A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » USA & Canada
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

With The World Environment Day Conference.....



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 4th, 2005, 04:42 PM
Joey Jolley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default With The World Environment Day Conference.....

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


  #2  
Old June 4th, 2005, 06:07 PM
Jack May
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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?


  #3  
Old June 4th, 2005, 06:26 PM
David Nebenzahl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #4  
Old June 4th, 2005, 08:56 PM
Jack May
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



"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.





  #5  
Old June 4th, 2005, 09:04 PM
Joey Jolley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.







  #6  
Old June 4th, 2005, 09:24 PM
David Suzuki
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #7  
Old June 5th, 2005, 04:03 AM
Joey Jolley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mr. Suzuki,

Then why do you have the David Suzuki Foundation, the cause of
"Sustainability Within A Generation", and the other environmental projects
you're pursuing? I happen to like your work. Just so you know, not all
Americans are anti-environment.
"David Suzuki" wrote in message
m...

"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




  #8  
Old June 5th, 2005, 12:04 PM
Joey Jolley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

All our housing will be in domes just like it is for the students on
the UC-Davis campus.
"Joey Jolley" wrote in message
...
Mr. Suzuki,

Then why do you have the David Suzuki Foundation, the cause of
"Sustainability Within A Generation", and the other environmental projects
you're pursuing? I happen to like your work. Just so you know, not all
Americans are anti-environment.
"David Suzuki" wrote in message
m...

"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






  #9  
Old June 5th, 2005, 05:16 PM
GMAN
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Joey Jolley" wrote:
All our housing will be in domes just like it is for the students on
the UC-Davis campus.


And no showers and bongo drums by each bed for a drum circle before sunset?


"Joey Jolley" wrote in message
...
Mr. Suzuki,

Then why do you have the David Suzuki Foundation, the cause of
"Sustainability Within A Generation", and the other environmental projects
you're pursuing? I happen to like your work. Just so you know, not all
Americans are anti-environment.
"David Suzuki" wrote in message
m...

"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






  #10  
Old June 6th, 2005, 02:42 AM
David Suzuki
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Joey Jolley" wrote in message
...
Mr. Suzuki,

Then why do you have the David Suzuki Foundation, the cause of
"Sustainability Within A Generation", and the other environmental projects
you're pursuing? I happen to like your work. Just so you know, not all
Americans are anti-environment.


Because I make MONEY on it. I want to buy this cool Corvette.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Banking for long term world travel? [email protected] Travel - anything else not covered 0 April 9th, 2005 06:54 AM
HAL Committed To Protecting Environment! Ray Goldenberg Cruises 3 April 24th, 2004 06:11 AM
Seven Seas Voyager's 107-night first world cruise Jan. - April 2005. Anchors Away Cruise Center Cruises 1 April 2nd, 2004 12:39 AM
Most of the World Still Does Without Earl Evleth Europe 1 December 26th, 2003 09:07 PM
_Lonely Planet_ Threat to Environment Tame Africa 1 October 24th, 2003 05:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.