San Franciscans Hurl Their Rage at Parking Patrol

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "Clark F Morris" > wrote in message
> >
> > > While George and others are correct in saying that a majority of
> > > families and people want single family dwellings on decent size plots,
> > > there are large numbers of people willing to pay good money to live in
> > > moderate rise (3 - 6 stories) apartments and condominiums.
> >
> > Then they should supply their own parking and not place a burden on
the
> > public as a whole. Besides, most commutes are NOT to downtowns anyway.
>
> Again Conk, yuo have NO idea what you are talking about. Does that
> statement include, SF, Manhattan, Newark? Places like Atlanta,
> Portland, OR, Seattle, Chicago. Boston?

Absolutely. For example, in NYC 85% of the commutes are from suburb to
suburb. That is just for starters.

Opening scene from "Cool Hand Luke".

George Conklin wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > George Conklin wrote:
> > > "Clark F Morris" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > > While George and others are correct in saying that a majority of
> > > > families and people want single family dwellings on decent size plots,
> > > > there are large numbers of people willing to pay good money to live in
> > > > moderate rise (3 - 6 stories) apartments and condominiums.
> > >
> > > Then they should supply their own parking and not place a burden on
> the
> > > public as a whole. Besides, most commutes are NOT to downtowns anyway.
> >
> > Again Conk, yuo have NO idea what you are talking about. Does that
> > statement include, SF, Manhattan, Newark? Places like Atlanta,
> > Portland, OR, Seattle, Chicago. Boston?
>
> Absolutely. For example, in NYC 85% of the commutes are from suburb to
> suburb. That is just for starters.

Nice figure Conk, not withstanding you probably made it up. 85% huh?
Only 15% of commuters go to Newark or Manhattan. Manhattan has a
population of around 1.5 million, it more then doubles every day. Just
like your "proving" no one uses subsidised transit.

That is probably the reason Penn Station and the Path trains are
running empty.

Take care, Randy

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> George Conklin wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> > >
> > > George Conklin wrote:
> > > > "Clark F Morris" > wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > > While George and others are correct in saying that a majority of
> > > > > families and people want single family dwellings on decent size
plots,
> > > > > there are large numbers of people willing to pay good money to
live in
> > > > > moderate rise (3 - 6 stories) apartments and condominiums.
> > > >
> > > > Then they should supply their own parking and not place a burden
on
> > the
> > > > public as a whole. Besides, most commutes are NOT to downtowns
anyway.
> > >
> > > Again Conk, yuo have NO idea what you are talking about. Does that
> > > statement include, SF, Manhattan, Newark? Places like Atlanta,
> > > Portland, OR, Seattle, Chicago. Boston?
> >
> > Absolutely. For example, in NYC 85% of the commutes are from suburb
to
> > suburb. That is just for starters.
>
> Nice figure Conk, not withstanding you probably made it up.

The figure is cited in J. John Palen's textbook, "The Urban World."

"George Conklin" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>

> Absolutely. For example, in NYC 85% of the commutes are from suburb to
> suburb. That is just for starters.

They had a story on the Network News a few weeks ago that 6.3M people per
day and climbing do a reverse commute from NYC out to the suburbs (I think
they said Connecticut) where the jobs have moved with a move out of NYC.

I suspect a lot of those people will eventually give up the 45 minute rail
commute and realize it is time to move out of NYC and move close to their
job. They intervened a young woman that wanted to live in NYC for the night
life.

"Clark F Morris" > wrote in message
...
> On 7 Jan 2007 01:37:07 -0800, "Bo Raxo" >
> wrote:
..
>
> The interesting question is whether any highway solution could work
> for a dense downtown.

Yes there is a very good solution which is expensive but cheaper than
transit. You remove all the stop lights on existing primary streets so flow
is continuous. About ever mile or so you have and under pass or over pass
to cross that street. The interchange is turning off of a street and going
around the block to get on to another road sort of like a freeway
interchange.

These type of "interchanges" exist now in several places but they are not
widespread. I was told by engineer that did the analysis for Santa Clara
county that the approach is the cost effective way to increase capacity they
had ever analyzed.

The large increase in capacity from eliminating the high traffic stop lights
would probably greatly reduce congestion, pollution, gas consumption, and
CO2 at lower cost than transit

Robert Cote once claimed that the purpose of
> commuter rail was to move the parking spaces to the suburbs and there
> is a lot of truth to that. Unless the freeway lanes added are for
> traffic not terminating in San Francisco, all they will do is
> exacerbate the congestion in the central business district by adding
> more cars.

As I said above, the solution are the existing roads in the central business
district.

>While San
> Francisco Muni is better than what is available in much of the
> country, it has gone through a period where reliability was not good.
> I believe that more could be done to make it more useful than it
> currently is.

A lot of the people say that and none of their "solutions" are more than
worthless tiny tweaks instead of new concepts.

Every 1.6 passengers carried into the CBD by transit is
> a car that doesn't have to be parked. Finding ways to cut the cost of
> adding transit service, especially reserved right of way transit, is
> the cheapest way of providing access to a dense CBD.

In SF, over and over again the cost is incredibly high. What you said is
totally wrong and shows you do not understand the problem or the serious
inherent, unsolvable problems of transit.


> While George and others are correct in saying that a majority of
> families and people want single family dwellings on decent size plots,
> there are large numbers of people willing to pay good money to live in
> moderate rise (3 - 6 stories) apartments and condominiums. In some
> areas like San Francisco they do it because of access to good transit
> and other urban amenities.

You just said transit is bad in SF now you say it is good. Which is it.
Transit is not heavily used in SF because it does not meet the needs of
enough people.

In other areas such the area north of
> Highway 102 (4 lane limited access) around exits 2A and 2 in Halifax,
> Nova Scotia, I am not quite certain what the reasoning is. Transit
> access to downtown stinks being only via circuitous routes and not
> that frequent. The buildings are not close to where the major
> cultural or entertainment areas are. My guess from the number of
> these buildings is that 10 - 20 thousand people live in them since
> there are at least 50 of them in a two to three block wide strip that
> is about two miles long. Those more familiar with the area could get
> closer to the actual figures. I am basing it on what I see from the
> highway and the big box centers at exit 2A. Things are a lot more
> complicated than supporters of either road transportation or public
> transportation think they are.

So what, just another one of you wild guesses totally with out any basis for
your guess. Totally worthless.

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> George Conklin wrote:
>> "Clark F Morris" > wrote in message

> Again Conk, yuo have NO idea what you are talking about. Does that
> statement include, SF, Manhattan, Newark? Places like Atlanta,
> Portland, OR, Seattle, Chicago. Boston?

You have anything to support your bizarre statement that most of the jobs
have not moved out to the suburbs.

Jack May wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > George Conklin wrote:
> >> "Clark F Morris" > wrote in message
>
> > Again Conk, yuo have NO idea what you are talking about. Does that
> > statement include, SF, Manhattan, Newark? Places like Atlanta,
> > Portland, OR, Seattle, Chicago. Boston?
>
> You have anything to support your bizarre statement that most of the jobs
> have not moved out to the suburbs.

Righto, Jackie Baby, with your history of DAMN LIES and tortured
numbers you can pull amything out of thin air and say anything you
want. You can quote any source you want and NOBODY believes you.
Remember you are the one that said there is no growth in Miami Dade
Metrorail. You lied about that and you lie about everything. Crawl
back in your cave and quit your damn lying.

Take care, Randy

"Jack May" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "George Conklin" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ups.com...
> >>
>
> > Absolutely. For example, in NYC 85% of the commutes are from suburb to
> > suburb. That is just for starters.
>
> They had a story on the Network News a few weeks ago that 6.3M people per
> day and climbing do a reverse commute from NYC out to the suburbs (I
think
> they said Connecticut) where the jobs have moved with a move out of NYC.
>
> I suspect a lot of those people will eventually give up the 45 minute rail
> commute and realize it is time to move out of NYC and move close to their
> job. They intervened a young woman that wanted to live in NYC for the
night
> life.
>
>

Somehow public drinking does not appeal to me. It leads to too much
violence.

In article >, milou <nobody> wrote:
>In UK, these cameras are there uniquely for raising revenue.
>A favourite trick is to have speed cameras on motorways where there
>are speed restrictions because roadworks.

After a motorists group forced the release of a secret
study showing an increase in accident rates associated
with automated enforcement in motorway roadworks,
automated monitoring at such locations will be limited
to a "your speed is ___" type of display.

--
John Carr )