Reckless, Aggressive Drivers: Homegrown Terrorists

Pat wrote:
On Mar 28, 6:47 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Bolwerk" wrote in message

... George Conklin wrote:
"Eric Vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
... George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
... On Mar 24, 8:43 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...

On Mar 23, 8:40 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 8:04 am, "George Conklin"
wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...





On Mar 21, 8:23 pm, "George Conklin"
wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
Cities in decline often beat up on the census because
otherwise
they
have
to admit failure.
Cities not in decline beat up on it, too.
That does not mean any of the comments are valid.
Really? Because I distinctly remember one city that
complained,
but
rather than just complaining, they put their money where
their
mouth
was
and actually sent people out into the streets to count what
the
census
bureau said was uncountable.
The census bureau, caught with their drawers down, accepted
their
figures rather than dispute the point.
The census seldom revises its figures for political reasons.
As
a
whole, the results are accurate and they stand. Counting the
homeless?
Hardly enough to really matter.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
First off, the Census IS an estimate.
The census wanted to use estimates for the first time in 2000,
but
the
Republicans insisted on a real count, just like the
constitution
says.-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, but that is only the 100% count and that is ONLY used for
congressional apportionment. No one else uses that number
because
it
is so unrealistic.
-------
This is facutally totally incorrect. I suggest you take a
course
in
demography and see what the census is used for, and the facts
based
on
the
census. You imagination of what you wish is irrelevant.
Okay, George, if you think 100% data rules the day, then there
is
one
very simple test. Even you can do it.
Here is the income distribution for the United States, USING
SAMPLE
DATA, NOT 100% DATA.
United States Total: 105,539,122
Less than $10,000 10,067,027
$10,000 to $14,999 6,657,228
$15,000 to $19,999 6,601,020
$20,000 to $24,999 6,935,945
$25,000 to $29,999 6,801,010
$30,000 to $34,999 6,718,232
$35,000 to $39,999 6,236,192
$40,000 to $44,999 5,965,869
$45,000 to $49,999 5,244,211
$50,000 to $59,999 9,537,175
$60,000 to $74,999 11,003,429
$75,000 to $99,999 10,799,245
$100,000 to $124,999 5,491,526
$125,000 to $149,999 2,656,300
$150,000 to $199,999 2,322,038
$200,000 or more 2,502,675
Show me the equivalent chart using only 100% data and then
explain
how
it is more accurate in a sentence of two (that's all it should
take).
Otherwise, shut up because you don't know anything about
statistics.
Your lack of knowledge is dangerous. Again, George, a very
simple
test. Show the chart using 100% data. I used sample data.
First, data are not the same as statistics. Statistics are what
you
apply to a data set to evaluate its probably (i.e. accuracy). You
seem
ignorant of this basic fact.
Secondly, the issue is the total population count is wrong. It is
not.
You argued that one city or other always was discriminated again.
I
said,
"wrong." I still say wrong. You don't know a thing about data
collection.
Further, you keep changing the subject.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
No George, you keep ignoring facts. If you look at the Census, if
you
don't understand what it means, then it's useless.
-----
So then you feel you can subsitute any old thing you say for
facts
and
get away with it. WRONG.
No George, I wholeheartedly agree. You substitute any old thing
for
the
facts and thing you can get away with it. The problem is, you
don't
know what you're talking about.
I'd love to see your comments refereed by a competent
demographer.
It
would be good for laughs.
I would to, since you're not one. It would be fun to see how you
disagree with him/her.
You wish.
Wishes what? That you aren't one even though you claim to have an
inside
line to numbers no one else has? Or wishes you were a demographer and
actually knew what you were talking about?
The claims posted here that the census is anti-urban are false and you
all
know it.
Is your reading comprehension that bad? Stop being an idiot. Nobody
said it was anti-urban. What was said was it undercounts urban areas,
which is true.
You are in fact stating that the census is biased on purpose, which is
incorrect. Whatever its failings, the error rates are estimated and to say
that the undercount is city-based is irresponsible.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But George, use your head for once.

The Census undercounts the homeless in urban and southern areas more
than in rural areas because .....(wait for it) ....... there's a
higher percentage of homeless in urban and rural areas. This is
because of two factors: (1) the weather and (2) the Federal definition
of homeless. The definition of homeless plays into it because rural
and urban homelessness have vastly different charactistics.

Urban homeless is what you think of as homeless and meets the Federal
definition of homelessness quite easily. It is someone living in a
place not designed for human habitation: say under a bridge or in a
car. This is much easier to achieve in southern area or a urban area
because of warmth. It's hard to live under a bridge in Helena Montana
in February.

In rural areas (and most northern areas), homeless people tend to
"double up". They go live with a relative or something. Even they
don't have their own/rent their own home and are overcroweded, they
are not technically homeless (under the Federal definition).

