If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by aemeijers on March 30, 2008, 1:01 am
Kurt Ullman wrote:
>
>> As for using increased tax revenues to fund, say, mass transit. It takes
>> five years to lay track. So 100% of the drivers in my town would be charged
>> extra amounts so that five years from now, 2% of the population will have
>> the opportunity to use rail transit? Really bad trade-off. Really bad.
>
> Five years to lay track, but 10 years to do the engineering studies, 5
> to do the enviornmental impact statements, 5 years to get the right of
> way figured out.
> One of the first things I did in '76 when I was a freshly minted
> newspaper reporter was attend the first public hearing for a bypass
> around the city I worked in. The final section was opened up 3 years
> ago. Took 'em '76 to 95 to put the first shovel in the ground and '95 to
> '05 to get it done.
About the only 'mass transit' you can do in a hurry is buses, either
conventional ones or privately run gypsy/jitney ones. Unlike Europe or
the old dense urban areas of east coast, most of US is not mass-transit
friendly. Too spread out, and peoples schedules vary too much. Around
here, they cut the bus routes back to the old part of the city. The
routes to the burbs and large apartment projects were money holes, even
with a buttload of federal subsidies. At work, I suggested they get with
the city bus folks, and try 4-trip a day (early and late to the office,
then the same thing the other way at quitting time) shuttle service from
where employee homes were concentrated to the office complex. The idea
went nowhere, even though several apartment complexes probably account
for a third of the junior-level employees.
--
aem sends...
|
|
Posted by Edwin Pawlowski on March 30, 2008, 7:11 am
> About the only 'mass transit' you can do in a hurry is buses, either
> conventional ones or privately run gypsy/jitney ones. Unlike Europe or the
> old dense urban areas of east coast, most of US is not mass-transit
> friendly. Too spread out, and peoples schedules vary too much. Around
> here, they cut the bus routes back to the old part of the city.
Schedules are not a problem. Years ago companies and workers adapted to
available transportation or they walked because they lived near the mill
That is probably the only easy part to overcome. The automobile allowed
us to use many other options. Used to be, people did not complain about
taking two busses and a trolley to get to work. Now we complain if our
parking spot is more than 25' from the door. If a train dropped 100 people
off at the entrance to an industrial park, chances are they'd still have to
travel a quarter mile to a mile to their workplace along roads with no
sidewalks.
The last time I took public transportation to work was in the 1960's and
where I park at work is only 10' from the door.
|
|
Posted by Frank on March 30, 2008, 8:26 am
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
> Schedules are not a problem. Years ago companies and workers adapted to
> available transportation or they walked because they lived near the mill
> That is probably the only easy part to overcome. The automobile allowed
> us to use many other options. Used to be, people did not complain about
> taking two busses and a trolley to get to work. Now we complain if our
> parking spot is more than 25' from the door. If a train dropped 100 people
> off at the entrance to an industrial park, chances are they'd still have to
> travel a quarter mile to a mile to their workplace along roads with no
> sidewalks.
>
> The last time I took public transportation to work was in the 1960's and
> where I park at work is only 10' from the door.
>
>
Reminds me of years ago I was transfered downtown where I would have to
pay parking. I investigated taking the bus and got all the brochures
from the bus company. Of major interest to me was their giving their
total passenger miles and fuel consumed. A simple calculation revealed
that one gallon of gasoline transported one passenger nine miles - less
than half the mileage I was getting on my car at the time ;)
|
|
Posted by aemeijers on March 30, 2008, 2:16 pm
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> About the only 'mass transit' you can do in a hurry is buses, either
>> conventional ones or privately run gypsy/jitney ones. Unlike Europe or the
>> old dense urban areas of east coast, most of US is not mass-transit
>> friendly. Too spread out, and peoples schedules vary too much. Around
>> here, they cut the bus routes back to the old part of the city.
>
> Schedules are not a problem. Years ago companies and workers adapted to
> available transportation or they walked because they lived near the mill
> That is probably the only easy part to overcome. The automobile allowed
> us to use many other options. Used to be, people did not complain about
> taking two busses and a trolley to get to work. Now we complain if our
> parking spot is more than 25' from the door. If a train dropped 100 people
> off at the entrance to an industrial park, chances are they'd still have to
> travel a quarter mile to a mile to their workplace along roads with no
> sidewalks.
>
> The last time I took public transportation to work was in the 1960's and
> where I park at work is only 10' from the door.
>
>
I'm not sure, but I think we are agreeing with each other. Until July
05, I lived in the apartments about a mile west of here, which was the
turnaround point for the end of that particular bus route (before it was
cancelled.) So, in theory, I could have ridden the bus to work, assuming
I got my lazy ass out of bed in time. However, it was a 20 minute
meandering ride from their to the central bus stop downtown, and then a
20 minute wait for a transfer for the bus that stopped in front of my
office. Call it 50 minutes to an hour, minimum, twice a day.
