Discussion:
Sustainable Again?
(too old to reply)
Robert Cote
2005-06-04 16:41:09 UTC
Permalink
Maybe they really need a baseball stadium to feel better about
themselves. I guess "sustainable" can mean anything anyone looking for
a handout wants it to mean.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/World-city-demands-a-transport-system
-that-befits-its-status/2005/05/31/1117305622731.html?oneclick=true#

World city demands a transport system that befits its status
June 1, 2005
A sustainable long-term plan is the only way forward, writes Garry
Glazebrook.
Sydney's public transport is in crisis. CityRail's on-time running
plunged to 49 per cent in early 2004, and patronage is down by 4 per
cent since 2001. Trains are 25 per cent slower than in Perth, and will
be even slower with the new September timetable. Westbus went into
liquidation earlier this year and bus patronage in the outer suburbs
has fallen for most of the past decade - 7400 State Transit buses crowd
the city streets each day, causing congestion, delays and loss of
amenity.
Overseas, public transport patronage is expanding in most cities and
its mode share is increasing in many. One hundred cities worldwide have
built new or expanded light rail systems since 1994, and several have
installed guided bus systems or busways. The Mass Transit Railway in
Hong Kong achieves 99.9 per cent on-time running and Shanghai has
installed the world's first Magnetic Levitation system which has a top
speed of 430kmh. Brisbane introduced integrated fares last year and had
a 10 per cent jump in patronage, Perth's rail system has tripled its
passengers in the past decade and is still expanding while Adelaide has
modernised its Glenelg tram line and is extending it across the city.
As Australia's world city, Sydney deserves world-class public
transport, with:

? Significantly improved quality;
? Extensions to new areas and increased capacity;
? The most appropriate modes for particular tasks;
? Smart-card ticketing,
real-time information and high quality interchanges;
? A secure, long-term fund base.
A start has been made, with new trains and buses announced in the
budget and the Clearways program to "free up" the clogged rail system.
The NW transitway and the Epping to Chatswood rail line are under
construction. New interchanges at Parramatta and Chatswood will improve
the connectivity of the system. But lack of a guaranteed funding system
prevents long-term planning. Changes to developer contributions
legislation recently introduced into Parliament can help remedy this,
provided the contributions are reasonable and the funds are set aside
into "sustainable transport funds", backed by maintained budget support
at current (real per capita) levels. For example, a contribution of
$25,000 per new dwelling across the region would raise about $600
million annually. Half should be allocated to a regional fund for an
extended rail system, integrated ticketing, information initiatives and
trialling new systems. The remaining 50 per cent could be divided among
perhaps five regional funds to support local initiatives such as
busways, light rail and cycleways. These funds would be controlled by
regional bodies with representation from Local Government Authorities,
allowing greater integration of land use and transport planning. This
way, long-term plans could put in place a transport system suitable for
Australia's world city. The key to it would be the rail system, which
handles over two-thirds of the 7.6 billion passenger-kilometres on
public transport, provides region-wide accessibility, and enables the
CBD, Parramatta, Chatswood, Hurstville and other centres to exist. A
new vision for Sydney's rail system is needed to match the Bradfield
legacy. This should include extensions to the north-west, south-west
and the Warringah peninsula; higher-speed services to outer suburbs and
more services in the inner suburbs, a new line from Chatswood to
Central to ease congestion, and a simplified and accelerated timetable.
This plan will allow up to 50 per cent more patronage. Coupled with
efficiency improvements and premium fares for premium services, cost
recovery should rise to 50 per cent from the current 27 per cent,
overcoming Treasury's main objection to rail-based transport.

Garry Glazebrook is a transport, urban consultant.
george conklin
2005-06-04 18:20:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Cote
Maybe they really need a baseball stadium to feel better about
themselves. I guess "sustainable" can mean anything anyone looking for
a handout wants it to mean.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/World-city-demands-a-transport-system
-that-befits-its-status/2005/05/31/1117305622731.html?oneclick=true#
World city demands a transport system that befits its status
June 1, 2005
A sustainable long-term plan is the only way forward, writes Garry
Glazebrook.
Sydney's public transport is in crisis.
It is the same rant all over the world. People even in China turn away
from transit when they can.
Jack May
2005-06-04 18:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
It is the same rant all over the world. People even in China turn away
from transit when they can.
Yes, but that means it is bad. A lot of people think that they prove their
intellignce by supporting something that is not used by a lot of people. In
their eyes that makes them "special".

They measure intelligence by rareness rather than being intelligent. It is
a good fall back for people that don't have high intelligence or any other
special capabilities.

After all supporting something different takes no special capabilities or
elevated intelligence. This way even the average and bland can claim to be
special. Don't we all want to be special even if we are not?
george conklin
2005-06-04 23:08:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack May
Post by george conklin
It is the same rant all over the world. People even in China turn away
from transit when they can.
Yes, but that means it is bad. A lot of people think that they prove
their intellignce by supporting something that is not used by a lot of
people. In their eyes that makes them "special".
They measure intelligence by rareness rather than being intelligent. It
is a good fall back for people that don't have high intelligence or any
other special capabilities.
And you obviously have high intelligence...enough to tell everyone else
in the world how to live NOT.
Robert Cote
2005-06-04 19:40:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Maybe they really need a baseball stadium to feel better about
themselves. I guess "sustainable" can mean anything anyone looking for
a handout wants it to mean.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/World-city-demands-a-transport-system
-that-befits-its-status/2005/05/31/1117305622731.html?oneclick=true#
World city demands a transport system that befits its status
June 1, 2005
A sustainable long-term plan is the only way forward, writes Garry
Glazebrook.
Sydney's public transport is in crisis.
It is the same rant all over the world. People even in China turn away
from transit when they can.
The Edifice Complex. My favorite part was summed up by what all our
mothers told us at one time or another; "If your friends were jumping in
front of trains, would you jump too?" Thanks, mom.
george conklin
2005-06-04 23:06:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Cote
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Maybe they really need a baseball stadium to feel better about
themselves. I guess "sustainable" can mean anything anyone looking for
a handout wants it to mean.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/World-city-demands-a-transport-system
-that-befits-its-status/2005/05/31/1117305622731.html?oneclick=true#
World city demands a transport system that befits its status
June 1, 2005
A sustainable long-term plan is the only way forward, writes Garry
Glazebrook.
Sydney's public transport is in crisis.
It is the same rant all over the world. People even in China turn away
from transit when they can.
The Edifice Complex. My favorite part was summed up by what all our
mothers told us at one time or another; "If your friends were jumping in
front of trains, would you jump too?" Thanks, mom.
People turn away from transit because of the high personal costs it puts
on people. It is always easier to go directly where you need to go. There
is no magic behind that.
Baxter
2005-06-04 23:09:33 UTC
Permalink
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
People turn away from transit because of the high personal costs it puts
on people. It is always easier to go directly where you need to go.
There
Post by george conklin
is no magic behind that.
Selfishness and self-centeredness is always easier - but they don't help you
get along with others -- but then, since you're selfish and self-centered,
you don't give a damn about others.
Scott M. Kozel
2005-06-04 23:54:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
People turn away from transit because of the high personal costs it puts
on people. It is always easier to go directly where you need to go. There
is no magic behind that.
Selfishness and self-centeredness is always easier - but they don't help you
get along with others -- but then, since you're selfish and self-centered,
you don't give a damn about others.
Leroy has no rebuttal, so he engages in personal attacks.
george conklin
2005-06-05 11:50:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
People turn away from transit because of the high personal costs it puts
on people. It is always easier to go directly where you need to go.
There
Post by george conklin
is no magic behind that.
Selfishness and self-centeredness is always easier - but they don't help you
get along with others -- but then, since you're selfish and self-centered,
you don't give a damn about others.
Irrelevant comment Baxter.
Scott M. Kozel
2005-06-04 23:56:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Cote
Maybe they really need a baseball stadium to feel better about
themselves. I guess "sustainable" can mean anything anyone looking for
a handout wants it to mean.
"Un-sustainable" is used as a label for whatever the RE/T groups don't like.
d***@yahoo.com
2005-06-08 22:06:32 UTC
Permalink
Unsustainable means that when gas is $300 a barrel those SUV's won't
exactly be rolling.
Robert Cote
2005-06-08 22:45:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Unsustainable means that when gas is $300 a barrel those SUV's won't
exactly be rolling.
Gasoline cannot go to $300/bbl. This is the big fallacy of the
doomsayers. Vehicle fuels can be produced today at far less than
$200/bbl. This sets an upper limit to the energy emergency. At $70
shale oil and tar kick in, at $100 solar displaces enough oil to cover
demand. At $200 we start looking at microwave transmission from
geo-orbit.

SUVs predominately exist because of the misguided intentions of the
eco-advocates. If we kept improving roads and POV mobility as we had
from 1787 to 1973 POVs would be curiosities. The easy metric is tire
sizes. Why did tires reduce diameter for 60 years as we built a
national roads network only to reverse direction at the same time we
stopped investing in roads?

At far less than $300/bbl transit becomes unsustainable.
george conklin
2005-06-09 01:06:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Cote
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Unsustainable means that when gas is $300 a barrel those SUV's won't
exactly be rolling.
Gasoline cannot go to $300/bbl. This is the big fallacy of the
doomsayers. Vehicle fuels can be produced today at far less than
$200/bbl. This sets an upper limit to the energy emergency. At $70
shale oil and tar kick in, at $100 solar displaces enough oil to cover
demand. At $200 we start looking at microwave transmission from
geo-orbit.
No need for any of this. At the current prices The Economist has shown
that we have already DOUBLED the known reserves without looking any further.
Baxter
2005-06-09 01:20:38 UTC
Permalink
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Unsustainable means that when gas is $300 a barrel those SUV's won't
exactly be rolling.
Gasoline cannot go to $300/bbl. This is the big fallacy of the
doomsayers. Vehicle fuels can be produced today at far less than
$200/bbl. This sets an upper limit to the energy emergency. At $70
shale oil and tar kick in, at $100 solar displaces enough oil to cover
demand. At $200 we start looking at microwave transmission from
geo-orbit.
No need for any of this. At the current prices The Economist has shown
that we have already DOUBLED the known reserves without looking any further.
Economists believe in Santa Claus too. Just because they've got a number,
doesn't translate into actual gasoline in the tank.
Robert Cote
2005-06-09 04:53:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Unsustainable means that when gas is $300 a barrel those SUV's won't
exactly be rolling.
Gasoline cannot go to $300/bbl. This is the big fallacy of the
doomsayers. Vehicle fuels can be produced today at far less than
$200/bbl. This sets an upper limit to the energy emergency. At $70
shale oil and tar kick in, at $100 solar displaces enough oil to cover
demand. At $200 we start looking at microwave transmission from
geo-orbit.
No need for any of this. At the current prices The Economist has shown
that we have already DOUBLED the known reserves without looking any
further.
Economists believe in Santa Claus too. Just because they've got a number,
doesn't translate into actual gasoline in the tank.
Sure it does. All over Ventura county long dormant wells are reviving
because $50 oil is worth extracting whereas $25 oil wasn't worth the
effort. There is no $25 oil left here but plenty of $50 oil. Besides,
George didn't say "economists," he said "The Economist." A publication
that does something rare in American media, it reports. The Economist
actually does believe in Santa Claus because they have documented the
Santa Claus Effect for many decades.
george conklin
2005-06-09 11:09:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Cote
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Unsustainable means that when gas is $300 a barrel those SUV's won't
exactly be rolling.
Gasoline cannot go to $300/bbl. This is the big fallacy of the
doomsayers. Vehicle fuels can be produced today at far less than
$200/bbl. This sets an upper limit to the energy emergency. At $70
shale oil and tar kick in, at $100 solar displaces enough oil to cover
demand. At $200 we start looking at microwave transmission from
geo-orbit.
No need for any of this. At the current prices The Economist has shown
that we have already DOUBLED the known reserves without looking any
further.
Economists believe in Santa Claus too. Just because they've got a number,
doesn't translate into actual gasoline in the tank.
Sure it does. All over Ventura county long dormant wells are reviving
because $50 oil is worth extracting whereas $25 oil wasn't worth the
effort. There is no $25 oil left here but plenty of $50 oil. Besides,
George didn't say "economists," he said "The Economist." A publication
that does something rare in American media, it reports. The Economist
actually does believe in Santa Claus because they have documented the
Santa Claus Effect for many decades.
Baxter cannot understand that sometimes things do work out. He is the
Grinch.
Robert Cote
2005-06-09 13:17:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Unsustainable means that when gas is $300 a barrel those SUV's won't
exactly be rolling.
Gasoline cannot go to $300/bbl. This is the big fallacy of the
doomsayers. Vehicle fuels can be produced today at far less than
$200/bbl. This sets an upper limit to the energy emergency. At $70
shale oil and tar kick in, at $100 solar displaces enough oil to cover
demand. At $200 we start looking at microwave transmission from
geo-orbit.
No need for any of this. At the current prices The Economist has shown
that we have already DOUBLED the known reserves without looking any
further.
Economists believe in Santa Claus too. Just because they've got a number,
doesn't translate into actual gasoline in the tank.
Sure it does. All over Ventura county long dormant wells are reviving
because $50 oil is worth extracting whereas $25 oil wasn't worth the
effort. There is no $25 oil left here but plenty of $50 oil. Besides,
George didn't say "economists," he said "The Economist." A publication
that does something rare in American media, it reports. The Economist
actually does believe in Santa Claus because they have documented the
Santa Claus Effect for many decades.
Baxter cannot understand that sometimes things do work out. He is the
Grinch.
Let's be fair, the Grinch had a heart, albeit a small one. Honest
planners and transit advocates must just seethe as we continue to use
his irresponsible claims to demolish their carefully built world of
myths revolving around transit dependency and a 1920s urban millieu that
never existed.
george conklin
2005-06-09 14:59:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Cote
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
In article
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Unsustainable means that when gas is $300 a barrel those SUV's won't
exactly be rolling.
Gasoline cannot go to $300/bbl. This is the big fallacy of the
doomsayers. Vehicle fuels can be produced today at far less than
$200/bbl. This sets an upper limit to the energy emergency. At $70
shale oil and tar kick in, at $100 solar displaces enough oil to cover
demand. At $200 we start looking at microwave transmission from
geo-orbit.
No need for any of this. At the current prices The Economist has shown
that we have already DOUBLED the known reserves without looking any
further.
Economists believe in Santa Claus too. Just because they've got a number,
doesn't translate into actual gasoline in the tank.
Sure it does. All over Ventura county long dormant wells are reviving
because $50 oil is worth extracting whereas $25 oil wasn't worth the
effort. There is no $25 oil left here but plenty of $50 oil. Besides,
George didn't say "economists," he said "The Economist." A publication
that does something rare in American media, it reports. The Economist
actually does believe in Santa Claus because they have documented the
Santa Claus Effect for many decades.
Baxter cannot understand that sometimes things do work out. He is the
Grinch.
Let's be fair, the Grinch had a heart, albeit a small one. Honest
planners and transit advocates must just seethe as we continue to use
his irresponsible claims to demolish their carefully built world of
myths revolving around transit dependency and a 1920s urban millieu that
never existed.
Never existed. Correct. Planners are trying, in Durham, to turn all
factory buildings (now abandoned) into apartments as 'historical buildings.'
They were historic FACTORIES, not apartments. And they want public parking
garages in one breath, but then transit so they same people can take
transit. The doubletalk never ends when fake history is given to the public
and the city council just loves to raise taxes.
Baxter
2005-06-09 01:23:05 UTC
Permalink
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Robert Cote
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Unsustainable means that when gas is $300 a barrel those SUV's won't
exactly be rolling.
Gasoline cannot go to $300/bbl. This is the big fallacy of the
doomsayers. Vehicle fuels can be produced today at far less than
$200/bbl. This sets an upper limit to the energy emergency. At $70
shale oil and tar kick in, at $100 solar displaces enough oil to cover
demand. At $200 we start looking at microwave transmission from
geo-orbit.
The SUVs will stop rolling long before $300/bbl.
Post by Robert Cote
SUVs predominately exist because of the misguided intentions of the
eco-advocates.
Nope. They exist because of advertising.
Post by Robert Cote
If we kept improving roads and POV mobility as we had
from 1787 to 1973 POVs would be curiosities. The easy metric is tire
sizes. Why did tires reduce diameter for 60 years as we built a
national roads network only to reverse direction at the same time we
