|
12/24 |
2013/10/24-11/8 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:54742 Activity:nil |
10/4 NY bike gang's own video footage at 0:20-0:27 shows that they intentionally blocked and stopped the SUV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ukdkgLYYbw&feature=player_embedded Yet they still have the gut to cry victim. Geez! \_ Yeah, after being hit and run, someone tried to stop the cager, who then commited assualt with a deadly weapon. Does someone blocking you give you the right to run them over? I think not. \_ Hit and run before the time of the clip? Evidence please? \_ Next time when you and your wife and kid are ganged up by a known mob of 50+ with 50+ deadly weapons (your logic) who are trying to open your car door, please stay put. \_ They even dragged the wife out of the car. http://www.csua.org/u/11e9 \_ Want some "explanation" from the punk who cut off the SUV? http://preview.tinyurl.com/kn8kygx \_ You mean, legally and safely changed lanes before being hit from behind by the rich asshole entitled Range Rover driving douchebag who was following too close. \_ Did you actually watch the video? \_ http://www.csua.org/u/11f1 "New video has surfaced of the same bike crew surrounding and attacking another car earlier in the day." \_ ^SUV^$100,000 Range Rover |
2013/7/23-8/23 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:54714 Activity:nil |
7/23 Cities safer than suburbs: http://preview.tinyurl.com/m4lxcyk \_ they are not accounting for the dangers of exposing our kids to diversity and gay people. \_ And the future to boot: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/opinion/19krugman.html |
12/24 |
2013/7/22-8/23 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:54711 Activity:nil |
7/22 "George Zimmerman Emerged From Hiding for Truck Crash Rescue" http://www.csua.org/u/10qi (gma.yahoo.com) The auto accident was staged by Zimmermand and his lawyer, I'm sure. :) |
2013/5/14-24 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:54678 Activity:nil |
5/14 Think you can "only" afford a used Toyota? http://www.csua.org/u/105v (autos.yahoo.com) |
2012/11/6-12/4 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:54525 Activity:nil |
11/6 "SUV and Plane Collide at Texas Airport SUV and Plane Collide at Texas Airport": http://www.csua.org/u/y8s One more reason why you shouldn't run a STOP sign. |
2012/7/29-9/24 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:54446 Activity:nil |
7/29 Is it really true that we subsidize auto driving to the tune of $5k/yr? Shit I could probably hire a private driver for less... http://tinyurl.com/cars-suck-ass \_ You might have missed the point. Hiring a chauffeur to drive your private vehicle won't change the amount of gasoline your private vehicle use or the amount of real estate it uses on freeways and vehicle use or the amount of real estate on freeways and parking lots it takes up for transporting you. So it won't change the situation. The chaffeur only adds to the non-subsidized part of the cost. \_ Okay I could hire a bicyle rickshaw driver for less then.. \_ or live in a sustainable, walkable city with much lower energy requirements, like the rest of the world. \_ ... and hire a rickshaw driver to take me everywhere. Like the rest of the (undeveloped) world. \_ or ride bike like a well developed world (Denmark) or slow down to reduce energy needs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUU6DJwkoyQ (georgeous women alert) \_ NSFW. Anyway, the one not being interviewed is hot! \_ Our cities were built around the auto, not trains or walking. Most of the First World's large cities are very dense with almost nothing a few miles outside of them. That's not us. What you are suggesting is building up the urban cores of our cities and convincing people to move back to them. This may happen, but it's not something we can force. In the end, the populace will decide. So far, even though your idea has some traction, most Americans dislike the idea. \_ Agreed. The following quote from the article best summarizes the reason: "They are making the correct economic decision, but not in a free-market economy." \_ How much do other countries subsidize automobiles? How much do other countries subsidize other forms of transit? Why is it better that long-distance automotive commuting become "the exclusive privilege of the wealthy?" I don't know the answer to the first two relative to the US and I view the third as a question of liberty and equality. I also think that it has less to do with subsidies than with personal preference and the age of the nations involved. Americans *don't mind* paying higher property tax if it means they don't have to take a train and the alternatives don't make sense for the way our cities evolved. We can tax the hell out of gas to force everyone to take mass transit, but *WHY*? \_ Where do you live where people "don't mind" paying higher property taxes? Here in CA they passed Prop 13. If we can enourage more people to take mass transit, we will gain lots of advantages: 1) Far fewer highway and roadway deaths 2) Cleaner air leading to a healthier population and fewer deaths due to pollution 3) Healthier and skinnier population due to more exercise 4) Trade balance would be much better: the only reason we run a trade deficit today is due to imported oil, most of which goes to transit. 5) No US money going to oil shieks, most of whom hate us and finance terrorism 6) No need to fight oil wars in the Middle East, saving us lots of money and lives 7) Less congestion on the freeways, meaning buses and trucks will be more efficient 8) Shorter commutes will mean less stress and quality of life will go up for most people. 9) Less land being used for roadways and parking should free up more land for housing, making housing cost less, especially in urban core. 10) Fewer suburban homes mean less money wasted 10) Fewer suburban homes mean less money spent on running power lines, cable, sewer lines, etc on spread out homes. I am sure I am missing a few things here, but that should be a good start. \_ The huge fire at the Chevron refinery in Richmond today can certainly make the list. More public transit -> less gas consumption -> fewer oil refineries -> fewer accidents and less toxic fume. \_ More productive time spent when on public transit instead of driving. One can get work done using laptops, read a novel, or surf the web and catch up with the latest gossip while done using a laptop, read a novel, or surf the web and catch up on the latest gossip while sitting on public transit instead of controlling your car and paying attention to the road. 3G/4G coverage is wide, and there is free WiFi on Google shuttles (I heard) and AC-Transit Transbay Buses. BART also provides WiFi (paid) and 3G even in underground stations and tunnels. \_ I think you should not confuse the public vs. private issue with the gasoline issue. If cars were powered by a clean, renewable, cheap resource would that mean you still want to force people to use public transit? \_ No one is arguing for force to be used, we are just sick and tired of having to use our taxpayer dollars to encourage stupid behavior. If cars were not polluting, safe, and did not cause congestion, then they would be great. Where are those flying nuclear powered cars we were promised? \_ Great. I'm convinced. Sign me up. Now where is the effective mass transit system that I can use to replace my car? I can get from home to my office in 28 minutes in my car, but it would take over an hour and a half by bus (each direction, so that's a couple of extra hours I'd be spending in transit every day). People stick with their cars because the mass transit options are very limited in their utility. I *want* to take public transit, but it just can't get me where I need to go in a reasonable amount of time. Until it can, I'm stuck with driving. \_ Yeah many are stuck with cars. Vote for politians that will change the status quo. There are some places in America where transit works. \_ Yeah, about three. Let the free market decide. So far, most would rather get 22 MPG in a Ford F-150 than get on a bus with a bunch of weirdos for a commute that is twice as long but costs just 25% less. \_ Exactly. Let the *free* market decide. As the article above pointed out, the problem now is that the market is not a free market. So all the proposals about stopping mandatory tax from subsidizing gasoline and roads is to, in other words, make the market a free market again. \_ As long as we stop subsidizing rail and other public transit, sure. |
2012/6/30-7/27 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:54425 Activity:nil |
6/30 Cities are better. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/28/nation/la-na-census-cities-20120628 |
2012/5/25-30 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Reference/RealEstate] UID:54400 Activity:nil |
5/25 Sorry suburban hicks, properties in walkable cities retain better values: http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/05/18/study-resilient-walkables-lead-the-housing-recovery |
2012/5/21-7/20 [Transportation/Bicycle, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/PublicTransit] UID:54395 Activity:nil |
5/20 Suburbs sucking wind, cities recovering: http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/05/18/study-resilient-walkables-lead-the-housing-recovery \_ 2 hours of commute a day could mean nothing (e.g. a young blue collar worker who has all the time in the world) or it could mean everything (e.g. really busy city person who has little time and/or energy to spend with kids). |
2011/9/26-10/18 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:54181 Activity:nil |
9/27 Where did suburb lover go? http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Poverty-pervades-the-cnnm-893289229.html \_ He defaulted on his underwater no-doc, no-down loan on his McMansion and lives with his wife and three kids in his mom's basement. \_ suburb lover is dim |
2009/12/2-26 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:53560 Activity:nil |
12/2 Freeway of the future, a 1958 Disney-ish film. "Speed, safety, and comfort are the future". Yeah. Wow, people back then were stupid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6pUMlPBMQA&feature=player_embedded \_ "640KB ought to be enough for anybody." \_ totally taken out of context. It's just an informal way of saying "it's enough for most casual PC users for at least a few years." As for the highway shit, that is just totally ridiculous considering the enormous energy requirements that is required for their vision. On the other hand, perhaps they thought black oil was unlimited, fueling such fooling optimism about the future. \_ Reminds me a bit of WALL-E. |
2009/11/23-12/2 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Reference/RealEstate] UID:53540 Activity:moderate |
11/23 "Warming's impacts sped up, worsened since Kyoto" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/sci_climate_09_post_kyoto \_ what do you propose we average Joes do about climate warning? Oh really? Yeah, exactly. \_ Make life choices which reduce your carbon impact. Communicate with your representatives that you consider this an important and urgent issue. What else would average Joes do about anything? -tom \_ the average Joe will not give up his/her SUV and living in suburbs and ex-urbs (which are the reasons that increase our needs for energy). \_ Some average Joe/Jane won't give up loving in suburbs while willing to give up his/her SUV; Some average Joe/Jane won't give his/her SUVs while willing to telecommunte twice a week; some average Joe/Jane won't telecommute while willing to become vegetarian; etc. And, like you said, some average Joe/Jane won't give up anything. Ideally, the problem can be very easily solved by everyone giving up N things. But very few people in the free world would be willing to do that. So we'll have to rely on most people giving up 1 or 2 things out of their own list of N things. (For me, I didn't give up living in suburbs. But I wear a jacket at home in winter instead of turning on the heat, use a fan in summer instead of AC, line-dry my laundary in the backyard instead of using the gas dryer, skip the plastic or paper bags when grocery- shopping, gave up my SUV and got a Prius, and literally dig through the household trash to find recyclable and compostable items that my wife and in-laws fail to separate out.) --- OP \_ The average Joe will do whatever is effectively marketed to him. SUVs and suburbs have been effectively marketed to average Joes. We are starting to see better marketing of environmental and quality-of-life issues, but we need more. Also, we need to stop subsidizing carbon production, which is where legislative action is needed; if the suburb dwellers were paying the true cost of their lifestyle, it would be much less attractive. -tom \_ I get what you are saying, but this could be said about any group. "Bike riders will do whatever is effectively marketed to them". Otherwise the marketing wouldn't have been effective. -- jwm \_ That's a bit tautalogical, sure. But my point is that the idea that everyone should live in a big house in a faceless suburb with two SUVs (or now, an SUV and a Prius) is the result of 60 years of corporate marketing, and corporations are really the only beneficiaries. Just as corporate marketing changed what the average Joe wanted, marketing of social responsibility can change what the average Joe wants. -tom \_ I agree. The way we as a society have used marketing has been damaging. --jwm \_ I'm sorry, but I cannot agree that "corporations are really the only beneficiaries." I really like having land around my house. I use it to grow food, for recreation, and for privacy. I went to my coworkers ultra-chic condo which cost over $1M and had koi and Italian fountains everywhere, but I wouldn't care for living in close quarters like he does. He even told me he is looking for a single family home for various reasons all related to the density of the housing. You may think there's no benefit to a SFR, but millions of Americans disagree and that is how most Americans lived 200 years ago. I think that mixed-use/loft/high density housing is something pushed on us by corporations and SFR more closely reflects the rural areas most Americans lived in prior to the Industrial Revolution. \_ Who said anything about condos? I live in a house in a city (Oakland). -tom \_ Plus the Richmond and Sunset Districts in SF are also primarily houses. -- !PP \_ So are Hancock Park and Beverly Hills in LA, but most people can't afford to live there. If they want a nice house with land they have to leave the city. \_ The complaint was against a "big house in a faceless suburb." How can you possibly argue that a big house in Oakland is somehow superior to a big house in a suburb like Lafayette? Same damn thing. \_ 1) The house in Oakland is smaller. 2) The house in Oakland requires less driving. Pretty simple, really. -tom \_ Neither of these are necessarily true. \_ They are both true as averages. -tom \_ They don't _have_ to be. These are external to the idea of suburbs. You can build smaller houses in the suburbs. You can take BART to SF from Lafayette as surely as you can from Oakland. One thing you _cannot_ do is build affordable SFR in a city, which takes us back to condos. \_ You're right, if reality were completely different than it is, houses would be smaller in Lafayette and people in suburbs would drive less than people in cities. But on this planet, houses are larger in suburbs and people drive more. -tom \_ I think you need to focus on the problems you are trying to address and "suburbs" and "housing density" are not them. You can live in the city and drive a lot (reverse commute, which some people do) and you can build a huge energy sucking house in the city, too, if you are rich. \_ I said "make life choices that reduce your carbon impact"; someone else asserted that "average Joes" would not give up their SUVs in the suburbs. I'm pointing out that that assertion is unfounded. -tom \_ I think that most people want both the advantages of density (short commutes, walkable neighborhoods, more community) as well as lots of space for themselves personally. Most people just want more of everything, but the planet cannot support this kind of lifestyle for 6 billion people. This is just a simple fact of physics, not something that has anything to do with corporations. The earth is probably already past its carrying capacity, according to many scientists. \_ The idea that people should live in identical large houses with large yards and large fences, a long drive away from the places they want to go, was basically invented in the 50s by and for corporations. Before that virtually all development was mixed-use, and our population was denser despite being much smaller. From 1950 to 1990, Bay Area population more than doubled, while density actually decreased. Most of that change was due to the construction of freeways and related destruction of urban neighborhoods, with housing moving from urban, mixed-use to suburban and isolated. Now things are starting to swing back the other way, which is a good thing. Very little of this has much to do with what the average Joe wants, except insofar as he's susceptible to marketing. -tom \_ This is a lie. Like I said, before the Industrial Revolution more people than not lived in large houses with large yards a long drive away from \_ There was driving before the Ind. Rev.?? \_ certainly not autos but I would guess PP means horse and buggy drives town. The population was not denser at all. This era you wax nostalgic for was an artifact of the Industrial Revolution where workers moved to slums in large cities in order to work in factories. It's laughable that you think that corporations in the 1950s invented the suburban lifestyle. What corporations invented was *DENSE CITIES*. From 1950 to 1990 what we saw was _AN IMPROVED STANDARD OF LIVING_ and now that our standard of living is eroding we are seeing more people living like cockroaches. Not only that, _ALL_ of this has to do with choices people make. You give marketers _WAY_ too much credit. I live in a house built at the turn of the century and it's not hard to see why people wanted to move to their own brand new box in a new suburb. (Example: one bathroom). That's not an artifact of marketing, buddy. \_ Overpopulation and resource depletion leads to a declining standard standard of living. Why is that surprising to you? People have lived in large crowded cities since at least the Roman Empire, you are nuts to think that this is a modern invention. Sure, subsidence farmers lived spread Sure, subsistence farmers lived spread out, but cities were denser before the automobile. Have you been to any of Europe? I prefer my solidly built turn of the century house to the ticky tacky crap that passes for "luxury" these days. And btw, people used to live in much smaller houses, so you are wrong about the "large houses" part, too. -!tom http://www.moyak.com/papers/house-sizes.html \_ 1. I prefer my old house, too, but that's because I like the character. You can realize, though, why post-WW II families thought that moving to a new, modern house with a yard and 2 bathrooms was appealing. 2. By "large houses" I mean a large footprint (less dense). Houses have gotten larger over time, but the lots they are built on has not. \_ So "large house with large yards" really means "small house with large yard" in your language? Could you please clarify which defn of "large" you are using next time, so I don't get confused? Thanks in advance. 3. Large crowded cities were not a very common way of life. This is a modern innovation. From Scientific American, September 2005: "From the beginning of the Christian era to about 1850, the urban population of the world never exceeded 7 percent. The Industrial Revolution quickly changed that--today 75 percent of people in the U.S. and other developed countries live in cities, according to the United Nations." You tell me which is more recent. \_ Prior to the industrial revolution, people outside of cities were organized in family units; multiple generations would live densely within the same house or on the same land. The land provided most of the daily needs of the group, requiring little travel relative to current practice. The concept of "commuting" is a modern invention (and a carbon- expensive one). -tom |
2009/10/9-21 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:53442 Activity:nil |
10/9 "Iconic Hummer brand sold to Chinese manufacturer - Yahoo! Finance" http://www.csua.org/u/p9c Now the Chinese has blueprint of the workhorse vehicle of our military. \_ You know what? It's a stupid workhorse. We shouldn't be using hummers for strikes anyway going \_ I heard what's good about the HMMWV is that it's highly configurable, and perhaps only the Unimog is better in this regard. To me, it doesn't even have a level front hood that can be used as a table, which was a requirement for the MJ's. \_ Mind you, milspec Hummers are great for breaking up kidney stones. Those shock absorbers? Definitely an after-market add-on. |
2009/8/5-13 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:53240 Activity:kinda low |
8/5 The Technium. Economics, needs, and physics-- is there an end to Moore's Law, or any other laws wrt to storage, bandwidth, megapixels? http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/07/was_moores_law.php \_ Automobile MPGs don't follow Moore's Law. Oh, the article already mentions this. \_ Maybe they just have a lower exponential coefficient. Processor speed is like 1.5x per year, disk is like 2x as large per year, I've heard ram speed is like 1.25x per year (or something like that). Maybe auto MPG is just like 1.001x per year. I saw another post where someone said auto efficiency has only gone up 3 mpg in 80 years. If you take 1.001^80 = 1.0832... If we started at 30 mpg 80 years ago, 1.0832 x 30 ~= 32.5. So it could follow Moore's slow Law. ;) -mrauser \_ um, you guys TOTALLY missed the whole point of the article. Whatever law exists, exists for artificial reasons. The market, economics, demand, and expectations from shareholders all play a much bigger role than anything else. As for MPG, it's been artificially low in the past few decades for obvious reasons. Go American built SUV! \_ My uncles ex-wife's brother-in-law has a device he inserts into his carburetor that gives him 50MPG on a 68 Camaro. He says that it is top secret and that the oil companies own the patent and destroyed all the the copies though, except for the one he smuggled out. \_ What degree does your brother-in-law have? High school? People are stupid. \_ He has a PhD in common sense, which is more than you will ever have. \_ 50 mpg, 200 mpg, 2000,mpg does it matter, you're still using oil, duke. \_ Processor speed stopped increasing years ago. Transistor density continues at 2x / 18 mo. |
2009/7/21-24 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:53167 Activity:low |
7/20 Do people not know that the only place where there is no speed limit is on a freeway onramp? Which means that it is the entrant driver's job to speed up and get in past the existing traffic? \_ The ones who can't accelerate are in SUVs \_ True. My 2nd-gen Prius (not the 2010) accelerates on the on-ramps fine. -- !OP \_ People are stupid. Especially those in LA. \_ This happens everywhere, but most noticeable in 2 lane or smaller highways. Indeed in LA, where freeways are wide the exsiting traffic has more recourse. \_ People might be stupid in LA, but they are much better drivers than the ones in the Bay Area. They are especially adept at handling merging. |
2009/6/2-5 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:53071 Activity:low |
6/2 "GM to sell Hummer to Chinese company" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090602/ap_on_bi_ge/us_automakers Why would China want to buy the Hummer brand? They already have their own Humvee copycat - the East Wind EQ2050: http://www.csua.org/u/le9 \_ Because "China" is one big hive mind where everyone thinks alike, right? \_ That is mostly true, just as most Americans are dumb because they elected someone like Bush to go to war. You see, there's a difference between perception and reality, but externally, it makes no difference. |
2009/5/6-9 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:52955 Activity:nil |
5/6 http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=a_tale_of_two_exurbs \_ Nice article. -tom \_ Starts slow but the comparison between the two towns is nice. Nothing new, but re-affirming. -op |
2009/3/31-4/6 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:52778 Activity:moderate |
3/31 More proof that LA sux: http://laist.com/2007/06/12/la_wins_5_of_th.php http://laist.com/2009/03/27/emergency_weekend_closure_of_405_co.php \_ LA has the worst traffic jams in the nation, but also one of the most extensive public transit systems, very high usage, and is also \_ LA has the worst traffic jams in the nation, but also one of the most extensive public transit systems, very high usage, and is also one of the most dense urban areas in the US. -ERIC MORRIS \_ LA itself might be okay, but anytime you leave it, you're pretty much screwed. Public transit in the greater LA area is hardly extensive, but nor could you really expect it to be, cost-effectively anyway, for such a large area. Go sprawl. \_ LA is much less sprawling than most other urban areas. If you consider the Bay Area as a whole, the two are comparable. I have an insane coworker who was commuting from Vacaville to San Jose for about 3 years, and finally moved last month. \_ How far is it from Encino to Redlands? LA is not less sprawling than other urban areas. \_ I didn't realize Redlands was part of LA. I think the point the guy is making is that LA has some very, very densely developed areas of the type that do not exist in many American cities outside of NYC and it will continue to get more dense as the population swells. LA is very big but it is also very dense if you look at the "urban area" versus just the city proper. In fact, it is the most dense urban area according to Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas (I read it is the #3 most dense behind NYC and SF according to another study, but the point is it is *MUCH* more dense than typical for a large US city.) population swells. LA is the 3rd most dense city in the nation (behind NYC and SF) and has areas more dense than SF (and just as dense as Manhattan). So I would agree that LA is much less sprawling than most other urban areas since it is ranked #3. LA is very big but it is also denser than cities like Dallas, Phoenix, Boston, Washington DC, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and even Chicago when you look at the "urban area" versus just the city proper. Travel just outside the city limits of most cities (including NYC) and the density really drops off quickly even though a significant portion of the population lives there. Not true in LA, which is fairly densely developed throughout the county and even into other counties. BTW, I fail to see how taking the 9 million people not living in LA and even into other counties. I fail to see how taking the 11 million people not living in LA proper and cramming them into LA proper "to make it more dense" would improve the quality of life. \_ Redlands is as much a "part of LA" as Vacaville is a "part of San Francsisco." Reducing people's commutes would improve their quality of life, but obviously this could only work if there was enough transit to move them around. Because not everyone can drive a car everywhere in a dense urban area, as Hong Kong and NYC already know and LA is starting to find out. \_ Redlands is at least as much a part of the LA metro area as Vacaville is part of the Bay Area. The idea that the Inland Empire is a seperate metropolis is a joke and this is coming from a guy\ who was born in Riverside and still has family metropolis is a joke and this is coming from a guy who was born in Riverside and still has family there. \_ Calling Vacaville a part of the Bay Area is is a joke. |_ http://csua.org/u/nx8 aka http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/los-angeles-transportation-facts-and-fiction-driving-and-delay |
2009/3/10-17 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:52698 Activity:very high |
3/10 Are there many JD, MBA, MDs who read MOTD? Currently below, there is one person claiming to be a lawyer and another mentions an MBA... Also, is it proper to preface MOTD with a preposition (e.g. the motd)? \_ I don't know if there are many JDs who read the MOTD, but I do. I think there is one MBA from INSEAD who reads the MOTD. I don't know about MDs, but if my brother gets into med school next year there might be one. Also, is it proper to preface MOTD with a preposition (e.g. the motd)? \_ "the" is an article, not a preposition, and yes, the MOTD deserves an article. -tom \_ Thanks (for the grammar correction and MOTD rules). It's like The 405... \_ no, it's not like "the 405", which is an awful LA construction (literally and linguistically). MOTD stands for Message Of The Day, so it's incorrect to say "Are there people who read MOTD," which expands to "Are there people who read message of the day?" -tom \_ You say "gins and tonic", don't you? \_ "the" is also used in Canada and England. e.g. The M1. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_07/014178.php \_ Well, "The M1 Motorway" is the name of it. The name of 280 is not "The 280 Freeway", it's Interstate 280. There's also no other 280 around to confuse it with. You don't put "the" on other road names so why do it for freeways? e.g. 1st street "the 1st street". We do say stuff like Highway 1 or Route 1 though, or I-80. Those actually make sense, unlike "the". \_ The 10 freeway is the Santa Monica Freeway. The 405 is the San Diego Freeway. It's retarded to call the 405 "Interstate 405" and immediately brands you a putz. \_ not as retarded as calling it "the 405". \_ Since The 405 is an LA freeway, that's the appropriate designation. It's The 405, 80, 280, etc, and I-5 (because that's in both noCal and soCal). If you said "take 405 to 101" in LA, you'd sound like a FOB who says things like "have you read message of the day?" \_ It is certainly the case that we use dialect to identify clan membership. David Foster Wallace had an interesting article (partly) on that point: http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html But it's also the case that "the 405" is stupid. -tom \_ Sorry, but it's not. If you say "Take 405 freeway to 10 freeway" then that's stupid. You need the article just like if you say "Take the San Diego Freeway to the Santa Monica Freeway". Maybe it's not what your used to, but it's completely correct and makes complete sense. You can always tell someone new to California (not just LA) when they ask "How do I get on the Interstate from here?" (guffaw) \_ I say stuff like "take 80 to 980" all the time. Just like I say "Go down 18th and turn on Mission." You would never say "Go down the 18th" now would you? \_ No, I wouldn't. However, "take 80 freeway to 980 freeway" sounds stupid does it not? \_ It's not called "the 10 freeway." It's called 10, or Route 10, or Interstate Highway 10. -tom \_ Only on Planet Tom is it not called "the 10 freeway". It is called that because it descends from "the Santa Monica Freeway". It is sometimes called I-10 and when it is "the" is not used. However, when "the" is used it is used because it makes sense to use it as in "the 10 freeway". It is never referred to as 10, Highway 10, or Route 10 and none of those are official designations. Official designation is Interstate 10 and I addressed that case. \_ I drove 10 all the way across the country, and nowhere other than LA does anyone call it "the 10," and no one anywher calls it "the 10 freeway." -tom \_ I drove 10 all the way across the country, and nowhere other than LA does anyone call it "the 10," and no one anywhere calls it "the 10 freeway." -tom \_ 1. People in LA do call it "the 10 freeway". 2. The reason no one anywhere else uses "the" is because they do not use names for it like "Santa Monica Freeway" and "San Bernardino Freeway"! Don't you get it? Hell, in most of the rest of the country they don't even call such highways "freeways", but we do and it's completely correct to do so. Next you will be saying that it's not soda, but pop because you heard people in Missouri call it that. \_ 1. It's completely stupid to call it "the 10 freeway" and I've never heard anyone say that. \_ It is not stupid and you don't hear it because you live in a bubble in Berkeley. What is stupid about it? \_ As explained above, it makes no logical sense. -tom 2. You're completely wrong that other places in the country don't have local names for I-10. Look at the wikipedia page. \_ I didn't say they didn't. However, I bet they use "the" if they use them followed by the word "freeway". 3. People everywhere other than LA manage to have local names for highways, and don't use "the" in front of the number. -tom _/ Several commenters here says that "the" is used in Canada. http://www.languagehat.com/archives/003203.php http://www.languagehat.com/archives/003203.php -abe \_ People elsewhere manage to call "soda" "pop", too. Is that also stupid? \_ That's a different dialect--it's not gramatically illogical, like "the 405" is. -tom \_ "the 405" is short for "the 405 freeway" which is grammatically correct. \-arent you from NJ, home of "the (new jersey) turnpike" and "the pip", near "the long island expressway" (sic) "the LIE" [and the maj degan, the cross bronx] the cross bronx etc] i personally like the "the". what i hate is "internet" without the "the" and "maths" instead of "math". --psb of "math". for fwys i use kind of an ideosyncratic system. for bay area fwys i'd say "the 101" but normally leave off "the" on others. ideosyncratic system. for bay area fwys i'd say "the 101" but normally leave off "the" on others. \_ "The Turnpike" is the name of the road. It's also I-95, and no one calls it "the 95." -tom \_ Because it is not "the 95 freeway/ highway/ expressway". Do you say "get on freeway" or "get on the freeway"? BTW, "maths" annoys me, too. annoys me, too. \_ I was watching Season 5 of 24 last night and the Russians kept using "the" in front of freeways (e.g. the 118). But they were in LA and the writers probably live in LA. \_ "Are there people who read the Wired?" vs. "Are there people who read Wired?" <-depends on whether you deem MOTD to be a designation or the title of /etc/motd.public. Either way, you shouldn't be reading Wired, that rag. \_ PhDs are a dime a dozen on the motd. \_ You think a dozen people are reading the motd? \_ Yeah, about 20 or so. \_ Thank you for wasting 10 minutes of my life reading about '405' and 'the 405' on the motd. get lives, all of your. !the tom \_ Not as annoying as Star Wars guy, but not as exciting as Bitter Divorced Guy. |
2008/12/9-14 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:52215 Activity:kinda low |
12/9 I have what is likely a very basic (and possibly stupid) question. Do the current financial troubles of the big 3 auto makers just happen to coincide with the horrible economy we have, or is it resulting from it? Thanks. \_ They were already troubled, but not irreparably in the previous environment. The current environment has made things much worse. \_ GM is an unmanagable leviathan which has been in decline for 30 years. Its debt was downgraded to junk status _last_year_ after they lost $39 billion. The downturn would merely pull the plug on this vegetable. \_ GM is an unmanagable leviathan which has been in decline for 30 years. Its debt was downgraded to junk status _last_year_ after they lost $39 billion. The downturn would merely pull the plug on this vegetable. http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/12/03/ap5776689.html http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2008/snapshots/175.html \_ The Economist ran a story about the End of the Car Giants, which I unfortunately cannot find right now. They said their business model was basically broken and that they were going to wither away. This was about three years ago. |
2008/11/27-12/4 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:52122 Activity:nil |
11/27 Guess what, petro is cheap again! Time to buy that SUV of your dream again and save GM! -patriotic American |
2008/11/16-17 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:52000 Activity:nil |
11/16 Four-door Lamborghihi sports car. http://www.csua.org/u/my5 (autos.yahoo.com) And no, it's not an SUV or a modified limo. |
2008/11/13 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:51964 Activity:kinda low |
11/13 why is the left supporting companies that make SUVs and Hummers? http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/11/pelosi-to-seek.html \_ Democrats want their votes. |
2008/10/14-17 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Reference/Military] UID:51529 Activity:low |
10/14 This is why people shouldn't own guns: -anti-gun nut http://cbs2.com/local/Porter.Ranch.Murder.2.833728.html http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-porterranch7-2008oct07,0,7425239.story \_ The guy made 1.2 mil (convert paper to money), then another 0.5 mil from the house. How could he have just run out of money? This is baffling. I hope he didn't blow it up on hookers. \_ On margin investments are how you make (and lose) 1.2 mil. \_ You're an idiot. You probably think the $50M to put up a net on the GG bridge is a good investment? \_ Jumping off the bridge: jumper dies Shooting guns: someone may grab your gun, or you go nuts and shoot innocent people, or your child shoots accidentally \_ Jumping off the bridge: Causes a traffic jam, politicians waste time and money talking about it. Shoots self: No traffic jam, politicians waste time and money talking about it anyway. The bigger picture, of course, is that it is completely acceptable loss to the gains, just like allowing people to have massive weapons that are cars. \_ What is worse, causing traffic jam or accidentally or intentionally killing your family members and by-standers because you went balistic? \_ You could probably kill a bunch of people with a car if you decided to do so. \_ right. Exactly. People also shouldn't have cars, or swimming pools Or be allowed to take their kids to mcdonalds. Why don't all these fools see how right we are and how wrong they are. |
2008/9/25-10/1 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/PublicTransit] UID:51309 Activity:nil |
9/25 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transit LA mean travel time is 29.2min, which is only slightly more than SF at 29.0. See, Los Angeles isn't such a bad place to live! \_ "figures shown for central city only, not metropolitan area" |
2008/9/15-19 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:51174 Activity:nil |
9/15 Oil below $100--anybody noticing? \_ nope, its all about the financial market meltdown. \_ Yeah, I went out and bought a Hummer. \_ I hear yermom gives great hummers. \_ And for under $100 too! |
2008/8/11-14 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:50850 Activity:low |
8/11 Ford Flex commercial-- wrong time (high gas price), wrong music (why the hell did they use a Hot Pocket food commercial), wrong setting (SUV market should tailor to suburban dwellers, not a fucking city that is shown). Fucking stupid commerical. \_ Gee, I thought from the name it was some flex-fuel vehicle. \_ Nope, just a fucking SUV. What a STUPID NAME. |
2008/8/7-13 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:50811 Activity:nil |
8/7 Russians naively buy American SUVs for their off-road capabilities and get into trouble. Hilarious! http://englishrussia.com/?p=2001 \_ This is funny! Those SUV drives don't know off-roading. 1. Lock the differentials, or apply the gas and the brake at the same time. 2. Put a piece of wood under each wheel. |
2008/8/1-5 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:50759 Activity:nil |
7/31 "You Know Gas Prices Are High When Texans Start Driving Golf Carts" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121746229279198963.html '"You wouldn't think it, but it's a chick-magnet," says the unmarried, 40-year-old chemical engineer,' 'The Peterses' cars get about 30 miles from a full charge, ...... or two cents a mile. Compare that with 20 cents a mile for a car that goes 20 miles on one $4 gallon of gasoline.' |
2008/7/30-8/5 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:50730 Activity:nil |
7/30 "Neighborhood Walkability Linked to Weight" http://www.csua.org/u/lzh (http://www.webmd.com "People in the study who lived in the most walkable neighborhoods weighed an average of 8 pounds less than people who lived in the least walkable areas." "Neighborhoods built before 1950 tended to have sidewalks and other characteristics that made them more accessible to pedestrians, ...... In general, newer neighborhoods offered fewer opportunities for walking." Not all suburbs are the same. \_ Yeah, take Saratoga for example - no sidewalks or street lights. \_ San Francisco: 2nd skinniest county in America http://preview.tinyurl.com/5n2wft (Money Magazine) \_ Just in front of Williamson County, Tennessee, well-known as a walkable urban center. |
2008/7/28-8/2 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:50706 Activity:nil |
7/28 Thugs on Wheels strike again http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/372364_criticalmass27.html \_ You know, I'm so surprised that we haven't had a nutcase with CCW PERMIT carrying guns and wielding a SUV who ended up shooting a bunch of bicyclists yeah baby BANG BANG BANG \_ So let's see. Critical mass goes by. Dude in car doesn't want to wait 10 minutes for them to pass, instead pulls out in front of them. People get pissed and shout at him, so he drives his car through the crowd and hits some people. Then things get ugly. Frankly he got off easy. \_ I have no idea where you invented this summary from: "According to what some witnesses told police, an altercation with the driver ensued and some of those on bikes began sitting on his car and hitting the vehicle, Jamieson said. "According to what some witnesses told police, an altercation with the driver ensued and some of those on bikes began sitting on his car and hitting the vehicle, Jamieson said. "The driver tried to back up, he said, and struck a bike. "That's when bicyclists really began attacking the vehicle. I think the cyclists got off easy. That's the problem with mobs. \_ Key word: some. Let's guess which some those were. Dude should never have ridden his car through the crowd. You know that, he knows that. You think people just decided to attack him for fun? How come all those 1000s of other cars along the route didn't get attacked? \_ I think the Thugs intentionally intimidate drivers, and are thrilled to escalate minor confrontations (jumping on the car, etc.) which induce panic in the driver, who in fear tries to get away from the mob. See, that's the problem with mobs. \_ So because the guy was irrationally fearful, it is okay that he committed assualt with a deadly weapon? Good thing he didn't kill anyone. Would it be okay if I started shooting at car drivers that violate my right of way as a pedestrian? That is certainly a more rational fear than this guys. What was the chance that someone on a bicycle could actually hurt him if he stayed in his car with windows rolled up? \_ Smashing the windshield? I'd say he is 100% justified in fleeing from a mob, possibly injuring members of the mob in the process. \_ They smashed his windshield after he started running people over, at least according to the press account of the incident. I am not saying that there was a good reason to smash his wind shield, but he had no excuse for deliberately running people over, just because they were blocking his way and sitting on his car and "hitting the vehicle" which means smacking it with their palms. \_ Nope, sorry you've got it wrong. "The driver tried to back up, he said, and struck a bike." "That's when bicyclists really began attacking the vehicle." It was after the attack that the car drove away through the crowd. \_ Anyone with half a brain would know, don't try to muscle your car through a crowd of bikes. What did he expect? The sea of bikes to part before his mighty car penis? He tried to drive through them. He fucking hit someone. \_ Sorry, once the mob attacks, the victim should use force (even deadly force) to escape from the mob. That's the problem with mobs. \_ Any bicyclist with a quarter of a brain should know not to try to block the way of a moving car. Those that place more importance on asserting their "right" to annoy drivers than on protecting their own safety fall victim to natural selection. \_ "Tried to back up" means that he deliberately backed into someone blocking his way. This should be assault, but since he was in a car he will get away with it. \_ I generally agree with you, but this is orthogonal to whether you have a right to run over someone who blocking your way. \_ "Tried to back up" means that he deliberately backed into someone blocking his way. This should be assault, but since he was in a car he will get away with it. \_ No, it means he deliberately tried to back up, and there was someone in the way. That doesn't mean he was deliberately trying to hit someone. \_ Let's change the bikes to say, a regular demonstration. Demonstrators are marching, blocking a car. Dude tries to pull out of his space anyway and hits a demostrator. People start crowding his car and screaming at him for hitting someone when it was obvious he should have just waited rather than just pulling out when the road was blocked. Dude responds by driving his car through the crowd, hitting several people. You don't think he would be at fault there either? \_ And attacking the vehicle, smashing the windshield? Yes, no fault in trying to get away. \_ Since neither of us was there and there are no videos, we can only speculate, but if you are surrounded by people peacefully blocking your way, backing up without making sure your way is clear is at the very least, very reckless. |
2008/7/15-16 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Uncategorized/Profanity] UID:50583 Activity:high |
7/15 FUCK YOU dim shit and your SUV and big suburb Republican loving Southern Californians. I hope the big one wipes out you fuckers. FUCK YOU ALL. \_ Agreed, die in hell dim! \_ Uh, what? Sounds like you have issues. I'm not Republican and don't own an SUV. I live in the suburbs, but what does that have to do with anything? Bay Area is full of suburbs, too. I hope this response humors you. |
2008/7/15-23 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:50573 Activity:nil |
7/15 help, if i see anyone driving a Land Rover or Humvee in a non combat situation I automatically think they are an asshole. \_ what's wrong with that? \_ Look at the way those cars were advertised a few years ago. They are marketed as "fuck you" cars. No duh people who own They are marketed as "f*** you" cars. No duh people who own them are assholes. \_ Feel the same way about Jeeps? \_ My 1996 Jeep Cherokee (169.2in) is shorter than a Honda Civic. \_ So what? When people complain about SUVs and the people who buy them, the car's length is generally not what they're objecting to. What on earth are you trying to say? \_ I'm just trying to say not all SUVs are equally bad-ass, in terms of the space that it takes up and gas mileage. Mine has better gas mileage than some full-size sedans. Mine has better gas mileage than some luxury sedans. Mine has better gas mileage than some luxury sedans. -- PP \_ Doesn't change that Jeep was designed for combat. \_ Also designed without shock-absorbers or comfortable seating. Hardcore means no more kidney stones. \_ I wished that Cal Tech student burned down more Hummers. I totally support his cause. \- ARCHIMEDES DEATH RAY vs HUMMER! \_ if you really want to punish those assholes, lobby congress don't do anything about the high gas prices. Let these road bullies PAY for their choices. Right now, we would rather invade another country than willing to let gas price rise. |
2008/6/24-27 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:50363 Activity:high |
6/24 It amazes me how stupid people are about economics. Don't people realize that "speculators" make things better? \_ Because no politician has the guts to say: "Suck it up and move on, it's demand and supply and the government can't and shouldn't do anything about gas prices". Because no politician has the guts to say "Look, how about YOU consume less gas, then you will spend less anything about gas prices". Because no politician has the guts to say "Look, how about YOU consume less gas, then you will spend less money on it? How about living closer to work, avoiding distant suburbs, using carpools or public transport, or trading in your "barn-on-wheels" grocery-getters and 300HP single occupant commuter appliances for something more efficient?" No politician wants to say that and no consumer seems to want to hear this either. There are no enough drama or opportunities to pander to voters in the traditional "demand and supply" explanation for the fuel price situation. suburbs, using carpools or public transport, or trading in your "barn-on-wheels" grocery-getters and 300HP single occupant commuter appliances for something more efficient?" No politician wants to say that and no consumer seems to want to hear this either. There are no enough drama or opportunities to pander to voters in the traditional "demand and supply" explanation for the fuel price situation. \_ Sorry but this is flat out stupid. People live far from their jobs because the price of a house or rental is so much lower even taking into account the huge increase in gas prices we've seen since 2006. I want to live in your fantasy world where we can all simply choose to live near work. Do you really truly think people drive 2+ hours a day because they like driving? All these people could swap out their Hummers for shitboxes cutting their gas costs by 50% or whatever and they'll still get creamed. The reality is there aren't that many large vehicles doing long commutes. I drive a V8 guzzler. I drive it fast. Here's the math: I use ~1000 gallons per year getting about 20 mpg. At $5/gallon for premium that's $5k/year. I can switch to a crap car, get 30 mph and pay 20 cents less per gallon. That's a savings of 333 gallons and $1800/year. Whoop-ti-do. I've saved the earth. And it's 400HP, thanks. There is plenty enough oil out there, insufficient refinery capacity and a ton of stupid laws that create different magical blends of gas that distort the market. I'm sure the oil companies are doing a-OK on my wallet, too. Drill, build some refineries, consolidate blend requirements across similar regions, and prices will drop. Econ 1. The big question is: do the people in control of these things *want* the price to drop? Hello Congress and State law makers? \_ I _know_ childrenless couples who opt to drive one hour each way to their work just so that they could afford to live in a ginormous house even though they could live for the same amount of money in a perfectly nice two bedroom house or an apartment in a nice safe neghborhood, 5 to 10 minute drive distance from their work for the same money. (no that's not in Bay Area). So yes, my claim was entirely stupid. Next, refinery situation is not nice, but you won't lower the gas prices by much simply by simplifying the blends and regulations. About 75% of the price of gas you pay at the pump simply covers the price of oil that was used to make this gas. The rest is refining and distribution. Streamlinging refinery regulations would knock off a few cents at best. If every person who drives a gas guzler actually did something to lower gas use by 30% like you propose above, the prices wouldn't be so "bad" right now. The proven oil reserves in the parts of the US where you can't drill will increase the supply of US made oil only marginally, and we still will end up importing most of our oil from abroad. I am not saying we shouldn't drill more, but McCain's and GWB push to open more areas for drilling will not fix any problems in the short term, and hardly make a big difference in the long term. \_ Do you read the viking hall of manliness website too? \_ Since you know nothing and have nothing intelligent to say you have to resort to a cheap personal attack. Good call. That worked for me in 5th grade, too. \_ 0.o That site breaks my brain. \_ http://arthurshall.com \_ People live far from their jobs because they are selfish jerks who don't care how much suffering they cause other people just so long as they get their 5 bedroom 3 bath home on half an acre full of junk from Target. Homes are 50% larger then they were in the 50's and families are smaller now. A smaller car is not really going to fix the fundamental problem. jerks who don't care how much suffering they cause other people just so long as they get their 5 bedroom 3 bath home on half an acre full of junk from Target. Homes are 50% larger th[a]n they were in the 50's and families are smaller larger then they were in the 50's and families are smaller now. A smaller car is not really going to fix the fundamental problem. \- gee, i guess even economists who debate things like hot money and the effects of high capital mobility are "stupid about economics". liquidity is generally good. but speculation is more complicated and might be "net" good, but not necess "all good". also not everybody is in the position of the dollar and a very large domestic economy. YMWTGF(GSOROS, sterilization). how about signing your name when calling other people stupid? --psb \_ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121426475050198395.html \_ I do when I specify names. The nearly universal complaints about commodity speculators is silly. \- "i do when i specify names" is kinda silly. second, in your OP you didnt resrict your comment to commodity speculation. the FX futures mkt and the mkt for financial hedges and speculation is much bigger than the commodities mkt, so that would hardly be a default assumption. --psb \_ It is always easier to blame someone else for your troubles than accept your own part in the problem. \_ Well informed speculators make things better. Get rich quick idiots can throw prices totally out of whack, which is bad for necessities like food and shelter. \_ Exactly. There is a mass of people who just follow whatever the trend is. They hear dot com they balloon that up, housing ditto, now energy and commodities. They are idiots because the majority of them in each case don't realize the large paper gains, and meanwhile they cause short term problems and volatility. \_ It is not clear to me what kind of problems dot com speculators caused, other than a temporary misallocation of capital. It is not like driving up the cost of WebVan stock caused a shortage of anything. \- just out of curiosity, what do you consider the diff between a <DEAD>dot.com<DEAD> "speculator" and a <DEAD>dot.com<DEAD> "investor" to be ... i mean it is meaningful to talk about a hedger vs a speculator in a commodity or in the FX mkt, but it's not totally clear how to differentiate in the case of a stock ... or do you mean some vague either focusing on time horizon or "second order" investments [calls/puts, shorts, butterflies etc]. |
2008/6/10-13 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:50206 Activity:moderate |
6/10 What I have been saying for years is now finally going mainstream: http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/economist/86938 "High Fuel Costs Could Spur a New Rationalism" \_ I sure hope this is going mainstream. But most drives I see on the roads are still solo drivers, the freeways are not getting less congested, and my wife doesn't see BART trains getting more crowded. \_ That's because those supposed solutions are crap. The real solution is to use small, efficient vehicles, and have protected paths for low-impact stuff like bikes. 60-80 mpg is not unreasonable from a small car. You can do better by regulating things, for example ensuring that on-ramps are long enough to accommodate slow-accelerating cars, or improving safety by limiting large vehicles which make small cars more dangerous by blocking their vision and being dangerous in crashes due to their mass and ride height. Clearly people like fast personal transportation. Improving that technology is going to be much more useful than trying to force people to give it up. \_ Once again, the solution is NOT technology. Creating new infrastructures and testing, etc uses MORE energy. The solution is to REVERSE technology. Kill everyone and every innovations, and there will be no more energy use. \_ It is worth pursuing more than one line of solution at a time, since the problem is so large and there is probably not going to be a one-size-fits all solution. All your solutions are going to take years, and we need to find a cheap way to get people to work in the meantime. I envision a smart car train, where people get into their individual pods at home, but then join the "train" for longer distance. You can get really good energy efficiency that way, while still giving the misanthropes their "personal space," but this is obviously a long ways off. \_ The problem isn't really "privacy for misanthropes" but 1) going to and from where you want to go, when you want to go there, and quickly 2) versatility and convenience in carrying stuff 3) comfort In most cases mass transit simply doesn't do #1 which is the important one. More efficient taxis could help. At least people using taxis reduces the need for parking lots. AI-driven taxis could be cool, someday. If people entered their transit request to a taxi company then they could coordinate the routes to be able to carry a multiple people per taxi in many cases. That wouldn't require AI taxis, just smart dispatching software. As usual, the existence of government controlled transit operations unnecessarily shackles us all to systems which are probably not optimal. \_ #1 has been solved by all the really big cities in the world with elevators and one minute headway train systems. But you need much greater density than most American cities for this to work. Personal transit does not really work in a place like Tokyo or Hong Kong, anyway. #2 is solved by putting stores selling what you need within very close walking distance of your home. \_ Have you ever been to Texas? Asking big fat Americans to walk to where they need to be is very unAmerican and unPatriotic. \_ Don't interrupt my posts. And you can ask people \_ I will to do whatever you want, just don't expect them \_ interrupt to do it because you are obviously smarter than \_ as I see fit they. \_ mind you this this a free country \_ The problem is solved by MOVING close to where you normally have to go (work). \_ you can't move in CA. if you do, you get hit with the new property tax hit of 1000 percent to make up for all the old people who haven't been properly taxed since 1978. i am slightly serious about this. \_ you mean "all the corporations" \_ That doesn't solve it. It's impractical to move every time you change jobs, housing is not freely available, people go other places than their job (and so they should). \_ Obviously, a place like Tokyo or Hong Kong is different. Different places are different. Tokyo can still require a lot of walking... there are still lots of places that are hard to get to on the trains/subways. Tokyo also has lots of taxis. Your #2 "solution" is not a real solution. \_ It works all over the world. And what is wrong with walking? Walking is good for you. \_ No, it doesn't. Feel free to walk if you want. \_ Yes, it does. The majority of the world's population do not own cars, so they do their shopping the old fashioned way, on foot. Feel free to be a lazy fatass who pays $200 to fill up his Escalate if you want, too. Just don't bitch about it on the motd. \_ When you say "the existence of government controlled transit operations unnecessarily shackles us all to systems which are probably not optimal." are you referring to things like freeways? \_ You're the one bitching and blanketing ppl as lazy fatasses. What about people with legitimate physical problems? I suppose we should euthanize them for the good of the species. What if you live somewhere with bad weather? You're presenting a false dichotomy: the Escalade is one extreme of personal transportation. Why did you even bring it up? The majority of the world's population lives in fucking shitty conditions and have no choice. They do things like walk long distances with giant loads of junk carried on their backs, like pieces of corrugated steel they found which they are lugging back to add on to their tiny shack where they sleep on the floor with their various relatives and have no running water. Maybe you should move to one of those places. Or just feed yourself to some animals and stop wasting resources. \_ The guy with the Escalade is going to have to give up a bit so that the guy carrying the steel on his back can live a little better. A good think, imnsho. a little better. A good thing, imnsho. \_ The Fremont->SF BART line did get more crowded during morning commute hours these days. |
2008/5/1-5 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:49868 Activity:nil |
5/1 Humvee copycat in China: The Dong Feng EQ2050 http://www.csua.org/u/le9 (http://www.chinacartimes.com Speaking of IP infringement ...... \_ If you are stupid enough to copy the hummer... \_ As long as there is someone stupid enough to buy it ... |
2008/4/9-12 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:49691 Activity:nil |
4/8 Somewhat amusing talk on Urban Design by James Howard Kunstler. He has some interesting things to say, but he thinks he's more clever than he is. (video) (anti-suburb rant) http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/121 |
2008/4/4-9 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:49667 Activity:nil |
4/4 "Slow Down a Little, Save a Lot of Gas" http://www.csua.org/u/l7s (finance.yahoo.com) \_ RIDE A BIKE and save even more gas. Economically it boils down to what is your time worth? Is driving faster going to save enough of your time to make up for the extra fuel cost? Their argument that it saves 'a lot of gas' is week, it pretty much just saves a little. \_ It's kind of depressing riding my bike to work and being passed by hundreds of cars. Especially since many of the cars have driven an 50 miles to get there... \_ Change your bike route/time along heavy commute. I used to pass by cars along Shattuck in Oakland even on my heavy mountain bike. \_ Haha. Unfortunately I'm travelling the wrong direction for that. \_ PFT! USE FOOT! Ride bike will not help. It just hides the costs of shipping and processing all that metal, exotic plastics and other earth destroying by products of the biking craze. If everyone walked barefoot at all times there'd be no transport pollution at all. |
2008/4/4-9 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Recreation/Pets] UID:49663 Activity:nil |
4/4 Taking 10 year olds to day spaws. ew. \_ There's no w in that word \_ SC accent http://www.phillymag.com/articles/pretty_babies/page5 \_ What is your point? There's a market for everything. Hummer, dog feng-shui, puppy accupuncture, a bunch of cat psychologists near Brentwood/Beverly Hills, gangsta rap, spinner wheels, huge suburban homes in Glendora with 1.5 hour commute to nearest tech work in Irvine or Santa Monica, etc. Come to think of it, on average, people in LA seem to have pretty high self esteem and fairly low IQ... perfect place to test for weird market ideas. \_ I take it you didn't RTFA since your reply seems to be talking about something totally different... \_ You're right. I'm just PMSing. |
2008/3/24-27 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:49546 Activity:nil |
3/24 X Prize for 100mpg vehicles: http://www.csua.org/u/l3w I think the 100mph requirement for the mainstream category is too high. Something like 85-90mph will be more useful. OTOH I think it should add a crash test requirement to that category. \_ Put up your own prize money. |
2008/3/6-7 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:49353 Activity:low |
3/6 http://www.csua.org/u/kyy (Yahoo! Finance) "The average cost of owning and driving a car 15,000 miles a year is $7,830 according to AAA. SUVs are even more costly, at $9,990 per year." Wow! \_ I guess that sounds about right. My cost has been less than half of that (~$3k/yr) but I drive near half as much. That also doesn't include resale value of my car, but my car won't have much in that department. And of course I'm not including taxes and environmental costs associated with owning and driving my car. \_ How long does it take to grow $652/mo into $1M? By my calculations, about 25 years, if you invest in the stock market. So I can retire at least 10 years early by getting rid of one car. \_ Or by getting a efficient dependable used car. Say a late 90's/early 00's corolla. \_ $652/mo is average. Even an older car costs almost that much. \_ Gas (15k mi/yr): $145/mo for 30mpg at $3.50 a gallon Depeciation on a car that old: negligible, say $50/mo. Insurance: ~$50 mo. \_ Are you out of your mind? $50/month?! I wish. I pay $2400/year for two cars with no accidents or tickets. \_ If you pay that much for an 8-9 year compact car without comprehensive or at least a really high deductable, you are paying way too much. \_ Depends on what coverage you want and I wouldn't drop comprehensive. I had my 1993 Honda stolen and I was glad I had it. \_ When your car is worth ~4k comprehensive adds up to the price of your car pretty damn quickly. \_ Eh. $400/year is worth it for $4K. Repairs: less than $50/mo. That's a about half the cost. Not so bad. (Oh and 15k miles a year is a lot for a car that you can live without. If you are doing 15k miles on a bus that is going to SUCK.) \_ http://www.csua.org/u/kz9 (even without any depreciation, that is $5100/yr) I trust Edmund's numbers better than yours. \_ Depeciation looks like I was high. (See how by year 5 it is ~50/mo. Taxes are going to be lower because you bought it used. Insurance is going to be lower because you shouldn't have comprehensive. Financing is non existant if you buy it used. Gas I seem to be a bit high. So knock OFF 10-20/mo. Mantenance/repairs seem silly high to me, I've never needed to spend that much on my car. |
2008/2/15-18 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:49161 Activity:moderate |
2/15 Dear LA hater, let's start an LA bashing thread. What is it about LA you hate? \_ I've had the opportunity to live in the Bay Area for 9 years and LA 10 years. It's true that traffic jam exist in both places but there are degrees of traffic jam. In short, below is my experience: I-405 jam: Mon-Sat, 7am-11am, 4pm-8:30pm REALLY bad. Bad on weekends even at 1AM. I-10 jam: Mon-Sat, 7am-10am West bad, 4pm-8pm East REALLY bad. I-60 jam: similar to I-10 I-105 jam: actually pretty nice except getting to/from it sucks I-210 jam: Mon-Sat REALLY bad near Pasadena, and unbearable from Arcadia to 57 due to lots of new cheap homes Bay Area in general: 7-10am kind of bad, 5-7pm kind of bad, but at least you're moving at 30MPH. In short, yes both areas have problems but it's a LOT worse in LA where traffic jam can be extremely unpredictable at times. LA traffic blows, no doubt about that. \_ I hate all the SUV and Hummer drivers. And a lot of people are REPUBLICANS not because they have a strong opinion on religion, abortion, etc, but simply because they like the idea of TAX CUtS. \_ That's called "fiscal conservatism". It is one of the three pillars of the (R) party. Sorry if you don't understand that all (R) are not bible thumper social conservatives. You don't understand what a (R) is. Check. My name is reiffin. Check. \_ What are the three pillars? Violence, hypocrisy and greed? On average the people in LA are much less intelligent than the people in N Cal. I mean, just look at the way people drive, the the type of music they listen to, the type of modifications they make to their cars, and their loud stereos they crank up to increase their status symbol. Traffic sucks and while it's a culturally diverse city, there is a lot of self segregation amongst the ethnics (e.g. blacks vs. Koreans, whites on the West side vs. Asians in Monterey Park, etc). Everyone's isolated and you don't even want to talk to your next door neighbor. I'm not even going to get into smog and traffic jam. The lack of a centralized tech hub and the sparse density of related jobs (e.g. immobility of jobs due to spread out geographic locations of tech jobs) makes it a career suicide. N Cal has plethora of startups and big companies concentrated within 10 miles of most single family home in Sunnyvale/San Jose/Santa Clara/etc. On the other hand the derth of tech jobs in LA are spread out in 100 miles from Irvine to Santa Monica to Burbank to Pasadena and even in the suburbs like San Dimas (what kind of tech talents are you going to attract from SAN DIMAS? What a joke!) In short LA blows and the people who live in it are mostly ignorant dim faggots who don't know any better. \_ A centralized tech hub isn't important to most people. \_ obviously not the H07 CH1X \_ Unless you are into ditzy blond girls the whole h0t ch1x aspect of LA is overrated. Personally I could not stand the congestion and smog. Oh, and the people are like totally superficial and annoying. \_ Like, totally! \_ Or hot Mexican girls, hot Asian girls, hot Middle-Eastern \_ Yeah what is it with all the hot PERSIAN girls who hate to be called Iranian? I mean, their parents came here in the 80s, they're SUPER RICH and drive nice cars, and they're SUPER HOT. girls, etc. However, they are all gold diggers and won't date you unless you are rich and/or look like a model yourself. Good for rich ugly guys, though. The superficial \_ Agree, it's perfect for butt ugly Greek men who look super wealthy with their cheaply bought McMansions in the boonies. \_ Weird. Rich attractive girls want to date rich attractive men! How unfair is that? This is a tragedy of the commons! We need a government program to fix this! \_ Well, they are attractive but not rich. So attractive girls want to date rich guys. That's not so odd to be sure, but in LA it is the standard. people live on the Westside and do not represent all of (or even most of) LA. It's like saying the people in SF are all superficial jocks and ditzy blondes after visiting a bar in the Marina District. The smog is not that bad these days, especially if you live anywhere near the coast. I find it a non-issue. It was a big deal in the 1970s, though. Congestion sucks, but name an urban area that is not congested, including SF and Berkeley. \_ There are congestions everywhere. The difference between N Cal and LA is that you don't need to drive 30 miles at 20MPH to go to a decent AFFORDABLE suburb to "tech hubs" in downtown LA or West Los Angeles. \_ What is your idea of an affordable suburb in the SF area that is under 30 miles from a tech job center? \_ Nobody mention SAN FRANCISCO. N Cal-- San Jose, Milpitas, etc etc. \_ Castro Valley, Hayward, Milpitas, Union City, Dublin \_ LA and San Diego have tons of hot cute gay asian guys and West Hollywood rocks -- other than that SoCal sucks. \_ I believe SF is better for this. |
2008/2/6-7 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:49081 Activity:nil |
2/6 "Toyota to Start Sales of Lithium-ion Plug-in Hybrids by 2010" http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/news/08/0114.html It's no longer rumor. |
2008/1/25-2/2 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Finance/Investment] UID:49016 Activity:moderate |
1/25 "The general process of suburbanization is, the richer you are, the more likely you move to the suburbs," says Julie Martin, a senior demographer for the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia. \_ Why does JFK junior live in NYC? \_ He lives with the worms, now. \_ Obviously true in the DC area, obvioiusly false in most of the world. \_ Yes, because a motd anecdote is superior to a researcher at a university. If you look at the wealthiest areas in the US in terms of income they are almost all, if not all, suburbs. \_ No, the wealthiest areas in the US and world are in cities. \_ No, the wealthiest areas in the US and the world are in cities. See Pac Heights, The Upper East Side, Kensington in London, The First Addrosmont (sic?) in Paris, etc. In the Bay Area The 7th Arrondissement in Paris, etc. In the Bay Area \- dont you mean the 8e/triangle d'or. --psb per capita income is as follows: Marin - 44.9k San Mateo - 36k SF - 34.5k CoCo - 30.6k Alameda - 26.7k \_ See, Marin is wealthier than SF. \_ So is San Mateo. The data does not say what he thinks it says. \_ And Alameda county is really urban, not suburban and\ CoCo County is just an outlier. Right? \_ What does that make SF besides 3rd choice? \_ Does the evidence presented support or refute the statement "The wealthier you are, the more likely you are to live in the suburbs?" Hint: what is the contrapostiive of that statement? what is the contrapositive of that statement? \_ There isn't enough evidence to refute anything without providing some more data like population figures. Are the numbers you gave medians or averages? What is the margin of error? Fact is the wealthiest communities in the nation are suburban, not urban. Even your stats show that. \_ It actually depends on what you mean by the word "communities" actually. Is a county synomymous with community? \_ It depends on what you mean by the word "communities." Is a county synomymous with community? \_ It can be and in most of the country it is. CA has some massive counties where it might not be true, but SF is not one of those. \_ More like, true to a certain extent based on economic migration patterns in cities like NYC and Detroit; tends to break down after a certain economic level and depends heavily on how attractive inner-city neighborhoods are in a given city. \_ http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/076903.html It is more complicated than that. The wealthy and the poor tend to both move to the suburbs, for differing reasons. |
2008/1/4-8 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:48883 Activity:very high |
1/3 Why are home prices steady in the cities and collapsing in the suburbs? link:preview.tinyurl.com/2nj3gu (Twin http://Cities.com) \_ This article really only sort of answers that question. A better question is, why did the home prices in the suburbs get so out of whack in the first plae? whack in the first place? \_ They weren't out of whack. This should all be obvious. There are more jobs in the city so price/sqft in the city is higher. Not everyone can afford that or wants to live in a city so suburbs spring up around them and more around those in rings. As prices decline, they first decline further from job hubs and work their way back in. If things continue city prices (which IMO are just as out of whack) will also fall. \_ Hmm... you're not the swami... \_ There are a lot of theories about this, but you should know that in many large cities the prices are less than in the affluent suburbs. Whether the market thinks the cities or the suburbs are more desirable changed over time from suburbs to cities to suburbs. Now the pendulum is swinging back to cities again. However, there are still many cities in this country in which living in the heart of the city is not exactly desirable as compared to the suburbs. Imagine, say, Detroit for example. It's not really about 'job hubs' or 'shopping' or 'transportation' or 'land' or 'schools' or 'crime'. It's about all of the above plus the perceptions of the market at a given time. \_ Heh, while reading your reply I was going to say 'Detroit' as an example where what I said isn't true. But, yes, I agree with your expanded version of what I said. All those things are closely linked. \_ In most cities worldwide, housing in the city costs more per square foot than in the suburbs. This is even true in most large American cities, which were designed for easy automobile access. There are exceptions of course, but even in Detroit there are some very nice neighborhoods, like Palmer Woods. I don't think that "the suburbs" was ever considered more desirable than the city center in Paris, London, Tokyo or Cairo. \_ Really? Where did the royal family of France live? Every city might have some affluent areas, but in more than you might think the suburbs are considered more desirable. It's only recently that people have moved back to downtowns after years and years of flight to the suburbs. "Price per square foot" isn't a good metric to consider to evaluate desirability even though it might seem so on the surface. I think overall price needs to be considered. What fraction of people with $20M to spend on a place choose to buy in Manhattan versus The Hamptons, for instance. The suburbs of many cities are quite affluent, reaching or exceeding the prices for the best real estate in the city. Consider San Diego. Downtown San Diego does have a lot of expensive real estate, but the most desirable properties are in La Jolla, Rancho Santa Fe, and other suburbs. This is echoed more often than not across the nation from Miami to even SF, where the truly rich often opt to live in places like Atherton and Ross instead of the city proper (Pacific Heights notwithstanding). \_ Short answer: I'd bet that anyone with a business/job in NYC and $20M has a place there and likely also a place in the Hamptons or some other distant non-business location. Cities and suburbs both have good and bad areas. In a city, there is simply physically less space available so all prices are likely to be higher than in the suburbs, all else being equal. I'm quite happily living in my very suburban town in part because I know there is no way I could buy a similar place in SF or anywhere else closer to work for anything close to what I paid for my house. $/sqft counts. \_ $/sqft is not enough information on its own. People don't usually buy or rent residential property on $/sqft terms, although for commercial real estate it is common. Imagine if it wasn't a case where you "couldn't afford a similar place" but rather "a similar place doesn't exist". You need to account for variables other than cost and square footage. \_ A similar place to my suburban home does not exist in SF in that sense, true. But to get the same size yard, two car garage, space on all sides of the structure, etc, would cost me $1.5m to $2m or so when I last checked a few years ago. If I had that much money for housing I'd leave the state. And yes it pretty much comes down to $/sqft. That is the easiest way to measure the price of a home compared to other homes. That is *the* major factor for comping a house in an area. You don't comp against a different sized home. \_ Your last sentence is exactly why $/sqft doesn't matter so much. You don't comp against a different sized home. Within a class of housing it makes sense to compare in $/sqft, but not otherwise. I would argue that you cannot comp a house in SF to one in Mill Valley based on $/sqft. \_ Why do you claim that? Do you really think there are no houses the same size as the houses in Mill Valley? If you really believe that, you don't really know much about the SF really know anything about the SF housing stock. Comp Forest Hill or St. Francis Wood vs. Mill Valley. \_ No, it's because other factors come into play. No appraiser would choose SF houses as comps for Mill Valley houses even if they were the same size. they were the same size. In fact, he might not compare two houses in Mill Valley by size alone. My appraisal teacher gave an example of a 6,000 sqft. house built by a retired couple that only had two bathrooms: a massive master bath and a powder room downstairs. The house appraised at much less per sqft. than most other houses the same size. This is an example why pricing per sqft. does not make sense for residential real estate. For warehouse space, say, it makes perfect sense. \_ So warehouse space is worth the same in Oakland as in Marin? same in Oakland as in Marin, per square foot? \_ I'm sure it's fairly close, except Oakland might cost more if it's associated with shipping but then that's a feature. \_ I would be astonished if that were the case, since the land is worth so much more in Marin and rents are so much higher there: http://www.csua.org/u/kf7 Oakland data from NAI: http://www.csua.org/u/kf8 Bulk warehouse rent - $5/sq ft Industrial land price is $300-750 k/acre http://www.csua.org/u/kf9 SF data from NAI: Bulk warehouse rent - $9/sq ft Land price - $1.6-6M/acre Marin data from NAI: http://www.csua.org/u/kfa Warehouse rent - $14/sq ft Land - 800k-$1.3M \_ What is there about your suburban home that makes it so unique that there are no homes in SF similar? I bet that you are wrong. There are plenty of neighborhoods with big yards, quiet streets, clean, lots of parking, etc. are wrong. There are plenty of homes with big yards, quiet streets, lots of parking etc. \_ Not at any price I would pay and the schools still suck and crime in the city is still higher, etc. With enough money I can get almost anything, but why would I want to spend that much money to get something that is actively worse in important ways? \_ Maybe I need RV or boat parking, equestrian trails, or who knows what I find value in. Maybe being around smelly hippies all the time annoys me or I just don't like fog. \_ You can't pick and choose specific wealthy suburban enclaves and compare them to the neighboring city. If you want to compare suburban San Diego to San Diego proper, include National City and Spring Valley in your calcualtions. San Diego Spring Valley in your calculations. San Diego is kind of a tough one anyway, since La Jolla and Rancho Santa Fe are part of the city proper. There are always going to be some wealthier and some poorer areas in both cities and suburbs, but overall the cities are going to tend to be more desireable and therefore more expensive. more desirable and therefore more expensive. Didn't we already have the billionaire discussion a few months back? Far more billionaires call San Francisco home than the outlying suburbs, though Atherton wins on a per capita basis. Consider that there are 5X as many people living in the SF suburbs than in SF proper though and you can see where people with unlimited resources tend to congregate. The per capita concentration in the Bay Area is much higher in The City than in the suburbs overall, though there are some very prestigious suburbs that appeal to a minority of wealthy people. There was no such thing as a "flight to the suburbs" in most of the world. Do you really think that Parisian suburbs were ever more desireable than the city center? Tokyo? London? desirable than the city center? Tokyo? London? \_ To the royal family the Parisian suburbs were more desirable, and they could live anywhere they wanted. The Japanese royal family didn't live in Tokyo either. You are correct about London. You don't need to include National City or Spring Valley. You just need to look at the top end, because those are the people with choices. Of course poorer people are going to be in Riverside versus Los Angeles. In that sense, proximity to a city does influence value. However, my point is that in most US cities it does get more and more expensive, on average, as one gets closer to the city but only to a point. Malibu is not closer to the urban center than Hollywood. Atherton is not closer to the urban center than the Sunset District. You cannot just assume that the main factor here is proximity to an urban center. It's just *ONE* factor. BTW, Rancho Santa Fe is not part of San Diego proper. La Jolla is, but it's very clearly on the outskirts of town. I would argue that the most desirable property is that which is convenient to a major urban center without actually being in it, although this is changing as more people are moving back to the cities recently. I think with telecommuting becoming more common the trend will again reverse and people will leave the city centers. \_ Well, fundamentally, suburbs are boring. They have had an image as either a good place for raising a family, or perhaps for people who want a quiet life, or want to live closer to nature. Royalty and other famous people or the ultra rich may have different concerns. I've known a lot of people in the south bay area who commute here from SF. Which is crazy. But they do because it's a city they like to live in. There are a lot more things to do and people around. I think this is the historical normal thing. Bad city management policies are probably to blame for the reverse situation. e.g. crime, cleanliness, pollution, transit options and usability, parks that aren't full of hoodlums/homeless, housing programs that backfire, etc. \_ There's a reason so many people who get married and have kids move to the suburbs. Quieter, safer, cleaner, better schools, etc. If you're at that stage of life you're not looking to party all weekend or come back at 3am from a night of clubbing with someone you didn't know an hour earlier. \_ There are plenty of SF neighborhoods that are clean, quiet, safe, have good schools, etc. Just none that are in the price range of your typical suburban commuter. commuter. And they are mostly full of middle aged executives with children. Maybe you would call them "suburbs within a city" but they really aren't. \_ Good schools? So SF has ended their mandatory lottery system for schools and my kids would go to the nearest school like any real city? And what would it cost me to send my kids across town for a randomly chosen school? \_ You can always send your kid to private school, if you can afford it. \_ We don't really have any fundamental disagreement, though I think your characterization of The Versailles as part of the Paris suburbs circa 1700 is off the mark. It was more like a rural village before the King showed up. If you don't think proximity to jobs is the primary determinant to land (and therefore home) value, what do you think *is* the main factor? -PP \_ What you are missing is that both the suburbs and city center are proximate enough that other variables begin to matter more. We aren't talking about LA versus Banning for the most part. We are talking about SF versus Lafayette, both of which are proximate enough that the proximity to jobs is not the prime factor and instead "quality of life" issues dominate. People in Marin, East Bay, Palo Alto, Los Gatos, and so on are close enough to high-paying jobs without having to live in the city proper. In fact, many of those jobs aren't even in the city proper. I would argue that most people who choose to live in SF do so because of lifestyle concerns and not proximity to jobs. In some ways SF is an affluent suburb of Silicon Valley. \_ As someone commuting from the suburbs to the Valley, no, they're not that proximate. I chose to have a nicer home in exchange for 2 hours of driving every day. It is not a trivial commute. If pricing/quality/size was similar to where I am I wouldn't be where I am, I'd be 5 minutes walk from work. \_ Palo Alto and Los Gatos are probably as close (in commute time) to as many high paying jobs as most of The City, but I don't think that is true for most of East Bay or Marin. Your last sentence is not true. Most SF residents work in The City. Do you have any evidence that more people commute from SF->SV than visa versa? Traffic on the 101 would indicate otherwise. \_ I bet a lot of people who live in Palo Alto work within a radius as large as SF, too. So what? In terms of population centers, SF is really more of a suburb than a real city. \_ A suburb to what city? Now you are just babbling. You might be able to make the claim that it is a small city or something but to claim that it is a suburb is just bizarre. \_ San Jose \_ I haven't been part of this discussion, but anyone that would assert that SF is a suburb of San Jose is an idiot. Ditto for someone who would assert that the French court located in Versaille because they preferred to live in a suburb of Paris. Conceptually, suburbs didn't exist until the automobile was invented. -dans \_ Why did they live in Versailles instead of in the city then if not because they preferred it? I also do not think San Jose was a suburb of SF historically, but the way the two cities are trending SJ will eventually dwarf SF. It's already true that the SJ suburbs have almost grown all the way to SF and not vice-versa (SF suburbs growing to SJ). SF is a small city and will eventually be Long Beach to SJ's LA. \_ My point was that Versaille is not a suburb of Paris. As to why the court set up shop in Versaille, I'm not really up on my French history so I can't say, and my hunch is neither are you. And, of course San Jose will dwarf SF. San Jose has room to expand, and San Francisco is constrained to a peninsula. Manhattan is the wealthiest burrough of New York per capita (and possibly overall), but it's not going to grow because it's an island. I don't see Brooklyn or Queens surpassing Manhattan as the cultural or monetary epicenter of New York city... ever. You're going to have a hard time making the argument that San Jose's urban sprawl is somehow going to elevate it to the importance of LA. -dans \_ When I realized I was arguing with an idiot, I stopped. I though of the obvious example of Brooklyn, but why waste my time? -PP \_ Not only is Brooklyn part of NYC proper, but it's clearly adjoined to Manhattan. You should have used New Jersey as an example. However, San Jose is not in a similar situation. It and its suburbs are cities in their own right. In many ways the South Bay is more relevant than SF is and if that trend continues SF will be a wealthy enclave. It is important to note that the growth in the Bay Area is not radiating away from SF. Instead, the growth is radiating from SJ. You might have a point about the limited land area if areas close to SF, but not in SF, were growing. However, that's not really the case. Many of the communities adjacent to SF are not seeing dense growth as a result of proximity to SF. In fact, the population of SF is fairly stagnant. Fairly recently it was actually declining. SF has enough land to be twice its population easily, but it is fading into irrelevancy. I grant you that it is far from there yet, but that is the trend. BTW, Versailles is 10.6 miles from the center of Paris. It's clearly a suburb. In fact, Wikipedia says "Versailles... is now a wealthy suburb of Paris." I only bring this up to illustrate that the allure of suburban living is not directly tied to affordability. Lots of people can afford an equivalent place (in terms of size) in the city and still choose not to live there for other reasons. It is not always true that a city is more desirable (on average) or more expensive than its suburbs. For decades after the construction of highways downtown was a place to avoid, not a place to aspire to live. \_ 10.6 miles today constitutes a suburb, but before the automobile it was full-on rural. \_ Actually 21km which is 13 mi, but who's counting? \_ You're clearly an idiot who's never spent any serious time in New York. -dans \_ I was born and raised there and trying to say that one of the five parts of NYC isn't a part of NYC is just dumb. _______/ \_ Amazing. Not only does your reading comprehension suck, but you're a liar too! AWESOME! -dans |
2007/12/13-20 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:48795 Activity:nil |
12/12 How come sedans don't have rear window wipers? Both SUV's/vans/wagons whose rear windows are more vertical than sedans, and hatchbacks whose rear windows are more horizontal, have rear window wipers. I'd think sedans, being in the middle, should have them too. \_ Good question. Perhaps it is because SUVs are seen as luxuries. \_ "And this rear window is juuuust right!" |
2007/12/11-14 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:48784 Activity:high |
12/11 Are vehicle crash test results reliable? Looking at the crash test video at http://www.ConsumerReports.org/crashtest it looks like the dummies bounces around randomly. Is it reliable to conclude, based on one test run, that a certain vehicle is or is not safe during crashes? \_ I believe they do multiple test runs. Between the auto, legal, insurance and medical industries, car wrecks are a multi-billion dollar event every year. They can afford to wreck a few. Instead of looking at a single video clip and deciding for yourself based on dummies bouncing around, check out the final stats for each vehicle. Or just buy a large SUV if you just want to be sure. \_ Thanks. I already have an SUV. I'm trying to buy a small car to burn less gas. -- OP \_ If you want 'safe' you can't drive a small car. "Kept'n! I kanna break tha lawsuv physics!" \_ If mass was all there were to it, then pickup trucks would be the safest vehicles around, but they aren't. Nowadays, it is more important to have good braking sytems, full surround air bags, etc. Mass helps, but is not the only answer. Don't SUVs roll over alot and kill their occupants that way? http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/articles/106748/article.html \_ There is this paragraph: "Clearly, larger cars tend to have fewer fatalities. But remember to put these figures into perspective. These figures are comparing the differences **per million registered vehicles**." What is it saying? I don't get it. What does it mean by putting the figures into perspective? I don't get it. \_ I think they mean that the most important piece of safety equipment is an alert, capable driver. The smallest car, driven by a skillful driver is safer than a huge SUV driven by an idiot. |
2007/11/12-16 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:48615 Activity:low |
11/12 Anyone can read Japanese here? The mileage ratings for the Japanese Prius range from 27.0km/L to 35.5km/L, which translate to 64mpg to 84mpg. The 2007 US EPA rating for city is only 48mpg. Is the Japanese city driving condition really that different? http://toyota.jp/prius/ecology BTW, what's "10.15 mode" vs. "JC08 mode"? Thanks. \_ Hybrid mileage is a hard thing to measure. EPA recently had to totally change the hybrid rules to make the results more in line with real world usage. Before that the Prius was a lot higher. \_ Just a guess: Japanese pollution emmissions are less stringent and that leads to an increase in fuel economy. \_ Before that the results for non-hybrids cars were a lot higher too. \_ Just a guess: Japanese pollution emissions are less stringent and that leads to an increase in fuel economy. For example, I believe the Subaru WRX was not available in the US for a long time because of pollution emissions. \_ I follow changes to the Corolla engines (not so much with the Prius), and I know that Toyota moved to using direct injection in their Japanese engines in 2003, which results in better gas mileage. They can't do this in the US because gasoline in the US contains far too much sulfur. US gasoline content was slated \_ What are you talking about? My Lexus uses direct injection and so do a lot of other Toyota cars. \_ That was the reason cited *by Toyota* for not using direct injection *in that engine* *at that time*. Running gasoline with high sulfur content in a lean burn direct injection engine leads to sulfur fouling of the catalytic converter. You could get around this with a catalytic converter with a much more expensive catalyst or by changing the fuel/air mix. However, the point holds: this is a concrete example of an engine technology with better mileage in Japan than in the US because of more stringent Japanese environmental regulation. to reduce the sulfur content in 2006 (from 300ppm to 30ppm), but this was postponed indefinitely under pressure from the oil companies. I'd be surprised if that development wasn't in the Prius engine by now. So yes, environmental restrictions are part of the difference in gas mileage between US and Japanese Toyota engines, but it's (at least in part) because of *more* stringent environmental requirements in Japan. Incidentally, in addition to improving gas mileage, the switch to direct injection also increased horsepower and torque in the 2003 Corolla. \_ Cool info. What about Honda Accord engines? Why did they change the engine in 2006/7? It sounds very differently during startup, and revving. \_ I wish American car companies put this much engineering effort into their products, instead of figuring out how to sell the average consumer fucking 100 pound chromed cow ramming barriers on the front of their SUVs. Seriously, who needs that shit? \_ Cool info. What about Honda Accord engines? Why did they change the engine in 2006/7? It sounds very differently during startup, and revving. \_ Men who haven't had good sex in over 10 years and need to overcompensate because otherwise they would have to admit that at half of the reason for that is them. Just ask MR Women-don't-like-sex guy. \_ Yes, and the other half of the reason is that women don't like sex, which you seem to ignore completely. |
2007/11/12-16 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:48610 Activity:nil |
11/12 The smart cars only get 33/40? http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-11-11-smartcar_N.htm \_ My 82 Datsun 720 diesel pickup beats that. -scottyg \_ My whimpy '87 Ford Escort Pony 4-seater used to get 38mpg overall. \_ Under the standard American test environment (fat 300 pound man), yes. \_ That's worse than the Prius which seats 5 (or 4 if you are the standard American size.) \_ Check out the "What about safety?" section. Can a car so tiny really be that safe??? BTW how come our NHTSA doesn't conduct crash tests at 50mph? \_ Because a 50mph crash is going to kill you. Anyone who survives a wreck at those speeds is very lucky someone got them to a good hospital immediately and owes their lives to the first responders. \_ "...... Schembri's team hauled in one that was smashed in the rear in a 50-mph test. There was no intrusion into the passenger compartment." \_ Generally, the larger a vehicle is, the more dangerous it is. \_ huh? The heavier it is, the safer it is to the occupants. It's not safer for the others on the road.... \_ The larger the vehicle, the more dangerous for others and the more likely to get into an accident in the first place since handling will be worse. But once in an accident, the heavier vehicle general is safer. Of course SUVs have more lax safety standards, so ... \_ The Smart Car weighs 2400 pounds, which isn't really all that light. The Yaris weighs less and the Fit and Mini about the same. \_ Smart cars are not bought for gas mileage but for the ability to park anywhere easily I think. \_ No, smart cars are imported for the tiny little Asian people who live in American cities (e.g. San Francisco). These are the same tiny little Asians who like to buy tiny little Hello Kitty toys and have tiny little yuppie Yorkshire Terriers. \_ Uhh dude, EUROPEAN. |
2007/11/12-16 [Transportation/Bicycle, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:48609 Activity:moderate |
11/12 I just started riding bike again, and the joys of maintaining tire pressure are once again mine. Is there a device or compressor out there that can have a fixed cut-off pressure? -emarkp \_ I love Mormons because many of them ride bikes and are very eco-conscious. -libural \_ I just pump the damn thing up until it's really firm. If I notice it's a little slack the next morning, repeat. \_ You aren't talking tires anymore are you? \_ Except for the eight kids thing. \_ At the Shell gas station that I go to, you can set the desired pressure at the pump and it stops autmoatically when it reaches the pressure. I don't know if there are portable ones that you can use for your bike. \_ Ah, never mind. Found one on my own. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000IE0YIQ/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top/105-2878297-2866811 -emarkp \_ Just get a floor pump with a gauge. An air compressor is serious overkill for a bicycle, and won't work as well on Presta valves, which is what you should be using unless you are doing something strange. -tom \_ Bike fanatics prefer presta for accuracy, durability, and other factors. People who bike 1-2 miles a day will most likely not notice any significant difference. \_ How is a Presta valve more accurate or durable? My tires are wide, and I ride about 5 mi/day. -emarkp are wide, and I ride about 50 mi/day. -emarkp \_ If you have to ask... nevermind. \_ Um, I want to know, and haven't seen any claims like that in the comparisons I've found about accuracy or reliability (what does "accuracy" even mean here?) -emarkp \_ Something strange like riding to work on an old bike? What's wrong with Schrader valves? -jrleek Why do I need Presta valves? -jrleek \_ I have a foot pump with a gauge already. And I'm happy with Schrader valves, but I'll take your advice into consideration. The comments about Presta I've seen suggest they're important for narrow tires, and that tubeless mountain bike tires use them. Okay, I don't have either, so I'll stick with Schrader. -emarkp \_ I don't care what valve you use, but I'd recommend just buying a cheap set of non-knobby, narrowish tires if you are riding on the road. Why would you use wide tires? \_ I agree here. Riding on skinny tires is so much easier. On the other hand, if you want a workout, I guess big tires may be good... \_ In San Francisco at least, with all the train tracks and the rough roads, I feel more secure on wide tires. Maybe this is foolish, I don't know. -!pp \_ Well you don't need super-skinny racing tires. Are yours knobby? I think even if you want fatter tires you can use semi-slick or slick ones. Knobs are probably the biggest energy drain. \_ I prefer the wide semi-slick. Primarily because on the side of the road there can be lots of debris, and the wide tires seem to do better with fewer flats. -emarkp \_ Yeah, mine are knobby. Thanks for the info, I think I will switch to some big smooth ones. \_ If you're on the street, get semi-slick. \_ Presta valves simply work better with hand pumps. Having to press in the valve stem isn't a problem when you're using a high-pressure air compressor, but if you're using a tiny hand pump it is sometimes impossible to fill the tire faster than the air leaks out. On the question of tires, wide slick tires are what I would recommend on a commuter. The Schwalbe Big Apple is a great tire, but there are plenty of others. I don't think you need tires narrower than 700x28 unless you're specifically riding for speed. -tom \_ I carry a foot pump in my saddlebags, so I don't care about the resistance of the valve spring. But since the pin on a pump depresses the spring, why would the Presta give any advantage there? -emarkp \_ The ability of the pin on the pump to depress the spring depends on the geometry of the valve stem and the pump; it is far too common to be unable to pump up a Schraeder valve tube with a bike pump, and it's especially a problem when the tire is flat, making it difficult to have the leverage to get the pump on the valve stem. The Presta is just more robust for the application. -tom \_ That makes perfect sense. I've done my roadside repairs before, and agree that it sucks to have a hand pump, and can see that the Schrader could be more of a problem, but haven't don't the roadside fix experience with a Presta valve. That's why I started carrying a foot pump with me. On the other hand, if I were offroad, I wouldn't want to be lugging saddlebags. -emarkp |
2007/11/11-15 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:48602 Activity:nil |
11/11 "A century ago, automobiles were viewed as friends of the environment; they were much cleaner than horses. In 1900, for example, New York City horses deposited over 2.5 million pounds of manure and 60,000 gallons of urine on the streets. About 15,000 dead horses also had to be removed from the city streets each year. The motorcar promised to eliminate such animal waste." Save the environment, drive a car! http://www.commondreams.org/views/070900-104.htm \_ Why didn't anybody win the Nobel Prize for taking carriages around, and lecturing on the Dangers of the Coming Horse Shit Crisis? \_ There was no Nobel Peace Prize back in 1900. \_ It's a good thing our society found a way to recognize prescient Malthusians like Al Gore. Without them, we would all be drowning in horse shit now. \_ Cars today are still much cleaner than horses today. They are just not clean enough. |
2007/10/27-29 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:48461 Activity:low |
10/26 Looks like the suburvan lifestyle is about get a lot more expensive: http://www.csua.org/u/juh "Such pricing strategies could make a car five times more expensive to operate, Heminger said." \_ Well what do ya expect from a jew controlled liberal outlet. As for "... a new poll shows that many Bay Area residents are ready to take those steps [to live in smaller houses, higher gas taxes/tolls]." Sorry buba, but the general rule of thumb is that the more people save in N Cal, the more people will waste in S Cal. In another word, for every unit of Prius driven in N Cal, there will be a near linearly proportional number of Hummers that'll be driven in S Cal. \_ I don't know about road tolls, but higher gas taxes is good because it directly correlates to the amount of CO2 a car produces. I live in Fremont. in Fremont and work in San Mateo. |
2007/10/14-17 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:48312 Activity:nil |
10/13 Bahahahaha like I said before... suburbia, freeways, and driving suck! Fuck you all suburbia loving SUV driving dickheads. You deserve it! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21276017 \_ Must... Troll.. Harder... \_ Yeah, seriously. This was a commercial truck tunnel and had nothing to do with suburbia or SUV's. \_ It does show up how dangerous hydrogen powered cars are! |
2007/9/7-10 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:47928 Activity:nil |
9/7 "Gas Price, Style Drive Small Car Growth" http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070824/small_cars_big_gains.html?.v=4 "Now competitors have upgraded small car interiors and safety systems, and U.S. buyers are responding because the cars are far safer than their predecessors," |
2007/6/18-19 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:47002 Activity:kinda low 92%like:46994 |
6/17 http://preview.tinyurl.com/2gcco8 (okcupid.com) Interesting. This test says I should live in the suburb. Yay! \_ 0 out of 40 in both metrics? Did you do that on purpose? \_ The test says I should live in a "small town". Any example of a small town in the Bay Area? Also, under what classification are the Sunset and Richomd districts in SF? Thanks. \_ I don't think so. The existence of any large city nearby subverts any small town into a suburb. Livermore tries, but it doesn't really work. You can't have a small town economy when everyone works in San Jose. Also, the small town it recommended to me was La Junta, CO, which has a population of < 8000. \_ Livermore isn't a small town, it is a sprawl. Small towns don't sprawl. \_ As I said it didn't, doesn't, work. \_ Not because of San Jose, because they overbuilt it with suburban sprawl. \_ There are plenty of true small towns in the Bay Area. Probably the most notable is Canyon. Sunset and Richmond, I would consider streetcar suburbs. -tom \_ Plenty of small towns on the coast between SF and Santa Cruz \_ And along the Marin coast and in Napa and Sonoma... |
2007/6/18 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46994 Activity:kinda low 92%like:47002 |
6/17 http://www.okcupid.com/tests/describescore?testid=16534455155473404923&category=5 Interesting. This test says I should live in the suburb. Yay! \_ 0 out of 40 in both metrics? Did you do that on purpose? \_ The test says I should live in a "small town". Any example of a small town in the Bay Area? Also, under what classification are the Sunset and Richomd districts in SF? Thanks. \_ I don't think so. The existence of any large city nearby subverts any small town into a suburb. Livermore tries, but it doesn't really work. You can't have a small town economy when everyone works in San Jose. Also, the small town it recommended to me was La Junta, CO, which has a population of < 8000. \_ Livermore isn't a small town, it is a sprawl. Small towns don't sprawl. \_ As I said it didn't, doesn't, work. \_ Not because of San Jose, because they overbuilt it with suburban sprawl. \_ There are plenty of true small towns in the Bay Area. Probably the most notable is Canyon. Sunset and Richmond, I would consider streetcar suburbs. -tom |
2007/6/15-19 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46972 Activity:low |
6/15 Urban sprawl said to create pushy drivers: http://www.csua.org/u/ixm \_ I'm an urbanite myself. Almost every single woman I've met in my life prefer the suburban lifestyle. My mom, my sister, my x-gf, x-x-gf, x-x-x-gf, female co-workers, etc prefer the sense of safety and serenity suburbs provide. I have from time to time debated with them why the urban lifestyle is better-- better utilization of space, more efficient use of energy, more convenience, better community, so on so forth. In the end, I realized that it's pretty pointless telling them my point of view. Most of them grew up in the suburbs and they've long made up their mind that the city is a dump. So go ahead and list top 10 reasons why the city is better. No one is going to change his/her mind. \_ My wife and x-gf both live in Noe Valley. My x-x-gf lives in Rockridge. Most people are just ignorant, not close minded, so if you show them otherwise they might change their minds. My parents thought everyone in San Francisco was stuck up, but after visiting for a while in Noe, they realized that at least in my neighborhood, people are quite friendly. It is also cleaner, safer and quieter than Riverside. Now they are hinting that they would like to move here. This is not necessarily a good thing.... \_ But SF is really a dump. It's too cold even during summer, and too wet. There are too many hills to climb and parking is impossible. If Amerika invests and builds nice cities and better mass transits like the ones in Europe maybe more people would actually want to stay in the city. Until that happens, suburban lifestyle will be prefered in Amerika. \_ Hint: putting a "K" in "American" is not clever. Putting in three of them doesn't make you 3x clever. Carry on. \_ Maybe you should meet women somewhere other than your geek job. |
2007/6/14 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46944 Activity:nil |
6/13 Watch this real 4x4 (not your SUV) climb a rock - vertically. http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=451622&cache=1 Stupid spectators though. |
2007/6/12-15 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46922 Activity:moderate |
