Doug Kanter wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Trains already work very nicely for New York and Boston, not to mention
virtually ALL of Europe.



Most of Europe is very densely populated relative to the land mass. Not a
lot of suburbs as we think of them. So you can run trains between the
major
population centers and mass transit in the city then works. Paris is also
cheap to travel around in their subway. A Carnet (10 tickets is about $8)
Each ticket is good for any place in the central area of paris. Change
trains just like the NY subway and as long as you do not leave the
station,
you get to travel for 1 ticket. Out local mass transit, BART, costs a
minimum of $1.50 for one station and to go about 30 miles is $5.10. Way
to
expensive, and the connecting busses take for ever to get point A to B.
Bill



We do things backwards.

Fact: When we widen or build new highways from major urban centers, we make
sprawl worse. So, we end up with cities like NY & Boston which are
surrounded by dense suburbs. In many cases, the population hasn't grown,
either. It's just relocated.

For good reason. Many people do not like living in cities.


In places like this, trains are ideal.

And for the rest?



Cost is subjective, I guess.

Bingo!


It certainly makes no sense to NOT build light
rail systems if only SOME people think it's expensive. Lots of people in big
cities feel no need to own a car.

It costs me about $12 a week to put gas in my car and drive it to work.
Factor in other costs like insurance and maintenance, and it's still
less than $20 a week. When you have to pay $10 a day ($50 per week) for
train fare, how is that anything but more expensive? What would be my
incentive to ride the train then (Assuming they would actually build one
out to where I live)?

Dave

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...


Do not know if it still true. Used to be 50% of the population of the USA
lived within 500 miles of Cleavland, OH. Includes Boston / NYC. Very
good
to have mass transit in this situation. Problem with most new Mass
transit,
is the Politics and Union required laws. Bart ends in my town. Livermore,
Calif is 7 miles away, and has also been paying BART taxes since 1957. To
run BART the extra 7 miles is projected to run $900 million to $1.5
billion!
It is an above ground light rail. No tunnels required. Where do these
costs come from? Even figuring in another train does not add up. Also,
if
the job could be done wrong BART did it. Non-standard guage railways.
Wrong frequency and voltage for signaling the train as they did not want
to
pay the railroads for the right to use there system. So we spent anothor
100 million or so and still lost trains. A high tech fare system that
costs more to monitor than the extra money a simple ticket or token for
anywhere in the system ala Paris / London / NYC costs.
Bill



Well...I guess if something's done incorrectly, nobody should ever try it
again anyplace else. You're right.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Trains already work very nicely for New York and Boston, not to
mention
virtually ALL of Europe.



Most of Europe is very densely populated relative to the land mass.
Not
a
lot of suburbs as we think of them. So you can run trains between
the
major
population centers and mass transit in the city then works. Paris is
also
cheap to travel around in their subway. A Carnet (10 tickets is
about
$8)
Each ticket is good for any place in the central area of paris.
Change
trains just like the NY subway and as long as you do not leave the
station,
you get to travel for 1 ticket. Out local mass transit, BART, costs
a
minimum of $1.50 for one station and to go about 30 miles is $5.10.
Way
to
expensive, and the connecting busses take for ever to get point A to
B.
Bill



We do things backwards.

Fact: When we widen or build new highways from major urban centers, we
make
sprawl worse. So, we end up with cities like NY & Boston which are
surrounded by dense suburbs. In many cases, the population hasn't
grown,
either. It's just relocated. In places like this, trains are ideal.

Cost is subjective, I guess. It certainly makes no sense to NOT build
light
rail systems if only SOME people think it's expensive. Lots of people
in
big
cities feel no need to own a car.



Do not know if it still true. Used to be 50% of the population of the
USA
lived within 500 miles of Cleavland, OH. Includes Boston / NYC. Very
good
to have mass transit in this situation. Problem with most new Mass
transit,
is the Politics and Union required laws. Bart ends in my town.
Livermore,
Calif is 7 miles away, and has also been paying BART taxes since 1957.
To
run BART the extra 7 miles is projected to run $900 million to $1.5
billion!
It is an above ground light rail. No tunnels required. Where do these
costs come from? Even figuring in another train does not add up. Also,
if
the job could be done wrong BART did it. Non-standard guage railways.
Wrong frequency and voltage for signaling the train as they did not want
to
pay the railroads for the right to use there system. So we spent
anothor
100 million or so and still lost trains. A high tech fare system that
costs more to monitor than the extra money a simple ticket or token for
anywhere in the system ala Paris / London / NYC costs.
Bill




Ahh, yes...those pesky union contracts that call for decent wages, hours
and working conditions.