George, it's not that the Bureau of the Census is out to undercount
anyone. They have a methodology that works great for counting people
who have a place to live and some respect for authority. The Census
mails them a card and they answer it. NBD. The problem is, their
methodology doesn't work anywhere near as good for people who don't
want to get counted, don't have a permanent residence, and are living
under the radar screen. You can't count the person living in the run
down factory, unless you know the person is there. It really isn't a
matter of counting the homeless so much as it's a matter of FINDING
the homeless.

But the whole issue of homelessnes -- particularly this type of
homelessness -- is much more prevelent in cities and southern areas
than it is in northern (i.e. colder) and rural areas. Where I live
(both northern and semi-rural), it was 20F last night and we got about
4" of snow. My sister lives in Texas and it's in the 80s. In my
county, there aren't many homeless people. In her county, it's a
problem. If you miss, say, half of the homeless people in either
county, here you'll miss 1 or 2 and there you'll miss hundreds or
thousands. So missing half will bias against her urban, southern
county more than my rural, northern one.

George, this is all common knowledge. You should do some more reading
on homelessness.

George probably thinks he lives in the South, since he live in NC now.

But it's not just the homeless that get under-counted. No one really
knows how many Mexicans live here now. They don't answer postcards. Last
census, I was living in a commercial district and there was a house
across the highway from me that had about a dozen Mexicans living there.
During the day, no one was around.

So the census sends someone out there one day to poke around, rings my
doorbell and asks me about he house. I said I wasn't sure if anyone
lived there or not because there was so much tenant turnover.

George Conklin wrote:
"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Eric Vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 24, 8:43 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message


...

On Mar 23, 8:40 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 22, 8:04 am, "George Conklin"
wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
On Mar 21, 8:23 pm, "George Conklin"
wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
Cities in decline often beat up on the census because
otherwise
they
have
to admit failure.
Cities not in decline beat up on it, too.
That does not mean any of the comments are valid.
Really? Because I distinctly remember one city that
complained,
but
rather than just complaining, they put their money where
their
mouth
was
and actually sent people out into the streets to count what
the
census
bureau said was uncountable.
The census bureau, caught with their drawers down, accepted
their
figures rather than dispute the point.
The census seldom revises its figures for political reasons.
As
a
whole, the results are accurate and they stand. Counting the
homeless?
Hardly enough to really matter.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
First off, the Census IS an estimate.
The census wanted to use estimates for the first time in 2000,
but
the
Republicans insisted on a real count, just like the
constitution
says.-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, but that is only the 100% count and that is ONLY used for
congressional apportionment. No one else uses that number
because
it
is so unrealistic.
-------
This is facutally totally incorrect. I suggest you take a
course
in
demography and see what the census is used for, and the facts
based
on
the
census. You imagination of what you wish is irrelevant.
Okay, George, if you think 100% data rules the day, then there
is
one
very simple test. Even you can do it.
Here is the income distribution for the United States, USING
SAMPLE
DATA, NOT 100% DATA.
United States Total: 105,539,122
Less than $10,000 10,067,027
$10,000 to $14,999 6,657,228
$15,000 to $19,999 6,601,020
$20,000 to $24,999 6,935,945
$25,000 to $29,999 6,801,010
$30,000 to $34,999 6,718,232
$35,000 to $39,999 6,236,192
$40,000 to $44,999 5,965,869
$45,000 to $49,999 5,244,211
$50,000 to $59,999 9,537,175
$60,000 to $74,999 11,003,429
$75,000 to $99,999 10,799,245
$100,000 to $124,999 5,491,526
$125,000 to $149,999 2,656,300
$150,000 to $199,999 2,322,038
$200,000 or more 2,502,675
Show me the equivalent chart using only 100% data and then
explain
how
it is more accurate in a sentence of two (that's all it should
take).
Otherwise, shut up because you don't know anything about
statistics.
Your lack of knowledge is dangerous. Again, George, a very
simple
test. Show the chart using 100% data. I used sample data.
First, data are not the same as statistics. Statistics are what
you
apply to a data set to evaluate its probably (i.e. accuracy). You
seem
ignorant of this basic fact.

Secondly, the issue is the total population count is wrong. It is
not.
You argued that one city or other always was discriminated again.
I
said,
"wrong." I still say wrong. You don't know a thing about data
collection.
Further, you keep changing the subject.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
No George, you keep ignoring facts. If you look at the Census, if
you
don't understand what it means, then it's useless.

-----

So then you feel you can subsitute any old thing you say for
facts
and
get away with it. WRONG.


No George, I wholeheartedly agree. You substitute any old thing
for
the
facts and thing you can get away with it. The problem is, you
don't
know what you're talking about.
I'd love to see your comments refereed by a competent
demographer.
It
would be good for laughs.



I would to, since you're not one. It would be fun to see how you
disagree with him/her.
You wish.


