Breaking News!!

"Stan de SD" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"alohacyberian" wrote in message
...
"Stan de SD" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Jason Roy Ferguson" wrote in message
...

He seems to have a good grasp on things to me.

That doesn't say much for you, does it? Kook.


It's probably Steve Austin posting under a different bogus identity to
give
the appearance there's another person on the planet who is equally
deluded.
KM

I figured that much too. At least he's not spoofing your e-mail address
like
that clown did to you a few years back...


Oh that fruitcake (TrollAIDS) is still around, when he can get Usenet access,
still forging dozens of identities and still spoofing my e-mail address -
you're just not visiting the "right" newsgroups! ;-) KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and mo http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

"alohacyberian" wrote in message
...
"Stan de SD" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"alohacyberian" wrote in message
...
"Stan de SD" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Jason Roy Ferguson" wrote in message
...

He seems to have a good grasp on things to me.

That doesn't say much for you, does it? Kook.

It's probably Steve Austin posting under a different bogus
identity to give the appearance there's another person on
the planet who is equally deluded.
KM

I figured that much too. At least he's not spoofing your e-mail
address like that clown did to you a few years back...

Oh that fruitcake (TrollAIDS) is still around, when he can get Usenet
access,
still forging dozens of identities and still spoofing my e-mail address -
you're just not visiting the "right" newsgroups! ;-) KM

I can't tell you how disappointed I am to hear that... :O)

On 3/23/2004 10:23 AM Vendicar Decarian spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
...
Nice ideas. I fully endorse many of these ideas.

I also know that most of them will never happen. So let's get real.

Translation. Gore will never win, so don't spoil your vote - Vote for Bush.

Actually, I kinda like the current bumper stickers that say "Re-defeat Bush".


--
.... but never have I encountered a guy who could not be bothered
to make his own case on his own show.

- Eric Alterman on his appearance on Dennis Miller's bomb of a show
on CNBC (3/17/04)

Stan de SD a.k.a. Stan Rothwell writes:

I was having trouble with my Netcom/Mindspring dial up so I
switched over to the Earthlink servers (Earthlink acquired
Mindspring which acquired Netcom), which necessitated changing
e-mail addresses.

=v= And yet, somehow everyone else was able to keep the same
email addresses. Curious claim.

=v= And here I thought that you'd posted so much malicious libel
under the name Stan Rothwell, thereby prompting a maelstrom of
complaints to Mindspring/Earthlink, that they finally noticed
your abuse of their terms of service. That wouldn't be like
them (they're not very responsive to abuse), but the maelstrom
of complaints about his pathological lying is well-documented:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Stan+Rothwell%22

Of course, the formerly-inert moniker "Stan de SD" has garnered
exactly the same reputation:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Stan+de+SD%22

Make what you want out of it, Jym, and make your silly claims
about me smearing you as well - you're a known suck-up for
eco-terrorist groups,

=v= Note that Stan Rothwell/Stan de SD is changing his story
here. Previously he'd posted malicious lies purporting that
I'd had a hand in a specific action he calls eco-terrorist,
and that he "just might" post proof of it:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ndspring. net

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ndspring.n et

All lies, of course. So, rather than stand behind his words,
he's changing the lie to something else. Pathetic.
_Jym_

JBS wrote:
Josh Halpern writes:
It is well known that trucks are responsible for much more of the wear
and tear on highways than taxes generated. OTOH, you can do a quick and
dirty, simply by valuing the cost of the real estate used for roads.
(I'll take Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island too.....)

No, you can't. Roads increase the value of the real estate
they serve. This increase in value generally far outweighs the value
of the real estate used for the road.

This is very simplistic, and I'm sure on the balance, wrong.

The first road into an area will create accessibility and therefore increase
the value of the property. After that, as roads are widened, congestion
increases, so the area becomes less desirable.

Or consider the case of a house next to the freeway but not near an exit.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

In article ,
on Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:40:05 GMT,
Miguel Cruz writes:
JBS wrote:
Josh Halpern writes:
It is well known that trucks are responsible for much more of the wear
and tear on highways than taxes generated. OTOH, you can do a quick and
dirty, simply by valuing the cost of the real estate used for roads.
(I'll take Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island too.....)

No, you can't. Roads increase the value of the real estate
they serve. This increase in value generally far outweighs the value
of the real estate used for the road.

This is very simplistic, and I'm sure on the balance, wrong.

The first road into an area will create accessibility and therefore increase
the value of the property. After that, as roads are widened, congestion
increases, so the area becomes less desirable.