stopped investing in roads?
Actually, roads are better now than they've ever been - regardless of you
doomsayers.
Post by Robert Cote
At far less than $300/bbl transit becomes unsustainable.
Clearly content-free hyperbole.
Robert Cote
2005-06-09 04:48:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Unsustainable means that when gas is $300 a barrel those SUV's won't
exactly be rolling.
Gasoline cannot go to $300/bbl. This is the big fallacy of the
doomsayers. Vehicle fuels can be produced today at far less than
$200/bbl. This sets an upper limit to the energy emergency. At $70
shale oil and tar kick in, at $100 solar displaces enough oil to cover
demand. At $200 we start looking at microwave transmission from
geo-orbit.
The SUVs will stop rolling long before $300/bbl.
Silly. $50/bbl --> $2.00 gasoline. $100/bbl --> $4.00 gasoline or less
than in most of Europe.
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
SUVs predominately exist because of the misguided intentions of the
eco-advocates.
Nope. They exist because of advertising.
That's a truly sad view of the world. If anything SUVs exist because of
CAFE requirements.
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
If we kept improving roads and POV mobility as we had
from 1787 to 1973 POVs would be curiosities. The easy metric is tire
sizes. Why did tires reduce diameter for 60 years as we built a
national roads network only to reverse direction at the same time we
stopped investing in roads?
Actually, roads are better now than they've ever been - regardless of you
doomsayers.
That's just plain old denial. The FHWA keeps very careful track and you
are just saying the opposite of what the data indicate. Sad. Sick.
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
At far less than $300/bbl transit becomes unsustainable.
Clearly content-free hyperbole.
Your inability to comprehend the consequences of an energy constrained
transportation environment in no way obviates those resultants. Transit
is far more sensitive to rising operating costs than are POVs. We've
been over this. For instance if the entirety of any additional energy
costs were passed on to the users each increase in fuel would translate
into a 4-8 times greater impact in fare pricing.
george conklin
2005-06-09 11:10:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
Post by d***@yahoo.com
Unsustainable means that when gas is $300 a barrel those SUV's won't
exactly be rolling.
Gasoline cannot go to $300/bbl. This is the big fallacy of the
doomsayers. Vehicle fuels can be produced today at far less than
$200/bbl. This sets an upper limit to the energy emergency. At $70
shale oil and tar kick in, at $100 solar displaces enough oil to cover
demand. At $200 we start looking at microwave transmission from
geo-orbit.
The SUVs will stop rolling long before $300/bbl.
Silly. $50/bbl --> $2.00 gasoline. $100/bbl --> $4.00 gasoline or less
than in most of Europe.
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
SUVs predominately exist because of the misguided intentions of the
eco-advocates.
Nope. They exist because of advertising.
That's a truly sad view of the world. If anything SUVs exist because of
CAFE requirements.
Some of us need SUV's. Baxter needs an enema.
Baxter
2005-06-09 15:36:25 UTC
Permalink
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
That's a truly sad view of the world. If anything SUVs exist because of
CAFE requirements.
Some of us need SUV's. Baxter needs an enema.
Been there, done that. 90% of current SUVs are NOT needed - they never go
off road, and the things they haul could be hauled just as easily by more
efficient vehicles.
Robert Cote
2005-06-09 19:49:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
That's a truly sad view of the world. If anything SUVs exist because of
CAFE requirements.
Some of us need SUV's. Baxter needs an enema.
Been there, done that. 90% of current SUVs are NOT needed - they never go
off road, and the things they haul could be hauled just as easily by more
efficient vehicles.
Which 90% Baxter and who put you in charge?
george conklin
2005-06-09 20:18:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
That's a truly sad view of the world. If anything SUVs exist because of
CAFE requirements.
Some of us need SUV's. Baxter needs an enema.
Been there, done that. 90% of current SUVs are NOT needed - they never go
off road, and the things they haul could be hauled just as easily by more
efficient vehicles.
Which 90% Baxter and who put you in charge?
Planners want to be in charge of everything. Baxter will not stop with
90%.
Robert Cote
2005-06-09 20:53:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
That's a truly sad view of the world. If anything SUVs exist
because of CAFE requirements.
Some of us need SUV's. Baxter needs an enema.
Been there, done that. 90% of current SUVs are NOT needed - they
never go off road, and the things they haul could be hauled just
as easily by more efficient vehicles.
Which 90% Baxter and who put you in charge?
Planners want to be in charge of everything. Baxter will not
stop with 90%.
He and his ilk see no problem with proclaiming 90% of SUVs are not
needed and nothing wrong with their controlling what you can drive.
Baxter just types what all the others are thinking. My SUVs (3) do
indeed spend 80% plus of their time doing what a 4 door sedan could do
but the other 20% would require owning yet another vehicle. This is a
poor use of resources. My driveway is worth $200 per square foot so
that sedan would take up more than $20,000 worth of land in addition to
the energy waste of the factory building yet another vehicle and the
waste of wealth tied up in a vehicle used so little. Oh, look, I'm
talking about transit aren't I? Expensive, little used vehicles that
waste energy and take up valuable space.
george conklin
2005-06-09 21:56:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Cote
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
That's a truly sad view of the world. If anything SUVs exist
because of CAFE requirements.
Some of us need SUV's. Baxter needs an enema.
Been there, done that. 90% of current SUVs are NOT needed - they
never go off road, and the things they haul could be hauled just
as easily by more efficient vehicles.
Which 90% Baxter and who put you in charge?
Planners want to be in charge of everything. Baxter will not
stop with 90%.
He and his ilk see no problem with proclaiming 90% of SUVs are not
needed and nothing wrong with their controlling what you can drive.
Baxter just types what all the others are thinking. My SUVs (3) do
indeed spend 80% plus of their time doing what a 4 door sedan could do
but the other 20% would require owning yet another vehicle. This is a
poor use of resources. My driveway is worth $200 per square foot so
that sedan would take up more than $20,000 worth of land in addition to
the energy waste of the factory building yet another vehicle and the
waste of wealth tied up in a vehicle used so little. Oh, look, I'm
talking about transit aren't I? Expensive, little used vehicles that
waste energy and take up valuable space.
In any case, it is none of Baxter's business. He thinks he is almighty,
but he would end up starving a few billion people to death if he had the
chance.
Robert Cote
2005-06-09 23:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
That's a truly sad view of the world. If anything SUVs exist
because of CAFE requirements.
Some of us need SUV's. Baxter needs an enema.
Been there, done that. 90% of current SUVs are NOT needed - they
never go off road, and the things they haul could be hauled just
as easily by more efficient vehicles.
Which 90% Baxter and who put you in charge?
Planners want to be in charge of everything. Baxter will not
stop with 90%.
He and his ilk see no problem with proclaiming 90% of SUVs are not
needed and nothing wrong with their controlling what you can drive.
Baxter just types what all the others are thinking. My SUVs (3) do
indeed spend 80% plus of their time doing what a 4 door sedan could do
but the other 20% would require owning yet another vehicle. This is a
poor use of resources. My driveway is worth $200 per square foot so
that sedan would take up more than $20,000 worth of land in addition to
the energy waste of the factory building yet another vehicle and the
waste of wealth tied up in a vehicle used so little. Oh, look, I'm
talking about transit aren't I? Expensive, little used vehicles that
waste energy and take up valuable space.
In any case, it is none of Baxter's business. He thinks he is almighty,
but he would end up starving a few billion people to death if he had the
chance.
But you don't understand. You and I don't have degrees in urban
planning therefor it is impossible for us to make our own best decisions
as to best development practices. Did you ever notice the places with
the most planning are the ones with the most problems? coincidence?
Baxter
2005-06-10 01:39:50 UTC
Permalink
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Robert Cote
But you don't understand. You and I don't have degrees in urban
planning therefor it is impossible for us to make our own best decisions
as to best development practices. Did you ever notice the places with
the most planning are the ones with the most problems? coincidence?
-------------
Portland Ranked Nation's Cleanest City
Chicago Takes Bottom Spot

PORTLAND -- Portland tops the list of cleanest cities in the country.

The list, published in the current Reader's Digest issue, ranks the nation's
50 largest metro areas on air and water quality, industrial pollution
levels, Superfund sites and sanitation.

With an average score of 44, Portland was named the cleanest city. Coming in
at No. 2 is San Jose, Calif., with 40.71, followed by Buffalo, N.Y., with
38.29.

Chicago takes up the bottom of the list with an average score of 6.71,
followed by New York City with 8.33 and Pittsburgh with 11.29.

Portland's problems include the stretch of the Willamette River named a
Superfund site, an "ancient and poorly designed" sewer system and industrial
pollution in Multnomah County.

However, the article praised the area for Metro, the urban growth boundary,
public transportation, the Big Pipe Project and Tom McCall Waterfront Park.
http://www.koin.com/news.asp?ID=2957
george conklin
2005-06-10 01:45:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Robert Cote
But you don't understand. You and I don't have degrees in urban
planning therefor it is impossible for us to make our own best decisions
as to best development practices. Did you ever notice the places with
the most planning are the ones with the most problems? coincidence?
-------------
Portland Ranked Nation's Cleanest City
Chicago Takes Bottom Spot
PORTLAND -- Portland tops the list of cleanest cities in the country.
Planners have nothing to do with being clean. Do they collect garbage
too?
Baxter
2005-06-10 05:39:57 UTC
Permalink
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
--
Post by Robert Cote
But you don't understand. You and I don't have degrees in urban
planning therefor it is impossible for us to make our own best decisions
as to best development practices. Did you ever notice the places with
the most planning are the ones with the most problems? coincidence?
-------------
Portland Ranked Nation's Cleanest City
Chicago Takes Bottom Spot
PORTLAND -- Portland tops the list of cleanest cities in the country.
Planners have nothing to do with being clean. Do they collect garbage
too?
Well, yes. Metro is the Portland area, -elected- regional government that
does all the planning in regard to the UGB. One of it's primary
responsibilities is Garbage Collection.

Relax, Conk, we're laughing AT you - not with you.
george conklin
2005-06-10 14:38:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
--
Post by Robert Cote
But you don't understand. You and I don't have degrees in urban
planning therefor it is impossible for us to make our own best
decisions
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
as to best development practices. Did you ever notice the places with
the most planning are the ones with the most problems? coincidence?
-------------
Portland Ranked Nation's Cleanest City
Chicago Takes Bottom Spot
PORTLAND -- Portland tops the list of cleanest cities in the country.
Planners have nothing to do with being clean. Do they collect garbage
too?
Well, yes. Metro is the Portland area, -elected- regional government that
does all the planning in regard to the UGB. One of it's primary
responsibilities is Garbage Collection.
Relax, Conk, we're laughing AT you - not with you.
So planners correct garbage now. It figures. Along with your desire to
starve half of the world's population...maybe even 75%. Such worthy goals
you collect unto yourself.
Robert Cote
2005-06-10 15:18:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
--
Post by Robert Cote
But you don't understand. You and I don't have degrees in urban
planning therefor it is impossible for us to make our own best
decisions
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
as to best development practices. Did you ever notice the places with
the most planning are the ones with the most problems? coincidence?
-------------
Portland Ranked Nation's Cleanest City
Chicago Takes Bottom Spot
PORTLAND -- Portland tops the list of cleanest cities in the country.
Planners have nothing to do with being clean. Do they collect garbage
too?
Well, yes. Metro is the Portland area, -elected- regional government that
does all the planning in regard to the UGB. One of it's primary
responsibilities is Garbage Collection.
Relax, Conk, we're laughing AT you - not with you.
So planners correct garbage now. It figures. Along with your desire to
starve half of the world's population...maybe even 75%. Such worthy goals
you collect unto yourself.
This is all about conclusions in search of justification. Portland was
also recently awarded 2nd most sustainable city (behind SF!). Needless
to say their very high marks for transportation didn't actually address
transportation as measured but their stated goals for transportation.
Baxter
2005-06-10 15:26:43 UTC
Permalink
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
Relax, Conk, we're laughing AT you - not with you.
So planners correct garbage now.
Real planners don't bother with garbage like you.
Post by george conklin
It figures. Along with your desire to
Post by george conklin
starve half of the world's population...maybe even 75%. Such worthy goals
you collect unto yourself.
It's you that wants to consume and not share.
Post by george conklin
This is all about conclusions in search of justification. Portland was
also recently awarded 2nd most sustainable city (behind SF!). Needless
to say their very high marks for transportation didn't actually address
transportation as measured but their stated goals for transportation.
Notice how the Real World is almost 180 degrees from Cote, et al? You'd
think that after being proved wrong so many times they'd re-examine their
ideology. But they won't. They think if they believe hard enough their
ideology will come true. They just don't understand that that would be
Hell.
Robert Cote
2005-06-10 15:48:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
This is all about conclusions in search of justification. Portland was
also recently awarded 2nd most sustainable city (behind SF!). Needless
to say their very high marks for transportation didn't actually address
transportation as measured but their stated goals for transportation.
Notice how the Real World is almost 180 degrees from Cote, et al? You'd
think that after being proved wrong so many times they'd re-examine their
ideology. But they won't. They think if they believe hard enough their
ideology will come true. They just don't understand that that would be
Hell.
I fail to see how my comments could be interpreted thus. I just said
Portland received high marks for sustainabilty and explained how that
rank was measured. Is it 180 degrees from reality to report Portland is
ranked the 2nd most sustainable city? Is it bassakwards to point out
that transportation intent and result are not always the same thing? I
do know that whenever the conversation turns to enumerable criteria the
claims of pro-urbanists evaporate.

As it stands it is mathematically impossible for your claim of Portland
transit contributing to its claimed decrease in greenhouse gases.
george conklin
2005-06-10 16:09:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
This is all about conclusions in search of justification. Portland was
also recently awarded 2nd most sustainable city (behind SF!). Needless
to say their very high marks for transportation didn't actually address
transportation as measured but their stated goals for transportation.
Notice how the Real World is almost 180 degrees from Cote, et al? You'd
think that after being proved wrong so many times they'd re-examine their
ideology. But they won't. They think if they believe hard enough their
ideology will come true. They just don't understand that that would be
Hell.
I fail to see how my comments could be interpreted thus. I just said
Portland received high marks for sustainabilty and explained how that
rank was measured. Is it 180 degrees from reality to report Portland is
ranked the 2nd most sustainable city? Is it bassakwards to point out
that transportation intent and result are not always the same thing? I
do know that whenever the conversation turns to enumerable criteria the
claims of pro-urbanists evaporate.
As it stands it is mathematically impossible for your claim of Portland
transit contributing to its claimed decrease in greenhouse gases.
Baxter is just a flame thrower. How can a city with no children and
just rich retirees and single people be sustainable? They have to import
the children. Sustainable = no children. That is suicide.
Baxter
2005-06-10 19:07:49 UTC
Permalink
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
This is all about conclusions in search of justification. Portland was
also recently awarded 2nd most sustainable city (behind SF!).
Needless
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
to say their very high marks for transportation didn't actually address
transportation as measured but their stated goals for transportation.
Notice how the Real World is almost 180 degrees from Cote, et al?
You'd
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
think that after being proved wrong so many times they'd re-examine their
ideology. But they won't. They think if they believe hard enough their
ideology will come true. They just don't understand that that would be
Hell.
I fail to see how my comments could be interpreted thus. I just said
Portland received high marks for sustainabilty and explained how that
rank was measured. Is it 180 degrees from reality to report Portland is
ranked the 2nd most sustainable city? Is it bassakwards to point out
that transportation intent and result are not always the same thing? I
do know that whenever the conversation turns to enumerable criteria the
claims of pro-urbanists evaporate.
As it stands it is mathematically impossible for your claim of Portland
transit contributing to its claimed decrease in greenhouse gases.
Baxter is just a flame thrower. How can a city with no children and
just rich retirees and single people be sustainable? They have to import
the children. Sustainable = no children. That is suicide.
What makes you think there's no children? Portland is rated as one of the
most child-friendly cities in the US.

As to "sustainable", do note King City somewhat south of Portland - it
really DOES have no children. It's been going for decades with no sign of
faltering.
Robert Cote
2005-06-10 20:04:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Cote
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
This is all about conclusions in search of justification. Portland
was
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
also recently awarded 2nd most sustainable city (behind SF!).
Needless
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
to say their very high marks for transportation didn't actually
address
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
transportation as measured but their stated goals for transportation.
Notice how the Real World is almost 180 degrees from Cote, et al?
You'd
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
think that after being proved wrong so many times they'd re-examine
their
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
ideology. But they won't. They think if they believe hard enough
their
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
ideology will come true. They just don't understand that that would be
Hell.
I fail to see how my comments could be interpreted thus. I just said
Portland received high marks for sustainabilty and explained how that
rank was measured. Is it 180 degrees from reality to report Portland is
ranked the 2nd most sustainable city? Is it bassakwards to point out
that transportation intent and result are not always the same thing? I
do know that whenever the conversation turns to enumerable criteria the
claims of pro-urbanists evaporate.
As it stands it is mathematically impossible for your claim of Portland
transit contributing to its claimed decrease in greenhouse gases.
Baxter is just a flame thrower. How can a city with no children and
just rich retirees and single people be sustainable? They have to import
the children. Sustainable = no children. That is suicide.
What makes you think there's no children?
The Census? The school districts? You know, enumerable sources.
Post by Robert Cote
Portland is rated as one of the
most child-friendly cities in the US.
Exactly the point. Rated clean, rated child-friendly, rated
sustainable. Any other accolades you wish to self assign? I was
wondering if closing the schools early due to lack of funds was used in
the child-friendly calculation?
Post by Robert Cote
As to "sustainable", do note King City somewhat south of Portland - it
really DOES have no children. It's been going for decades with no sign of
faltering.
Oh please, 80% over 65 and you think the population is "stable?" 2000
people in a retirement village is not a "city."
george conklin
2005-06-10 23:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Robert Cote
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
This is all about conclusions in search of justification.
Portland
was
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
also recently awarded 2nd most sustainable city (behind SF!).
Needless
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
to say their very high marks for transportation didn't actually
address
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
transportation as measured but their stated goals for
transportation.
Notice how the Real World is almost 180 degrees from Cote, et al?
You'd
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
think that after being proved wrong so many times they'd re-examine
their
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
ideology. But they won't. They think if they believe hard enough
their
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
ideology will come true. They just don't understand that that would be
Hell.
I fail to see how my comments could be interpreted thus. I just said
Portland received high marks for sustainabilty and explained how that
rank was measured. Is it 180 degrees from reality to report Portland is
ranked the 2nd most sustainable city? Is it bassakwards to point out
that transportation intent and result are not always the same thing?
I
do know that whenever the conversation turns to enumerable criteria the
claims of pro-urbanists evaporate.
As it stands it is mathematically impossible for your claim of Portland
transit contributing to its claimed decrease in greenhouse gases.
Baxter is just a flame thrower. How can a city with no children and
just rich retirees and single people be sustainable? They have to import
the children. Sustainable = no children. That is suicide.
What makes you think there's no children?
The Census? The school districts? You know, enumerable sources.
Post by Robert Cote
Portland is rated as one of the
most child-friendly cities in the US.
Exactly the point. Rated clean, rated child-friendly, rated
sustainable. Any other accolades you wish to self assign? I was
wondering if closing the schools early due to lack of funds was used in
the child-friendly calculation?
Post by Robert Cote
As to "sustainable", do note King City somewhat south of Portland - it
really DOES have no children. It's been going for decades with no sign of
faltering.
Oh please, 80% over 65 and you think the population is "stable?" 2000
people in a retirement village is not a "city."
Old people are what Smart Growth is all about. Smart Growth is childless
growth. Cities that are old and/or single are what planners want. Until
everyone dies of old age.
Baxter
2005-06-11 01:04:43 UTC
Permalink
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
What makes you think there's no children?
The Census? The school districts? You know, enumerable sources.
IOW, none. You can't actually post any reference because you pulled the
claim out of your ass -- as usual.
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Portland is rated as one of the
most child-friendly cities in the US.
Exactly the point. Rated clean, rated child-friendly, rated
sustainable. Any other accolades you wish to self assign?
The accolades were not self-assigned. And you know it.
Post by Robert Cote
I was
wondering if closing the schools early due to lack of funds was used in
the child-friendly calculation?
School support is a State function - not a city function. Besides, the
schools in Oregon are NOT closing early.
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
As to "sustainable", do note King City somewhat south of Portland - it
really DOES have no children. It's been going for decades with no sign of
faltering.
Oh please, 80% over 65 and you think the population is "stable?" 2000
people in a retirement village is not a "city."
It's an Incorporated City. It seems to manage.
Robert Cote
2005-06-11 06:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
What makes you think there's no children?
The Census? The school districts? You know, enumerable sources.
IOW, none. You can't actually post any reference because you pulled the
claim out of your ass -- as usual.
Excuse me but both the Census and your local school districts report the
same thing; lower school aged children. Your denial of both those
sources using gutter language and personal insults doesn't change that.
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Portland is rated as one of the
most child-friendly cities in the US.
Exactly the point. Rated clean, rated child-friendly, rated
sustainable. Any other accolades you wish to self assign?
The accolades were not self-assigned. And you know it.
That's two comments. One about the supposed honors which are indeed
self reported and the second mooted by the first. Sad.
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
I was
wondering if closing the schools early due to lack of funds was used in
the child-friendly calculation?
School support is a State function - not a city function. Besides, the
schools in Oregon are NOT closing early.
Again, two comments but you are in denial if you try to claim the
latter.

Why should anyone listen to someone who cannot stop sigging on top?
Baxter
2005-06-11 15:42:16 UTC
Permalink
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
What makes you think there's no children?
The Census? The school districts? You know, enumerable sources.
IOW, none. You can't actually post any reference because you pulled the
claim out of your ass -- as usual.
Excuse me but both the Census and your local school districts report the
same thing; lower school aged children. Your denial of both those
sources using gutter language and personal insults doesn't change that.
What sources? You still haven't posted a reference to support your claim.
Again; that's because you can't - you can't actually post any reference
because because those sources don't say what you claim. You pulled the
claim out of your ass -- as usual.
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Portland is rated as one of the
most child-friendly cities in the US.
Exactly the point. Rated clean, rated child-friendly, rated
sustainable. Any other accolades you wish to self assign?
The accolades were not self-assigned. And you know it.
That's two comments. One about the supposed honors which are indeed
self reported
Let's see - the latest accolade is from Readers Digest as Reported in the
Oregonian. So you're saying that RD ant the O are part and parcel of the
City of Portland?
Post by Robert Cote
and the second mooted by the first. Sad.
What's sad is your inability to deal with Reality - or is it outright
stupidity?
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
I was
wondering if closing the schools early due to lack of funds was used in
the child-friendly calculation?
School support is a State function - not a city function. Besides, the
schools in Oregon are NOT closing early.
Again, two comments but you are in denial if you try to claim the
latter.
Care to post a reference that gives some detail on those early closures?
Any at all? You didn't. You can't. Because schools in Portland are not
closing early. It's June 11 and Schools here are still in session. Were you
thinking they should be going year-round? It looks like you pulled another
claim out of your ass.
Post by Robert Cote
Why should anyone listen to someone who cannot stop sigging on top?
This is an unmoderated forum. There are not rules. You do NOT get to be in
charge.
Robert Cote
2005-06-11 16:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
What makes you think there's no children?
The Census? The school districts? You know, enumerable sources.
IOW, none. You can't actually post any reference because you pulled the
claim out of your ass -- as usual.
Excuse me but both the Census and your local school districts report the
same thing; lower school aged children. Your denial of both those
sources using gutter language and personal insults doesn't change that.
What sources? You still haven't posted a reference to support your claim.
The Census and your school district -are- sources.
Post by Baxter
Again; that's because you can't - you can't actually post any reference
because because those sources don't say what you claim. You pulled the
claim out of your ass -- as usual.
http://www.pps.k12.or.us/projects-c/facilities/pdf/changing-enrollment.pd
f

http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/01/34000_kids_are_.html

https://saga.pdx.edu/media/p/r/prc_Housing_Portlands_Families.doc

Then again there's also Mayor Potters inaugural speech which refers to
the lack of children as the "canaries in the coal mine" as to the future
health of the city. That's a pdf, html and doc just for variety.

The only question remaining is are you man enough to accept the urls as
evidence that you are wrong and you had no call to be insulting. After
your recent tirade I feel perfectly justified in calling you any number
of nasty vicious hurtful things. I won't because justified or not your
just being left swing in the wind like this will be far more effective.

...
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
Why should anyone listen to someone who cannot stop sigging on top?
This is an unmoderated forum. There are not rules. You do NOT get to be in
charge.
Funny, I was asking a question not moderating behavior but not to worry
I like you just as you are so it isn't even in my own self interest to
get you to change. You on the other hand have set yourself up as in
charge of determining who can drive a SUV. This is a form of self hate
you need to get past before you can get better.
george conklin
2005-06-11 17:44:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
What makes you think there's no children?
The Census? The school districts? You know, enumerable sources.
IOW, none. You can't actually post any reference because you pulled the
claim out of your ass -- as usual.
Excuse me but both the Census and your local school districts report the
same thing; lower school aged children. Your denial of both those
sources using gutter language and personal insults doesn't change that.
What sources? You still haven't posted a reference to support your claim.
The Census and your school district -are- sources.
Post by Baxter
Again; that's because you can't - you can't actually post any reference
because because those sources don't say what you claim. You pulled the
claim out of your ass -- as usual.
http://www.pps.k12.or.us/projects-c/facilities/pdf/changing-enrollment.pd
f
http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/01/34000_kids_are_.html
https://saga.pdx.edu/media/p/r/prc_Housing_Portlands_Families.doc
Then again there's also Mayor Potters inaugural speech which refers to
the lack of children as the "canaries in the coal mine" as to the future
health of the city. That's a pdf, html and doc just for variety.
Urban planning as we know it today is very child hostile.
Baxter
2005-06-11 20:25:22 UTC
Permalink
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Urban planning as we know it today is very child hostile.
Nope. Not even remotely.
george conklin
2005-06-12 00:53:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Urban planning as we know it today is very child hostile.
Nope. Not even remotely.
Portland is the ideal-type, and the brag about how they are closing
schools and attracting retirees and childless couples who want to drink all
night for hookups.
Baxter
2005-06-12 02:53:12 UTC
Permalink
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
--
Post by george conklin
Urban planning as we know it today is very child hostile.
Nope. Not even remotely.
Portland is the ideal-type, and the brag about how they are closing
schools
Everywhere closes a school or two on occasion. Portland is not bragging
about it - but there is a lot of angnst about it.
Post by george conklin
and attracting retirees and childless couples who want to drink all
night for hookups.
I bet your part of the country is doing far more of that than Portland.
Portland is going out of its way to be child-friendly - your area is not
even on the map when it comes to Child-Friendly. Missing in action. Your
school system hires teachers that don't even believe in encyclopedias - much
less text books.
Robert Cote
2005-06-12 04:18:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
--
Post by george conklin
Urban planning as we know it today is very child hostile.
Nope. Not even remotely.
Portland is the ideal-type, and the brag about how they are closing
schools
Everywhere closes a school or two on occasion. Portland is not bragging
about it - but there is a lot of angnst about it.
Post by george conklin
and attracting retirees and childless couples who want to drink all
night for hookups.
I bet your part of the country is doing far more of that than Portland.
Portland is going out of its way to be child-friendly - your area is not
even on the map when it comes to Child-Friendly. Missing in action. Your
school system hires teachers that don't even believe in encyclopedias - much
less text books.
http://carsonessays.homestead.com/229.html

Google: portland little beruit

Google: portland cnn unsafest city

Google: portland development commission corruption

Oh, and you did know the kid friendly designation came from Zero
Population Growth. Even there they dropped to 16th in 3 years.
george conklin
2005-06-12 12:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
--
Post by george conklin
Urban planning as we know it today is very child hostile.
Nope. Not even remotely.
Portland is the ideal-type, and the brag about how they are closing
schools
Everywhere closes a school or two on occasion. Portland is not bragging
about it - but there is a lot of angnst about it.
Post by george conklin
and attracting retirees and childless couples who want to drink all
night for hookups.
I bet your part of the country is doing far more of that than Portland.
Portland is going out of its way to be child-friendly - your area is not
even on the map when it comes to Child-Friendly. Missing in action.
Your
school system hires teachers that don't even believe in encyclopedias - much
less text books.
http://carsonessays.homestead.com/229.html
Google: portland little beruit
Google: portland cnn unsafest city
Google: portland development commission corruption
Oh, and you did know the kid friendly designation came from Zero
Population Growth. Even there they dropped to 16th in 3 years.
How can a child-friendly city not have students and close schools?
Baxter
2005-06-12 20:13:57 UTC
Permalink
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Google: portland little beruit
Political protest
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Google: portland cnn unsafest city
Repeats of Right-wing Ideologue Carson Tucker's -opinion- piece.
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Google: portland development commission corruption
Private Enterprise in action.
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Oh, and you did know the kid friendly designation came from Zero
Population Growth. Even there they dropped to 16th in 3 years.
How can a child-friendly city not have students and close schools?
How is you can't understand that "zero-population growth" does not mean "no
children"? Perhaps you think that not being fat means not eating?
george conklin
2005-06-12 11:57:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
--
Post by george conklin
Urban planning as we know it today is very child hostile.
Nope. Not even remotely.
Portland is the ideal-type, and the brag about how they are closing
schools
Everywhere closes a school or two on occasion. Portland is not bragging
about it - but there is a lot of angnst about it.
Why? Smart Growth is an enviornment which strongly discourages anyone
with children. Do you have children Baxter?
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
and attracting retirees and childless couples who want to drink all
night for hookups.
I bet your part of the country is doing far more of that than Portland.
Portland is going out of its way to be child-friendly - your area is not
even on the map when it comes to Child-Friendly. Missing in action. Your
school system hires teachers that don't even believe in encyclopedias - much
less text books.
Don't be silly Baxter. Teachers here are all state employees, and the
rules the same for the entire state.
Baxter
2005-06-12 20:07:54 UTC
Permalink
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
--
Everywhere closes a school or two on occasion. Portland is not bragging
about it - but there is a lot of angnst about it.
Why? Smart Growth is an enviornment which strongly discourages anyone
with children. Do you have children Baxter?
I guess that comes under the heading of 'things you know that just aren't
so'.
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
I bet your part of the country is doing far more of that than Portland.
Portland is going out of its way to be child-friendly - your area is not
even on the map when it comes to Child-Friendly. Missing in action.
Your
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
school system hires teachers that don't even believe in encyclopedias - much
less text books.
Don't be silly Baxter. Teachers here are all state employees, and the
rules the same for the entire state.
Talk about Central/Big Government! You old communist you!.
DaveW
2005-06-13 18:31:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Urban planning as we know it today is very child hostile.
Nope. Not even remotely.
Portland is the ideal-type, and the brag about how they are closing
schools and attracting retirees and childless couples who want to drink all
night for hookups.
Actually, sounds like a good idea to have at least SOME places that are
relatively child free.

Better would be for parents to raise children so that they are actually
pleasant to be around, but that is exceedingly rare these days.

Oh, and if the childless couples spend all their nights drinking an
hooking up, they won't be childless for long.....

Regards,

DAve

Baxter
2005-06-11 20:24:41 UTC
Permalink
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
What makes you think there's no children?
The Census? The school districts? You know, enumerable sources.
IOW, none. You can't actually post any reference because you pulled the
claim out of your ass -- as usual.
Excuse me but both the Census and your local school districts report the
same thing; lower school aged children. Your denial of both those
sources using gutter language and personal insults doesn't change that.
What sources? You still haven't posted a reference to support your claim.
The Census and your school district -are- sources.
Post by Baxter
Again; that's because you can't - you can't actually post any reference
because because those sources don't say what you claim. You pulled the
claim out of your ass -- as usual.
http://www.pps.k12.or.us/projects-c/facilities/pdf/changing-enrollment.pd
f
http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/01/34000_kids_are_.html
https://saga.pdx.edu/media/p/r/prc_Housing_Portlands_Families.doc
Then again there's also Mayor Potters inaugural speech which refers to
the lack of children as the "canaries in the coal mine" as to the future
health of the city. That's a pdf, html and doc just for variety.
The only question remaining is are you man enough to accept the urls as
evidence that you are wrong and you had no call to be insulting. After
your recent tirade I feel perfectly justified in calling you any number
of nasty vicious hurtful things. I won't because justified or not your
just being left swing in the wind like this will be far more effective.
The real question is why you distort the statistics.
1 - your stats address the "decline" in Portland Public school enrollment -
not in the overall child population of Portland
2 - PPS is now at 1950 levels (so there are a substantial number of
children in Portland)
3 - Private schools and Home Schooling has substantially increased.
4 - none of your statistics answer the question of whether Portland is
substantially different from any other large urban area.

Given your continued and repeated distortion of the statistics, I have every
reason to be insulting to you. Seems only if I get insulting enough do you
offer even the smallist of support for your outrageous and specious claims.
Perhaps that's because your "support" has more holes than a fishnet? But
continue - you make a great object of derision in your attempts to "support"
your claims and arguments.
Robert Cote
2005-06-12 04:23:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
What makes you think there's no children?
The Census? The school districts? You know, enumerable sources.
IOW, none. You can't actually post any reference because you pulled
the
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
claim out of your ass -- as usual.
Excuse me but both the Census and your local school districts report
the
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
same thing; lower school aged children. Your denial of both those
sources using gutter language and personal insults doesn't change
that.
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
What sources? You still haven't posted a reference to support your
claim.
Post by Robert Cote
The Census and your school district -are- sources.
Post by Baxter
Again; that's because you can't - you can't actually post any reference
because because those sources don't say what you claim. You pulled the
claim out of your ass -- as usual.
http://www.pps.k12.or.us/projects-c/facilities/pdf/changing-enrollment.pd
f
http://www.blueoregon.com/2005/01/34000_kids_are_.html
https://saga.pdx.edu/media/p/r/prc_Housing_Portlands_Families.doc
Then again there's also Mayor Potters inaugural speech which refers to
the lack of children as the "canaries in the coal mine" as to the future
health of the city. That's a pdf, html and doc just for variety.
The only question remaining is are you man enough to accept the urls as
evidence that you are wrong and you had no call to be insulting. After
your recent tirade I feel perfectly justified in calling you any number
of nasty vicious hurtful things. I won't because justified or not your
just being left swing in the wind like this will be far more effective.
The real question is why you distort the statistics.
1 - your stats address the "decline" in Portland Public school enrollment -
not in the overall child population of Portland
2 - PPS is now at 1950 levels (so there are a substantial number of
children in Portland)
3 - Private schools and Home Schooling has substantially increased.
4 - none of your statistics answer the question of whether Portland is
substantially different from any other large urban area.
Given your continued and repeated distortion of the statistics, I have every
reason to be insulting to you.
Now that's a new charge. Before you were claiming "you can't actually
post any reference." Now you claim I'm distorting statistics. Wrong
again, I provided statistics but made no commentary whatsoever.
Post by Baxter
Seems only if I get insulting enough do you
offer even the smallist of support for your outrageous and specious claims.
Aren't you being a little hard on your mayor?
Baxter
2005-06-10 19:02:23 UTC
Permalink
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
This is all about conclusions in search of justification. Portland was
also recently awarded 2nd most sustainable city (behind SF!).
Needless
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by Robert Cote
to say their very high marks for transportation didn't actually address
transportation as measured but their stated goals for transportation.
Notice how the Real World is almost 180 degrees from Cote, et al? You'd
think that after being proved wrong so many times they'd re-examine their
ideology. But they won't. They think if they believe hard enough their
ideology will come true. They just don't understand that that would be
Hell.
I fail to see how my comments could be interpreted thus. I just said
Portland received high marks for sustainabilty and explained how that
rank was measured. Is it 180 degrees from reality to report Portland is
ranked the 2nd most sustainable city? Is it bassakwards to point out
that transportation intent and result are not always the same thing? I
do know that whenever the conversation turns to enumerable criteria the
claims of pro-urbanists evaporate.
As it stands it is mathematically impossible for your claim of Portland
transit contributing to its claimed decrease in greenhouse gases.
Cote Baloney! It is impossible from a practical standpoint for transit NOT
to have been a -major- contributor to the decrease in -CO2- recorded in
Portland and Multnomah county. You have few other mechanisms that would
reduce the CO2 emissions.

'Course, you're welcome to provide an account - with a reference or two to
support your accounting.

But you won't. Because you can't. All you can do is beller and rant.
george conklin
2005-06-10 16:07:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
Relax, Conk, we're laughing AT you - not with you.
So planners correct garbage now.
Real planners don't bother with garbage like you.
Post by george conklin
It figures. Along with your desire to
Post by george conklin
starve half of the world's population...maybe even 75%. Such worthy
goals
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
you collect unto yourself.
It's you that wants to consume and not share.
What total drivel Baxter. Share what? Your transit? You want to cut down
forests, not me.
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
This is all about conclusions in search of justification. Portland was
also recently awarded 2nd most sustainable city (behind SF!). Needless
to say their very high marks for transportation didn't actually address
transportation as measured but their stated goals for transportation.
Notice how the Real World is almost 180 degrees from Cote, et al? You'd
think that after being proved wrong so many times they'd re-examine their
ideology. But they won't. They think if they believe hard enough their
ideology will come true. They just don't understand that that would be
Hell.
You want to starve half the world. You think that is a worthy goal? You
think your ideology will come true? You think you ought to starve half the
world? Be my guest. You are a threat to the human race.
Baxter
2005-06-10 19:05:14 UTC
Permalink
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
--
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
Relax, Conk, we're laughing AT you - not with you.
So planners correct garbage now.
Real planners don't bother with garbage like you.
Post by george conklin
It figures. Along with your desire to
Post by george conklin
starve half of the world's population...maybe even 75%. Such worthy
goals
Post by george conklin
Post by george conklin
you collect unto yourself.
It's you that wants to consume and not share.
What total drivel Baxter. Share what? Your transit? You want to cut down
forests, not me.
Nope. My BioCruise software gives every reason to keep the forest and not
cut it down. Cote's claims about my software are entirely bogus.
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
This is all about conclusions in search of justification. Portland was
also recently awarded 2nd most sustainable city (behind SF!). Needless
to say their very high marks for transportation didn't actually address
transportation as measured but their stated goals for transportation.
Notice how the Real World is almost 180 degrees from Cote, et al? You'd
think that after being proved wrong so many times they'd re-examine their
ideology. But they won't. They think if they believe hard enough their
ideology will come true. They just don't understand that that would be
Hell.
You want to starve half the world. You think that is a worthy goal?
You
Post by george conklin
think your ideology will come true? You think you ought to starve half the
world? Be my guest. You are a threat to the human race.
Did you know you can now get fake mud to spray on your SUV so your neighbors
will think you actually use it for its intended purpose?
http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,67794,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_4
Robert Cote
2005-06-10 20:05:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
Did you know you can now get fake mud to spray on your SUV so your neighbors
will think you actually use it for its intended purpose?
http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,67794,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_4
Did you know no one elected you arbiter of "intended purpose?"
george conklin
2005-06-10 23:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Did you know you can now get fake mud to spray on your SUV so your neighbors
will think you actually use it for its intended purpose?
http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,67794,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_4
Did you know no one elected you arbiter of "intended purpose?"
Damn. I just had to pressure wash caked on mud off my Suburban after it
practically sank in the meadow pulling a tractor out of a ditch. In these
parts, you see many Jeeps so covered in mud you wonder if it will ever come
off. A neighbor has a 4-wheel drive truck with chains on all 4 wheels.
Robert Cote
2005-06-10 23:20:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Did you know you can now get fake mud to spray on your SUV so your neighbors
will think you actually use it for its intended purpose?
http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,67794,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_4
Did you know no one elected you arbiter of "intended purpose?"
Damn. I just had to pressure wash caked on mud off my Suburban after it
practically sank in the meadow pulling a tractor out of a ditch. In these
parts, you see many Jeeps so covered in mud you wonder if it will ever come
off. A neighbor has a 4-wheel drive truck with chains on all 4 wheels.
My daughter (14) is never going to live down driving a golf cart into
the mud last week. I was denied access to Mammoth Mountain skiing on
Dec 27th because I -only- had a 2WD SUV. This is a great example of the
urbanist hypocrisy. The urbanist insists upon the "highest and best use"
for any property but objects to anything except the lowest and least use
for anything else.
george conklin
2005-06-11 00:14:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Cote
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Did you know you can now get fake mud to spray on your SUV so your neighbors
will think you actually use it for its intended purpose?
http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,67794,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_4
Did you know no one elected you arbiter of "intended purpose?"
Damn. I just had to pressure wash caked on mud off my Suburban after it
practically sank in the meadow pulling a tractor out of a ditch. In these
parts, you see many Jeeps so covered in mud you wonder if it will ever come
off. A neighbor has a 4-wheel drive truck with chains on all 4 wheels.
My daughter (14) is never going to live down driving a golf cart into
the mud last week. I was denied access to Mammoth Mountain skiing on
Dec 27th because I -only- had a 2WD SUV. This is a great example of the
urbanist hypocrisy. The urbanist insists upon the "highest and best use"
for any property but objects to anything except the lowest and least use
for anything else.
Two years ago I took my 2-wheel-drive Suburban to a Chairman's house for
the annual party. He said, "It is a good thing you had a 4-wheel-drive or
you would not have made it up here." We almost didn't. That evening we got
stuck in our own driveway and walked the rest of the way in. The next day
we got the 4-wheel-drive Suburban and it has saved us many a rescue call. I
drive the .3 miles into the house every day in the low range too. That way
you don't throw rocks all over the place and make the road uneven again.
When that happens, you need a 4-wheel-drive tractor with a box blade.