6/11 UNC attacker says he's sorry, asks to be released. http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/1491807/?d_full_comments=1&d_comments_page=0#last_comment \_ Automobile drivers go berserk and run people over all the time. I can think of half a dozen in the last year in San Francisco alone. Why does this particular example of insane car driving behavior pique your interest so much? \_ You can name 6 events in the last year in just SF where a driver has "gone berserk and run people over"? \_ Because he asks to be released even thought he claims he's sorry? \_ Yep. Fremont guy who drove around Pac Heights mowing people down last November; the guy who flipped a U-turn after arguing with a guy at 16th and Valencia and then drove up onto the sidewalk, mowing down two people; two different "homicide by automobile" in Bayview and a similar one in The Western Addition. Add to that at least two other hit and runs where the driver mowed someone down and then took off. Oceanview. And at least one more in The Mission back in March 2006 (okay I guess that was more than one year ago) Add to that at least three other hit and runs where the driver mowed someone down and then took off and it is unclear whether the fatality was an accident or deliberate. \_ ok the guy who got ran over in the mission had an altercation with the car owner. but the random ass Fremont dude from really did randomly run over people in pac heights. !op \_ These all look like cases of people who got into fights about something else and used their car as a weapon. If they'd not had a car they'd have used whatever else was at hand. This says nothing about car drivers, but ok. \_ Bullshit. \_ Keep making excuses for homicidial car drivers, that's ok. Why are car vs. pedestrian fatalities in The City up 100% over the last five years, but gun fatalities are not? It must be all those pedestrians "provoking" them, right? They don't call it "road rage" for nothing. \_ Because guns are not easily available while cars are. When you say fatalities are up 100% in the last five years the question should be "What has changed in the last five years?". "Drivers have suddenly all turned insane" is not the likely answer. The term road rage dates back at least to the late 80s when people in LA were shooting each other on the highway. But you'll note they used guns, not their vehicles as weapons. I guess it is easier to just say drivers are all assholes and killers than actually take a series look at the problem. It may even be that the absolute numbers are so low (6 in a year?) that a 100% increase is just a statistical anomaly given how few events there are to count. \- above poster: do you have any ungoogled guesses for how many guns are in private hands in the US? (re: guns not easily avail). i'd appreciate it if you'ld post what your first guess it ... surely doing so anonymously wont cause any embarassment. \_ nothing to do with anything but feel free to continue this line of debate on your own. \_ No one said or even implied that drivers are all assholes and killers. I am glad you are willing to at least consider the possiblity that the 25+ deaths and 1000+ injuries of pedestrians per year at the hands of automobile drivers might be a problem. Acknowledgement of the problem is always the first step. I am kind of amused that you think that multiple homicide by automobile is crazed, but individual target homicide is per year in SF alone at the hands of automobile drivers might be a problem. Acknowledgement of the problem is always the first step. I am kind of amused that you think that multiple homicide by auto is crazed, but individual target homicide is normal. \_ Ok so it is 25 a year. How does that compare with other cities? I never said anything like your last line about multiple vs single target murder. I have no idea where you came up with that. \_ "The City has the fourth-highest rate of pedestrian deaths in the United States for cities of more than 100,000 people." \_ Because he asks to be released even though he claims he's sorry? Yeah, he's really sorry, really. \_ Okay, he is obviously nuts, but so are at least half of people who do this kind of thing. He is kind of amusing, I have to admit. \_ BTW, what happened to the guy who struck and killed a pedestrian in Fremont (which happened to be at walking distance from my home) and then ran over 14 more people in SF? \_ In jail, awaiting trial. one of the women he paralyzed is suing his family. \_ But has he apologized and asked to be released yet? |
2007/6/8-13 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:46893 Activity:moderate |
6/9 Dear hybrid and bike riding fanatics who hate SUVs: What do you think about people driving their RVs across the country, or people who fly planes (with much less miles per jet-A fuels than miles per 87-91 octane fuels for cars), or people who drive high performance sportscars with only 10-15MPG? What about the amount of pollutants an electric car battery (or hybrid car battery) emits and destroys the earth at the end of the battery's lifetime? I'm just trying to understand why liberals think the way they do Thanks for any insight. \_ Hi non-interesting-troll! Commuting daily with your bicycle has nothing to do with the above. Please be funnier. \_ I don't love hybrids or hate SUVs per se. I hate people who have alternatives commute solo over long distance in vehicles with low gas mileage. Also, I hate people who drive SUVs as if they're driving a car, and then complain that SUVs are dangerous. Before the "SUV" era, people drove 4x4s as 4x4s and minivans as minivans, not as cars. I bought my first "SUV" in 1992, and my friends called it a truck. driving cars, and then complain that SUVs are dangerous, forcing manufacturers to "domesticate" SUVs with silly changes like lowering the CG in the expense of ground clearence and body ruggedness. Before the "SUV" era, people drove 4x4s as 4x4s and minivans as minivans, not as cars. I bought my first "SUV" in 1992, and my friends called it a truck. \_ I hate suvs cause I can't see around them. Simple as that. They make the road more dangerous. \_ Agreed. I'm not an enviro-fanatic but I hate SUV's and any other tall vehicles. BMW's also tend to piss me off because they seem to always be driven by assholes. \- a lot of the older driving stereotypes ... BMW drivers, people driving large cars poorly etc are now trumped by people driving cluelessly due to cellphone use. of course a woman in an humvee who isnt a good driver while on a cellphone in downtown sf [i.e. yesterday] is even worse. \_ BMW drivers aren't just bad. They are assholes. Of the won't let you pass, cut you off, don't use turn signal, tailgateing, driving too fast variety. Yes it isn't all of them, but they are higher than the average. \_ I'll let you in on a secret. When you drive a BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, or such, the people in other luxury cars treat you much better. However, what you then face is people in beaters (especially mammoth trucks) being rude to you in all of the ways as described above. You can draw your own conclusions. From where I sit (as someone with a BMW and a Lexus) everyone else seems to drive like jerks and people with luxury cars drive better - mostly because they don't want to total them. The guy in the 1982 Tercel is the idiot going 95 mph and passing on the right and all of the dents in his car prove that he's none too careful. \_ Let me in on a secret. They are still assholes. And yes there is a the young guy in beater car group that I also pay a bit more attention to. BMW drivers tend to be more assholes than Mercedes and Lexuses (except for Lexus SUVs, those are the absolute worst in me experiance.) \_ The reason is that BMW is more of a performance car. Things that you wouldn't try in another car are easily done in a BMW and after driving a while you know what the car can and cannot do. My Lexus is an IS350, which is also a performance car. Many Lexus drivers are driving big sedans that do not handle well. So, while it may look like BMW drivers are being jerks and driving recklessly, we are actually pretty safe, although we sometimes get annoyed at people in cars who cannot keep up. --bmw asshole P.S. I find Pious, er Prius drivers to be the worst and their expressions are so smug I want to beat them to death with their own entrails. \- supposedly the prius problem is they are spending too much time looking at those meters that have nothing to do with driving. and supposedly some also try to spend time "optimizing" ... although i kida wonder on short blocks if some manual transmission drivers drive annoyingly slowly between stops to avoud shifting ... like i'll just drive at 20mph. stops to avoud shifting ... like just driving at 20mph. BTW, i think the reason BMW have a higher proportion of asshole drivers is they market to supposedly "serious" drivers ... which is not who say lexus markets to. And i think it is worth distinguishing between And a think it is worth distinguishing between aggressive and asshole driving. asshole is: not signaling lane changes, tailgating without a good reason, like in heavy traffic, cutting people off, not letting people into a lane when they have been perfectly reasonable [not like somebody freeriding a merge]. i drive quite aggressively but i singal lane changes, dont cut in front of people because i have a low accelleration car. i dont t'gate unless somebody is driving slowly in the fast lane, in which i will do all kinds of things to them except flash my lights (tgate, weave, pass on right, glare at them while passing, cut them off after passing, slam on brakes after cutting off after passing (depends on how obnoxious they were)). i do much less of this when driving with other people in the car because if you have to allocate part of your brain to having a conversation, you should get out of the fast lane and just drive ambient traffic speed. i dont tailgate unless somebody is driving slowly in the fast lane, in which i will do all kinds of things to them except flash my lights (tailgate, weave, pass on right, glare at them while passing, cut them off after passing, slam on brakes after cutting off after passing (depends on how obnoxious they were)). i also dont cut in front of people because i have a low accelleration car. \_ Care to give an example of a thing that is "easily done" in a BMW that you wouldn't try in another car? I like BMWs and all but the reality is that on public roads, whatever maneuvers you may do are probably illegal or dangerous, especially a freeway situation like we're probably thinking about when we think of asshole drivers. Darting into spaces between cars isn't safe; you're getting into people's buffer zones, and if other people made sudden moves like that you could get screwed. \_ Merging, taking turns faster, stopping more quickly, accelerating faster (e.g. when getting on the freeway). In my old Nissan I felt afraid going more than 60 and the handling was terrible. I feel my car has helped me avoid accidents I could not have avoided in my Nissan or Honda. When you're on a winding road and a BMW whooshes by you it's not that the guy is unsafe or an asshole. It's that his car can actually do it. What annoys me is people who drive their old Datsun like it was a Porsche. \_ Merging onto freeways quickly won't generally make people think you're an asshole. It's more the tailgating, cutting off, not letting you merge etc. \_ Can't say I do any of that except maybe tailgate when there's a person driving 45 in the fast lane. \_ You haven't cited a single example of something that's safe in a BMW, but unsafe in a typical Nissan sedan. In your example of a BMW whooshing by on a winding road, no the BMW driver is not being safe. Any time you drive substantially faster than surrounding traffic, you are not driving safely. \_ I drive an Audi TT and do a lot of maneuvering I wouldn't have tried in our Jeep in Chile or with my dad's VW Passat station wagon. It accelerates and brakes very precisely, holds the roads well in curves, and generally gives me more control, say, a family sedan. I know what I can and can't do in it, and hence tend to cut my tolerances closer when, merging or slowing down behind people in front (which can be taken as tailgating.) It gets really dangerous when some asshole becomes huffy that you passed him and starts trying to prove something. -John \_ In general, I think there are limited resources in the world and that if we don't collectively reduce our usage of them, we risk environmental degredation or perhaps even collapse. So I try to tread lightly on the earth. There is also the notion of "Live simply so that other's can simply live" which is to say that my increased consumption of gasoline would tend to raise the price for those who actually need it more than me. Individually, these actions have no effect, but collectively they can be very strong. I don't actually "hate" SUVs, and I think there are rare situations when they are appropriate (say, you and your large family live on an unpaved mountain road) but I do strongly disapprove of people who are wasteful in general. \_ Not all liberals are smart. The fundamental issues are 1. reduce consumption per capita, and 2. have no more than 2 children per household. Car is by far least energy efficient mean of transportation. If you think of it. it's about 2000 pound vehicle design to transport 200 pound cargo. this means more than 90% of energy is used just to carry itself. SUV is worse; Hybrid is fundamentally more efficient than what we got on the table, albeit it is not a miracle. I don't have issue with SUV driver per se, but I have serious issue with our current law, which as it is right now, classifies SUV as a "secondary vehicle" thus does not have the same emission and safety standard as regular passenger cars. Again, I am a "conservative" in a sense that I belive in market solution. This means I 1. oppose any relaxation on refinary / coal fire power plant's emission/exhaust gas 2. oppose any tax break on oil exploration 3. oppose any royalty-free deal that extract fuels out of federal land and 4. oppose any subsidies in so-called bio-disel 5. oppose any tariff on ethanol from Brazil (currently run at 18%). By enforcing emission and environment standard on oil refinary and removing any subsidies from gas exploration, price of gas will be no longer aribitarily low. When gas is $8-10 dollar a gallon, people will find way to conserve energy consumption. The beauty of it is that all sort of alternative energy/transportation innovation will mushroom. And people will get rid of their SUVs, 4000 pound Lexus, and other fuel-inefficient cars and reduce the energy consumption. \_ Isn't it amazing that modesty, thrift and temperance are now considered "liberal" values? \_ There was a time when compassionate toward the poor and needy is considered as a Christian values too... \_ Still is, the difference is, Christians want to actually help, not just feel good about themselves. Government social programs often make things worse. \_ Yeah, and charities have no shortage of volunteers and monetary support, what with 82% of the country being Christian. Yup, good ol' Christian generosity will fix all our social ills. Fuck off. \_ We've had decades of welfare programs and no shortage of social ills. Fuck off. (Besides, who are these people suffering from a charity shortage?) -!ppp \_ If Christians really had this level of moral sophistication they wouldn't need to posit a 'kindergarden universe' where you get spanked eternally if you are bad. \_ The underlying philosophy has little to do with daily living and enactment of core teaching and beliefs but if it makes you feel better to think all Christians are childishly unsophisticated regarding their moral systems then it is still mostly a free country. I prefer not to denegrate an entire class of people based on their harmless belief in fairy tales that tell them to be good to other people. --Atheist \_ me too, but I have serious problem with the fact that federal dollars can go to these religious organizations, and these organizations then turn around discriminate against people of different faith. |
2007/6/4-10 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/PublicTransit] UID:46845 Activity:high |
6/3 Ahh, that good 'ole suburban lifestyle: http://preview.tinyurl.com/28quwx (Washington Post) \_ I spend 20 minutes commuting each way. That's pretty short. Having a short commute is the only way I have time to exercise 1+ hours/day, which is in turn the only reason I'm not completely fat. (I'm only a little bit fat.) I don't know how anyone can live the way this guy did. \_ Plenty of people are fat, stressed and ulcerated. \_ haven't we seen this before? motd necromancy! \_ I think the last one was a NYT article. \_ I live so far from the city my city friends never heard of the place. I also commute < 15 minutes each way, have lunch with my wife at least once a week and work no more than 40 hours a week over time. Just because some people choose to live their lives poorly doesn't mean everyone has. \_ You must work in the same small town where you live. \_ Wait, so you're saying you work between 40 and 80 hrs/wk? What's your average, 60hrs/wk? \_ I mean I have an odd schedule where I work 44 hours one week then 36 hours the next, so 40 hours/week averaged out. It is 9 hours a day M-Th + 8 F, then 9 per day M-Th and Friday off. I haven't done one of those 60-80 hour weeks in a few years. I make a few $K less than I used to but not by much and have a life now. \_ Which company is this? We just started doing this 9/80 schedule as well. \_ To be fair, not everyone has the skills that can give them that kind of job. Tech work is really nice that way. \_ When I used to BART into the city I'd see the same folks every day and chat with a few of them. Mostly they were non- tech people who would have been better off not coming in to the city for work. One guy was a counter guy at a deli shop who drove 30 minutes to BART and then another hour to the city. I don't know what he made but c'mon... counter guy at the deli with a 90 minute commute. \_ Bart time, while still suck, is much less suck when compared to driving. \_ Depends on how many hours/week you get stuck standing the whole way bodily pressed against smelly people. \_ At one job I worked at, I used to always come in late and work late, so I got to know the janitor. Turns out he drove in from Stockton (!) every day and had three kids. He made $17/hr as a janitor in SF and could only make $6.15 in Stockton. I guess 3X your salary is worth a 2+ hr/day commute. \_ Or better would be to move to another state where he could live on $5.25 and not waste 2+ hr/day commuting which he could spend going to school, starting a business or just enjoying time with his family. \_ The cost of living is less in other states, but it is not 1/3 the cost of living in Stockton. This guy was buying his own house, which you can't do on minimum wage anywhere. \_ It isn't just pure cost of living but the value of his time as well. If he spends it commuting it is lost. If he spends it in school or doing something useful he can move up in society and stop working as a janitor or sandwich maker. \_ I think that way and you think that way, but not everyone does. Once you have three kids, your options narrow considerably. \_ Once you have three kids, the *last* thing you should be doing is spending 3 hours a day commuting. -tom \_ Once you have +1 kid you're whipped and your wife will forbid you to make any drastic changes to their lives. I presume you never had kids. \_ Someone deleted my response, but the best thing for the kids is if this guy triples his salary and gives his kids a better lifestyle. Do you think the kids who have parents on welfare (and who are home 100% of the time) are better off? Studies show that education and income correlate to success, not "quality time with the kids", even if that seems illogical. I presume it's because beyond a certain age kids are influenced more by teachers and peers than parents. Getting your kids away from gangsters is worth 3 hours per day commuting. \_ Correlation is not causation. Kids need food, shelter, and good relationships with their parents far more than they need a huge house in Dixon or the latest Transformers toy. -tom \_ You think this janitor is working for a huge house in Dixon and a Transformers toy? What kids need are parents who are able to care for them. That doesn't mean being with them 24/7. Do you think a 3 hour commute is hurting the kids? Maybe a little, but it's a net positive considering the alternative is the dad at home and the kids in the slums. Kids need parents who care, not necessarily parents who are present. \_ reference please. -tom \_ I cannot find the study right now, but it stated that parents' income and education are the TWO most important factors for having successful children with everything else having just a slight effect. Here is one paper that states that the effect of employment of the father is negative, but small. http://tinyurl.com/2bga74 \_ uh, yeah, and how is commuting 3 hours for a minimum-wage job improving parental income or education? You're also reading the study wrong; it says that the effect of father's employment is small--that is, if the father is *unemployed*, there is a small negative effect. It doesn't say anything about an employed father who is spending 12 hours a day working and commuting. The same study also notes that children who experience single parenthood have significantly lower educational attainments. -tom \_ Why is it a choice of 3 hours of commuting to a janitor job vs. welfare and slums? He can work for lower pay in a cheaper place and spend that wasted 3 hours bettering his life so he won't be a friggin janitor forever. \_ As someone else said, nowhere is cheap enough to survive on minimum wage and a lot of the cheapest places are full of redneck hicks, which makes minorities uncomfortable. (I am assuming he is a minority. Please correct me if he is not.) \_ Minimum wage and a family of 4 puts you well below the poverty line which means you're getting piles of government assistance for food and housing, as well as a free education with those 2-3 saved hours a day so you don't have to die as a janitor or sandwich maker. \_ "Piles of government assistance?" \_ If I had 3 kids I'd definitely move far far away from the city. My options would narrow in favor of raising my kids away from such an incredibly negative influence. \_ Even plenty of us who think that The City is an incredibly positive influence would move away, because we wouldn't be able to afford to live here. I am kind of curious, have you ever talked to anyone who was actually born and raised in San Francisco? Most of them seemed to have come out just fine. \_ Yes, I have. What about it? \_ If fine == gay. \- you go past 19th ave, or on top \- you know past 19th ave, or on top of twin peaks, or beyond glen park SF is a very different place from the downtown, marina, pacheights, mission, assland, western add, inner sunset, noe areas. and bayview type areas are in turn different in a different way. like someone i know who grew up in st. francis wood and then was ucb/tridelt, might as well have grown up in menlo park or mill valley. although i think people form danville or saratoga are a little different. \_ While it may not be true of all large cities, I've met disproportionately larger number of SF born/raised people who didn't know how to swim or ride a bike. While this doesn't make them "not fine," it does give them slightly different background with which to view the world. |
2007/5/26-30 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46764 Activity:kinda low |
5/26 Will people start to tolerate living in the city more as gas prices increase, or will they stick to the same suburban lifestyle that they've grown accostomed to for many generations? In another word will the price of traveling affect the price of my crappy city home due to the natural laws of supply/demand? \_ Most people worldwide prefer to live in cities, so I guess I don't understand your question. It depends a lot on why your city home is crappy. Is it poorly maintained or something? \_ If you didn't understand the question, what was the thing that "depends a lot on why your city home is crappy" you're talking about? \_ Yeah, I have a similar problem I need to ask the MOTD about. I bought a crappy city home, with neighbors on both sides of me, a tiny lot and no garage, about four years ago. I looked on zillow and now it is worth $600k more than I paid for it! Should I sell it, along with its ten minute commute, walking distance to stores, cafes, restaurants and my daughter's school and move to beautiful suburban Antioch, where I can get a nice big 4 bedroom, 2 bath home on a big lot with just the equity in my shitty city home? I figure I can buy a nice big Hummer for the 1 hour each way commute. Wouldn't I be much happier if I did that? \_ Go back to your country you fucking Eurotrash. -American \_ If you were serious I'd answer your question but you're not. To the OP, the price of your home already reflects the closeness to jobs, etc. Move the same house to the suburbs and the value would be near-zero. Your entire value is based on short distance to other desirable locations not the place itself. A suburban house here will cost more than a 'crappy city home' in a place like Dallas. Why? Because jobs here are higher paying, etc, and Dallas is dead. Some people are willing to drive or BART into the city to get a nicer home elsewhere. Other people actually live and work in the suburbs and *never* go anywhere near the city and somehow survive, while others never leave the city for any reason if they can at all help it. To each his own. \_ My question is certainly more serious than the OP's. -PP |
2007/5/17-19 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car] UID:46671 Activity:very high |
5/17 What happened to Toyota's Tercel, Paseo and Echo? They all failed? Seems like Toyota's compact models never last long, while the Corolla lasted three decades AFAIK. \_ Toyota == new GM. Look what they just did to the xB. :( \_ Link? What did they do to the xB? \_ http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=3729 short version: 650 lb weight increase, 6 mpg efficiency decrease, cheapened interior, messed up sightlines \_ Wow, that's a pretty damning review. And the price seems really high. Wasn't the whole point of those things to be dirt cheap? \_ Ironically enough, the debacle of the 2nd gen has the prices for the 1st gen models on the used market rising. I think some low mileage models are now going for over asking new. \_ but still as fugly as ever \_ Huh, that DOES sound like GM. I have a theory that much of this trend has to do with lame customer surveys. I'm sure people alwasy say, "It's great, but I wish it was a little bigger." This is my guess as to why the Civic seems to grow every year. \_ Although they keep changing the name every few years, Toyota never seems to stop producing a sub-compact (currently they have the Yaris), so the must still be making money in that market segment. have the Yaris). Perhaps in that market segment one has to keep refreshing models quickly. \_ #t the cheap small/compact car segment aims at young people who will outgrow their ego in 3-4 years for a more luxurious vehicle so while it's important to create a new car that's hip and cheap it's even more important to change their looks and their names every 3-4 years. \_ So the majority of people grow more wasteful as they grow older? I'm not so sure. Though the xB was targetted at "youth," the people I knew that were buying them were elderly or new 30ish families with 1 to 2 children. \_ I am thinking about getting the BRABUS Biturbo coupe. \_ I'm thinking about getting the BRABUS SV12 S Biturbo coupe. Does anybody have one and care to share their experience? \_ Are you talking about Smart? the 2007 model is just out and no one has experience on it. \_ They don't grow more wasteful. They grow up. Things like safety, cargo capacity, and comfort start to count. \_ Yeah, I have three of them, but my garage only fits two so I left it parked on the street, so City Tow got it for having too many parking tickets. \_ they got replaced by yaris |
2007/5/17-19 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46669 Activity:moderate |
5/17 link:www.csua.org/u/ipp "Nationally, for every dollar a working family saves on housing, it spends 77 cents more on transportation." And this does not include the time lost to commuting. Just another reason to live near where you work. \_ Nationally, homes are 1/2 to 1/4 the cost of homes nearby SF, Sunnyvale, San Jose, LA, and pretty much every CA city with jobs. I can move closer to Silicon Valley but I will have to pay 1.2mil for the same home that I can get in Union City for only $695K. CA is totally utterly fucked up. \_ The mentality of the average American Joe/Dim: Why the FUCK would I want to spend $3500/month on rent in the city when I can *buy* a nice suburb home, country living, 3X the size WITH A BACKYARD where kids can play, for only $2500/month mortgage? GO RAIDERS! COSTCO! RIDE SUV!!! \_ You make that sound like a bad thing. It isn't. \_ Damn and here I am willing to pay significantly more for housing AND more for transportation. \_ So the average American makes their money go 23% further by spending less on housing. That is smart. Saving on transportation is the sucker move if your numbers are correct. \_ Factor in "time lost to commuting" and it's a losing proposition. Time spent in a car is time spent getting fat and unhealthy. Thanks to not having a commute, I can work out at least an hour per day, and thanks to that, I'm not fat. Even further, the true cost of carbon emissions during transport are not measured, but probably far exceed your 23%. \_ You are making a big assumption on what transportation costs are going to be like in the future. I am betting that gasoline prices will continue to escalate. |
2007/5/15-17 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Health/Women] UID:46644 Activity:high |
5/15 What's a good city with the convenience of a city (walkable retails, grocery, easily accessible clean young women) and the luxury of a suburbia (new, nice big homes, private, quiet, safe)? Does such a place actually exist? \_ If you can afford a penthouse in Manhattan or Wilshire in LA you'll have a huge place (3500sqft and more) that's quiet, safe, and is close to retails and people (young women). \_ If you can afford a penthouse in Manhattan or Wilshire in LA, you don't have to be close to young women. Young women will come to you. \_ Never heard of such a place. Closest would perhaps be loft housing in a city. \_ Every city has places like that, but you have to be rich to afford to live there. See Pacfic Heights. \_ Vancouver was the closest I've seen to what you describe. They are also in the middle of building a light rail system between downtown and the airport. \_ My home in Fremont is 10min-walk from 99 Ranch and some restaurants. It's 1500sqft and it's probably worth $600k now. Don't know about accessibility of clean young women. \_ Seconded. Walkable, close to mass transit, great dim-sum, and lots of young & super hot HK women (and wealthy too). \_ My home in Fremont is 10min-walk from 99 Ranch, Walgreens, Albertson's and some restaurants. It's 1500sqft and it's probably worth $600k now. Don't know about accessibility of clean young worth $600k now. Don't know about accessibility of white young women. \_ I'm glad you like Fremont but the positive things you pointed out are not unique to suburbs. Like all the other suburbs it is nice and quiet but it just doesn't match the convenience of a real city. \_ Many homes in the Sunset and Richmond districts in SF are not walkable to grocery stores or restaurants. \_ This is not really true, in that there is no place in the Sunset that is more than 1 mile from a restaurant. But some places are pretty far, so far that walking to your grocery store is not really an option. But everyplace in the Sunset and Richmond has a bus within a few blocks. The Richmond is actually very well served by retail, by the way. \_ generally economics prevent retail and 'new big homes'. single-family homes don't provide the population density for retail places to be profitable within walking distance, for a reasonable definition of 'walking distance'. \_ Cupertino \_ Far from mass transit. Too insulated, you don't meet hot young women. You can't walk to grocery and other retails. Cupertino has all the great amenities of a suburb but it does not have the convenience of a big city. \_ Safeway is like less than 1 mile from my house and Target/Trader Joes/AMC Saratoga are like 1.5 miles from my house as is the Cupertino Library and a bunch of food places on De Anza and Stevens Creek. Generally I can get around w/ my bike and there is plenty of bus service. \_ Yeah but it's not nice to walk/bike around. Busy wide streets and typical huge parking lots. De Anza is not walkable at all. \_ This is a point worth emphasizing; a walking district isn't just "services within walking distance." A street isn't a walking district just because it's not far from a WalMart; when you walk in an urban walking district, you interact with community members and shop owners, see unexpected things, and get pleasure from the simple act of walking. Walking on big streets to big box stores where you buy stuff on auto-pilot and do self-checkout does not replace urban living. -tom \_ Narrow minded. Stupid. Or both. You completely failed to realize that most of the patriotic Americans do not want or care about interactions with strangers and bums in the city, and all the inconveniences that go with urban living like pollution, drugs, crimes, etc. People value safety, privacy, and better quality of living (more living space, newer environment, cleaner) over all those things you mentioned. \_ Spoken steeped in suburban privilege. You are clearly too short for this discussion. \_ HAHAHAHAHA... thanks for the good laugh... \_ You do understand you are asking for contradictory things, right? Walkable with close retail implies high density, while private with big homes implies low density. |
2007/4/30-5/4 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46479 Activity:nil 66%like:46447 |
4/30 Part 2 of the OSC anti-car rant. I liked the last one better. http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-04-15-1.html |
2007/4/25-29 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46447 Activity:kinda low 66%like:46479 |
4/25 All right, an OSC column even motders can enjoy, anti-car rant! http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-04-08-1.html \_ What he's trying to say: "City life is better, healthier, good for the environment, good for civilization, etc etc." What 70% of the Americans will actually hear: "This guy hates my beloved SUV, my mansion and my freedom to choose however I want to live my life. Like a Nazi he is imposing his belief. What a fucking jerk. Go Raiders!!!" \_ I like his conclusion, but I don't understand all his arguments. Under "Get Back That Wasted Time", it sounds like he's saying driving less will give you more free time -- how would that work? Even in Berkeley, which seems pretty close to the city he's envisioning, driving is usually faster than walking or public transit. \_ Not really, or, it depends on where you live in Berkeley. Besides, when you do drive, how much time do you spend driving in Berkeley? In my experience, it was significantly less. \_ His arguments are strange. But usually when people say driving wastes time, they mean that if you carpool as passenger or take public transit, you can read a book, take a nap, do some work on a laptop and so on. BTW, some AC Transit transbay buses have free Wi-Fi. \_ Yeah I think most people would agree that even if walking took somewhat longer, it's "quality time": it's a lot more natural, it's not stressful like driving, it gives you exercise, you can think about or do other things, you can see interesting things along the way. That is unless you live in sweltering hot areas or are walking in car-oriented places that you don't want to be. \_ That's fine if you have time to kick the leaves and smell the flowers. Some people have to be somewhere. \_ The amount of free time you have is a matter of choice. -tom \_ I think in the sort of towns being proposed here, things like scooters and vespas would be practical for some trips. With less and slower traffic they would be safer and more convenient than in sprawl. One could even use... bicycles (gasp). The point is that ideally the places you have to be in daily life won't be so far that it matters. \_ It also includes the fact that if you carpool, you can go on the carpool lane and get there faster. \_ This rox, thanks. -ausman \_ He was doing great right up to the mindless knee jerk attack on Gore. \_ "He agrees with me. He is soooo smart! Oh wait, he attacked my boy! He's a total idiot!!!" \_ You know, this guy only complained about his attack on Gore. He didn't sayhe was a total idiot and that everything else he said was wrong because he attacked Gore. In fact, he said the guy was "doing fine." \_ I think it's pretty clear that the Gore jab (not even really an attack) is there as part of appealing to a broad audience. People who don't like Gore are probably predisposed against this essay's ideas, and anyway the global warming issue has all this political baggage associated with it. By making this argument in an offhand way he avoids possibly stigmatizing himself with a rabid political stance. \_ This is reason #2132 why we'll never solve our environmental problems. |
2007/4/22-25 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46413 Activity:nil |
4/22 "NYC pledges 1 million new trees by 2017" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070422/ap_on_re_us/green_nyc In other news, Californians pledge 1 million new gas-guzzling SUVs and luxury sedans to counter the trees' effect. |
2007/4/21-24 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46402 Activity:nil 90%like:46401 |
4/20 http://urltea.com/enm (marginalrevolution.com) Surprise! The suburbs are BETTER for your social life! \_ "...the apparent tendency of interaction-prone individuals to locate in dense neighborhoods leads to a positive correlation between density and interaction." What a bullshit study. They admit that more social people tend to live in high density living situations and then "correct" for this tendency to come up with the opposite conclusion. \_ I agree with what you are saying, but on the other hand, the idea is to look at only the effects of the neighborhood on social interaction. So you *have* to correct for the individuals. It's not such a useful result because of that, but it would indicate that the interaction-prone individuals may be making a mistake if the intent is to maximize social interaction. They would all be better off moving to the 'burbs. \_ No one knows which correction factor to use. The only way you could actually test for this is to do a controlled study, which human subjects usually object to. |
2007/4/21 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46401 Activity:nil 90%like:46402 |
4/20 http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/11/the_suburbs_are.html Surprise! The suburbs are BETTER for your social life! |
2007/4/20-24 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46389 Activity:nil |
4/20 Why cars suck, reason #48: http://sfgate.com/columnists/lloyd \_ Hello libUral! \_ Hello moron(z - haven't read the article, OP may be a moron too). \_ Yeah, I really liked living in "mixed-use" areas in Korea. I never really understood why Americans wanted to like in giant residential areas. Boring. -jrleek \_ Americans like a lot of space so they can load up their big SUVs with tons of supplies they buy from Costco. They need a lot of space to park their big SUVs. And finally they need a lot of space so they can listen to hip-hop without their neighbors complaining. Why live in the dirty, crammed noisy city when you can have exquisite country living? \_ The city is also fucking expensive, unless it's a shitty slummy area full of violent people. \_ People with long journeys to and from work are systematically worse off and report significantly lower subjective well-being,. Stutzer told me. According to the economic concept of equilibrium, people will move or change jobs to make up for imbalances in compensation. Commute time should be offset by higher pay or lower living costs, or a better standard of living. It is this last category that people apparently have trouble measuring. They tend to overvalue the material fruits of their commute.money, house, prestige.and to undervalue what they.re giving up: sleep, exercise, fun. http://www.csua.org/u/ij3 (New Yorker) |
2007/4/9-12 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46244 Activity:kinda low |
4/9 "At $3.25/gallon, good mileage ranks 22nd as the most important attribute in buying a car." http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/09/autos/pluggedin_taylor_fueleconomy.fortune \_ $3.25 is still too low to change consumer behavior. \_ We should put a $5/gallon tax on it. \_ Agreed, and redirect the tax to development for solar power, geothermal, more efficient cars, or whatever. (Well, maybe not as much as $5, but still.) \_ Agreed (well, maybe not as much as $5), and redirect the tax to R&D for solar power, geothermal, more efficient cars, fixing the atmosphere, or whatever. \_ Not as much? $5 isn't nearly enough. I was being conservative, since it should really be double that to have the desired social engineering effect. If you want to change the people's actions to something more beneficial to the government you have to put punishing taxes on negative behaviours. The carrot of course would be free government bikes for everyone. \_ Get rid of the payroll tax, and tax fuel instead at the same aggregate level. \_ I agree that gasoline tax needs to be raised dramatically. The time to raise it was 15 years ago. However, our politicians were either too stupid, too cowardly, or too corrupt. Now we simply cannot slap on a large tax on gasoline. But gas tax can and should be ramped up at the fastest rate which doesn't screw us up horribly economically. Also, a way needs to be found to make this tax less regressive. \_ No, it is never too late to do the right thing. If we're 15 years behind on this grand social engineering task, if we want to properly control the negative behaviors of the people for the betterment of government, we must increase gas taxes even more to make up for the past weaknesses in this area you pointed out. Raising it $5/gallon would be a good start but to make up for the last 15 years, a $7.5/g increase would take THIRTY years to catch up and that's not even taking inflation into account. Maybe $10/gallon would put us where we need to be and would still take 15 years to catch up. Taxes don't need to be regressive. The earth doesn't care if you're rich or poor. If you are killing the earth, our only home, you must be stopped at any cost. \_ Wow spoken like an ultra earth loving leftist. You realize that no one listens to you when you use the "we must do this because we love earth" tone right? I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that you're not convincing anyone. \_ Strawman. If you don't take care of the planet that hosts your entire civilization you are a fool. I never said we should all kumbaya in a giant tree hugging circle. We should however still put a behavior modifying $10/gal tax out there to stop people like you from destroying all we have. A healthy earth is required for continued human life. How dumb do you have to be to not see that? \_ I believe the number of cup holders ranked 18th in the most important attribute. I suppose once gas lines become the norm again or gas is $10/gallon (whichever comes first) Americans will once again care about fuel efficiency. \_ I care, but only about whether my car gets 40 MPG versus 12 MPG. I don't think most people would alter their choice of car because one gets 28 MPG and the other gets 31 MPG. So in that respect, mileage is not very important. Even though there's a 10% difference in mileage, the placement of cup holders in the car is something that impacts my experience more than enough to offset the difference in mileage. Since most cars are in the mid-20's to 30 MPG range anyway then what does it matter? The people driving 12 MPG or 50 MPG cars are on the fringes of the survey. \_ You are clearly a threat to the planet and must be prosecuted and then executed as an environmental criminal. \_ Sir: the trial is already under way. Executions have already commenced and execution rates will increase year by year. \_ Excellent! But we must execute faster! Faster, I say! \_ what does it matter if my car gets 20 or 26 mpg, when I drive so little. We should focus on usage. Set tight gas quotas and see what that does. \_ what will the quota be and who gets special exemptions from the limit? are you going to arrest people who sell gas on the black market you're creating? |
2007/4/5-7 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:46205 Activity:moderate |
4/5 link:csua.org/u/ie4 mp3 of interview with the woman in the minivan in the critical mass incident (with Armstrong & Getty). Interview starts at 12 minutes in. Sounds like people in Critical Mass caused the problem. I find her believable. -emarkp (I should add A&G are far more reasonable than most people I hear on radio, they're not kool-aid drinkers, etc. And their show is liberally sprinkled with humor.) \_ She drove all the way from Hayward in a premeditated effort to assault and attempt to kill innocent people. Only the brave and noble efforts of a handful of people at peril of losing their very lives stopped this mad woman before she could bring her nefarious plot to it's ultimate and deadly conclusion! \_ Yup, I'm sure planting a kid's birthday celebration to coincide with the Critical Mass day and time, and bringing along another kid and three kids from other families, was part of her planning. \_ ob sarcasm lost upon thee \_ I *thought* I piled it on thick enough that no one could possibly take it at face value. My mistake. \_ So let's see if I have this sequence of events right: Van driver gets stopped by a small group of bicyclists, who are illegally blocking traffic. Van driver decides she is not going to wait 30 seconds and drives around bicyclist and weaves back and forth through cyclists. Cyclists get mad and block her way, probably banging their hands on the sides of her car. She freaks out and deliberately rams a bicyclist blocking her way. At this point, cyclists swarm her car and smash her window. Laws broken by cyclists: malicious mischief, failure to yield Laws broken by car driver: assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder. Hard to side with the felon in this case. \_ That's "a" version of events. It wouldn't fly in a court room but good effort. \_ Don't be so sure of yourself. If the victim in this case steps forward, I bet the DA will file charges. \_ The cops were useless: '"We sit there and they just go right through the red lights," Sgt. Callejas said. "What else can we do? Arrest one rider while 500 keep going?"' \_ The answer to his question is YES. Arrest one, charge him/her, and make it clear that breaking the law is breaking the law even when done as a part of civil disobedience. Do this enough times and the economic penalties will add up. --erikred \_ right, just like they should arrest every driver speeding on the freeway. -tom \_ I didn't think even Tom could equate running a red right or a Stop sign with speeding by 5-10 miles. We're not talking about not doing a hand signal on turn. Running lights/stops is a real hazard. Tom, are you disingenuous or stupid? \_ You think it would be safer to have a dozen different Critical Mass groups because they got split up by lights? The cops don't think that. Running stop signs is not any more of a hazard than speeding is; in both cases, it depends on the context. -tom \_ I think it would be safer if CM followed the laws. Kind of a weird concept, I know. And in both the case of speeding and running red lights/signs, I desire and expect the cops to ticket people and arrest the more excessive cases for all vehicles be they cars, bikes, suvs, wheel chairs, flying saucers dropping spaghetti or anything else. The law already recognises the context by assigning different levels of fines and other punishments for different transgressions. It does not account for context by simply ignoring transgressions. Obviously there are corner cases such as the people doing 120+ fleeing from Mount St. Helens eruption, but I haven't heard of any active volcanos in this region. ;-) \_ speaking of flying saucers, what planet are you living on? -tom \_ obflyingcarrant http://csua.com/?entry=38770 \_ No, but if I zoom past a cop on the highway I expect to get pulled over and nailed with a ticket for a few hundred bucks and a visit to traffic school. Just because there are a lot of people breaking the law at once is no reason to ignore it. It is a basic safety issue. In this case it lead to a smashed van, scared kids, and bad bike PR. It could have been a lot worse. I want to know that if the bikers were justified and we know they were only stopped by the cops how much further could they have gone and still been justified in your mind? Since the driver is claimed to be an attempted killer, wouldn't punching her out be justified? How about nabbing the kids on the spot since she's obviously an unfit parent/guardian? How about flat out murder in self defense leaving her dead on the spot? Where is the line? (I'll answer since I was being rhetorical). The answer is they already crossed the line going as far as they did. Once you open the door to vigilante (in)justice you open a Pandora's Box you can never close again. \_ No, just like they should arrest every driver who runs a red light or stop sign. --erikred \_ You didn't listen apparently. She was waved through by police officers, and as she was in the intersection she was swarmed by bicyclists. She's moving slowly, intentionally remaining slow so they could avoid her. They're riding past, and some are circling her. Then one of them rams her vehicle (she says it looked intentional) and it escalates from there, including people climbing in top of the vehicle, breaking her back window, etc. -emarkp \_ You forgot the part where she rammed a bike, pinning it underneath her car. -ausman \_ Where does this pinning quote come from? I must have missed it. \_ I simply don't believe that claim. She says it never happened, and I have to wonder where the bike went. If my bike were pinned under the car, I certainly wouldn't have gone away without filing a report with the police. -emarkp \_ Well, and how would you have ridden off on it? A wheel or a pedal would almost certainly bend or break. \_ http://www.csua.org/u/ie1 Multiple witnesses, most of whom were not directly involved in the incident, trump one person who has every motivation to lie about her participation. -ausman \_ I don't see "multiple witnesses" on that blog link. I see a blogger speculating "Try this version..." You don't appear to have listened to the interview. There were police at the scene from the beginning, and they don't corroborate this. -emarkp \_ Sorry, wrong link: http://www.csua.org/u/ie6 -ausman \_ I get the sense that this is Bad Driver Syndrome. You're in a car. A few thousand pounds of metal. If there are pedestrians or bicyclists doing things around you, legal or illegal, you are only in control of your car. Sounds like the best thing would have been for her to stop and wait for all others to clear before moving. You don't push your car through any group unless someone's got a gun in your face. --scotsman \_ Sorry, I feel the woman and the cops are more credible. Oh, and I love how the video you link to cuts off before the woman can state her case. -emarkp \_ Where do you see a quote from "the cops"? So far they have been mum. -ausman \_ http://csua.org/u/idl (the first article I posted) I thought I heard that police arrived on the scene at some point during the altercation and didn't do anything about it, though I can't find any link to back that up at the moment, so I may be wrong. -emarkp \_ The policeman does say that he apologized to Ferrando, but does not testify one way or another to the facts surrounding the incident. Though I have to admit, him feeling the need to apologize is pretty damning. -ausman \_ It is funny that this is exactly the kind of vigilante justice that emarkp is advocating down below in the gun control debate. For the record: I have never ridden in SF Critical Mass and only a couple of times in Berkeley (which is a much different vibe anyway). I'm not a supporter of Critical Mass. But I do think that this woman was likely acting like an asshole (possibly due to hysteria, possibly due to just being an asshole), put the lives of others in danger, and in some sense, got what she deserved. The police calling "no foul" is probably the right thing to do. Oh, and Matier and Ross are unscrupulous hacks. -tom \_ Actually, no it's the opposite. I believe the driver had the right to fire in self-defense. -emarkp \_ And the bikes believed they had the right to attack in self-defense. Of course, if everyone were packing heat, they'd always consult with emarkp before trying to shoot anyone. -tom \_ I think you're an idiot tom, and please stop putting words in my mouth. The woman was surrounded by a mob which was attacking her vehicle. I simply don't believe the complaint that any bicycle went under the wheels, and if she'd had a gun and used it, I wouldn't have any complaints. By the way tom, if you're so against vigilante violence, why haven't you condemned the cyclists? -emarkp \_ I don't think it's right that they broke her window. I don't think it's right that she ran into a bike and kept trying to drive through more. -tom \_ More witnesses: http://www.csua.org/u/ieb "McCarthy [driver] said she was intimidated by police when she tried to file a hit-and-run report." police when she tried to file a hit-and-run report." Now that sounds like a reliable witness... \_ "Witnesses also say that the bicyclist who was hit wanted to file a police report, but was told by the officers that the only way to do so would be if they called an ambulance for him, which he would have to pay for." http://www.csua.org/u/iec (SFBG) \_ Where did you get "a small group of bicyclists?" \_ Well, A&G are right about one thing: the "Communist" City Council is not going to outlaw critical mass. The vast majority of San Franciscans are sick and tired of being daily bullied, threatened and intimidated by automobile drivers. And the new Transit Effectiveness Project is going to make it even more expensive and difficult to drive in San Francisco. Which is a good thing. \_ Scare cyclists as you drive every day. Weave toward them, dont give them room etc. Slow down in front of them when they run Stop signs. \_ I worked in the financial district and soma for years. The worst that ever happened was a pickup honking at me while I was rolling an E450 across the street. Maybe this intimidation occurs in some other parts of the city? (No, I didn't drive in so I was always on foot where ever I went). \_ http://www.csua.org/u/ie8 http://http://www.csua.org/u/ie7 http://http://www.csua.org/u/iea http://http://www.csua.org/u/ie9 |
2007/3/26-29 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46093 Activity:nil |
3/26 "As Gas Rises, Flying May Be Cheaper Than Driving" http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Travel/story?id=1905640&page=1 It's an article from a year ago, but it's probably only more true now. \_ If you are 1 person flying has been cheaper for a long time, if you take into account wear and tear on the car. \_ It's amazing that now flying is cheaper even for a party of three. \_ And you get a good upper body workout too. |
2007/2/11-13 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45711 Activity:nil |
2/11 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/14/ING3RIPSO01.DTL "Predictions of the demise of suburbia, choked to death by high gasoline prices, may be greatly exaggerated." \_ We shall see. How many times has Alvin Toffler been used to explain everything. Are jobs really going to move to the suburbs? The only way that would decrease commuting is if they formed sort of "company town" kinds of clusters where everyone lived close to the same big employer. And a lot of the other stuff he claims is happening is bunk, like suburban sprawl in Europe. I personally think that alternative energies will allow Americans to use electric cars to commute, but they will be much smaller, much more efficient cars. And I think that denser communities will still have an advantage in an era of higher energy costs. Haven't densities actually gone up this last decade? Anyone got any hard numbers on this? They certainly have in California. |
2007/1/31-2/6 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:45632 Activity:high |
1/31 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16876281/from/RS.2 I really don't understand this. Instead of increasing mileage why don't Americans just plan ahead for once and build a sustainable city with mass transit and mixed use buildings, instead of big McMansions sprawling wherever land is available? \_ Because we don't point to a spot on a map and say, "Let's build a city there". Life is not SimCity. \_ In Dubai and Singapore it is. \- soon maybe american will have a "second class citizen/ \_ Ok, you're right. If we had a dictatorship and command economy we could do that but it would be a horrible place to live. I'll take sprawl, thanks. \_ Haven't been to Singapore or Geneva or Paris, have you? \_ I've been to Paris. What about it? Are you going to claim Paris was artificially designed in the modern era for public transit and reduced driving a la Sim City? \- in re: Paris, may be of interest: http://www.economist.com/cities/briefing.cfm?city_id=PAR \- if some people see 120min a day in a car as the price for a backyard and lawn, what exactly is your issue with that? \_ I don't have an issue with that at all. I also don't believe it is possible to create a city from scratch a la Sim City in the real world. As for me, I have the yard/lawn and 12 minute commute. 2 hours is for the suckers. \_ You live in the Bay Area? Where do you live and where do you work? \_ I live in the Bay Area, yes. Ok, it isn't always 12 minutes. That's going about 78 mph for all 3 exits. About every 2 months I get stuck in bad traffic and it can take as long as 45 minutes to get home. I've never had heavy traffic going in. \_ 12 minutes door to door? You live right next to a freeway onramp? Do you park right in front of your office? \_ 12 minutes. I live a few residential blocks from the freeway and I park directly in front of my building. On a bad day, I have to park on the side and take the side entrance which adds about 15 feet to my car->desk walk. Seriously, I'm telling you, the 2 hour people are total victims who should just leave the Bay Area if they can't afford a place closer to work. They are obviously not earning enough to make living here worth it. \_ No, but Paris is a compact city and hardly a horrible place to live. It is possible to build transit friendly cities without a dictatorship. I'm a libertarian and I don't give a damn about -/ what other people do. They can fart as loud and as stinky as they want. However, as the population density increases the effect of their actions start to affect others more dramatically. They can fart on the country side-- who cares. But if they fart in a movie theatre, that may create problems for people with a rare but acute condition of asthfartma. Likewise, when they use the public highway for 120min, that person is decreasing the capacity of the highway for everyone else on the road and increasing traffic jam. In another word if every person on the road travels twice as far as they do now, the average time to travel from A->B would more than double for everyone. Libertarianism is great when you're alone. Not so great when you're with other people. In a world that is getting smaller and smaller, every action will have a reaction that is proportion to the population. So do I have an issue with people who want to drive 120min one way? If that person's fucking up my commute, fuck ya. \_ You're no libertarian. Libertarians take responsibility for their lives and don't blame others for their problems. If your commute sucks, move closer to work. If you can't move closer to work, get a job where you can. If you're opposed to increases in population density that infringe on your lifestyle then you're in favor of closed borders, mass deportation, and eventually China style birth control enforcement. You have to make some choices in life. They have chosen to drive 2 hours to work (which I think is insane but it isn't my problem). You chose to live in a place where other people clog up the roads. Move. \_ I already did and my commute is only 20 min one way. However I'm a bit concerned with the amount of gasoline people use and the amount of CO2 they emit which will accelerate the rate of global warming. I'm also very concerned with air pollution and related diseases like asthma which I'm inflicted with. \- you may enjoy reading the article from which the "five boroughs" statistic above comes from: \_ The amount of CO2 procuded by cars is trivial compared to what industry is pumping out. It's like asking home owners to stop watering their lawns to save water when the farmers are using 98% of the state's water. If you want clean air you'll have to move away from other people and not down wind from industry as well. \- YMWTR the article from which the "five boroughs" \- YMER the article from which the "five boroughs" statistic below comes from: http://www.nysun.com/article/47626 n.b. Edward Glaeser is sort of like Steven Levitt, the Freakonomist, except EG is supposed to be an asshole. He has some interesting writing about house prices coming from regulation ... basically lefty, anti-development people living in million dollar SF/berkeley hills houses keeping up prices for those of us with faces pressed up to the bay window.--psb \_ Why should us homeowners ruin our quality of life so that housing is cheaper for you? You can always either buck it up and save and live in a smaller place for while (like we all did) or move. Or rent. \- that was sort of a tongue in cheek comment about liberal hypocrisy and nimby: i.e. cost of "being green" [or otherwise PC ... fair trade coffee, anti chain store] can be imposed on others. [i spend like <10% on income on rent, which is pretty unusual around here, i think, so i wasnt really speakng about me ... i'm doing ok.] the point was a bit deeper: house prices are not fully explained by demand side... "people are paying crazy amounts" but also constrained supply side. read the paper. cant be summarized in the motd. see also actual econ discussion of prop 13 vs the hype. nobody is analysis of prop 13 vs the spin. nobody is saying you should ruin your quality of life, but the issue is one of public policy, e.g. tax deduction for mortgage interest. \_ The fundamental problem with the article you pointed out is the line: "The great problem with being reflexively anti-growth is that development in America is close to being a zero-sum game. New homes are going to be built to meet the needs of a growing population. If you stop development in some areas, you are ensuring more development elsewhere. A failure to develop New York means more homes on the exurban edges of America." This is simply not true. Driving up housing costs in San Francisco does not simply mean that people move to Tracy: some (most) of them leave the area. And it is disingenious to blame bad planning in Pheonix on the residents of another city. They can build a dense, transit oriented city if they like: there are plenty of smaller, dense cities in Europe. \_ Actually Tracy and the surrounding towns have been booming for years so I don't agree with you there. Why should the people in Phoenix be forced to build the kind of city you want? They have what they have, if people want to live there, then they will. If not, they'll move, as you say. \_ The tax deduction allows more people to own homes and encourages home ownership which is a form of financial security. It also let retired people who had no substantial income from being taxed out of their homes. IYO, was prop 13 a good call or bad? It isn't clear from your postings what your personal feelings are on these issues. --curious \- if you email me, i am willing to discuss this with you. --psb \- if you email me, i will discuss this with you. --psb \- soon maybe america will have a "second class citizen/ foriegn worker class" too like S'pore and Dubai! http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Singapore/ForeignWorker34.jpg \- this is kind of a neat statistic: More than one-third of all the public transportation commuters in America live in the five boroughs. \_ Haven't spent much time in New York or San Francisco, have you? \_ I have. New York is unique. Transit in SF sucks. If you want everyone to live in a place designed like SF with SF quality public transit then no thanks, I'll take the smog and sprawl. \_ I take SF transit back and forth to work everyday and I think it is great. It takes me 25 minutes each way and I get to read the newspaper on the way. I live in the outer reaches of SF and work downtown, btw. outer reaches of SF, am gay, and work downtown, btw. \_ What does being gay have to do with commuting? *shakes head* Anyway, glad that works for you, but if you lived in SF it would take you an hour or two to cross the city to the same job. I used to take BART to work and it was great that work was literally right outside a BART station, but all of SF is not next to a BART station. Travel to or from a non-BART area in SF sucks. \_ I didn't put in the "am gay" part, some "funny" guy must have. I actually have children. I *do* live in SF, perhaps you misread me. I have lived in a couple of places in The City, the worst commute I ever had was 45 minutes each way. Part of the reason I decided to buy where I did is because it is well served by transit. The J Church is half a block away. \_ Are you on the down low? \_ Are you looking for a date or something? |
2007/1/24-28 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:45580 Activity:nil |
1/23 Chevy's make your own Tahoe commercial not working out as planned: http://preview.tinyurl.com/phj6h (autoblog.com) Examples: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fp25KotKu9c http://youtube.com/watch?v=XA6dLFrAFlI http://youtube.com/watch?v=4oNedC3j0e4 http://youtube.com/watch?v=X_nwNOEfBTs \_ OLD. |
2007/1/24 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:45576 Activity:moderate |
1/23 User generated Chevy Tahoe commercial: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fp25KotKu9c http://youtube.com/watch?v=XA6dLFrAFlI http://youtube.com/watch?v=4oNedC3j0e4 http://youtube.com/watch?v=X_nwNOEfBTs http://www.autoblog.com/2006/03/31/chevys-make-your-own-tahoe-commercial-not-exactly-going-as-pl |
2007/1/14-23 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car] UID:45530 Activity:nil |
1/14 http://tinyurl.com/y6xjyp WSJ on web vigilantes. Features http://PlateWire.com; http://AboveAverageDriver.com; http://Irate-Driver.com; http://BadDriving.com |
12/24 |