"Kim" wrote in message ...

I'd rather a majority of "our money" (it's really the government's)
go right here...in the United States...to rebuild and repair our
infrastructure, to all education levels, to assist in the social and civil
disasters that are taking place right here within the boundaries of our 50
states. : |

So would I, Kim. Plus a balanced budget.

But it's easy to say that. The hard part is deciding how much you're
willing to give up to make it happen. By "give up", I mean things like
higher taxes, higher prices on many things, lifestyle changes, a
redeining of the USA's role in world politics, etc.

For example, would you be willing to pay the same prices for fuel that
Western Europeans do? Much of the difference is taxes, not production
cost. That's why so many Western European countries have such good
roads, trains and transit systems - because much of the fuel tax goes
to support clean, efficient public transportation.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(N2EY) writes:

For example, would you be willing to pay the same prices for fuel that
Western Europeans do? Much of the difference is taxes, not production
cost. That's why so many Western European countries have such good
roads, trains and transit systems - because much of the fuel tax goes
to support clean, efficient public transportation.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim:

Most EU countries are much better suited for mass transit (meaning light rail
systems) than is the U.S. as a whole. Sure, they're good in big cities, but
the
USA has too many wide open spaces and too much suburban sprawl -- making
long commutes necessary for the majority of the workforce. This means we're
going to be dependent on personal, self-driven vehicles for a long time to
come. Moreover, I don't think that adapting our public transit systems to be
as accessible and accommodating to the majority of commuters as those in the EU
would cost far more than they are spending. Remember, they had a headstart on
their transit systems, dating back to the pre-war era. They also have a higher
level of cultural acceptence of mass transit -- many EU families have never
owned an automobile, simply because there was no need (not to mention the
prohibitive cost).

The long distances which must be travelled by most Americans to get to work and
go about their daily duties would make EU-style gasoline prices impossible for
the average person to afford. Our economy depends on cheap, abundant energy,
available at present-day market rates (or lower) basically in perpetuity. The
liberal, socialist Democrats think we need to change that and have EU-type
energy prices, but they hate this country anyway, and want us to be subjugated
to the EU. These treasonous wackos won't be happy until we revert to a totally
agrarian society. They are the enemies of the freedom that America stands for,
and must be treated as such.

Europe will always be different from the U.S., and considering their
geopolitical realities, it is just the way it should be. However, since most
of the EU nations would fit inside a couple of our states, America must be
different. We must consume a larger share of the world's energy simply because
we have a lot further to go in order to make our own individual social and
economic contributions. I agree that mass transit should be exploited to the
greatest extent possible, but it will never replace the need for individual,
personal mobility -- meaning the private automobile, in all of it's forms.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:


Jim:

Most EU countries are much better suited for mass transit (meaning light rail
systems) than is the U.S. as a whole. Sure, they're good in big cities, but
the
USA has too many wide open spaces and too much suburban sprawl -- making
long commutes necessary for the majority of the workforce. This means we're
going to be dependent on personal, self-driven vehicles for a long time to
come. Moreover, I don't think that adapting our public transit systems to be
as accessible and accommodating to the majority of commuters as those in the EU
would cost far more than they are spending. Remember, they had a headstart on
their transit systems, dating back to the pre-war era. They also have a higher
level of cultural acceptence of mass transit -- many EU families have never
owned an automobile, simply because there was no need (not to mention the
prohibitive cost).

The long distances which must be travelled by most Americans to get to work and
go about their daily duties would make EU-style gasoline prices impossible for
the average person to afford. Our economy depends on cheap, abundant energy,
available at present-day market rates (or lower) basically in perpetuity. The
liberal, socialist Democrats think we need to change that and have EU-type
energy prices, but they hate this country anyway, and want us to be subjugated
to the EU. These treasonous wackos won't be happy until we revert to a totally
agrarian society. They are the enemies of the freedom that America stands for,
and must be treated as such.

Europe will always be different from the U.S., and considering their
geopolitical realities, it is just the way it should be. However, since most
of the EU nations would fit inside a couple of our states, America must be
different. We must consume a larger share of the world's energy simply because
we have a lot further to go in order to make our own individual social and
economic contributions. I agree that mass transit should be exploited to the
greatest extent possible, but it will never replace the need for individual,
personal mobility -- meaning the private automobile, in all of it's forms.