I'm 51 years old. The insurance company tables say I have maybe 35 years
left, if I'm lucky. I can DRIVE to work in 10-12 minutes. Am I going to
use up 2 hours sitting on a bus every day? Would you? Would anyone
rational, unless they were flat broke and had no other choice? If my
employers and the city had come up with a express shuttle for the
federal installation where I work, so no transfer was involved and it
only took, say, 20 minutes twice a day, the bus would suddenly look a
whole lot more interesting. The apartments where I lived could have
filled half a bus with just the federal employees that lived there. Add
in the other apartments up and down the main drag on this side of town,
it could have worked out. The main drags in the other 3 compass
directions would have similar numbers- hit the big apartment complexes,
and maybe certain subdivisions where you know the employees live.
Hey, I LIKE buses. I rode them a lot in college. But they were cheap,
and went directly from where I slept, to where I needed to be, and there
was one every 15 minutes.
--
aem sends...
|
|
Posted by gas on March 30, 2008, 8:36 am
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 05:01:26 +0000, aemeijers wrote:
> Kurt Ullman wrote:
>>
>>> As for using increased tax revenues to fund, say, mass transit. It
>>> takes five years to lay track. So 100% of the drivers in my town would
>>> be charged extra amounts so that five years from now, 2% of the
>>> population will have the opportunity to use rail transit? Really bad
>>> trade-off. Really bad.
>>
>> Five years to lay track, but 10 years to do the engineering studies,
>> 5
>> to do the enviornmental impact statements, 5 years to get the right of
>> way figured out.
>> One of the first things I did in '76 when I was a freshly minted
>> newspaper reporter was attend the first public hearing for a bypass
>> around the city I worked in. The final section was opened up 3 years
>> ago. Took 'em '76 to 95 to put the first shovel in the ground and '95
>> to '05 to get it done.
> About the only 'mass transit' you can do in a hurry is buses, either
> conventional ones or privately run gypsy/jitney ones. Unlike Europe or
> the old dense urban areas of east coast, most of US is not mass-transit
> friendly. Too spread out, and peoples schedules vary too much. Around
> here, they cut the bus routes back to the old part of the city. The
> routes to the burbs and large apartment projects were money holes, even
> with a buttload of federal subsidies. At work, I suggested they get with
> the city bus folks, and try 4-trip a day (early and late to the office,
> then the same thing the other way at quitting time) shuttle service from
> where employee homes were concentrated to the office complex. The idea
> went nowhere, even though several apartment complexes probably account
> for a third of the junior-level employees.
Buses aren't a bad solution in a places, but your opinion is poorly
thought out. Huge amounts of fuel consumption could be saved by replacing
the most heavily traveled air commute routes (e.g. L.A. to New York, L.A.
to Las Vegas...) with high speed rail solutions. We wouldn't have to
develop the tech ourselves either, we can look to Germany, France,
Switzerland, China and Japan for examples, and attempt to improve on their
designs. Significant fuel use (and human lives) can be saved by allowing
people to place their cars on trains for transport (this is done is areas
of Switzerland).
For commuting distances less than 50 miles, another solution is
alternative modes of personal transportation. I personally want a Twike
(www.twike.com). In high sun states, e.g. Utah, Arizona, Nevada,
California, you could commute entirely on solar energy (charging when
parked, not solar cells on twike), _without any new tech_. If more money
gets pumped into such vehicles, improvements will come rapidly. In high
population density areas, improved Bike infrastructure will help. Better
health of the populace, reduced traffic congestion, reduced noise and air
pollution. It would be wonderful. For longer commutes, ride-sharing and
car-pooling can make significant impacts.
In areas where traditional vehicles are needed (farming, development), bio-
diesel is a practical solution, and stricter efficiency regulations are
needed.
We're stuck in a rut, and we need to get out of it. Culturally, we seem
to want a simple one-shot magic bullet that cures our woes without any
change of behavior on our part. On the other hand, a few common sense
tactics and a minor shift in our way of thinking, can make huge
differences while we work on further improvements.
Removing our dependence on fossil fuels is an eventual necessity. We can
already make huge dents in it now. The approaches needed will have both
immediate and long term benefits. No one solution is going to work in
every area of such a diverse land mass as the United-States, so regional
approaches have to be taken. What's most important is to avoid knee jerk
'oh that can't work' reactions. Apply careful analysis, and use what
works where it works.
Of course, there's a lot of propaganda out there to sabotage these
efforts, and most of that propaganda comes from the energy and automobile
industries, who are worried about shifting power structures and reduced
profits. The worst nightmare for America's energy industry is more self
reliant America, where the citizens produce a large portion of the energy
they consume themselves. It would reduce their power and profits
drastically.
|
Page 3 of 11 < 1 2 3 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | I think I screwed up | July 4, 2007, 9:37 am |
| Re: Are we the only ones getting screwed ????? | March 28, 2008, 10:15 pm |
| Re: Are we the only ones getting screwed ????? | March 28, 2008, 10:37 pm |
| Re: Are we the only ones getting screwed ????? | March 29, 2008, 2:59 pm |
| Re: Are we the only ones getting screwed ????? | March 29, 2008, 3:02 pm |
| Re: Are we the only ones getting screwed ????? | March 31, 2008, 6:26 pm |
| Re: Are we the only ones getting screwed ????? | April 16, 2008, 12:35 am |
| Why Screwed By Heat? | May 16, 2006, 4:21 am |
| i think we screwed up the jacuzzi plz help | June 25, 2007, 6:14 pm |
| Fridge icemaker screwed up | December 8, 2005, 1:09 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap