With The World Environment Day Conference.....

Count on all American, European, and other major cities around the
world going car-free.

"Joey Jolley" wrote in message
...
Count on all American, European, and other major cities around the
world going car-free.

Since transit is environmentally hostile (from induce traffic congestion
caused by diverting funds) and the car is far more environmentally friendly,
you just want to do as much damage as possible to the World?

On 6/4/2005 10:07 AM Jack May spake thus:

"Joey Jolley" wrote in message
...

Count on all American, European, and other major cities around the
world going car-free.

Since transit is environmentally hostile (from induce traffic congestion
caused by diverting funds) and the car is far more environmentally friendly,
[...]

Only in a topsy-turvy Reagan/Bush world where war=peace, ketchup=vegetable,
and trees cause pollution.


--
When someone claims that the Government is monitoring their thoughts,
we call them paranoid or crazy. I prefer to think of such people as
just slightly ahead of their time.

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
news:1117905837.a4c5047dd67088fcee36e629def10cfe@t eranews...
On 6/4/2005 10:07 AM Jack May spake thus:

"Joey Jolley" wrote in message
...


Only in a topsy-turvy Reagan/Bush world where war=peace,
ketchup=vegetable, and trees cause pollution.

It is economic, not politics. Just to make it easy for you, let us assume
that trains take no energy to run and produce no pollution, but it takes
money to buy and run a train.

There is only a limited amount of available for transit and a limited amount
of taxes that people will support for funding transportation. If you think
there is unlimited money, I would like to hear the reason.

Rail cost about a million dollars to get one person out of their car and 10K
to 20K to support the running of the rail for that new rider. For example
BART to San Jose is expected by VTA to attract 5.7K new riders. It is
probably a lot less than that.

Present estimates for BART to San Jose is 4B. Every body knows that
overruns will push it at least into the 5 to 6B range and probably more.
That is about a million dollars per new rider and a lot of those new riders
will not just come out of cars because they counts some transfers from other
transit as new riders.

The operating cost of new rider is $32 per trip times two trips per day
(low figure) for 5 days per week or over $16K per year. Even as bad as
BART to San Jose is, I have calculated similar numbers for other systems
over the last several years.

That money could have been used instead to reduce congestion by building
infrastructure to remove all stop lights on all expressway in Santa Clara
County ($2.5B), have accidents and stalls moved from the freeways in less
than 6 minutes as in Houston & Seattle, or put in ramp metering on all
ramps.

Everyone of those approaches would reduce congestion hundreds to thousands
of times more than BART to San Jose for a lot less money per added capacity
per person. So for each person you get out of a car with transit is going
to produce far more congestion than spending the money directly on reducing
congestion by putting the money into roads.

The net result is that there will be far more pollution, fuel consumption,
and CO2 produced by spending money on just getting people out of their car.
Even though our example pollution free, fuel free train produces far more
pollution and fuel consumption indirectly by increased road congestion
caused by the money diverted to transit. That make rail a environmental
disaster.

BTW, this is not my theory alone. The EPA now concedes in court over and
over again that not spending money on roads increases congestion which
increases pollution. There is apparently no way to divert transportation
funds to transit to get people out of their cars without significantly
increasing pollution. The exception is if there is no congestion on the
roads which is certainly not the case now.

Of course this requires rail advocates to keep more than one thought at a
time in their head (mainly about steel wheels) which makes it very difficult
for them to understand.

Well, read the articles on this topic in the San Francisco Chronicle
and you'll have a very good idea of what the future will be. No cars, a
great environment. David Suzuki said so himself.
"Jack May" wrote in message
news


"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
news:1117905837.a4c5047dd67088fcee36e629def10cfe@t eranews...
On 6/4/2005 10:07 AM Jack May spake thus:

"Joey Jolley" wrote in message
...


Only in a topsy-turvy Reagan/Bush world where war=peace,
ketchup=vegetable, and trees cause pollution.

It is economic, not politics. Just to make it easy for you, let us
assume that trains take no energy to run and produce no pollution, but it
takes money to buy and run a train.

There is only a limited amount of available for transit and a limited
amount of taxes that people will support for funding transportation. If
you think there is unlimited money, I would like to hear the reason.

Rail cost about a million dollars to get one person out of their car and
10K to 20K to support the running of the rail for that new rider. For
example BART to San Jose is expected by VTA to attract 5.7K new riders.
It is probably a lot less than that.

Present estimates for BART to San Jose is 4B. Every body knows that
overruns will push it at least into the 5 to 6B range and probably more.
That is about a million dollars per new rider and a lot of those new
riders will not just come out of cars because they counts some transfers
from other transit as new riders.

The operating cost of new rider is $32 per trip times two trips per day
(low figure) for 5 days per week or over $16K per year. Even as bad as
BART to San Jose is, I have calculated similar numbers for other systems
over the last several years.

That money could have been used instead to reduce congestion by building
infrastructure to remove all stop lights on all expressway in Santa Clara
County ($2.5B), have accidents and stalls moved from the freeways in less
than 6 minutes as in Houston & Seattle, or put in ramp metering on all
ramps.

Everyone of those approaches would reduce congestion hundreds to thousands
of times more than BART to San Jose for a lot less money per added
capacity per person. So for each person you get out of a car with
transit is going to produce far more congestion than spending the money
directly on reducing congestion by putting the money into roads.

The net result is that there will be far more pollution, fuel consumption,
and CO2 produced by spending money on just getting people out of their
car. Even though our example pollution free, fuel free train produces far
more pollution and fuel consumption indirectly by increased road
congestion caused by the money diverted to transit. That make rail a
environmental disaster.

BTW, this is not my theory alone. The EPA now concedes in court over and
over again that not spending money on roads increases congestion which
increases pollution. There is apparently no way to divert transportation
funds to transit to get people out of their cars without significantly
increasing pollution. The exception is if there is no congestion on the
roads which is certainly not the case now.

Of course this requires rail advocates to keep more than one thought at a
time in their head (mainly about steel wheels) which makes it very
difficult for them to understand.

"Joey Jolley" wrote in message
...
Well, read the articles on this topic in the San Francisco Chronicle
and you'll have a very good idea of what the future will be. No cars, a
great environment. David Suzuki said so himself.

Dear Mr. Jolley:

Please don't add my name to your ignorant discussions. You
are living in a fantasy land. I won't give up my Porsche for your
lame cause.

Sincerely,

DS

"Joey Jolley" wrote in message
...

Well, read the articles on this topic in the San Francisco Chronicle
and you'll have a very good idea of what the future will be. No cars, a
great environment. David Suzuki said so himself.

The Weekly World News ran an article stating that Elvis was kidnapped by
space aliens. Do you believe that too?

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
news:1117905837.a4c5047dd67088fcee36e629def10cfe@t eranews...
On 6/4/2005 10:07 AM Jack May spake thus:

"Joey Jolley" wrote in message
...

Count on all American, European, and other major cities around the
world going car-free.

Since transit is environmentally hostile (from induce traffic congestion
caused by diverting funds) and the car is far more environmentally
friendly,
[...]

Only in a topsy-turvy Reagan/Bush world where war=peace,
ketchup=vegetable,
and trees cause pollution.

You mean a topsy-turvy Lefty Liberal world where your type supports all the
idiotic building restrictions & "open space" regulations that prohibit
building adequate housing in San Mateo County (74% of the land there is
"off-limits" to building) then whining and crying about why people are
commuting 100+ miles daily by car, and wondering why there's no "affordable
housing". Or a world where Lefty Liberals fight any attempt to shut down our
border and deport illegal aliens, then wonder why there too many unskilled
people have to compete for the same, low-paying jobs. Or a world where
affirmative action policies in public schools demand hiring unqualifed
minorties instead of qualified whites, then wonder why the kids can't learn
anything or find good jobs when they get out of school. Shall I go on?

"Stan de SD" enscribed:

You mean a topsy-turvy Lefty Liberal world where your type supports all the
idiotic building restrictions & "open space" regulations that prohibit
building adequate housing in San Mateo County (74% of the land there is
"off-limits" to building) then whining and crying about why people are

There's a depression running up the middle of San Mateo County; rumor has it
that it's a seismically active zone. There's all the problem that most of
the county is hillside, and those hillsides are gravel and clay not bedrock.
Means that with enough rain you get slide down into your neighbor's yard.

commuting 100+ miles daily by car, and wondering why there's no "affordable

Maybe we should put in some kind of public transit through or across the
Diablo Range so that people have an alternative.

housing". Or a world where Lefty Liberals fight any attempt to shut down our
border and deport illegal aliens, then wonder why there too many unskilled

I didn't realize Bush was a lefty liberal, nor the wealthy farmers who can't
find people for harvest.

people have to compete for the same, low-paying jobs. Or a world where
affirmative action policies in public schools demand hiring unqualifed
minorties instead of qualified whites, then wonder why the kids can't learn
anything or find good jobs when they get out of school. Shall I go on?

You're assuming minorities are universally less qualified; that is, you're
saying they're inferior. In short, you're racist scum.

--
Feh. Mad as heck.

"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...
"Stan de SD" enscribed:

You mean a topsy-turvy Lefty Liberal world where your type supports all
the
idiotic building restrictions & "open space" regulations that prohibit
building adequate housing in San Mateo County (74% of the land there is
"off-limits" to building) then whining and crying about why people are

There's a depression running up the middle of San Mateo County; rumor has
it
that it's a seismically active zone. There's all the problem that most of
the county is hillside, and those hillsides are gravel and clay not
bedrock.
Means that with enough rain you get slide down into your neighbor's yard.

That doesn't cover the entire 480 square miles that is off-limits to
building.

commuting 100+ miles daily by car, and wondering why there's no
"affordable

Maybe we should put in some kind of public transit through or across the
Diablo Range so that people have an alternative.

So instead of relaxing the restrictions and let private capital finance and
build new housing, your first choice would be to use government funding to
build a transportation system that in all likelihood will lose money and
need to be financed by more taxes. Typical liberal mentality at work... :O|

people have to compete for the same, low-paying jobs. Or a world where
affirmative action policies in public schools demand hiring unqualifed
minorties instead of qualified whites, then wonder why the kids can't
learn
anything or find good jobs when they get out of school. Shall I go on?

You're assuming minorities are universally less qualified; that is, you're
saying they're inferior.

Funny, but I favor hiring people based on their individual qualifications,
not to meet some "diversity" quota. The fact that Lefty Liberals feel
compelled to force racial quotas is an admission that they themselves don't
believe that those people can make it on merit.

In short, you're racist scum.

Thanks for throwing in the racist smear when you can't win an argument.