73 de Larry, K3LT

The U.S. does need to develope better mass transit in large
metropolitian areas. When I lived in the Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas area,
the two cities were always complaining about the heavy commute traffic
and how they were not using the available mass transit system. The would
encourage people to car pool or use what mass transit was available, all
the while they were expanding the freeway system to accomodate more
vehicles. If you want people to use mass transit you have to 1) build a
good mass transit system, and 2) don't build massive freeway systems
that make it easier for people to drive their vehicles to work than ride
mass transit.

JJ wrote in
:

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:


Jim:

Most EU countries are much better suited for mass transit (meaning
light rail systems) than is the U.S. as a whole. Sure, they're good
in big cities, but the USA has too many wide open spaces and too much
suburban sprawl -- making long commutes necessary for the majority of
the workforce. This means we're going to be dependent on personal,
self-driven vehicles for a long time to come. Moreover, I don't think
that adapting our public transit systems to be as accessible and
accommodating to the majority of commuters as those in the EU would
cost far more than they are spending. Remember, they had a headstart
on their transit systems, dating back to the pre-war era. They also
have a higher level of cultural acceptence of mass transit -- many EU
families have never owned an automobile, simply because there was no
need (not to mention the prohibitive cost).

The long distances which must be travelled by most Americans to get to
work and go about their daily duties would make EU-style gasoline
prices impossible for the average person to afford. Our economy
depends on cheap, abundant energy, available at present-day market
rates (or lower) basically in perpetuity. The liberal, socialist
Democrats think we need to change that and have EU-type energy prices,
but they hate this country anyway, and want us to be subjugated to the
EU. These treasonous wackos won't be happy until we revert to a
totally agrarian society. They are the enemies of the freedom that
America stands for, and must be treated as such.

Europe will always be different from the U.S., and considering their
geopolitical realities, it is just the way it should be. However,
since most of the EU nations would fit inside a couple of our states,
America must be different. We must consume a larger share of the
world's energy simply because we have a lot further to go in order to
make our own individual social and economic contributions. I agree
that mass transit should be exploited to the greatest extent possible,
but it will never replace the need for individual, personal mobility
-- meaning the private automobile, in all of it's forms.

73 de Larry, K3LT

The U.S. does need to develope better mass transit in large
metropolitian areas. When I lived in the Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas area,
the two cities were always complaining about the heavy commute traffic
and how they were not using the available mass transit system. The
would encourage people to car pool or use what mass transit was
available, all the while they were expanding the freeway system to
accomodate more vehicles. If you want people to use mass transit you
have to 1) build a good mass transit system, and 2) don't build massive
freeway systems that make it easier for people to drive their vehicles
to work than ride
mass transit.



I think you should build the freeways, but mass transit should be
developped much more as well. I used to commute 23 miles each way into
London by train. I am now 27 miles by road from downtown Washington DC,
but I am 15 miles from the nearest station!!

As long as I have to drive half way there to get to the station I'm going
to drive all the way there. A system where the trains only run about 15
miles out from the middle of downtown is basically hopelessly crippled by
European standards, and doesn't really count as 'available' to most
people.

When most of the commuters live way, way beyond the end of the line it can
never live up to it's potential. Sure, we are more spread out in America,
but all that should mean is that I may have to drive across town to the
station. It should never mean that I have to drive to another town 15
miles away to catch a commuter train, but that's how it is now, and
needless to say, I don't do it.

In article , Alun
writes:

I think you should build the freeways, but mass transit should be
developped much more as well. I used to commute 23 miles each way into
London by train. I am now 27 miles by road from downtown Washington DC,
but I am 15 miles from the nearest station!!

As long as I have to drive half way there to get to the station I'm going
to drive all the way there. A system where the trains only run about 15
miles out from the middle of downtown is basically hopelessly crippled by
European standards, and doesn't really count as 'available' to most
people.

