"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
news
> On 11/05/2011 12:11 PM, Hell Toupee wrote:
>> On 5/11/2011 5:14 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>>> That's true but a great many people like me, live in the suburbs.
>>> There is
>>> no way we could have a train system to the suburbs. Could you imagine
>>> what
>>> it would look like if we did? I can't even imagine where they would
>>> put it.
>>
>> Here's a hint: express routes from selected suburbs into the city
>> centers, with park and ride lots near the train stops. You know, just
>> like many metropolitan areas currently do with buses.
>
>
> Maybe intercity travel would be more efficient if the buses ran only into
> the edge of town and passengers could transfer to subways or other high
> speed mass transit. A lot of people work in the fringe areas and in order
> for them to use mass transit they end up having to go all the way downtown
> to the terminal and then hop on local transit to go back out.

Exactly! That is how it is here. My friend's daughter got a job in another
city. She doesn't drive. She had to take so many buses, the amount of
travel time she spent was almost as much as the hours she spent at that part
time job. And the amount of money she had to pay for buses amounted to
almost what she made. In the end she was making about $2.00 per day.
Hardly worth it.

"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 11:11:13 -0500, Hell Toupee >
> wrote:
>
>>On 5/11/2011 5:14 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>>> That's true but a great many people like me, live in the suburbs. There
>>> is
>>> no way we could have a train system to the suburbs. Could you imagine
>>> what
>>> it would look like if we did? I can't even imagine where they would put
>>> it.
>>
>>Here's a hint: express routes from selected suburbs into the city
>>centers, with park and ride lots near the train stops. You know, just
>>like many metropolitan areas currently do with buses.
>
> Many surburban areas within a hundred miles of large cities already
> have mass transit rail/bus systems... it's rural areas where it's not
> economically feasable, and most of the US is rural, most very rural.

Yes! Yes! Yes! *Hops up and down and gets all excited*

Krypsis wrote:
>
> On 11/05/2011 7:23 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> > ha scritto nel messaggio
> >> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
> >>>> prices.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13338754
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> <shrug> The article was pretty clear. We have more daily commute
> >>> distance to cover than Brits (for instance) do and everybody is
> >>> looking for a deal. For instance, I learned yesterday that the
> >>> citizens of southern (Bavaria) Germany cross the boarder into Austria
> >>> to buy their gas. Why? Because it's cheaper there.
> >>
> >> My closest British friend commutes 1.25 hours each way to London. He
> >> reads and studies on the train.
> >
> > Ah... Train! Something we don't have here! Yes some big cities have
> > things like that. But not here. If you don't live in the city proper
> > (Seattle) you are pretty much screwed if you need public transportation. In
> > some areas you can take a bus and get to the city and back. But in some
> > cases there is no bus on Sunday and if you are taking a bus after hours,
> > forget it.
> >
> >
> If the fuel prices keep on rising, you can expect that to change and
> availability of public transport will increase. Either that or the
> people will move closer to where they work and reduce the size of their
> commute.

The availability of public transit will not increase, because it is
already readily available anywhere in the US where it is viable.

People are more likely to look for jobs closer to where they live, than
to move into cities where they work. City life is a lower standard of
living and one that requires a personality type that can be content to
live in a little cage and be dependent on others for damned near
everything, which is very much contrary to the far more self reliant US
psyche.

sf wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 14:42:31 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> > I've used them both and they definitely exist and work fine for their
> > limited role. I've also used the trains in Chicago and CA (both BART and
> > CalTrain). All of this really goes back to my point that public transit
> > already exists in the US to the extent that it is practical, and talk of
> > dramatically expanding it is just pie in the sky dreaming with no
> > practical basis.
>
> Honestly, this is the first time I've thought of it in terms of a
> commute. Usually the thought of putting rail travel back where it use
> to be (dare I dream of something even better than it used to be?) is
> when we talk about cross country train travel vs cross country
> airplane travel. I'd love to see affordable first class interstate
> and transcontinental rail travel become a reality in the near future.
> I have the time and the inclination, but there is nothing that
> compares to train travel of the '50s and before anymore that traverses
> the USA.

There is a good train that traverses across Canada that I've heard is
good for a vacation trip.

"Janet" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> On Wed, 11 May 2011 09:17:24 +0200, "Giusi" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
>> > prices.
>> >
>> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13338754
>> >
>>
>> <shrug> The article was pretty clear. We have more daily commute
>> distance to cover than Brits (for instance) do
>
> What is the average commute distance in the USA? Or the average annual
> milage on a car?

12,334 miles per year. The average commute to work per day is 87 minutes.
I don't know how that transfers to miles. But another cite says 40 miles
daily. I would say based on the people I know, this is about right. I do
know of a few people who have a 2 hour commute each way.

When we lived on Cape Cod, my husband's commute was about 2 hours each way,
but... He was working on a ship. So he did stay on the ship sometimes. He
did not drive this every day. In his case he had no choice. In those days
we were forced to take military housing and it was located in another city.

Krypsis wrote:
>
> On 11/05/2011 6:49 PM, Giusi wrote:
> > > ha scritto nel messaggio
> > >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
> >>> prices.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13338754
> >>>
> >>
> >> <shrug> The article was pretty clear. We have more daily commute
> >> distance to cover than Brits (for instance) do and everybody is
> >> looking for a deal. For instance, I learned yesterday that the
> >> citizens of southern (Bavaria) Germany cross the boarder into Austria
> >> to buy their gas. Why? Because it's cheaper there.
> >
> > My closest British friend commutes 1.25 hours each way to London. He reads
> > and studies on the train.
> >
> >
> The Brits have adjusted their lifestyles according to the fuel prices.
> They either use public transport where appropriate or restrict their
> traveling to short distances.
>
> Interestingly enough, this was what people used to do when the horse was
> their only mode of transport.
>
> Krypsis

Indeed the quality of life has improved immeasurably in the civilized
world since those medieval days, even if the Britts never made it out of
that era.

Giusi wrote:
>
> "sf" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> Landon > wrote:
> >
> >> You're nothing but another whining European, whining about Americans.
> >
> > Giusi is an American transplanted to Italy. Maybe she's been gone too
> > long, but she was just here on an extended visit so she isn't out of
> > touch. Not sure why she posted the article here instead of
> > uk.f+d.misc, where you'll see that sort of attitude being voiced and
> > supported.
>
> How intelligent. It's the US that has the bigger problem, and yet people
> don't seem to even think about solving it. I was in the US for 2 months
> without a car. In DC I could (just) do it, but in Rhode Island, Maine?
> Forget about it. It shouldn't be like that.
>
> I live in the country in the middle of a farm here. I can walk to a
> supermarket. I couldn't return with a week's groceries by foot, but there
> is a market 7 km from me. I can get to town on foot, or I can take a bus
> which leaves early in the morning and comes back at 12:30. I traveled a bit
> when I didn't have a license and it was slow and sometimes tedious, but it
> can be done. In the US you almost can't there from here.

You obviously didn't put enough effort into researching public transit
in those areas. You aren't going to find a train or subway in those
places, but you most certainly will find some bus service.

On 11/05/2011 5:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:

>
> I did Hartford, CT to NYC and back, and it was absolute crap. I would
> never in a million years consider taking a train long distance. I fly
> regularly and have yet to have a flight that was remotely as bad as that
> Amtrak POS.


I have limited train travel experience in Canada, none in the US.My
experience was not great. back in the 90s we travelled around Europe on
a rail pass. It was great. It was one of my best vacations ever and
travelling by trains there was a pleasure.

"sf" > wrote in message
news
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:24:59 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> notbob wrote:
>> >
>> > On 2011-05-11, sf > wrote:
>> >
>> > > imagine that better passenger service will resume if our government
>> > > ever thinks it's worthwhile to subsidize at the same rate European
>> > > governments subsidize their passenger service.
>> >
>> > We don't. Shrub almost completely destroyed Amtrak by reducing
>> > subsidies year after year While increasing and bailing out airlines,
>> > repeatedly. Regardless, I'll take the train over a plane every time!
>> >
>> > nb
>>
>> I tried taking Amtrak once and only once. I will never consider taking
>> it ever again it is such a horribly overpriced, inefficient and
>> miserable excuse for transit.
>
> Which is why it need to be improved.

Yeah. I wanted to take it from Alameda CA to Edmonds WA. I think the train
station in CA was in Oakland. And while there is a train station in
Edmonds, it meant an overnight stay in Seattle. Really? And the cost for
the train was far more than it would be to take a plane. So we didn't do
it.

Giusi wrote:
>
> "Krypsis" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>
> > Maybe it is far less fuel efficient than a US truck but it is far more
> > suitable for transporting one or two people around. Why transport the
> > extra iron?
>
> It isn't less efficient. That's just a lie. It gets about 60 mpg and now
> comes in a 4 door version. Is it a sub for a pickup truck? Of course not.
> People who haul a lot of stuff here have them or rent them when they need
> them. They rarely use them as day to day transport because you cannot get
> them through a lot of our streets even if you wanted to pay for the gas.
>
> I don't know anyone who owns a Smart. VW Golf, Fiat 500, Toyotas, Hondas
> and Nissans, and a few hotdogging Audi and Mercedes SUV jerks.

The "Smart" imported to the US certainly doesn't get 60 MPG. If the
model there gets 60 MPG perhaps it does it at the expense of not meeting
US safety or emissions standards and thus can't be imported.

The size thing is certainly an issue in those European cities with
medieval sized streets. It's a good thing that Europe is so small,
otherwise the inefficiency due to the inability to move large vehicles
in many areas would push the prices of goods a lot higher.

On Thu, 12 May 2011 07:26:45 +1000, Krypsis >
wrote:

> I think you'll find that a lot of European cities subsidise their public
> transport with ticket revenue alone. Passenger services in your area
> languished simply because people favoured the convenience of the car. It
> really is a case of use it or lose it.

European national governments, not cities, subsidize their train
systems. Tickets don't even begin to cover the real cost.