Wishes what? That you aren't one even though you claim to have an
inside
line to numbers no one else has? Or wishes you were a demographer and
actually knew what you were talking about?
The claims posted here that the census is anti-urban are false and you
all
know it.
Is your reading comprehension that bad? Stop being an idiot. Nobody
said it was anti-urban. What was said was it undercounts urban areas,
which is true.

You are in fact stating that the census is biased on purpose, which is
incorrect. Whatever its failings, the error rates are estimated and to say
that the undercount is city-based is irresponsible.

Jesus, you really do have trouble with reading comprehension, don't you?
No, I did not in fact say the Census is biased on purpose.

I said urban areas suffer an undercount - I gave no reason for it and I
attributed no motive to it. Maybe they have a shortage of bodies to do
the counts, and need to depend on Georgeconklinbots to take some of the
load off. This means they have an army of counters who probably can't
read the forms.

On Mar 28, 11:15 am, Bolwerk wrote:
George Conklin wrote:
"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Eric Vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 24, 8:43 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...

On Mar 23, 8:40 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 22, 8:04 am, "George Conklin"
wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
On Mar 21, 8:23 pm, "George Conklin"
wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
. com...
George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
s.com...
George Conklin wrote:
Cities in decline often beat up on the census because
otherwise
they
have
to admit failure.
Cities not in decline beat up on it, too.
That does not mean any of the comments are valid.
Really? Because I distinctly remember one city that
complained,
but
rather than just complaining, they put their money where
their
mouth
was
and actually sent people out into the streets to count what
the
census
bureau said was uncountable.
The census bureau, caught with their drawers down, accepted
their
figures rather than dispute the point.
The census seldom revises its figures for political reasons.
As
a
whole, the results are accurate and they stand. Counting the
homeless?
Hardly enough to really matter.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
First off, the Census IS an estimate.
The census wanted to use estimates for the first time in 2000,
but
the
Republicans insisted on a real count, just like the
constitution
says.-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, but that is only the 100% count and that is ONLY used for
congressional apportionment. No one else uses that number
because
it
is so unrealistic.
-------
This is facutally totally incorrect. I suggest you take a
course
in
demography and see what the census is used for, and the facts
based
on
the
census. You imagination of what you wish is irrelevant.
Okay, George, if you think 100% data rules the day, then there
is
one
very simple test. Even you can do it.
Here is the income distribution for the United States, USING
SAMPLE
DATA, NOT 100% DATA.
United States Total: 105,539,122
Less than $10,000 10,067,027
$10,000 to $14,999 6,657,228
$15,000 to $19,999 6,601,020
$20,000 to $24,999 6,935,945
$25,000 to $29,999 6,801,010
$30,000 to $34,999 6,718,232
$35,000 to $39,999 6,236,192
$40,000 to $44,999 5,965,869
$45,000 to $49,999 5,244,211
$50,000 to $59,999 9,537,175
$60,000 to $74,999 11,003,429
$75,000 to $99,999 10,799,245
$100,000 to $124,999 5,491,526
$125,000 to $149,999 2,656,300
$150,000 to $199,999 2,322,038
$200,000 or more 2,502,675
Show me the equivalent chart using only 100% data and then
explain
how
it is more accurate in a sentence of two (that's all it should
take).
Otherwise, shut up because you don't know anything about
statistics.
Your lack of knowledge is dangerous. Again, George, a very
simple
test. Show the chart using 100% data. I used sample data.
First, data are not the same as statistics. Statistics are what
you
apply to a data set to evaluate its probably (i.e. accuracy). You
seem
ignorant of this basic fact.

Secondly, the issue is the total population count is wrong. It is
not.
You argued that one city or other always was discriminated again.
I
said,
"wrong." I still say wrong. You don't know a thing about data
collection.
Further, you keep changing the subject.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
No George, you keep ignoring facts. If you look at the Census, if
you
don't understand what it means, then it's useless.

-----

So then you feel you can subsitute any old thing you say for
facts
and
get away with it. WRONG.

No George, I wholeheartedly agree. You substitute any old thing
for
the
facts and thing you can get away with it. The problem is, you
don't
know what you're talking about.
I'd love to see your comments refereed by a competent
demographer.
It
would be good for laughs.

I would to, since you're not one. It would be fun to see how you
disagree with him/her.
You wish.

Wishes what? That you aren't one even though you claim to have an
inside
line to numbers no one else has? Or wishes you were a demographer and
actually knew what you were talking about?
The claims posted here that the census is anti-urban are false and you
all
know it.
Is your reading comprehension that bad? Stop being an idiot. Nobody
said it was anti-urban. What was said was it undercounts urban areas,
which is true.

You are in fact stating that the census is biased on purpose, which is
incorrect. Whatever its failings, the error rates are estimated and to say
that the undercount is city-based is irresponsible.

Jesus, you really do have trouble with reading comprehension, don't you?
No, I did not in fact say the Census is biased on purpose.