When most of the commuters live way, way beyond the end of the line it can
never live up to it's potential. Sure, we are more spread out in America,
but all that should mean is that I may have to drive across town to the
station. It should never mean that I have to drive to another town 15
miles away to catch a commuter train, but that's how it is now, and
needless to say, I don't do it.

Alun:

The situation you describe pretty much sums up the limitations that geography
imposes on public transit systems. A partial solution would be to utilize
demand-
response systems whereby busses travelling flexible routes on flexible
schedules can pick up commuters at their door, and transfer them to the nearest
fixed-route terminal. Once demand patterns are established, the system can be
re-scheduled at will to ensure maximum transit vehicle utilization without
inconveniencing passenger scheduling. This is done all the time in my own line
of work, which is Paratransit operations. The concept can be easily overlayed
on any other route structure, and there would be the advantage that most, if
not all, of the passengers would be able-bodied, and there would be no time
lost loading and securing wheelchairs or providing assistance to slow-moving
people who have difficulty in boarding the bus. The problem, of course, is
that adding such a service would come at a high cost. Would most commuters be
willing to pay the price of being to leave their cars home? A fare structure
which required the rider to pay the full, non-subsidized cost of the
demand-response portion of his transit service would mean forking over a fare
of up to $10-15 for that portion of the ride. Of course, some commuters pay
that much just to park their automobiles for the day. OTOH, they would not have
the option of making a trip to Home Depot on the way home.

The best solution would probably to simply arrange it so that more people were
able to work closer to where they live. Another is to adopt the European
paradigm of establishing communities with higher population density in
residential areas. That would mean more townhouses and condominium apartment
complexes, and fewer single-family homes surrounded by acres of grass and
concrete. When more people live closer together, it becomes much more
cost-effective to provide mass transit.

73 de Larry, K3LT

ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) wrote in
:

In article , Alun
writes:

I think you should build the freeways, but mass transit should be
developped much more as well. I used to commute 23 miles each way into
London by train. I am now 27 miles by road from downtown Washington DC,
but I am 15 miles from the nearest station!!

As long as I have to drive half way there to get to the station I'm
going to drive all the way there. A system where the trains only run
about 15 miles out from the middle of downtown is basically hopelessly
crippled by European standards, and doesn't really count as 'available'
to most people.

When most of the commuters live way, way beyond the end of the line it
can never live up to it's potential. Sure, we are more spread out in
America, but all that should mean is that I may have to drive across
town to the station. It should never mean that I have to drive to
another town 15 miles away to catch a commuter train, but that's how it
is now, and needless to say, I don't do it.

Alun:

The situation you describe pretty much sums up the limitations that
geography imposes on public transit systems. A partial solution would
be to utilize demand-
response systems whereby busses travelling flexible routes on flexible
schedules can pick up commuters at their door, and transfer them to the
nearest fixed-route terminal. Once demand patterns are established,
the system can be re-scheduled at will to ensure maximum transit
vehicle utilization without inconveniencing passenger scheduling. This
is done all the time in my own line of work, which is Paratransit
operations. The concept can be easily overlayed on any other route
structure, and there would be the advantage that most, if not all, of
the passengers would be able-bodied, and there would be no time lost
loading and securing wheelchairs or providing assistance to slow-moving
people who have difficulty in boarding the bus. The problem, of
course, is that adding such a service would come at a high cost. Would
most commuters be willing to pay the price of being to leave their cars
home? A fare structure which required the rider to pay the full,
non-subsidized cost of the demand-response portion of his transit
service would mean forking over a fare of up to $10-15 for that portion
of the ride. Of course, some commuters pay that much just to park
their automobiles for the day. OTOH, they would not have the option of
making a trip to Home Depot on the way home.

The best solution would probably to simply arrange it so that more
people were able to work closer to where they live. Another is to
adopt the European paradigm of establishing communities with higher
population density in residential areas. That would mean more
townhouses and condominium apartment complexes, and fewer single-family
homes surrounded by acres of grass and concrete. When more people live
closer together, it becomes much more cost-effective to provide mass
transit.

73 de Larry, K3LT



I think what's missing is the political will to spend the money. Busses
are no solution. They have to use the same roads as the cars, so by the
time they have stopped to pick up and set down passengers they don't even
have a fighting chance to make the trip in the same time as a car, even
with HOV lanes. We have bus service, but it is rush hour only. It will be
a cold day in you know where before I ride the bus.