How is it that foreign auto manufacturers that have set up non-union plants
over give their employees decent wages, hours, and working
conditions...without the pressure from some pesky union?

Unions are a dying breed, and it won't be long before the AFL-CIO, UAW, etc.
are just anacronyms.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Trains already work very nicely for New York and Boston, not to
mention
virtually ALL of Europe.



Most of Europe is very densely populated relative to the land
mass.
Not
a
lot of suburbs as we think of them. So you can run trains between
the
major
population centers and mass transit in the city then works. Paris
is
also
cheap to travel around in their subway. A Carnet (10 tickets is
about
$8)
Each ticket is good for any place in the central area of paris.
Change
trains just like the NY subway and as long as you do not leave the
station,
you get to travel for 1 ticket. Out local mass transit, BART,
costs
a
minimum of $1.50 for one station and to go about 30 miles is
$5.10.
Way
to
expensive, and the connecting busses take for ever to get point A
to
B.
Bill



We do things backwards.

Fact: When we widen or build new highways from major urban centers,
we
make
sprawl worse. So, we end up with cities like NY & Boston which are
surrounded by dense suburbs. In many cases, the population hasn't
grown,
either. It's just relocated. In places like this, trains are ideal.

Cost is subjective, I guess. It certainly makes no sense to NOT
build
light
rail systems if only SOME people think it's expensive. Lots of
people
in
big
cities feel no need to own a car.



Do not know if it still true. Used to be 50% of the population of
the
USA
lived within 500 miles of Cleavland, OH. Includes Boston / NYC.
Very
good
to have mass transit in this situation. Problem with most new Mass
transit,
is the Politics and Union required laws. Bart ends in my town.
Livermore,
Calif is 7 miles away, and has also been paying BART taxes since
1957.
To
run BART the extra 7 miles is projected to run $900 million to $1.5
billion!
It is an above ground light rail. No tunnels required. Where do
these
costs come from? Even figuring in another train does not add up.
Also,
if
the job could be done wrong BART did it. Non-standard guage
railways.
Wrong frequency and voltage for signaling the train as they did not
want
to
pay the railroads for the right to use there system. So we spent
anothor
100 million or so and still lost trains. A high tech fare system
that
costs more to monitor than the extra money a simple ticket or token
for
anywhere in the system ala Paris / London / NYC costs.
Bill




Ahh, yes...those pesky union contracts that call for decent wages,
hours
and working conditions. Perhaps, Bill, you could hire a labor
contractor
from India who would hire some daytrippers to run your trains.

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.


In this state, the present governor and his legislature have sold out to
the
unions. Make rules that raise the price of construction on public
contracts
sky high. Pay levels higher than 95% of jobs requiring a college
education.
Bill



Well, many construction jobs do require skill, Bill.


Yeah, like knowing which end of the "Slow" sign they're holding is up.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


We do things backwards.

Fact: When we widen or build new highways from major urban centers, we
make
sprawl worse. So, we end up with cities like NY & Boston which are
surrounded by dense suburbs. In many cases, the population hasn't grown,
either. It's just relocated.

For good reason. Many people do not like living in cities.


In places like this, trains are ideal.

And for the rest?

The rest should be forced to have trains and use them. Left wing storm
troopers, trained by the Sierra Club, will hunt down violaters and make them
live in ponds with endangered frogs.


It certainly makes no sense to NOT build light
rail systems if only SOME people think it's expensive. Lots of people in
big
cities feel no need to own a car.

It costs me about $12 a week to put gas in my car and drive it to work.
Factor in other costs like insurance and maintenance, and it's still
less than $20 a week. When you have to pay $10 a day ($50 per week) for
train fare, how is that anything but more expensive? What would be my
incentive to ride the train then (Assuming they would actually build one
out to where I live)?

Dave


Gee. I guess the geographical arrangement of your neck of the woods makes
mass transport impractical. Logically, that means it's impractical and
pointless everywhere, even in places where is works like a charm right now,
or in places where the citizenry is asking for it, but their elected
officials aren't responding.

snip

In this state, the present governor and his legislature have sold out to
the
unions. Make rules that raise the price of construction on public
contracts
sky high. Pay levels higher than 95% of jobs requiring a college
education.
Bill


I think your value system may need a tune-up.

College degree -verses- Technical and union jobs: most of the trades require
technical school and apprenticeship. If you look at schooling and lost
opportunity costs the pay should be about the same. Unlike the college
degree, the trades are able to do something useful right out of school.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for the folks that claim - "I have a college
degree but the only job I can get is flipping burgers." Many college degrees
are useless; the trades should get more. Most employers really could care
less if a potential candidate has written a masters thesis on "the
contributions of Mary Shelly" to the transition of modern literature - or
some similar earthshaking accomplishment. They want someone who has the
right attitude and a good grasp of the basics of whatever it is they are
doing.

If you are envious of the wages made by construction workers, go get a job
in the field - If you think it is just cushy high paid jobs like holding
slow/stop signs, go for it! I have worked around construction workers on
and off for the last twenty years. It is my opinion that the earn their
wages.

Mark Browne

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


We do things backwards.

Fact: When we widen or build new highways from major urban centers, we
make
sprawl worse. So, we end up with cities like NY & Boston which are
surrounded by dense suburbs. In many cases, the population hasn't grown,
either. It's just relocated.

For good reason. Many people do not like living in cities.


In places like this, trains are ideal.

And for the rest?

The rest should be forced to have trains and use them. Left wing storm
troopers, trained by the Sierra Club, will hunt down violaters and make them
live in ponds with endangered frogs.

You may have stated that tongue in cheek, but there are those radical
enviro-wacko's who would favor such mandatory compliance, regardless of
the economic pitfalls and lyfestyle sacrifices it would push on people.


It certainly makes no sense to NOT build light
rail systems if only SOME people think it's expensive. Lots of people in
big
cities feel no need to own a car.

It costs me about $12 a week to put gas in my car and drive it to work.
Factor in other costs like insurance and maintenance, and it's still
less than $20 a week. When you have to pay $10 a day ($50 per week) for
train fare, how is that anything but more expensive? What would be my
incentive to ride the train then (Assuming they would actually build one
out to where I live)?


Gee. I guess the geographical arrangement of your neck of the woods makes
mass transport impractical. Logically, that means it's impractical and
pointless everywhere, even in places where is works like a charm right now,
or in places where the citizenry is asking for it, but their elected
officials aren't responding.

You are attempting to isolate my situation as a rare exception, when in
fact it is a very popular situation. Unless you live in a city, or a
dense suburban area, it is impractical and cost ineffective to provide
rail service. Say what you will about suburban sprawl, it is a fact of
life for many Americans.

Another one of my "hobbies" is interurban traction service (trolleys)
back in the early 1900's through the end of WW2 and into the 50's and
60's. At that time, it was a very practical and efficient method of
transportation. Roads back then were sparse and often not very well
constructed. People lived and commuted between major population centers,
which was ideal for rail service. Once the end of WW2 came about, roads
had improved, people had embraced the individuality of the automobile,
and corporate exces at companies like GM started pushing busses onto
metro areas at discount prices, in order to compete with rail service.
These factors, combined with sprawl, put the nails in the coffin of the
interurban rail service. The economic climate has not changed, so it is
still not a favorable climate for the rennaisance of interurban rail
service, except for established urban areas. Most of the old interurban
rail right-of-ways have been converted into bike paths in my area.

Dave

Mark Browne wrote:

snip

In this state, the present governor and his legislature have sold out to
the
unions. Make rules that raise the price of construction on public
contracts
sky high. Pay levels higher than 95% of jobs requiring a college
education.
Bill


I think your value system may need a tune-up.

College degree -verses- Technical and union jobs: most of the trades require
technical school and apprenticeship. If you look at schooling and lost
opportunity costs the pay should be about the same. Unlike the college
degree, the trades are able to do something useful right out of school.

There is a big difference between a highly skilled tradesman, and an
unskilled laborer. In a free market economy, your wages should be in
proportion to your demand in society. Skilled tradesmen are in high
demand, therfore they should be paid accordingly.