I said urban areas suffer an undercount - I gave no reason for it and I
attributed no motive to it. Maybe they have a shortage of bodies to do
the counts, and need to depend on Georgeconklinbots to take some of the
load off. This means they have an army of counters who probably can't
read the forms.

You would think we would have a better system that would account for
these things. The Romans used this system for crying out loud......

On Mar 28, 10:23 pm, William wrote:
On Mar 28, 11:15 am, Bolwerk wrote:



George Conklin wrote:
"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Eric Vey" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
George Conklin wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 24, 8:43 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...

On Mar 23, 8:40 am, "George Conklin" wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

...
On Mar 22, 8:04 am, "George Conklin"
wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message
...
On Mar 21, 8:23 pm, "George Conklin"
wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
. com...
George Conklin wrote:
"vey" wrote in message
s.com...
George Conklin wrote:
Cities in decline often beat up on the census because
otherwise
they
have
to admit failure.
Cities not in decline beat up on it, too.
That does not mean any of the comments are valid.
Really? Because I distinctly remember one city that
complained,
but
rather than just complaining, they put their money where
their
mouth
was
and actually sent people out into the streets to count what
the
census
bureau said was uncountable.
The census bureau, caught with their drawers down, accepted
their
figures rather than dispute the point.
The census seldom revises its figures for political reasons.
As
a
whole, the results are accurate and they stand. Counting the
homeless?
Hardly enough to really matter.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
First off, the Census IS an estimate.
The census wanted to use estimates for the first time in 2000,
but
the
Republicans insisted on a real count, just like the
constitution
says.-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yes, but that is only the 100% count and that is ONLY used for
congressional apportionment. No one else uses that number
because
it
is so unrealistic.
-------
This is facutally totally incorrect. I suggest you take a
course
in
demography and see what the census is used for, and the facts
based
on
the
census. You imagination of what you wish is irrelevant.
Okay, George, if you think 100% data rules the day, then there
is
one
very simple test. Even you can do it.
Here is the income distribution for the United States, USING
SAMPLE
DATA, NOT 100% DATA.
United States Total: 105,539,122
Less than $10,000 10,067,027
$10,000 to $14,999 6,657,228
$15,000 to $19,999 6,601,020
$20,000 to $24,999 6,935,945
$25,000 to $29,999 6,801,010
$30,000 to $34,999 6,718,232
$35,000 to $39,999 6,236,192
$40,000 to $44,999 5,965,869
$45,000 to $49,999 5,244,211
$50,000 to $59,999 9,537,175
$60,000 to $74,999 11,003,429
$75,000 to $99,999 10,799,245
$100,000 to $124,999 5,491,526
$125,000 to $149,999 2,656,300
$150,000 to $199,999 2,322,038
$200,000 or more 2,502,675
Show me the equivalent chart using only 100% data and then
explain
how
it is more accurate in a sentence of two (that's all it should
take).
Otherwise, shut up because you don't know anything about
statistics.
Your lack of knowledge is dangerous. Again, George, a very
simple
test. Show the chart using 100% data. I used sample data.
First, data are not the same as statistics. Statistics are what
you
apply to a data set to evaluate its probably (i.e. accuracy). You
seem
ignorant of this basic fact.

Secondly, the issue is the total population count is wrong. It is
not.
You argued that one city or other always was discriminated again.
I
said,
"wrong." I still say wrong. You don't know a thing about data
collection.
Further, you keep changing the subject.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
No George, you keep ignoring facts. If you look at the Census, if
you
don't understand what it means, then it's useless.

-----

So then you feel you can subsitute any old thing you say for
facts
and
get away with it. WRONG.

No George, I wholeheartedly agree. You substitute any old thing
for
the
facts and thing you can get away with it. The problem is, you
don't
know what you're talking about.
I'd love to see your comments refereed by a competent
demographer.
It
would be good for laughs.

I would to, since you're not one. It would be fun to see how you
disagree with him/her.
You wish.

Wishes what? That you aren't one even though you claim to have an
inside
line to numbers no one else has? Or wishes you were a demographer and
actually knew what you were talking about?
The claims posted here that the census is anti-urban are false and you
all
know it.
Is your reading comprehension that bad? Stop being an idiot. Nobody
said it was anti-urban. What was said was it undercounts urban areas,
which is true.

You are in fact stating that the census is biased on purpose, which is
incorrect. Whatever its failings, the error rates are estimated and to say
that the undercount is city-based is irresponsible.

Jesus, you really do have trouble with reading comprehension, don't you?
No, I did not in fact say the Census is biased on purpose.

I said urban areas suffer an undercount - I gave no reason for it and I
attributed no motive to it. Maybe they have a shortage of bodies to do
the counts, and need to depend on Georgeconklinbots to take some of the
load off. This means they have an army of counters who probably can't
read the forms.

You would think we would have a better system that would account for
these things. The Romans used this system for crying out loud......

