Ride an SUB not an SUV

In article ,
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

In article
,
Doc O'Leary wrote:
In article ,
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:

In article ,
Bill Baka wrote:

Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big time.


Only if nobody rides them.

But you have to have the near-empty runs or the system becomes
less useful overall -- and as a result ridership goes down even on the
popular runs.

No, that's just another failure of urban planning.

It's a failure of urban planning to micromanage every aspect of
everyone's lives so they can keep the buses full, which is a good thing.

I think you have it backwards. It is the *current* transit system that
micromanages your schedule to match theirs. That it also does so with
great inefficiencies simply adds to the insult. Rightly used,
introducing user-directed scheduling technology actually frees up
everyone to do the job better. Sadly, though, I don't find your
resistance that surprising, as it is just a reflection of the thinking
that has gotten us into this mess in the first place.

Modern technology could easily be used to help schedule the frequency
and size of transit vehicles. It should even be possible possible to
provide door-to-door service for the same cost per mile as fuel alone
(say around $3 for 25 miles), but somehow city planners got focussed
on moving the cars instead of the people.

Is this like Dave Head's fantasy train?

Maybe, but I can't say because I don't know the reference. It's not
something that could be done with just a train, but the reality is that
many modern transit systems need an overhaul and restructuring for
service as though people mattered.

The only "fantasy" device I employ is, when people say they *need* a
car, a hypothetical personal teleporter. If they'd be willing to give
up their car for one, then the real discussion begins on practical
alternatives to get from point A to point B car-free.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

"Curtis L. Russell" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 20:38:41 GMT, "nash"
wrote:

You forget, insurance on a pleasure vehicle or recreation which is what it
is, is alot less than for going to work. Maybe 1/5 lets say. They are
using the wrong tool for the job hahahahahah

Christ, I said I wouldn't post, but I have to make this final comment,
because this is so typical of your posts. First, Bill B posits that
the vehicle would be used for short local trips. I do the math
assuming that there would be a lot of local trips. Then you say ' not
if they are used for 80% of the trips', such as going to work. Still
doesn't make it work, but fine, I don't expect you to be able to work
the math.

Then you make the above comment. This is like the 'brakes didn't
work', 'the brakes are adjusted well' stuff. I no longer expect you to
live in the our world - your math is different, your brakes work
differently, even the basic physics works differently - but you should
try to make that little world you do live in more consistent.

And this IS the last reply directed toward that little world of yours.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Right O,
But my way makes more sense for the environment which is the victim here not
anyone's ego. Everyone wins when the environment wins. You have been
Zenned

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
Baxter wrote:

And a lot of them that bought those $350,000 mini mansions 40 miles
from
work are now bankrupt and foreclosed since their property value fell
through the floor over the last year. How much equity in their house?
About negative $100K.

Strange how the anti-urbanists in this forum just can't understand that
the
reason the McMansions 30 miles from town are so cheap is that people
really
would rather have something in town - but can't afford it.

Nope, it's more a matter of supply than demand. There's far more space in
the suburbs than the city.

The old cities are full. Besides, our population in the USA is
concentrating in fewer and fewer places as half of the counties lose
population. This is violent anti-sprawl behavior on the part of the public.

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
Bill Baka wrote:

The difference is more than made up for when living in town. Spend more
on the house and less (maybe nothing) on new cars, gas, insurance, etc.

Nope. Provided you stick to decent neighborhoods and similar square
footage, you can't make up the difference. The money you save on
those things is of a smaller order of magnitude than the extra money
you spend on the house. Add in the extra property and other taxes
you'll pay in the city and things get even worse.

But you forget urban foamers want you to spend more on a single-wide
trailer-sized apartment than a McMansion and then call that better.

"donquijote1954" wrote in message

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Change a light bulb and stop a war.

Some of this is trash because the so-called 'wasted heat' from a light bulb
goes toward heating the house. Thus the heat is not wasted at all. Nor is
the so-called 'waste' from standby electronics really waste if just heats
the house. However, in the summer it would be wasted.

"Curtis L. Russell" wrote in message
...


People got along fine with far less energy draining house fans (as in,
really big exhaust fans that pulled air throughout the house, slamming
doors in the process) and the fans that pulled air over water.

You can't use evaporative cooling systems in most of the USA. I have
ceiling fans in every room in NC but they are only useful in saving a little
AC.

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
..

It's a failure of urban planning to micromanage every aspect of
everyone's lives so they can keep the buses full, which is a good thing.


Major cities all have rush hours and off-hours. If anything is to
change, it is the nasty habit of wanting to be awake when the sun shines,
and sleep when it is dark. Somehow we need a political program to convince
us we are not animals.

"George Conklin" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
Baxter wrote:

And a lot of them that bought those $350,000 mini mansions 40 miles
from
work are now bankrupt and foreclosed since their property value fell
through the floor over the last year. How much equity in their house?
About negative $100K.

Strange how the anti-urbanists in this forum just can't understand that
the
reason the McMansions 30 miles from town are so cheap is that people
really
would rather have something in town - but can't afford it.

Nope, it's more a matter of supply than demand. There's far more space
in
the suburbs than the city.

The old cities are full. Besides, our population in the USA is
concentrating in fewer and fewer places as half of the counties lose
population. This is violent anti-sprawl behavior on the part of the
public.

Picturing the suburbs full of ravening executives...

"George Conklin" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
.

It's a failure of urban planning to micromanage every aspect of
everyone's lives so they can keep the buses full, which is a good thing.


Major cities all have rush hours and off-hours. If anything is to
change, it is the nasty habit of wanting to be awake when the sun shines,
and sleep when it is dark. Somehow we need a political program to
convince
us we are not animals.


We were cave people and that is where I biorythms come from even now.
A person on graveyard shift is more likely to get cancer because of it.

Then you make the above comment. This is like the 'brakes didn't
work', 'the brakes are adjusted well' stuff. I no longer expect you
to

Just to put you straight I am not the one that started that. I was accused
of having very bad front brakes as a rebuttal. which I rebutted to.