If you build the subway lines only half way to the suburbs, it becomes
easy to think they would not get enough passengers if extended further, as
they are already under-used. Of course they are under-used when they don't
go far enough to get you home. What else should anyone expect?

"JJ" wrote in message
...
Larry Roll K3LT wrote:


Jim:

Most EU countries are much better suited for mass transit (meaning light
rail
systems) than is the U.S. as a whole. Sure, they're good in big cities,
but
the
USA has too many wide open spaces and too much suburban sprawl -- making
long commutes necessary for the majority of the workforce. This means
we're
going to be dependent on personal, self-driven vehicles for a long time
to
come. Moreover, I don't think that adapting our public transit systems
to be
as accessible and accommodating to the majority of commuters as those in
the EU
would cost far more than they are spending. Remember, they had a
headstart on
their transit systems, dating back to the pre-war era. They also have a
higher
level of cultural acceptence of mass transit -- many EU families have
never
owned an automobile, simply because there was no need (not to mention
the
prohibitive cost).

The long distances which must be travelled by most Americans to get to
work and
go about their daily duties would make EU-style gasoline prices
impossible for
the average person to afford. Our economy depends on cheap, abundant
energy,
available at present-day market rates (or lower) basically in
perpetuity. The
liberal, socialist Democrats think we need to change that and have
EU-type
energy prices, but they hate this country anyway, and want us to be
subjugated
to the EU. These treasonous wackos won't be happy until we revert to a
totally
agrarian society. They are the enemies of the freedom that America
stands for,
and must be treated as such.

Europe will always be different from the U.S., and considering their
geopolitical realities, it is just the way it should be. However, since
most
of the EU nations would fit inside a couple of our states, America must
be
different. We must consume a larger share of the world's energy simply
because
we have a lot further to go in order to make our own individual social
and
economic contributions. I agree that mass transit should be exploited
to the
greatest extent possible, but it will never replace the need for
individual,
personal mobility -- meaning the private automobile, in all of it's
forms.

73 de Larry, K3LT

The U.S. does need to develope better mass transit in large
metropolitian areas. When I lived in the Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas area,
the two cities were always complaining about the heavy commute traffic
and how they were not using the available mass transit system. The would
encourage people to car pool or use what mass transit was available, all
the while they were expanding the freeway system to accomodate more
vehicles. If you want people to use mass transit you have to 1) build a
good mass transit system, and 2) don't build massive freeway systems
that make it easier for people to drive their vehicles to work than ride
mass transit.


I tired mass transit when I first started working downtown. Nothing
convenient, friendly, safe, or good about it at all. It was scarey because
of the drivers, inconvenient because I had to work my schedule around
theirs, unfriendly people getting on and off knocking others with their
asses or briefcases, and I'll never do it again.

Kim W5TIT

Kim W5TIT wrote:
"JJ" wrote in message
...

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:



Jim:

Most EU countries are much better suited for mass transit (meaning light

rail

systems) than is the U.S. as a whole. Sure, they're good in big cities,

but

the
USA has too many wide open spaces and too much suburban sprawl -- making
long commutes necessary for the majority of the workforce. This means

we're

going to be dependent on personal, self-driven vehicles for a long time

to

come. Moreover, I don't think that adapting our public transit systems

to be

as accessible and accommodating to the majority of commuters as those in

the EU

would cost far more than they are spending. Remember, they had a

headstart on

their transit systems, dating back to the pre-war era. They also have a

higher

level of cultural acceptence of mass transit -- many EU families have

never

owned an automobile, simply because there was no need (not to mention

the

prohibitive cost).

The long distances which must be travelled by most Americans to get to

work and

go about their daily duties would make EU-style gasoline prices

impossible for

the average person to afford. Our economy depends on cheap, abundant

energy,

available at present-day market rates (or lower) basically in

perpetuity. The

liberal, socialist Democrats think we need to change that and have

EU-type

energy prices, but they hate this country anyway, and want us to be

subjugated

to the EU. These treasonous wackos won't be happy until we revert to a

totally

agrarian society. They are the enemies of the freedom that America

stands for,

and must be treated as such.