Heeeeeeeeessssss back. Hey, we thought you fell off the face of the
earth. Glad to see you're back.

Jym Dyer wrote:
=v= I've lived in NYC while being tight on cash, and $2/pop for a
subway ride can be painful, but not prohibitive.

Try DC. Trips are up to $4.50 each way. Even more if you transfer to
a bus, or if you park a car at a station. You also have to pay $5.00
for the SmarTrip card, *in addition* to the fare value on it! They
even charge extra for secure (enclosed) bike parking, though you can
park your bike on a U-rack for free and take your chances.

They've raised the rates once so far this year, after a series of
public hearing at which the public was unanimously against any further
increases and pointed out that Metro was lying about past increases.

It wouldn't be quite so bad if not for the chronic delays. Typical
was what happened the last time I was foolish enough to try to get
somewhere on a weekend, about a month ago. I entered the White Flint
Station. After about a quarter hour, during which there were frequent
announcements about "minor delays" on the line due to routine
scheduled maintenance, a train showed up headed in the correct
direction. I boarded it, intending to transfer to the Orange Line
at Metro Center.

It went out of service at Friendship Heights. Everyone was chased
off, after which the train just sat there without moving in either
direction. Everyone was told to catch the next train on the opposite
track. We did so when it arrived after about another 15 minutes,
though it was very crowded. It was going in the wrong direction,
back the way I came. I got off at the next station, Bethesda, and,
along with many others, asked the guy in the kiosk how to get to Metro
Center. He said to catch the next train heading in that direction.
I did so when it arrived after about 20 minutes.

It went out of service at Friendship Heights. Once again, the train
just sat there blocking the track, and people were told to catch the
next train on the opposite track. The station platform was very
crowded. The sign said the next train would arrive in 18 minutes;
the destination was blank. Rather than continuing to go in circles,
I exited the station and, along with many others, waited for the next
bus heading downtown.

A 36 bus arrived after about 20 minutes. It was almost empty when it
arrived, but it was absolutely packed when it pulled out, leaving most
of the people waiting behind for the next bus. I was able to board,
but had to stand. In the crowding, two of my four grocery bags got
torn, making them much harder to carry. The bus slowly made its way
downtown, occasionally stopping to let someone off, which wasn't easy
with all the crowding. People waiting to get on at each stop were not
allowed on due to the crowding, which got some of them quite upset; I
gather that they had been waiting for a long time and all the buses
had been too full to let them board. Metro obviously hasn't bothered
to add any additional bus service during the Red Line fiasco.

Finally, the bus let us off at the 17th Street entrance to the
Farragut West station -- which was closed. Fortunately, I was
familiar with that station and knew there was another entrance which
is open on weekends. Some people followed my lead. Others gave up
on Metro and called taxis. It was an 18 minute wait for the next
westbound Orange Line train, but once it arrived it proceeded without
further incident.

There was also scheduled maintenance on the Orange Line, but
fortunately for me it was at the east end of the line. Of course I
did have to pay two train fares and one bus fare, and spend over five
hours traveling less than 20 miles.

These "minor delays" are on almost every line on almost every weekend,
and frequently at mid-day on weekdays, too. They don't deign to tell
us about these delays until Thursday or Friday, and might forget to
update their website at all. They do mention that their online trip
planner is not reliable during these delays. So if you're aiming for
a bus that runs just once an hour, you will arrive at a random time,
and may have to wait up to 59 minutes for the next bus.

The scheduled delays aren't just for essential maintenance. The
system has been wired so that cell phones will work in the tunnels.
But only Verizon cell phones. And now, nearly every week, there's a
message on Metro's website such as:

Metrorail customers traveling between the L'Enfant Plaza, Capitol
South and Potomac Avenue Metrorail stations should add up to 20
minutes of travel time for their trips because Metro is providing
Verizon Wireless track access to conduct normal contractual
maintenance and emergency work on its cables. Inbound and outbound
trains will share one track between these locations.

I don't see why all Metro customers should be repeatedly
inconvenienced for the benefit of one private phone company and
its customers.

There are also plenty of unscheduled delays. For instance any time
someone reports an abandoned package, the line it's on is shut down
for hours while police "secure the scene," which consists of waiting
outside until, if it was a bomb, they figure it would have already
gone off.

Fares continue to get higher and higher, and levels of service get
worse and worse. There's no end in sight for either trend. I think
the whole of Metro management should be sacked.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Jym Dyer wrote:
=v= I've lived in NYC while being tight on cash, and $2/pop for a
subway ride can be painful, but not prohibitive.

Try DC. Trips are up to $4.50 each way. Even more if you transfer to
a bus, or if you park a car at a station. You also have to pay $5.00
for the SmarTrip card, *in addition* to the fare value on it! They
even charge extra for secure (enclosed) bike parking, though you can
park your bike on a U-rack for free and take your chances.

