Ride an SUB not an SUV

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
I wasn't talking about real mountains at all. Merely hills. Anyone
can commute on a bike in Denmark, even with the three-speeds which are
common there. It's easier than walking, and faster. On a bike,
climbing up and over a small ridge line which merely looks scenic in
your car is much more difficult.

Yes, even an overpass can be a challenge in too high a gear, but is it
that hard to walk if you really can't pull the gear? A 3 speed should do
fine and is still better than riding in a polluting vehicle. Walking
gets you 3 MPH and a bike gets you 7 or 8 MPH with almost zero effort,
12 MPH for just toodling around town and more if you want and are in any
kind of shape besides round. Even if you had to eat your dignity and
walk up a hill you still get to coast back down. I don't see a downside
here.
Bill Baka

nash wrote:
There is no oil shortage anywhere


It is more difficult now to dig out. No new either lately. That is why it
costs more and is more precious. Uranium fueled cars are next. Only you do
not know that.
Canada has the biggest oil sands in the world. Enough for 100 years. What
good is that if you do not have the money and research to pump it out.
There is also less oil in old areas than you think. One of the biggest
in Egypt or somewhere will be gone in a few years. Nobody seems to know or
broadcast it which I find ridiculous since they seem to want to be lied to.


People in general have an inherent flaw. They want to be told by the
government that it is all OK, even when it is so obviously not. The $300
billion or more that the United States has blown in Iraq would have
bought a lot of alternative energy, both research and actual, as in
windmills, solar, etc.
Bush is having too much fun pretending he knows anything at all about
international politics and the military.
Things will change in January of 2009 when we have a new (better) president.
Bill Baka

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

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Amy Blankenship wrote:
....

Not compared to some parts of the US. The highest point in Florida is 345
feet.

Florida's flat, but the 90+ degree weather and high humidity are a
problem. I've gone inline skating in Florida, in August, and even at
night it's miserable.

The highest point in Louisiana is 535 feet.

Same issues with weather.

The highest point in Delaware is 448 feet.

Wilmington still has more hills than Aalborg or Copenhagen. The
Delmarva is flat, of course, for much the same reason Denmark is.

Some US cities are also quite flat, and I expect many Danish cities are not.
....
There used to be a hill on my way to school (I went to college in one of
the
hillier parts of Mississippi) that just killed me the first couple of
months
I did it. But since I had no other means of getting to school I figured
it
out eventually.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you did not climb a 4-block
18% grade (which is the worst part of the Manayunk Wall; it's actually
longer than that, but not as steep in the other sections) on a bike every
day.

I have no idea. It was through the woods, so blocks were irrelevant. It
was steep to me, though at 20 I had no interest in measuring the grade.

Even if you did, it wouldn't be viable for most people. Anyone in
halfway decent shape can ride a bike around a flat, cool place
like Denmark. Try it in Florida or Misssissipi in August and people
will be dropping from heat exhaustion left and right. Try it in any
place with hills and a lot of people simply won't be able to do it.

Funny, that _Mississippi_ town has just completed the first phase of their
plan to be more pedestrian and bike friendly. I used a bike as my primary
method of transportation for about 2 years and never had heat exhaustion.

Anything is impossible if you don't try.

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

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
news:8Yadna55UKHpoprbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@speakeasy. net...
In article ,
Baxter wrote:


"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
et...
In article
,

Prove it. Demonstrate that moving just the people *must* take more
time
than moving the people *and* their cars.

The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
Because in most real life as-they-are-today systems, transit takes
longer.

Plenty of trips in Portland are quicker using transit than by using
car -
especially when you factor in finding a parking spot.

That's Portland, where the planners went out of their way to make life
difficult for drivers.

That's bull**** - said only for effect.

Will *every* trip by transit be shorter? No, not any more than every
trip
by car will be shorter.

The truth of those two statements don't mean the modes are
equivalent.

Progress, of a sort. 'Till now you've adamantly refused to acknowledge
this
truth.

Most trips are faster by car.

Depends entirely on your catchment area. So your claim is meaningless.

No, it's not meaningless. Outside of Manhattan, you have to
cherry-pick viciously to find an area where most trips are faster by
transit.

London, Copenhagen, Edinburgh, Orlando. And these are just the ones I have
direct experience of.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:14:41 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:


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

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
news:8Yadna55UKHpoprbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@speakeasy .net...
In article ,
Baxter wrote:


"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
et...
In article
,

Prove it. Demonstrate that moving just the people *must* take more
time
than moving the people *and* their cars.

The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
Because in most real life as-they-are-today systems, transit takes
longer.

Plenty of trips in Portland are quicker using transit than by using
car -
especially when you factor in finding a parking spot.

That's Portland, where the planners went out of their way to make life
difficult for drivers.

That's bull**** - said only for effect.

Will *every* trip by transit be shorter? No, not any more than every
trip
by car will be shorter.

The truth of those two statements don't mean the modes are
equivalent.

Progress, of a sort. 'Till now you've adamantly refused to acknowledge
this
truth.

Most trips are faster by car.

Depends entirely on your catchment area. So your claim is meaningless.

No, it's not meaningless. Outside of Manhattan, you have to
cherry-pick viciously to find an area where most trips are faster by
transit.

London, Copenhagen, Edinburgh, Orlando. And these are just the ones I have
direct experience of.

The first three I can believe for many trips although not all trips
since those that don't involve going to or toward the center probably
are faster by car. But Orlando? If you mean Florida, which trips
would be faster by their slow and infrequent transit?