All this talk about 'saving' farming land is a real hoot. Urbanists have
driven the price of food so low most farmland is useless these days. But
farming is highly polluting and calling farmland something other than rural
industrial land is simply silly. Farmland, growing one crop, is not natural
at all. It is really industrialized use of land to grow food. Trees do not
grow food, as native Americans knew full well. Farming IS development.
Suburban housing is a LESS intensive use of land than either farming or your
famous Portland.
Baxter
2005-06-11 01:00:33 UTC
Permalink
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Did you know you can now get fake mud to spray on your SUV so your neighbors
will think you actually use it for its intended purpose?
http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,67794,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_4
Did you know no one elected you arbiter of "intended purpose?"
Damn. I just had to pressure wash caked on mud off my Suburban after it
practically sank in the meadow pulling a tractor out of a ditch. In these
parts, you see many Jeeps so covered in mud you wonder if it will ever come
off. A neighbor has a 4-wheel drive truck with chains on all 4 wheels.
So, you're in that 10% that actually needs (or can use) a SUV. BFD. That
doesn't justify the other 90%.
george conklin
2005-06-11 10:40:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Did you know you can now get fake mud to spray on your SUV so your neighbors
will think you actually use it for its intended purpose?
http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,67794,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_4
Did you know no one elected you arbiter of "intended purpose?"
Damn. I just had to pressure wash caked on mud off my Suburban after
it
Post by george conklin
practically sank in the meadow pulling a tractor out of a ditch. In these
parts, you see many Jeeps so covered in mud you wonder if it will ever
come
Post by george conklin
off. A neighbor has a 4-wheel drive truck with chains on all 4 wheels.
So, you're in that 10% that actually needs (or can use) a SUV. BFD. That
doesn't justify the other 90%.
Actually this is none of your business.
Baxter
2005-06-11 15:45:30 UTC
Permalink
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Did you know you can now get fake mud to spray on your SUV so your neighbors
will think you actually use it for its intended purpose?
http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,67794,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_4
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Did you know no one elected you arbiter of "intended purpose?"
Damn. I just had to pressure wash caked on mud off my Suburban after
it
Post by george conklin
practically sank in the meadow pulling a tractor out of a ditch. In these
parts, you see many Jeeps so covered in mud you wonder if it will ever
come
Post by george conklin
off. A neighbor has a 4-wheel drive truck with chains on all 4 wheels.
So, you're in that 10% that actually needs (or can use) a SUV. BFD.
That
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
doesn't justify the other 90%.
Actually this is none of your business.
Relax Conk, we're laughing AT you - not with you. Do try some of that fake
mud spray so you won't feel so bad about owning such a useless piece of
junk.
george conklin
2005-06-11 17:44:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Did you know you can now get fake mud to spray on your SUV so your neighbors
will think you actually use it for its intended purpose?
http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,67794,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_4
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Did you know no one elected you arbiter of "intended purpose?"
Damn. I just had to pressure wash caked on mud off my Suburban
after
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
it
Post by george conklin
practically sank in the meadow pulling a tractor out of a ditch. In these
parts, you see many Jeeps so covered in mud you wonder if it will ever
come
Post by george conklin
off. A neighbor has a 4-wheel drive truck with chains on all 4 wheels.
So, you're in that 10% that actually needs (or can use) a SUV. BFD.
That
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
doesn't justify the other 90%.
Actually this is none of your business.
Relax Conk, we're laughing AT you - not with you. Do try some of that fake
mud spray so you won't feel so bad about owning such a useless piece of
junk.
You are not intelligent enough to laugh at yourself.
george conklin
2005-06-10 01:44:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Cote
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
That's a truly sad view of the world. If anything SUVs exist
because of CAFE requirements.
Some of us need SUV's. Baxter needs an enema.
Been there, done that. 90% of current SUVs are NOT needed - they
never go off road, and the things they haul could be hauled just
as easily by more efficient vehicles.
Which 90% Baxter and who put you in charge?
Planners want to be in charge of everything. Baxter will not
stop with 90%.
He and his ilk see no problem with proclaiming 90% of SUVs are not
needed and nothing wrong with their controlling what you can drive.
Baxter just types what all the others are thinking. My SUVs (3) do
indeed spend 80% plus of their time doing what a 4 door sedan could do
but the other 20% would require owning yet another vehicle. This is a
poor use of resources. My driveway is worth $200 per square foot so
that sedan would take up more than $20,000 worth of land in addition to
the energy waste of the factory building yet another vehicle and the
waste of wealth tied up in a vehicle used so little. Oh, look, I'm
talking about transit aren't I? Expensive, little used vehicles that
waste energy and take up valuable space.
In any case, it is none of Baxter's business. He thinks he is almighty,
but he would end up starving a few billion people to death if he had the
chance.
But you don't understand. You and I don't have degrees in urban
planning therefor it is impossible for us to make our own best decisions
as to best development practices. Did you ever notice the places with
the most planning are the ones with the most problems? coincidence?
Planners plan for what they want, not for what mere humans want. They
think the rest of us are stupid.
Baxter
2005-06-10 01:38:01 UTC
Permalink
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Robert Cote
He and his ilk see no problem with proclaiming 90% of SUVs are not
needed and nothing wrong with their controlling what you can drive.
Baxter just types what all the others are thinking. My SUVs (3) do
indeed spend 80% plus of their time doing what a 4 door sedan could do
but the other 20% would require owning yet another vehicle. This is a
poor use of resources. My driveway is worth $200 per square foot so
that sedan would take up more than $20,000 worth of land in addition to
the energy waste of the factory building yet another vehicle and the
waste of wealth tied up in a vehicle used so little. Oh, look, I'm
talking about transit aren't I? Expensive, little used vehicles that
waste energy and take up valuable space.
In any case, it is none of Baxter's business.
It is if it drives up the cost of my gas.
Post by george conklin
He thinks he is almighty,
but he would end up starving a few billion people to death if he had the
chance.
You're the one trying to use up all the resources so that others can't have
them.
Baxter
2005-06-09 15:43:27 UTC
Permalink
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
The SUVs will stop rolling long before $300/bbl.
Silly. $50/bbl --> $2.00 gasoline. $100/bbl --> $4.00 gasoline or less
than in most of Europe.
Which does not disprove my claim.
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Clearly content-free hyperbole.
Your inability to comprehend the consequences of an energy constrained
transportation environment in no way obviates those resultants. Transit
is far more sensitive to rising operating costs than are POVs. We've
been over this. For instance if the entirety of any additional energy
costs were passed on to the users each increase in fuel would translate
into a 4-8 times greater impact in fare pricing.
Article in today's Oregonian (front page) - seems Portland is the first to
show that CO2 emissions can actually be reduced. Portland is now down to
1990 levels - a 13.2% decline (on a per-capita basis). Most major urban
areas show a 17% (0.6% per capita rise).
george conklin
2005-06-09 18:43:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
The SUVs will stop rolling long before $300/bbl.
Silly. $50/bbl --> $2.00 gasoline. $100/bbl --> $4.00 gasoline or less
than in most of Europe.
Which does not disprove my claim.
Post by Robert Cote
Post by Baxter
Clearly content-free hyperbole.
Your inability to comprehend the consequences of an energy constrained
transportation environment in no way obviates those resultants. Transit
is far more sensitive to rising operating costs than are POVs. We've
been over this. For instance if the entirety of any additional energy
costs were passed on to the users each increase in fuel would translate
into a 4-8 times greater impact in fare pricing.
Article in today's Oregonian (front page) - seems Portland is the first to
show that CO2 emissions can actually be reduced. Portland is now down to
1990 levels - a 13.2% decline (on a per-capita basis). Most major urban
areas show a 17% (0.6% per capita rise).
Certainly not due to transit.
Baxter
2005-06-09 20:45:52 UTC
Permalink
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
Article in today's Oregonian (front page) - seems Portland is the first to
show that CO2 emissions can actually be reduced. Portland is now down to
1990 levels - a 13.2% decline (on a per-capita basis). Most major urban
areas show a 17% (0.6% per capita rise).
Certainly not due to transit.
On the contrary - transit in Portland had a very large impact on the decline
in CO2.
Robert Cote
2005-06-09 21:05:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Baxter
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
Article in today's Oregonian (front page) - seems Portland is the first
to
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
show that CO2 emissions can actually be reduced. Portland is now down
to
Post by george conklin
Post by Baxter
1990 levels - a 13.2% decline (on a per-capita basis). Most major urban
areas show a 17% (0.6% per capita rise).
Certainly not due to transit.
On the contrary - transit in Portland had a very large impact on the decline
in CO2.
No mathematically possible. Not possible for more than 0.5% to be due
to transit.
Loading...