They've raised the rates once so far this year, after a series of
public hearing at which the public was unanimously against any further
increases and pointed out that Metro was lying about past increases.

It wouldn't be quite so bad if not for the chronic delays. Typical
was what happened the last time I was foolish enough to try to get
somewhere on a weekend, about a month ago. I entered the White Flint
Station. After about a quarter hour, during which there were frequent
announcements about "minor delays" on the line due to routine
scheduled maintenance, a train showed up headed in the correct
direction. I boarded it, intending to transfer to the Orange Line
at Metro Center.

It went out of service at Friendship Heights. Everyone was chased
off, after which the train just sat there without moving in either
direction. Everyone was told to catch the next train on the opposite
track. We did so when it arrived after about another 15 minutes,
though it was very crowded. It was going in the wrong direction,
back the way I came. I got off at the next station, Bethesda, and,
along with many others, asked the guy in the kiosk how to get to Metro
Center. He said to catch the next train heading in that direction.
I did so when it arrived after about 20 minutes.

It went out of service at Friendship Heights. Once again, the train
just sat there blocking the track, and people were told to catch the
next train on the opposite track. The station platform was very
crowded. The sign said the next train would arrive in 18 minutes;
the destination was blank. Rather than continuing to go in circles,
I exited the station and, along with many others, waited for the next
bus heading downtown.

A 36 bus arrived after about 20 minutes. It was almost empty when it
arrived, but it was absolutely packed when it pulled out, leaving most
of the people waiting behind for the next bus. I was able to board,
but had to stand. In the crowding, two of my four grocery bags got
torn, making them much harder to carry. The bus slowly made its way
downtown, occasionally stopping to let someone off, which wasn't easy
with all the crowding. People waiting to get on at each stop were not
allowed on due to the crowding, which got some of them quite upset; I
gather that they had been waiting for a long time and all the buses
had been too full to let them board. Metro obviously hasn't bothered
to add any additional bus service during the Red Line fiasco.

Finally, the bus let us off at the 17th Street entrance to the
Farragut West station -- which was closed. Fortunately, I was
familiar with that station and knew there was another entrance which
is open on weekends. Some people followed my lead. Others gave up
on Metro and called taxis. It was an 18 minute wait for the next
westbound Orange Line train, but once it arrived it proceeded without
further incident.

There was also scheduled maintenance on the Orange Line, but
fortunately for me it was at the east end of the line. Of course I
did have to pay two train fares and one bus fare, and spend over five
hours traveling less than 20 miles.

This trip could have been done in less than half the time (and much less
aggravation) on a bicycle.

These "minor delays" are on almost every line on almost every weekend,
and frequently at mid-day on weekdays, too. They don't deign to tell
us about these delays until Thursday or Friday, and might forget to
update their website at all. They do mention that their online trip
planner is not reliable during these delays. So if you're aiming for
a bus that runs just once an hour, you will arrive at a random time,
and may have to wait up to 59 minutes for the next bus.

The scheduled delays aren't just for essential maintenance. The
system has been wired so that cell phones will work in the tunnels.
But only Verizon cell phones. And now, nearly every week, there's a
message on Metro's website such as:

Metrorail customers traveling between the L'Enfant Plaza, Capitol
South and Potomac Avenue Metrorail stations should add up to 20
minutes of travel time for their trips because Metro is providing
Verizon Wireless track access to conduct normal contractual
maintenance and emergency work on its cables. Inbound and outbound
trains will share one track between these locations.

I don't see why all Metro customers should be repeatedly
inconvenienced for the benefit of one private phone company and
its customers.

Think of the Verizon stockholders!

There are also plenty of unscheduled delays. For instance any time
someone reports an abandoned package, the line it's on is shut down
for hours while police "secure the scene," which consists of waiting
outside until, if it was a bomb, they figure it would have already
gone off.

Fares continue to get higher and higher, and levels of service get
worse and worse. There's no end in sight for either trend. I think
the whole of Metro management should be sacked.

Gee, why doesn't everyone use the inexpensive and convenient mass
transit in the US. If one did not know better, one would think that the
system was intended to be run badly to make mass transit look bad.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Tom Sherman wrote:
This trip could have been done in less than half the time (and much
less aggravation) on a bicycle.

I know, and normally that's how I'd do it. But I had been driven back
to the DC area from a convention in Pennsylvania, and dropped off at
the Metro station that was most convenient to the driver. Or rather
at a grocery store nearby, at my request, as I needed groceries.

Gee, why doesn't everyone use the inexpensive and convenient mass
transit in the US. If one did not know better, one would think that
the system was intended to be run badly to make mass transit look bad.

It's been pointed out that driving is not only much faster than Metro,
it's also cheaper, and would remain so even if gas prices doubled. (The
only exception is trips downtown, due to the expensive parking there.)
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Keith F. Lynch wrote:
It's been pointed out that driving is not only much faster than Metro,
it's also cheaper, and would remain so even if gas prices doubled. (The
only exception is trips downtown, due to the expensive parking there.)