"Clark F Morris" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:14:41 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:


"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
news:wZudnWmR9sbKX5TbnZ2dnUVZ_rylnZ2d@speakeasy. net...
In article ,
Baxter wrote:

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
news:8Yadna55UKHpoprbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@speakeas y.net...
In article ,
Baxter wrote:


"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
et...
In article
,

Prove it. Demonstrate that moving just the people *must* take
more
time
than moving the people *and* their cars.

The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
Because in most real life as-they-are-today systems, transit takes
longer.

Plenty of trips in Portland are quicker using transit than by using
car -
especially when you factor in finding a parking spot.

That's Portland, where the planners went out of their way to make life
difficult for drivers.

That's bull**** - said only for effect.

Will *every* trip by transit be shorter? No, not any more than every
trip
by car will be shorter.

The truth of those two statements don't mean the modes are
equivalent.

Progress, of a sort. 'Till now you've adamantly refused to acknowledge
this
truth.

Most trips are faster by car.

Depends entirely on your catchment area. So your claim is meaningless.

No, it's not meaningless. Outside of Manhattan, you have to
cherry-pick viciously to find an area where most trips are faster by
transit.

London, Copenhagen, Edinburgh, Orlando. And these are just the ones I
have
direct experience of.

The first three I can believe for many trips although not all trips
since those that don't involve going to or toward the center probably
are faster by car. But Orlando? If you mean Florida, which trips
would be faster by their slow and infrequent transit?

The University Blvd area. It's much faster to take a bus than to try to
find parking when you get where you are going (and cheaper).

"Bill" wrote in message
news
nash wrote:
There is no oil shortage anywhere


It is more difficult now to dig out. No new either lately. That is why
it
costs more and is more precious. Uranium fueled cars are next. Only
you do
not know that.
Canada has the biggest oil sands in the world. Enough for 100 years.
What
good is that if you do not have the money and research to pump it out.
There is also less oil in old areas than you think. One of the
biggest
in Egypt or somewhere will be gone in a few years. Nobody seems to know
or
broadcast it which I find ridiculous since they seem to want to be lied
to.


People in general have an inherent flaw. They want to be told by the
government that it is all OK, even when it is so obviously not.

Personal fears? Urban transit runs on oil too. Industry does also.

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
news

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

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
news:8Yadna55UKHpoprbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@speakeasy. net...
In article ,
Baxter wrote:


"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
et...
In article
,

Prove it. Demonstrate that moving just the people *must* take
more
time
than moving the people *and* their cars.

The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
Because in most real life as-they-are-today systems, transit takes
longer.

Plenty of trips in Portland are quicker using transit than by using
car -
especially when you factor in finding a parking spot.

That's Portland, where the planners went out of their way to make life
difficult for drivers.

That's bull**** - said only for effect.

Will *every* trip by transit be shorter? No, not any more than every
trip
by car will be shorter.

The truth of those two statements don't mean the modes are
equivalent.

Progress, of a sort. 'Till now you've adamantly refused to acknowledge
this
truth.

Most trips are faster by car.

Depends entirely on your catchment area. So your claim is meaningless.

No, it's not meaningless. Outside of Manhattan, you have to
cherry-pick viciously to find an area where most trips are faster by
transit.

London, Copenhagen, Edinburgh, Orlando. And these are just the ones I
have
direct experience of.


Orlando? You are kidding, right? As far as London is concerned, transit
sucks big time.

On Mar 28, 2:14 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in messagenews:wZudnWmR9sbKX5TbnZ2dnUVZ_rylnZ2d@speak easy.net...



In article ,
Baxter wrote:

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
news:8Yadna55UKHpoprbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@speakeasy. net...
In article ,
Baxter wrote:

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
et...
In article
,

Prove it. Demonstrate that moving just the people *must* take more
time
than moving the people *and* their cars.

The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
Because in most real life as-they-are-today systems, transit takes
longer.

Plenty of trips in Portland are quicker using transit than by using
car -
especially when you factor in finding a parking spot.

That's Portland, where the planners went out of their way to make life
difficult for drivers.

That's bull**** - said only for effect.

Will *every* trip by transit be shorter? No, not any more than every
trip
by car will be shorter.

The truth of those two statements don't mean the modes are
equivalent.

Progress, of a sort. 'Till now you've adamantly refused to acknowledge
this
truth.

Most trips are faster by car.

Depends entirely on your catchment area. So your claim is meaningless.

No, it's not meaningless. Outside of Manhattan, you have to
cherry-pick viciously to find an area where most trips are faster by
transit.

London, Copenhagen, Edinburgh, Orlando. And these are just the
ones I have
direct experience of.

Don't forget what is the highest volume mass transif system in the
country: Disney

In article EBwOh.83473$zU1.14004@pd7urf1no,
nash wrote:
The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
Because in most real life as-they-are-today systems, transit takes longer.


Wrong, CTV a local station is having a climate change week on the News.
They proved yesterday that in all the communities surrounding downtown
Vancouver that transit was just as fast or only 5 minutes difference than
with a car. rainy days would be even better for the bus or train or
skytrain because of traffic and hov lanes. (bus only lane) Cars had to
park and got in jams major reason.
Communities were up to 30 m or less away roughly.

Cherry picking. I can pick any two stations on the R5 (a commuter line
near Philadelphia) and pick a time when the train has just arrived,
and I can beat a car for the same journey. Big deal; there's far more
journeys which go between points which are NOT stations on the same rail line
than that are.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.