Europe will always be different from the U.S., and considering their
geopolitical realities, it is just the way it should be. However, since

most

of the EU nations would fit inside a couple of our states, America must

be

different. We must consume a larger share of the world's energy simply

because

we have a lot further to go in order to make our own individual social

and

economic contributions. I agree that mass transit should be exploited

to the

greatest extent possible, but it will never replace the need for

individual,

personal mobility -- meaning the private automobile, in all of it's

forms.

73 de Larry, K3LT

The U.S. does need to develope better mass transit in large
metropolitian areas. When I lived in the Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas area,
the two cities were always complaining about the heavy commute traffic
and how they were not using the available mass transit system. The would
encourage people to car pool or use what mass transit was available, all
the while they were expanding the freeway system to accomodate more
vehicles. If you want people to use mass transit you have to 1) build a
good mass transit system, and 2) don't build massive freeway systems
that make it easier for people to drive their vehicles to work than ride
mass transit.



I tired mass transit when I first started working downtown. Nothing
convenient, friendly, safe, or good about it at all. It was scarey because
of the drivers, inconvenient because I had to work my schedule around
theirs, unfriendly people getting on and off knocking others with their
asses or briefcases, and I'll never do it again.

Along similar lines, I tried the local version of mass transit. I had to
wait 30 minutes for the bus, then undergo a very circuitous route, and
still had to walk a quarter mile. Leaving work at 5:00, I got home a
couple minutes after 7:00 p.m. 2 hours to go the 2.5 miles from work to
home!!!!!

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

I tired mass transit when I first started working downtown. Nothing
convenient, friendly, safe, or good about it at all. It was scarey because
of the drivers, inconvenient because I had to work my schedule around
theirs, unfriendly people getting on and off knocking others with their
asses or briefcases, and I'll never do it again.

Kim W5TIT


Here's a little known fact that much of the travelling public would never be
able
to guess: There are no regulations at the state or federal level which govern
how
many hours a transit operator (bus driver, motorman, paratransit operator,
etc.)
can work within a 24-hour period. It is common practice for transit operators
to
work inordinate amounts of voluntary overtime, sometimes putting in double
shifts on a daily basis. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) governs the
amount of hours truck drivers can be on duty during a 24-hour period, I believe
the present limit is 10 hours of continuous duty with a mandatory 8-hour rest
period thereafter. Log books documenting time at the wheel and at rest are
required, and in the case of single-operator trucks, the rest periods must be
verified by time and mileage records that are a part of their log.

Since transit vehicles operate within a closed region, as opposed to
interstate, they are not covered by such rules. Therefore, the bus you board
could be being driven by a person who has been on duty for 10, 12, or 14 hours
-- or more! I recently attended a meeting of my local union in which our own
local union President claimed that he routinely worked in excess of 100 hours
per week as a fixed-route bus driver. Keep in mind, there are only 168 hours
in a whole week! This is obviously a shocking hazard to public safety, and
legislation is obviously needed which establish and enforce reasonable operator
duty limits within the transit industry. "Scarey
drivers" indeed, Kim. Who wants to ride a bus being driven by a zombie?

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , JJ
writes:

The U.S. does need to develope better mass transit in large
metropolitian areas. When I lived in the Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas area,
the two cities were always complaining about the heavy commute traffic
and how they were not using the available mass transit system. The would
encourage people to car pool or use what mass transit was available, all
the while they were expanding the freeway system to accomodate more
vehicles. If you want people to use mass transit you have to 1) build a
good mass transit system, and 2) don't build massive freeway systems
that make it easier for people to drive their vehicles to work than ride
mass transit.

One of the main problems is that even in the most densely-populated areas
during peak traffic hours, all those cars on the roadway only occupy about
five percent of the available road surface. Intelligent highway systems could
solve that problem by taking the drivers out of the loop during, taking control
of the cars and allowing them to safely convoy almost bumper-to-bumper.
In this way, traffic volume could be multiplied many times without building
more roads. Would you trust a computer to drive your Buick?

73 de Larry, K3LT