In Washington? I find that immensely unlikely, unless the stars align
and the distance is short, there's no traffic, and/or you're driving a
fuel efficient vehicle. At $3, it's easy to waste a one-way Metro fare
or two sitting in traffic.

On Apr 6, 1:09*pm, "Keith F. Lynch" wrote:
Jym Dyer wrote:
=v= I've lived in NYC while being tight on cash, and $2/pop for a
subway ride can be painful, but not prohibitive.

Try DC. *Trips are up to $4.50 each way. *Even more if you transfer to
a bus, or if you park a car at a station. *You also have to pay $5.00
for the SmarTrip card, *in addition* to the fare value on it! *They
even charge extra for secure (enclosed) bike parking, though you can
park your bike on a U-rack for free and take your chances.

They've raised the rates once so far this year, after a series of
public hearing at which the public was unanimously against any further
increases and pointed out that Metro was lying about past increases.

It wouldn't be quite so bad if not for the chronic delays. *Typical
was what happened the last time I was foolish enough to try to get
somewhere on a weekend, about a month ago. *I entered the White Flint
Station. *After about a quarter hour, during which there were frequent
announcements about "minor delays" on the line due to routine
scheduled maintenance, a train showed up headed in the correct
direction. *I boarded it, intending to transfer to the Orange Line
at Metro Center.

It went out of service at Friendship Heights. *Everyone was chased
off, after which the train just sat there without moving in either
direction. *Everyone was told to catch the next train on the opposite
track. *We did so when it arrived after about another 15 minutes,
though it was very crowded. *It was going in the wrong direction,
back the way I came. *I got off at the next station, Bethesda, and,
along with many others, asked the guy in the kiosk how to get to Metro
Center. *He said to catch the next train heading in that direction.
I did so when it arrived after about 20 minutes.

It went out of service at Friendship Heights. *Once again, the train
just sat there blocking the track, and people were told to catch the
next train on the opposite track. *The station platform was very
crowded. *The sign said the next train would arrive in 18 minutes;
the destination was blank. *Rather than continuing to go in circles,
I exited the station and, along with many others, waited for the next
bus heading downtown.

A 36 bus arrived after about 20 minutes. *It was almost empty when it
arrived, but it was absolutely packed when it pulled out, leaving most
of the people waiting behind for the next bus. *I was able to board,
but had to stand. *In the crowding, two of my four grocery bags got
torn, making them much harder to carry. *The bus slowly made its way
downtown, occasionally stopping to let someone off, which wasn't easy
with all the crowding. *People waiting to get on at each stop were not
allowed on due to the crowding, which got some of them quite upset; I
gather that they had been waiting for a long time and all the buses
had been too full to let them board. *Metro obviously hasn't bothered
to add any additional bus service during the Red Line fiasco.

Finally, the bus let us off at the 17th Street entrance to the
Farragut West station -- which was closed. *Fortunately, I was
familiar with that station and knew there was another entrance which
is open on weekends. *Some people followed my lead. *Others gave up
on Metro and called taxis. *It was an 18 minute wait for the next
westbound Orange Line train, but once it arrived it proceeded without
further incident.

There was also scheduled maintenance on the Orange Line, but
fortunately for me it was at the east end of the line. *Of course I
did have to pay two train fares and one bus fare, and spend over five
hours traveling less than 20 miles.

These "minor delays" are on almost every line on almost every weekend,
and frequently at mid-day on weekdays, too. *They don't deign to tell
us about these delays until Thursday or Friday, and might forget to
update their website at all. *They do mention that their online trip
planner is not reliable during these delays. *So if you're aiming for
a bus that runs just once an hour, you will arrive at a random time,
and may have to wait up to 59 minutes for the next bus.

The scheduled delays aren't just for essential maintenance. *The
system has been wired so that cell phones will work in the tunnels.
But only Verizon cell phones. *And now, nearly every week, there's a
message on Metro's website such as:

* Metrorail customers traveling between the L'Enfant Plaza, Capitol
* South and Potomac Avenue Metrorail stations should add up to 20
* minutes of travel time for their trips because Metro is providing
* Verizon Wireless track access to conduct normal contractual
* maintenance and emergency work on its cables. *Inbound and outbound
* trains will share one track between these locations.

I don't see why all Metro customers should be repeatedly
inconvenienced for the benefit of one private phone company and
its customers.

There are also plenty of unscheduled delays. *For instance any time
someone reports an abandoned package, the line it's on is shut down
for hours while police "secure the scene," which consists of waiting
outside until, if it was a bomb, they figure it would have already
gone off.