In the US, train companies gave passengers the boot in favor of
freight back in the late 60's while the government
encouraged/subsidized airplane travel over train travel. For short
distances of under 1000 miles, cars are often better suited and more
reliable because our interstate highway system is so good. Thank
Hitler for that. Eisenhower was impressed by the autobahn and he
recreated it here.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"Janet" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Brooklyn1 says...
>>
>> Using petrol miserly is not the answer, ergo mass transit is a total
>> waste of resources, it's much too late to build transportation systems
>> that rely on fossil fuel....
>
> So why not have electric trains and trams like other countries? Use
> renewables to generate the power to run the trains.

Electricity is very expensive!

James Silverton wrote:
>
> On 5/11/2011 3:05 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > James Silverton wrote:
> >>
> >> On 5/11/2011 2:42 PM, Andy wrote:
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I'll take my "speck" over a Humvee any day.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jill,
> >>>
> >>> The Hummer was discontinued two years ago.
> >>>
> >>> GM said "screw it!"
> >>>
> >>> I always admired them. They look great! I always wanted one but truthfully,
> >>> it was overkill for general around the town purposes, imho.
> >>
> >> Perhaps Hummers have rear view cameras but I wouldn't like to try
> >> parallel parking one in a single space. Of course, that's also true of
> >> Lamborghinis and Ferraris but their owners can afford to pay wallies to
> >> do it for them.
> >
> > I certainly like the rear view camera on my current truck, however my
> > other truck is the same size and doesn't have a rear view camera and
> > I've never had an issue parking either of them in tight spaces.
>
> Yes, I can parallel park my Honda Pilot SUV with the mirrors but it is
> not easy. The view thro' the rear window of a Hummer is considerably worse.

I was once in a parking lot in my 22' long, 8' wide crew cab dually
pickup. I found myself waiting in a row for someone in a much smaller
SUV trying to fit into a space. I watched them try in vain to fit their
vehicle into the space before they gave up and moved on to look for an
easier space. I pulled my truck up and parked it in the space they gave
up on in about 15 seconds with no issues.

Janet wrote:
>
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > On Wed, 11 May 2011 13:45:08 +0200, "Giusi" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >But I gotta say, Americans whine...<snip>
> >
> > Like many people who allow themselves to be bigoted, you have just
> > shown your bigotry against Americans.
> >
> > You've lumped 300 MILLION people into one convenient summation for
> > you.
> >
> > Had you said something like "It seems to me that more Americans seem
> > to complain about gas prices than the same amount of people in some
> > other country", then I'd have no problem with your statement.
> >
> > Plus, you use the word "whine". We "whine" no more than anyone in any
> > other country, you dolt. You just can't see past your bigoted nose to
> > understand that.
> >
> > I've found that of the European people I hear or read opinions from,
> > most of them whine about Americans because they truly don't have a
> > clue about how Americans think as a society. The anti-American whining
> > done by Europeans is so common that any American knows of it now.
> >
> > You're nothing but another whining European, whining about Americans.
> >
> > You've shown your lack of intelligence, not the opposite.
>
> Giusi is an American. Now who looks stupid?
>
> Janet

Giusi, based on recent posts indicating that she couldn't figure out
local bus service in the US.

sf wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 May 2011 15:59:48 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > sf wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 11 May 2011 14:49:39 -0500, "Pete C." >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Most indicated that the
> > > > citizenship route was too much work and they were happy with permanent
> > > > resident.
> > >
> > > So, they wanted the best of both worlds. Lazy SOBs.
> >
> > I don't see much lazy about going to all the trouble of legally
> > immigrating to the US and finding a job here, even if you only go the
> > permanent resident route.
>
> Live the American way of life without the responsibilities? What's
> not to like?

What responsibilities? You mean working for a living? Paying your
mortgage? Paying taxes?

Janet wrote:
>
> In article . com>,
> says...
> >
> > Landon wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 11 May 2011 13:45:08 +0200, "Giusi" >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >But I gotta say, Americans whine...<snip>
> > >
> > > Like many people who allow themselves to be bigoted, you have just
> > > shown your bigotry against Americans.
> > >
> > > You've lumped 300 MILLION people into one convenient summation for
> > > you.
> > >
> > > Had you said something like "It seems to me that more Americans seem
> > > to complain about gas prices than the same amount of people in some
> > > other country", then I'd have no problem with your statement.
> > >
> > > Plus, you use the word "whine". We "whine" no more than anyone in any
> > > other country, you dolt. You just can't see past your bigoted nose to
> > > understand that.
> > >
> > > I've found that of the European people I hear or read opinions from,
> > > most of them whine about Americans because they truly don't have a
> > > clue about how Americans think as a society. The anti-American whining
> > > done by Europeans is so common that any American knows of it now.
> > >
> > > You're nothing but another whining European, whining about Americans.
> > >
> > > You've shown your lack of intelligence, not the opposite.
> >
> > It's a combination of lack of knowledge of the US (especially the size
> > and low population density), along with some jealousy of our higher
> > standard of living. I've met and worked with quite a few Europeans who
> > moved to the US and not a single one had any intention of every going
> > back.
>
> Giusi is American.

That's the theory, if it's true, then they replaced her brain with one
from some Euro-trash however.

On Wed, 11 May 2011 15:58:31 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
> notbob wrote:
> >
> > On 2011-05-11, sf > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Much as I'd like to blame The Shrub for it... the downward spiral
> > > (unfortunately) started long before even his father was in office.
> >
> > Yeah, but Shrub made such huge cuts, it almost shut it down.
>
> Which is a good thing. The taxpayers should not be subsidizing
> transportation for what is predominantly wealthy mid level Wall Street
> types commuting from western CT to NYC to work. Amtrack simply doesn't
> serve much of the population which is why it has never been able to
> support itself financially.

AmTrack is relatively new and substandard. We used to have long gone
lines like the Super Chief and we need to get back to those days of
passenger travel.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "Janet" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, says...
> >>
> >> That's true but a great many people like me, live in the suburbs. There
> >> is
> >> no way we could have a train system to the suburbs. Could you imagine
> >> what
> >> it would look like if we did?
> >
> > Just like suburban trains in Europe? Where they are still building new
> > trainlines and tramways in and through urban areas.
> >
> > If you don't like them aboveground, or have no space, why not build
> > them underground, or on an overhead rail.
>
> Underground. Seriously? I guess you haven't heard about all the flooding
> we've been having here because of all the excess rain we've been having. I
> don't think underground would work very well at all. Especially under
> people's farms, yards, etc.
>
> Again... I am NOT talking about urban areas. I think the vast majority of
> us in this country do not live in urban areas.

Certainly the vast majority of the US is not remotely urban.

Janet wrote:
>
> In article .com>,
> says...
>
> > Public transit is only viable in high population density areas like much
> > of Europe. The US most certainly does have public transit, and it is in
> > the same type of area in the US as it is in Europe. It is the vast areas
> > of the US that do not have high population densities where public
> > transit is simply not viable.
>
> What about the Ghan railway in Australia? Newly opened, runs 3,000 km
> through the empty centre of the country. Population density doesn't come
> any lower.
>
> Janet.

I expect that is primarily a freight railway, not passenger. Probably
offset some of their road trains.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 11/05/2011 4:58 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > Which is a good thing. The taxpayers should not be subsidizing
> > transportation for what is predominantly wealthy mid level Wall Street
> > types commuting from western CT to NYC to work. Amtrack simply doesn't
> > serve much of the population which is why it has never been able to
> > support itself financially.
>
> Part of the problem with mass transit is making it a viable alternative.
> Rail used to be pretty well the only mode of transport for passengers.
> My son prefers to travel by train because it is faster and more
> comfortable than bus. The problem is that there are only three trains
> from Toronto where he lives to Niagara where I live. While he can hope
> on a subway from work to the train station, it is a 15 mile drive from
> here to the train station. We used to be able to get a train from our
> little town to Toronto, but it only ran once per day.
>
> They were talking about running a bus from our town to the two nearest
> cities. There would be one bus into the city at 10 am and one returning
> mid afternoon. We would have had to walk more than a mile to the catch
> the bus. That qualifies as pretty well useless.
>
> My son lives in Toronto and uses public transit exclusively. It takes a
> little longer to get to work that it would by driving at the best of
> times, but he does not have the added expense of parking, and it is much
> cheaper to get a bus pass than to own a car. He also relied on public
> transit when he lived in Montreal. You could almost set your watch by
> the buses there. We would be sitting in his apartment and then he would
> announce that it was time to go....now... and the bus would show up
> within a minute of our arriving at the bus stop. It was cheaper for
> several of us to travel on a transit day pass than it would have cost to
> park for a few hours downtown.

The last time I was in Montreal, I parked my large truck that takes a
space and a half to park at a lot in the middle of the city for $5 for
the day. The metro fares were I think $1.98 at that time, so parking all
day cost notably less than the metro fares for two of us for the day.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 11/05/2011 5:42 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> >
> > I did Hartford, CT to NYC and back, and it was absolute crap. I would
> > never in a million years consider taking a train long distance. I fly
> > regularly and have yet to have a flight that was remotely as bad as that
> > Amtrak POS.
>
> I have limited train travel experience in Canada, none in the US.My
> experience was not great. back in the 90s we travelled around Europe on
> a rail pass. It was great. It was one of my best vacations ever and
> travelling by trains there was a pleasure.

I hear there is a train that goes cross Canada that is a nice scenic
week trip with good (luxury) accommodations. This is not a commuter
train of course.

Pete C. wrote:

> The "Smart" imported to the US certainly doesn't get 60 MPG. If the
> model there gets 60 MPG perhaps it does it at the expense of not
> meeting US safety or emissions standards and thus can't be imported.
>
> The size thing is certainly an issue in those European cities with
> medieval sized streets.

I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable taking this around my
local highways, forget the gas mileage, how about the Windex??

http://i53.tinypic.com/2ex94m0.jpg

nancy

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> news
> > On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:24:59 -0500, "Pete C." >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> notbob wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On 2011-05-11, sf > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > imagine that better passenger service will resume if our government
> >> > > ever thinks it's worthwhile to subsidize at the same rate European
> >> > > governments subsidize their passenger service.
> >> >
> >> > We don't. Shrub almost completely destroyed Amtrak by reducing
> >> > subsidies year after year While increasing and bailing out airlines,
> >> > repeatedly. Regardless, I'll take the train over a plane every time!
> >> >
> >> > nb
> >>
> >> I tried taking Amtrak once and only once. I will never consider taking
> >> it ever again it is such a horribly overpriced, inefficient and
> >> miserable excuse for transit.
> >
> > Which is why it need to be improved.
>
> Yeah. I wanted to take it from Alameda CA to Edmonds WA. I think the train
> station in CA was in Oakland. And while there is a train station in
> Edmonds, it meant an overnight stay in Seattle. Really? And the cost for
> the train was far more than it would be to take a plane. So we didn't do
> it.

Rail travel in the US is the fantasy land of left leaning people who
don't work for a living. While it might be nice to take a cross country
train trip while writing your latest book or otherwise not having any
sort of schedule to keep, such long distance rail serves essentially no
purpose for the bulk of the US population and taxpayers should certainly
not be subsidizing such a thing.

Janet wrote:
>
> In article >, says...
> >
> > "Janet" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >, says...
> > >>
> > >> "Giusi" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >>> > Then it may be time to do something to correct those problems. We
> > > once
> > >> > had all the public transport other countries have, but we ripped it out
> > >> > in
> > >> > favor of cars, ever bigger, that use too much energy for the modern
> > >> > situation. It can't last forever, right? So spend the money to fix
> > >> > the
> > >> > situation which will also goose the economy.
> > >>
> > >> I don't see how we possibly could. It's just not feasible. The way the
> > >> streets are laid out here, people are just too spread out.
> > >
> > > Works in London, Paris, Tokyo.
> > >
> >
> > Well 2 of those cities did have the benefit of being rebuilt from scratch 65
> > years ago.
> >
> I see you haven't visited London or Paris:-)
>
> Janet

Yes, I think those places could benefit from a little destruction and
rebuilding.

Nancy Young wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
>
> > The "Smart" imported to the US certainly doesn't get 60 MPG. If the
> > model there gets 60 MPG perhaps it does it at the expense of not
> > meeting US safety or emissions standards and thus can't be imported.
> >
> > The size thing is certainly an issue in those European cities with
> > medieval sized streets.
>
> I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable taking this around my
> local highways, forget the gas mileage, how about the Windex??
>
> http://i53.tinypic.com/2ex94m0.jpg
>
> nancy

The few "Smart" cars I see on the roads here literally scare me. I
expect a gust of wind to blow them in front of my truck where I will
punt them onto someone's roof.

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "Janet" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, Brooklyn1 says...
> >>
> >> Using petrol miserly is not the answer, ergo mass transit is a total
> >> waste of resources, it's much too late to build transportation systems
> >> that rely on fossil fuel....
> >
> > So why not have electric trains and trams like other countries? Use
> > renewables to generate the power to run the trains.
>
> Electricity is very expensive!

Most "Renewable" electricity is even more expensive as well as being
unreliable. There are only three viable "green" electricity sources,
conventional hydroelectric, tidal generation and nuclear, everything
else is basically smoke and mirrors and government subsidies hiding the
technological problems.

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On May 11, 3:36 pm, "jmcquown" > wrote:
>> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>>
>> .. .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, 11 May 2011 10:35:24 -0400, jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>
>>>>> For me, it means no profit for my business this year. If I cut
>>>>> back on cat shows, I will lose the shows for future years.
>>
>>>> Cat shows?
>>
>>>> Jill
>>
>>> cat shows are the engine that drives american commerce.
>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>>
>> Cat shows are full of funny little critters that meow and mew and
>> love feather wands Who doesn't love a cat show?
>
> I can't resist answering a rhetorical question.
>
> My husband has no use for cats. If he catches one in the
> havahart trap, he urinates on it and lets it go home.
> (He'd prefer to kill it, but that's against the law.)

That's disgusting! Your husband is sick.

Krypsis wrote:
> On 12/05/2011 1:22 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>> > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah... Train! Something we don't have here! Yes some big cities
>>>>> have things like that. But not here. If you don't live in the
>>>>> city proper (Seattle) you are pretty much screwed if you need
>>>>> public transportation. In some areas you can take a bus and get
>>>>> to the city and back. But in some cases there is no bus on
>>>>> Sunday and if you are taking a bus after hours, forget it.
>>>>
>>>> Then it may be time to do something to correct those problems. We
>>>> once had all the public transport other countries have, but we
>>>> ripped it out in favor of cars, ever bigger, that use too much
>>>> energy for the modern situation. It can't last forever, right? So
>>>> spend the money to fix the situation which will also goose the
>>>> economy.
>>>
>>> If is was only so simple. The way our country has grown in the
>>> past 50 years, it is probably impossible to build a sensible train
>>> line now. Perhaps over 25 to 50 years, you could fix some of the
>>> problem, but not all. One end is easier. You can put in a commuter
>>> line to the cities and build stations (collection points) so you
>>> can drive a few miles to them and train to the city. The problem
>>> comes in the other sectors with industrial parks sprawled out over many
>>> miles and not enough people to every justify a rail line.
>>>
>>> There are some lines being revived, and busways being built, but it
>>> is not enough to make drastic reductions in driving.
>>>
>>> Carpools help too, but they have not taken off as you'd expect. One
>>> reason is practicality, but a big reason is people don't want
>>> to give up their independence, no matter how inefficient.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Carpools and vanpools have the significant drawback that they are
>> only viable for those who live very simple lives - get up, go to
>> work, go home, go to sleep - for 95% of the population it's more
>> like - get up, go to work, get out of work early or get stuck at
>> work late, go shopping, go to entertainment, kids activities, etc.
>> and eventually go home. This is why carpools and vanpools will never
>> be more than a tiny percentage of commuting.
>>
>> The same issue applies to busses and trains as well to a lesser
>> extent. If the busses or trains run frequently enough to be
>> convenient for the bulk of the population who has variable
>> schedules, then they operate at a huge loss with few riders on any
>> given run. If they operate infrequently enough to build ridership
>> and improve efficiency then they are too inconvenient and people
>> will defer to using their own vehicle rather than waste an hour
>> waiting for the next bus/train. Further, when a person's activities
>> require transporting more than a
>> couple bags, be it luggage, sports gear, groceries or general
>> shopping, people will again defer to their own vehicle rather than
>> try to manage such cargo on public transit. For nearly anyone in a
>> single family house, the cargo needs nearly always exceed what
>> public transit can handle so public transit can never be viable for
>> anything but work commuting, and again with the scheduling issues it
>> often isn't viable for that either.
>
> Remove the family car from people's lives and public transport
> becomes a possibility. Recent cities in the US were designed around
> the car and urban sprawl. That needs to change before the pain will
> ease.
> I see people in my suburb commuting to the city 15 km distant every
> day by bicycle, rain or shine. Some ride up to twice that distance.
> Urban planners are adding cycleways to accommodate the demand.

We have bike lanes here. They don't get used very often but they're there.

Pete C. wrote:
> sf wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 11 May 2011 08:26:40 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I think in general, Brits do not have a realistic concept
>>> of how big geographically the US really is....
>>
>> I think you're right... even for those who claim to have visited
>> here.
>
> Many of those who have visited here have only visited some of our
> larger cities and thus not seen any rural areas.

That's probably true too!

Janet wrote:
> In article <f5c082b8-603f-4ef9-b813-928d5ab12a15
> @n10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, says...
>>
>> On May 11, 2:49 am, sf > wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 May 2011 09:17:24 +0200, "Giusi" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at
>>>> gas prices.
>>>
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13338754
>>>
>>> <shrug> The article was pretty clear. We have more daily commute
>>> distance to cover than Brits (for instance) do and everybody is
>>> looking for a deal. For instance, I learned yesterday that the
>>> citizens of southern (Bavaria) Germany cross the boarder into
>>> Austria to buy their gas. Why? Because it's cheaper there.
>>>
>>> --
>>> I love cooking with wine.
>>> Sometimes I even put it in the food.
>>
>> Bigger country, longer commutes, not as much public transportation/
>> rail service as they have in the UK. There are lots of reasons,
>> actually. I think in general, Brits do not have a realistic concept
>> of how big geographically the US really is....
>
> Brits travel all over the world as a matter of course. We're always
> amused by the American notion people only know their native country.

That's an American notion? I've never heard it before. Oh and BTW, we are
individuals here. We don't share a brain.

Pete C. wrote:
> Janet wrote:
>>
>> In article <f5c082b8-603f-4ef9-b813-928d5ab12a15
>> @n10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, says...
>>>
>>> On May 11, 2:49 am, sf > wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 11 May 2011 09:17:24 +0200, "Giusi" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked
>>>>> at gas prices.
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13338754
>>>>
>>>> <shrug> The article was pretty clear. We have more daily commute
>>>> distance to cover than Brits (for instance) do and everybody is
>>>> looking for a deal. For instance, I learned yesterday that the
>>>> citizens of southern (Bavaria) Germany cross the boarder into
>>>> Austria to buy their gas. Why? Because it's cheaper there.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> I love cooking with wine.
>>>> Sometimes I even put it in the food.
>>>
>>> Bigger country, longer commutes, not as much public transportation/
>>> rail service as they have in the UK. There are lots of reasons,
>>> actually. I think in general, Brits do not have a realistic concept
>>> of how big geographically the US really is....
>>
>> Brits travel all over the world as a matter of course. We're
>> always amused by the American notion people only know their native
>> country.
>
> You may travel a lot, but you don't seem to take in the big picture.
> If you did you would realize why virtually nothing European will work
> in the US.

Yep.

Kalmia wrote:
> On May 11, 3:17 am, "Giusi" > wrote:
>> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at
>> gas prices.
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13338754
>
> Added gas expense just might cut into the family beer and ciggy
> budget.
> Gee, maybe ppl will start to look into home cooking to stretch the
> food dollar. Wouldn't hurt a lot of American waistlines, that's fer
> sher.

Ciggy budget? Do people still smoke where you are? Because few do here.

Pete C. wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:

>> I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable taking this around my
>> local highways, forget the gas mileage, how about the Windex??
>>
>> http://i53.tinypic.com/2ex94m0.jpg

> The few "Smart" cars I see on the roads here literally scare me. I
> expect a gust of wind to blow them in front of my truck where I will
> punt them onto someone's roof.

After the last round of high gas prices a few years ago, the number
of SUVs I see around isn't nearly as overwhelming as it was. Still, I'd
be concerned if I was driving one of the Smart cars around, it's like
David and Goliath. Still, people do ride motorcycles, these cars are
probably safer though I feel like I'd prefer to be on the bike.

nancy

Pete C. wrote:
> "gloria.p" wrote:
>>
>> On 5/11/2011 2:48 AM, Giusi wrote:
>>> > ha scritto nel messaggio
>>> ...
>>> On May 11, 12:17 am, > wrote:
>>>> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at
>>>> gas prices.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> For most of us, we can't cut out a lot of our driving, so that
>>> increased cost is something we must pay.
>>
>> Americans are so spoiled and entitled. I am sure that many of us
>> think the U.S. is entitled to own and use all the oil left in the
>> world.
>
> Most of the oil is in countries hostile to the US, and most of those
> countries have *no* economy other than oil. Once we have used up their
> oil (and not our own), those enemies will implode.
>
>>
>> It is crazy-making to me that when gas prices rise people begin to
>> think about buying cars with better gas mileage (i.e. smaller cars
>> or hybrids) but when the prices go down 50cents/gallon, the
>> monster-mobiles (mini-vans, SUVs, prestige sports cars) again fly
>> off the car lots.
>
> Funny, from what I see people buy vehicles that meet *their* needs,
> not to satisfy the perceptions of others. New truck sales have been
> at very high levels over the past couple years, and that's on top of
> used truck sales. It seems that people's needs have not changed to
> suit your perceptions, nor have higher fuel prices (in reality lower
> dollar value) caused them to give up on life and go live in a
> cardboard box under a bridge.
>
>>
>> We were recently in Greece and Turkey where gas prices averaged
>> US$10/gallon. The car we most commonly saw was the tiny Smart Car.
>> It made a lot of sense.
>
> No, actually it didn't make a lot of sense. That tiny "Smart" car
> doesn't get very good MPG, certainly not commensurate with it's lack
> of capability, indeed it is far less fuel efficient than the big
> pickups in the US.

Those things crack me up! I saw one at Costco. I was like... Where are
you going to put the stuff you buy?

Krypsis wrote:
> On 12/05/2011 4:39 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>> "gloria.p" wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/11/2011 2:48 AM, Giusi wrote:
>>>> > ha scritto nel messaggio
>>>> ...
>>>> On May 11, 12:17 am, > wrote:
>>>>> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked
>>>>> at gas prices.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> For most of us, we can't cut out a lot of our driving, so that
>>>> increased cost is something we must pay.
>>>
>>> Americans are so spoiled and entitled. I am sure that many of us
>>> think the U.S. is entitled to own and use all the oil left in the
>>> world.
>>
>> Most of the oil is in countries hostile to the US, and most of those
>> countries have *no* economy other than oil. Once we have used up
>> their oil (and not our own), those enemies will implode.
>>
>>>
>>> It is crazy-making to me that when gas prices rise people begin to
>>> think about buying cars with better gas mileage (i.e. smaller cars
>>> or hybrids) but when the prices go down 50cents/gallon, the
>>> monster-mobiles (mini-vans, SUVs, prestige sports cars) again fly
>>> off the car lots.
>>
>> Funny, from what I see people buy vehicles that meet *their* needs,
>> not to satisfy the perceptions of others. New truck sales have been
>> at very high levels over the past couple years, and that's on top of
>> used truck sales. It seems that people's needs have not changed to
>> suit your perceptions, nor have higher fuel prices (in reality lower
>> dollar value) caused them to give up on life and go live in a
>> cardboard box under a bridge.
>>
>>>
>>> We were recently in Greece and Turkey where gas prices averaged
>>> US$10/gallon. The car we most commonly saw was the tiny Smart Car.
>>> It made a lot of sense.
>>
>> No, actually it didn't make a lot of sense. That tiny "Smart" car
>> doesn't get very good MPG, certainly not commensurate with it's lack
>> of capability, indeed it is far less fuel efficient than the big
>> pickups in the US.
>
> Maybe it is far less fuel efficient than a US truck but it is far more
> suitable for transporting one or two people around. Why transport the
> extra iron?

Why is it suitable if it isn't more fuel efficient? And what car is made of
iron?

"Pete C." > wrote in message
ter.com...
>
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 11/05/2011 2:49 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>> >> Work crews, huh? The only people I ever see driving those tricked-out
>> >> trucks aren't driving work crews around. Nope, always just a single
>> >> driver.
>> >
>> > Then you aren't paying attention and/or are seeing only what you want
>> > to
>> > see. Around here I see a lot of large comfortable crew cab pickups on
>> > the road and at least half of them have multiple passengers, and three
>> > quarters of them are carrying notable amounts of cargo or pulling large
>> > trailers.
>>
>> Nope. Jill is seeing the same thing I am. The majority of them have only
>> one person in them.
>> >
>
> Take your blinders off.

Take YOUR blinders off. I rarely see these as "work trucks". Fancy
flashing lights. Big cabs. They're out to impress someone. Doesn't
impress me.

Jill

Pete C. wrote:
> Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> "Janet" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> That's true but a great many people like me, live in the suburbs.
>>>> There is
>>>> no way we could have a train system to the suburbs. Could you
>>>> imagine what
>>>> it would look like if we did?
>>>
>>> Just like suburban trains in Europe? Where they are still
>>> building new trainlines and tramways in and through urban areas.
>>>
>>> If you don't like them aboveground, or have no space, why not
>>> build them underground, or on an overhead rail.
>>
>> Underground. Seriously? I guess you haven't heard about all the
>> flooding we've been having here because of all the excess rain we've
>> been having. I don't think underground would work very well at all.
>> Especially under people's farms, yards, etc.
>>
>> Again... I am NOT talking about urban areas. I think the vast
>> majority of us in this country do not live in urban areas.
>
> Certainly the vast majority of the US is not remotely urban.

Right.

Janet wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>>
> Oh and BTW, we are
>> individuals here. We don't share a brain.
>
> You never said a truer word, Julie, but I still think its a damn
> shame those ole meanies wouldn't let you have a few grey cells.

Who put the bee in your bonnet?

jmcquown wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On May 11, 12:17 am, "Giusi" > wrote:
>>> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked at gas
>>> prices.
>>>
>>
>> Because it means we have to pay a lot more money each month. Our gas
>> has gone up a lot. The prices of food are going up again. The cost of
>> products are going up. The cost of heating the house in winter has
>> gone up.
>>
> All the more reason to drive an economy car. I seem to remember after
> the "gas crisis" of the 1970's the focus was on smaller economy cars.
> Now all I see Americans driving are weird modified Hummers (since when
> did driving what was designed as a military vehicle popular?) and huge
> "mini vans" (I use the word "mini" lightly) with seating for 8. Um,
> excuse me? And since when did pickup trucks need back seats and 5
> doors? Pickup trucks used to be work vehicles.
>
>> For most of us, we can't cut out a lot of our driving, so that
>> increased cost is something we must pay. We can shop sales, but costs
>> of food and products are higher. That means it is harder to pay for
>> the normal things we must pay for. For some people, that means less
>> money to spend on fun things. For many people, it means struggling to
>> pay the regular bills.
>>
> I live 25 miles from the nearest grocery store. I can shop for a few
> things closer to home, at local vegetable stands. But to get most
> staples I have to drive 25 miles and that means the price of gas
> definitely does affect everything.
>
>> For me, it means no profit for my business this year. If I cut back on
>> cat shows, I will lose the shows for future years.
>
> Cat shows?
>
> Jill
5 doors on a pickup truck? Are you including the tailgate?

This group isn't all about you, BTW.

jmcquown wrote:
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
> ster.com...
>>
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>> > On May 11, 12:17 am, "Giusi" > wrote:
>>> >> Europeans, Brits precisely, wonder why US citizens are so irked
>>> at gas
>>> >> prices.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Because it means we have to pay a lot more money each month. Our gas
>>> > has gone up a lot. The prices of food are going up again. The cost of
>>> > products are going up. The cost of heating the house in winter has
>>> > gone up.
>>> >
>>> All the more reason to drive an economy car. I seem to remember
>>> after the
>>> "gas crisis" of the 1970's the focus was on smaller economy cars.
>>> Now all I
>>> see Americans driving are weird modified Hummers (since when did
>>> driving
>>> what was designed as a military vehicle popular?) and huge "mini
>>> vans" (I
>>> use the word "mini" lightly) with seating for 8. Um, excuse me?
>>
>> Perhaps you should investigate the MPG that those "huge" vehicles you
>> seem to hate actually get compared to a useable economy car (not some 2
>> door speck no real person can use). The difference isn't what you think,
>> and for people who don't drive a huge commute, the space, comfort,
>> visibility and safety easily justify the extra $50/mo in fuel cost.
>>
> My two-door "speck" works just fine, thanks. It's a hatchback with a
> fold-down back seat and can easily accomodate my monthly grocery
> shopping. It gets 32MPG on the highway and 28 in stop & start "city"
> driving. It only takes $20 to fill the tank and I only have to do
> that every couple of months. I'll take my "speck" over a Humvee any day.
>
>>> And since
>>> when did pickup trucks need back seats and 5 doors? Pickup trucks
>>> used to
>>> be work vehicles.
>>
>> So work crews are limited to three people jammed into a regular cab
>> pickup? Get real, crew cabs are named for the work crew they hold safely
>> and comfortably. Perhaps you prefer the rest of the crew ride in the bed
>> of the truck along with the tools and materials and with no seatbelts?
>
> Work crews, huh? The only people I ever see driving those tricked-out
> trucks aren't driving work crews around. Nope, always just a single
> driver.
>
> Jill
That's 170+/- miles every "couple of months"? What an interesting life
you live!