Or consider the case of a house next to the freeway but not near an exit.

You are saying some roads have negative value which may be
true but the the whole system has strongly positive value. Consider
for example removing all the roads in Iowa. The decrease in average
land value would far outweigh the minor increase in available land.
So you can't figure the value of land devoted to roads using land
values which assume roads are present and call that a subsidy. Well
you can but it would be wrong.
James B. Shearer

Please comment on the value of an eight lane road in Manhattan vs. say a
four lane road.

josh halpern

wrote:

In article ,
on Thu, 25 Mar 2004 18:40:05 GMT,
Miguel Cruz writes:


JBS wrote:


Josh Halpern writes:


It is well known that trucks are responsible for much more of the wear
and tear on highways than taxes generated. OTOH, you can do a quick and
dirty, simply by valuing the cost of the real estate used for roads.
(I'll take Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island too.....)


No, you can't. Roads increase the value of the real estate
they serve. This increase in value generally far outweighs the value
of the real estate used for the road.


This is very simplistic, and I'm sure on the balance, wrong.

The first road into an area will create accessibility and therefore increase
the value of the property. After that, as roads are widened, congestion
increases, so the area becomes less desirable.

Or consider the case of a house next to the freeway but not near an exit.



You are saying some roads have negative value which may be
true but the the whole system has strongly positive value. Consider
for example removing all the roads in Iowa. The decrease in average
land value would far outweigh the minor increase in available land.
So you can't figure the value of land devoted to roads using land
values which assume roads are present and call that a subsidy. Well
you can but it would be wrong.
James B. Shearer

"Josh Halpern" wrote in message
...
Please comment on the value of an eight lane road in Manhattan vs. say a
four lane road.

Here is three lanes on one side of Times Square and I think an equal number
of lanes on the other side that merge. I would say this are really high
value roads in Manhattan since the property values are extremly high.

http://www.earthcam.com/usa/newyork/...ivestream.html

Its a live streaming video so you have to wait for it to rotate around to
get different views of most of the roads going one way and being three lanes
wide.

And of course as a highly dishonest post, you choose Manhattan which is not
represenative of anything.

In general having access to transportation increases property values.
Transit generally increases land values within walking distance of a station
which is a few hundred feet to a quarter mile.

"Accessibility is affected by both the quality of transportation systems
(sidewalks, roads, public transit services) and the distance to common
destinations. In rural and suburban areas accessibility is most affected by
automobile access. Businesses generally prefer to locate along a major
roadway, or even better, at the intersection of two highways, and households
will often choose a residential location that has adequate roads. For this
reason, advertisements for suburban homes often highlight "Just 15 minutes
from downtown!" or other claims concerning the ease of access to jobs and
services."
http://www.vtpi.org/smith.htm

Results vary widely

On 3/25/2004 11:19 PM Jack May spake thus:

In general having access to transportation increases property values.
Transit generally increases land values within walking distance of a station
which is a few hundred feet to a quarter mile.

Wow; Jack May actually said this. About transit. Hey, Jack, I thought transit
was all hopelessly outmoded 19th century technology.

Archive this one for the ages!


--
.... but never have I encountered a guy who could not be bothered
to make his own case on his own show.

- Eric Alterman on his appearance on Dennis Miller's bomb of a show
on CNBC (3/17/04)

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
...
Wow; Jack May actually said this. About transit. Hey, Jack, I thought
transit
was all hopelessly outmoded 19th century technology.

Yes, I try to tell the whole truth since I mainly look at this as an
engineering problem and its effects on society.

The problem is still there of transit increasing congestion and pollution
because it is so expensive that it drains funds from much better solutions.
We have now added a new criterion of property value which is only improved
near a transit stop and not improved for the large percentage of the route
that is not within walking distance of a stop.

The author was trying to develop some fuzzy argument that I gave up on that
transit somehow improves things even when people can't get to it and use it
which does not seem to be supported by the data.

Cars have the same problem if they can't be parked within walking distance
of their destination, so most places make sure cars can park close to where
people want to go. With transit, that is essentially impossible with lack
of routing flexibility for those 19th century trains and the high cost of a
dense matrix of routes for any transit mode. Cars and roads do have that
routing flexibility of for the very high diversity of routes people must
take in their daily life.

That is a prime reason transit became obsolete and continues to die as an
outdated technology. That is just a straight engineering analysis of the
problem and why cars took over and why they will remain dominant for the
rest of our lives.