Fares continue to get higher and higher, and levels of service get
worse and worse. *There's no end in sight for either trend. *I think
the whole of Metro management should be sacked.
--
Keith F. Lynch -http://keithlynch.net/
Please seehttp://keithlynch.net/email.htmlbefore emailing me.

So tell me again why anyone would want to live in a God-forsaken city
like that?

Pat wrote:
On Apr 6, 1:09 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" wrote:
Jym Dyer wrote:
=v= I've lived in NYC while being tight on cash, and $2/pop for a
subway ride can be painful, but not prohibitive.
Try DC. Trips are up to $4.50 each way. Even more if you transfer to
a bus, or if you park a car at a station. You also have to pay $5.00
for the SmarTrip card, *in addition* to the fare value on it! They
even charge extra for secure (enclosed) bike parking, though you can
park your bike on a U-rack for free and take your chances.

They've raised the rates once so far this year, after a series of
public hearing at which the public was unanimously against any further
increases and pointed out that Metro was lying about past increases.

It wouldn't be quite so bad if not for the chronic delays. Typical
was what happened the last time I was foolish enough to try to get
somewhere on a weekend, about a month ago. I entered the White Flint
Station. After about a quarter hour, during which there were frequent
announcements about "minor delays" on the line due to routine
scheduled maintenance, a train showed up headed in the correct
direction. I boarded it, intending to transfer to the Orange Line
at Metro Center.

It went out of service at Friendship Heights. Everyone was chased
off, after which the train just sat there without moving in either
direction. Everyone was told to catch the next train on the opposite
track. We did so when it arrived after about another 15 minutes,
though it was very crowded. It was going in the wrong direction,
back the way I came. I got off at the next station, Bethesda, and,
along with many others, asked the guy in the kiosk how to get to Metro
Center. He said to catch the next train heading in that direction.
I did so when it arrived after about 20 minutes.

It went out of service at Friendship Heights. Once again, the train
just sat there blocking the track, and people were told to catch the
next train on the opposite track. The station platform was very
crowded. The sign said the next train would arrive in 18 minutes;
the destination was blank. Rather than continuing to go in circles,
I exited the station and, along with many others, waited for the next
bus heading downtown.

A 36 bus arrived after about 20 minutes. It was almost empty when it
arrived, but it was absolutely packed when it pulled out, leaving most
of the people waiting behind for the next bus. I was able to board,
but had to stand. In the crowding, two of my four grocery bags got
torn, making them much harder to carry. The bus slowly made its way
downtown, occasionally stopping to let someone off, which wasn't easy
with all the crowding. People waiting to get on at each stop were not
allowed on due to the crowding, which got some of them quite upset; I
gather that they had been waiting for a long time and all the buses
had been too full to let them board. Metro obviously hasn't bothered
to add any additional bus service during the Red Line fiasco.

Finally, the bus let us off at the 17th Street entrance to the
Farragut West station -- which was closed. Fortunately, I was
familiar with that station and knew there was another entrance which
is open on weekends. Some people followed my lead. Others gave up
on Metro and called taxis. It was an 18 minute wait for the next
westbound Orange Line train, but once it arrived it proceeded without
further incident.

There was also scheduled maintenance on the Orange Line, but
fortunately for me it was at the east end of the line. Of course I
did have to pay two train fares and one bus fare, and spend over five
hours traveling less than 20 miles.

These "minor delays" are on almost every line on almost every weekend,
and frequently at mid-day on weekdays, too. They don't deign to tell
us about these delays until Thursday or Friday, and might forget to
update their website at all. They do mention that their online trip
planner is not reliable during these delays. So if you're aiming for
a bus that runs just once an hour, you will arrive at a random time,
and may have to wait up to 59 minutes for the next bus.

The scheduled delays aren't just for essential maintenance. The
system has been wired so that cell phones will work in the tunnels.
But only Verizon cell phones. And now, nearly every week, there's a
message on Metro's website such as:

Metrorail customers traveling between the L'Enfant Plaza, Capitol
South and Potomac Avenue Metrorail stations should add up to 20
minutes of travel time for their trips because Metro is providing
Verizon Wireless track access to conduct normal contractual
maintenance and emergency work on its cables. Inbound and outbound
trains will share one track between these locations.

I don't see why all Metro customers should be repeatedly
inconvenienced for the benefit of one private phone company and
its customers.

There are also plenty of unscheduled delays. For instance any time
someone reports an abandoned package, the line it's on is shut down
for hours while police "secure the scene," which consists of waiting
outside until, if it was a bomb, they figure it would have already
gone off.

Fares continue to get higher and higher, and levels of service get
worse and worse. There's no end in sight for either trend. I think
the whole of Metro management should be sacked.
--
Keith F. Lynch -http://keithlynch.net/
Please seehttp://keithlynch.net/email.htmlbefore emailing me.

So tell me again why anyone would want to live in a God-forsaken city
like that?

If everyone moved out of the terrible cities, the countryside would be
ruined, no?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful