From: hancock4 on 21 Nov 2009 18:14
On Nov 20, 9:50 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
> >No more idiotic than trying to claim that automobiles provide freedom
> >of movement to go anywhere at any time. Car drivers are as much a
> >slave to other peoples' schedules as transit riders.
> No. Car drivers are not unaffected by other people's schedules, but
> they are less controlled by them.
That depends on how bad the traffic is. Some places have bad traffic
much of the time, limited the window of opportunity. And obviously
some places have no problem with traffic. (see below).
From: hancock4 on 21 Nov 2009 18:19
On Nov 20, 10:05 pm, russo...(a)grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)
> The transit commute that takes longer than driving is the rule, not
> the exception.
Which is irrelevent.
Obviously a traveller will take the best mode that suits his needs.
In many cases that is the car. In many other cases it is the train or
> Lately I've been commuting to another location than my usual office
> (I'm doing consulting). It's 51 miles; takes just about an hour door
> to door by car. SEPTA suggests minimum of 3hr 8 min, a four seat ride
> (bus, train, train, bus).
That average speed door to door in rush hour traffic seems awfully
good. Many places in the SEPTA service territory get congested at
rush hour, such as longer waits at major traffic lights. Traffic near
office parks can get bad.
So obviously SEPTA is not a good solution for you. But SEPTA
obviously is a good solution for thousands of other people because
they choose to ride it every day.
From: jim on 21 Nov 2009 18:25
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> jim wrote:
> > Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> >> Luckily, the FHWA has collected all the figures and done all the math
> >> for us, though it's such a gigantic pain that they don't do it every
> >> year. 2004 figures:
> >> http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/htm/hf1.htm
> >> 21% of total road spending in the US comes from property taxes and other
> >> general funds, 11% from bonds, 6% from "other imposts", and 5% from
> >> "miscellaneous receipts" (including interest). Only 57% comes from fuel
> >> excise taxes and tolls, which is far lower than Big Oil and their
> >> advocates such as the Reason Foundation will admit to.
> > Well things are different today. Fuel consumption has been dropping for
> > last 2 years and road construction costs have taken a sharp upturn in
> > the same period.
> If you have similarly detailed data from a more recent year, I'll be
> happy to look at it, but for now that's the only comprehensive data on
> the record I'm aware of.
> Unless you have specific numbers for the increase in construction
> expenditures and the decrease in fuel taxes, they're just vague "trends"
> that aren't particularly informative.
You might read a newspaper inform yourself of what is going on in
Washington, Look at the budget. Congress has appropriated an additional
60 billion to shore up the Hiway trust fund in 2008-2009. That is the
first time in 50 years the trust fund has failed to meet the cost of
maintaining the federal hiway system, 4 years ago it was running a
surplus of 20 billion. And the reason the trust fund is broke? Is what I
Fuel consumption has been dropping for last 2 years
and road construction costs have taken a sharp
upturn in the same period.
> >> Have you never heard the term "net"?
> >> If you give Bob $5, and he gives you $3, then the _net_ flow of money is
> >> from you to Bob in the amount of $2. It doesn't mean that Bob never
> >> gave you any money.
> > It makes no difference to you if Bob and I are the same entity?
> It makes no difference if you're discussing two different accounts owned
> by the same person. There is still a difference between the detailed
> flow (which is potentially hundreds or even thousands of different
> transactions) and the net flow (which is a single amount moving in a
> single direction).
> Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
> CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
> K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
From: hancock4 on 21 Nov 2009 18:24
On Nov 21, 8:24 am, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote:
> The current transportation system is socialized and that is a fact that
> is extremely unlikely to change. The people who think it should be
> privatized instead are the idiots and they should rightly be ignored.
> For the remaining 99% of the population the question is what form will
> the socialized transportation system take in the future.
Although at the present the mideast is somewhat stable and there is an
adequate supply of cheap oil, it wasn't very long ago that gasoline
was at $5.00/gallon or there was shooting in the mideast. Over there,
all it takes is one whackos to disrupt the oil chain and there are
plenty of whackos to go around. When the recession ends demand will
go up again and the price of oil products will increase.
Another issue is that with 50% of the US oil imported, we have to
worry about so many dollars leaving the country going elsewhere. The
dollar will probably be devalued soon making imported oil more
expensive. If they stop trading oil in dollars, as they're
considering, it will make things worse.
My prediction for future, given inadequate highway space, opposition
toward new building and no available land, and oil troubles, is that
the share between transit and the private car with shift a few
percentage points. Not a lot.
For some reason, a small shift of a few points drives some people
absolutely ballistic. Perhaps they have a vested interest in the
From: jim on 21 Nov 2009 18:26
Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article <VIudnXn0CNy4d5rWnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d(a)bright.net>,
> jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote:
> >effectively. But anyone who has been paying attention will have observed
> >that when the price of oil goes up the system grinds to a halt.
> Really? I must have missed all those products failing to be shipped
> by truck in 2008.
OK so that makes you not someone who is paying attention.