Where the unions are a problem is when they elevate the wages of un- or
underskilled laborers on the coattails of the skilled tradesmen. While a
heavy equipment operator, for example, should be paid well for his job,
the guy waving the flags, is a dime a dozen commodity, and should not
be.



I don't have a lot of sympathy for the folks that claim - "I have a college
degree but the only job I can get is flipping burgers." Many college degrees
are useless;

Like liberal arts.


the trades should get more. Most employers really could care
less if a potential candidate has written a masters thesis on "the
contributions of Mary Shelly" to the transition of modern literature - or
some similar earthshaking accomplishment. They want someone who has the
right attitude and a good grasp of the basics of whatever it is they are
doing.

They want the skills to do the job. How they got them should be
irrelevant.

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:


There is a big difference between a highly skilled tradesman, and an
unskilled laborer. In a free market economy, your wages should be in
proportion to your demand in society. Skilled tradesmen are in high
demand, therfore they should be paid accordingly.

Well, Dave, you should be a fan of the unionized construction industry,
because it is a true representative of a free market economy. At
contract negotiations time, representatives of both sides sit down and
work out a deal for wages, hours, welfare and working conditions. While
strikes and lockouts occur, they are rare in the construction industry.
The more skilled trades have hourly rates that are substantially higher
than those in the less-skilled trades.


Where the unions are a problem is when they elevate the wages of un- or
underskilled laborers on the coattails of the skilled tradesmen. While a
heavy equipment operator, for example, should be paid well for his job,
the guy waving the flags, is a dime a dozen commodity, and should not
be.


A unionized heavy equipment operator typically is a member of the
Operating Engineers union. A flagman typically is a member of the
Laborers union. The unions do not negotiate together, and the flagman's
package is not a percentage of the engineer's package. Further, that
laborer may only be the flagman for a couple of days -after all, someone
has to be the flagman- and then go back to far more strenuous work.

The Laborers union, by the way, is running a substantial number of
training schools for its members, and many of its skills have been
recognized as ones that can be taught through a typical union
apprenticeship program. Most pollution abatement work, for example, is
performed by unionized laborers who receive many months of specialized
training before they don their gear to remove asbestos, hazardous waste,
and suchlike.

Tell me, Dave, a man who goes into an old building and removes
asbestos...what do you think he should be paid an hour? More than you
make, one hopes, eh? I mean, what are you? A software pussy?



I don't have a lot of sympathy for the folks that claim - "I have a college
degree but the only job I can get is flipping burgers." Many college degrees
are useless;

Like liberal arts.

A "liberal arts" degree provides you with the courses you need to
understand the world and to think in the abstract. You, obviously, could
have gained some benefit from liberal arts courses, since you are,
without question, the leading "Stepford Conservative" in this newsgroup.

Yes, a bit of time immersed in the trivium and the quadrivium might have
helped you. You might have learned something about grammar, rhetoric,
logic, math, geometry, music and even astronomy. But then, of course,
you'd have a liberal arts degree.

You're really a horse's ass, Dave, and incapable of independent and
original thought.



the trades should get more. Most employers really could care
less if a potential candidate has written a masters thesis on "the
contributions of Mary Shelly" to the transition of modern literature - or
some similar earthshaking accomplishment.

Really? I'm in the preliminary stages of hiring another writer. I'd
enjoy reading a candidate's paper on Mary Shelley and her impact on
modern literature, even though the kind of writing I need done isn't
"literary." But, then, I have two liberal arts degrees. Oh...the
chairman and CEO of one of my major clients, a $7 billion company...he
has a liberal arts degree, too. And a main contact of mine at another
client's headquarters, why, gosharoonie, he was a don at Oxford, and
tutored in Irish lit. I got the account after meeting the fellow at a
social gathering and engaging in a spirited discussion about Brendan Behan.

Here's a great Behan quote that has some relevance for the thug who is
our current attorney general:

"When I came back to Dublin I found I was courtmartialled in my absence
and sentenced to death in my absence, so I said they could shoot me in
my absence."





--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


I don't have a lot of sympathy for the folks that claim - "I have a
college
degree but the only job I can get is flipping burgers." Many college
degrees
are useless;

Like liberal arts.


Why's that, Dave? Because the phrase contains the word "liberal"?