traffic.
>
> You never shopped at Costco.
Again, this is the same no matter how you arrived.
>> Come on, I know you're not as stupid as you preted.
>
> Awwww.
>
> [...]
>
>>>>>>> But you've failed again to show any waste.
>>>>>> Nearly all of the population has built in transportation equipment
>>>>>> called feet. To have to use gas when feet could accomplish the goal
>>>>>> in the same or less time is wasteful. How is this not obvious?
>>>>>> ...
>>>>> But you've already pointed out that feet are rarely adequate due to
>>>>> the
>>>>> distance between things in America. Where I used to live I could walk
>>>>> to the local grocery store and often did, depending on what I needed.
>>>>> When stocks were low and I needed lots, I would drive. It's all a
>>>>> matter of circumstance.
>>>> No, due to the design and layout of things here in America. The two
>>>> are quite different, as you apparently know, since you have lived where
>>>> it was sometimes easier for you to walk to the grocery store.
>>> I lived close to the store at that point. I don't now. It was a matter
>>> of
>>> my location, not the stores.
>>
>> And that was your choice, and it had consequences.
>
> Sometimes you have choices like these, sometimes you do not. A few years
> back housing was impossible to find in the bay area, if you found
> anything,
> you took it.
There is a reason I don't live there :-)
>>>>> When it's necessary to drive, and you drive, it ain't a waste. That
>>>>> things could be better planned (WRT transportation) is nether here nor
>>>>> there as things are not better planned WRT transportation.
>>>> Sure. Just accept that crap planning is inevitable and live your life
>>>> fat, dumb, and happy.
>>> Says Amy, who can't plan her way around the simple obstacles life plants
>>> in everyone's path.
>>
>> That's the point. Life does not plant them in everyone's path. The
>> built environment does not just "come to be."
>
> I disagree, such environments are built slowly by different people with
> different ideas over decades of time, or longer, sometimes much longer
> (they still use the Roman roads).
So we don't need to bother to ask them to exert any thought, even though
their decisions will affect us.
>> Someone had to make decisions that affect the layout.
>
> There was nothing *to* layout when they built, they just bought the
> land and built the store.
So they did this totally without blueprints or even an idea of what the
finished building should look like, just started nailing stuff together?
>> Good decisions can be made as easily as poor ones,
>
> I don't think so, short of having a working crystal ball.
At least we should try.
>> but we are not in the habit of making good decisions.
>
> Speak for yourself Kimosabe.
>
>>>>> Europe is
>>>>> small and everything is close(r) together. Also most of the town
>>>>> layouts are from when the area was agrarian years ago. This is a
>>>>> matter
>>>>> of history, not planning.
>>>> Sure, no one ever planned any city in Europe :-).
>>> They did have the opportunity to do so in many cases after WW2. So which
>>> American cities do you want to bomb into rubble?
>>
>> The idea is that as we build new construction to plan _that_ better.
>
> Given the way things are spread out now, I question what can be done.
>
> But I agree in principle.
Given where you are, you may be right. But vast swaths of the country are
not as built up as San Francisco.
>>>> And the fact that what we do without planning here has such dire
>>>> consequences in terms of fuel and time efficiency shouldn't induce us
>>>> to ever want anything different.
>>> Texas is as large as most of Europe all by itself. You can't make things
>>> closer together like they are in Europe.
>>>
>>>> God has obviously spoken, and sprawl is our manifest destiny.
>>> I guess you should know.
>>
>> I do know sarcasm when I use it.
>
> Emotions are not transmitted in text, that's why god created emoticons.
> :-)
It was deadpan ;-). I just get so sick of people saying we can't do
anything to change this, that whatever developers choose to throw up is OK
even though it will be here for generations, like they really do feel that
to try to change things is somehow going against some divine force that's
just steamrollering right over us.
-Amy