carguy123 wrote:
carguy123 wrote:
Wally wrote: We have a Mayor and a DOT commissioner who are far removed from reality. They think that the people driving around NY do it because they want to and if becomes more difficult they will stop. To make a bike lane they take away a lane, paint it and put up a barrier like these nice planters or concrete dividers. The sad part is most people still ride out in traffic or on the sidewalk even where they have these lanes.
Yeah, that's (PC be damned) retarded. Didn't realize you were talking NYC though, so I can't say I'm wholly surprised... I seem to remember at some points there being discussion of outright outlawing private motor vehicles from large swaths of the City. Nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there- my ex-wife can have it ALLLLL to herself.
Lexington is thankfully reasonably sane in most regards- they try and add bike lanes when road work is done with as minimal impact to traffic as possible (and most roads are plenty wide to do so), and I recently learned that the parking garage for my office has at least one EV charging station (explains why that's where I always saw the Teslas parked...). Now, if only the rest of this state weren't so berking backwards...
Ashyukun wrote:JoeyM wrote: Don't we have a lot more sprawl and suburbia than in most European countries? (That's the explanation I've heard in the past for why mass transit is difficult in the USA)Having spent about a third of my childhood in Europe (Army Brat), I've often asked and wondered why we don't have a public transit system like they do- where it was almost easier and quicker to take a train/bus to where I wanted to go- including across the country- than it was to drive. I've never heard a really GOOD explanation as to why.
maybe because that entire continent had to be rebuilt after the events if the first half of the 1940's, and they did it in the most efficient manner possible?
that's also my explanation for why they have such weird tastes in art and why they love electronic music so much over there..
JG Pasterjak wrote:carguy123 wrote: What you meant to say was to us a DIFFERENT energy package and push some of the pollution TO A DIFFERENT SPOT. I'm not sure that benefits anybody.So you're saying that cars should only be propelled by a single power source, so that whoever controls that power source would have control over the cost of it? That there's shouldn't be alternative power sources introduced into the marketplace to compete for market share? Why do you hate the free market so much? jg
No, Josh said "thus consuming less energy and creating less pollution, which benefits everyone." Which is a ridiculous statement.
He's just wanting to push his pollution off on someone else who didn't even get the enjoyment of the drive.
In reply to novaderrik:
I'm no WWII expert, but just through being in a lot of European cities it seems like the only ones where your really don't see much pre-war architecture are in Germany, and even there the worst seems to have been the really big cities, smaller cities still have lots of old buildings. France, Spain, Italy, BeNeLux, Scandinavia all seem to have survived the war without city-scape-changing damage.
If you mean that the Europeans were recovering from economic ruin in the same decade we were building suburbs and '57 Bel Airs and watching Leave it to Beaver, and so there was some efficiency-by-necessity, then you may be on to something.
novaderrik wrote:Ashyukun wrote:maybe because that entire continent had to be rebuilt after the events if the first half of the 1940's, and they did it in the most efficient manner possible? that's also my explanation for why they have such weird tastes in art and why they love electronic music so much over there..JoeyM wrote: Don't we have a lot more sprawl and suburbia than in most European countries? (That's the explanation I've heard in the past for why mass transit is difficult in the USA)Having spent about a third of my childhood in Europe (Army Brat), I've often asked and wondered why we don't have a public transit system like they do- where it was almost easier and quicker to take a train/bus to where I wanted to go- including across the country- than it was to drive. I've never heard a really GOOD explanation as to why.
People forget that. I get complaints all the time about how much better everything else is in other places. Considering most of the city has been here over 100 years we're probably lucky a lot of it works as well as it does.
Wally wrote:Ashyukun wrote:We have a Mayor and a DOT commissioner who are far removed from reality. They think that the people driving around NY do it because they want to and if becomes more difficult they will stop. To make a bike lane they take away a lane, paint it and put up a barrier like these nice planters or concrete dividers. The sad part is most people still ride out in traffic or on the sidewalk even where they have these lanes.Wally wrote: I have coworkers who can't open their apartment windows anymore since bike lanes were put in on their block. now they have a parade of trucks idling in traffic so some kid with a neck beard on an old 3 speed Ross can get home from Whole Foods without having to learn how to ride in traffic.Sounds like your municipal works people suck then- they passed a law here such that whenever a major (2+ lane each way) road here is repaved and re-lined they have to add a bike lane, and I've not once seen them lose any actual traffic lanes to do it. But then, I work in an office of engineers where about 1 out of 10 of us (myself included) commute via bike when the weather is decent and am quite capable of riding in traffic. Now if only someone would bother teaching the people driving alongside me how to drive around bikes (and in many cases, around other cars)...
That's where they came from! Sunnovabish! They put some of those idiotic things in here in Portland in front of one of the malls. They painted them grey. The same color as the sidewalk and the pavement. Didn't take long before someone hit one, so they repainted them. They are still far enough apart to allow people to drive/park between them, so it's only a matter of time.
Our "elected" city government officials have the same idea that we drive around just to annoy people. Meanwhile the local transit agency is building light rail when it can't afford it, so they are cutting benefits for drivers, increasing overtime and still cutting service while not replacing buses. Oh and the locally built Streetcars are a money pit and are so slow that it is faster to walk. Oh and other cities are ordering streetcars from this company and they've not delivered on ours yet, the new line is still running on a prototype train! IDIOTS!
ShadowSix wrote: In reply to novaderrik: I'm no WWII expert, but just through being in a lot of European cities it seems like the only ones where your really don't see much pre-war architecture are in Germany, and even there the worst seems to have been the really big cities, smaller cities still have lots of old buildings. France, Spain, Italy, BeNeLux, Scandinavia all seem to have survived the war without city-scape-changing damage. If you mean that the Europeans were recovering from economic ruin in the same decade we were building suburbs and '57 Bel Airs and watching Leave it to Beaver, and so there was some efficiency-by-necessity, then you may be on to something.
yeah, i was talking about both the need to actually physically rebuild and the economics behind the decisions that were made. the bigger cities needed to be totally rebuilt, and the rest of the cities in the country more or less followed their lead in how they did things.. they were trying to just get crap working and get back to something resembling normal life while we were watching Leave it to Beaver and arguing over who gets to use which water fountain..
turboswede wrote: Our "elected" city government officials have the same idea that we drive around just to annoy people. Meanwhile the local transit agency is building light rail when it can't afford it, so they are cutting benefits for drivers, increasing overtime and still cutting service while not replacing buses. Oh and the locally built Streetcars are a money pit and are so slow that it is faster to walk. Oh and other cities are ordering streetcars from this company and they've not delivered on ours yet, the new line is still running on a prototype train! IDIOTS!
We are doing the same here. We're digging three new tunnels with money we don't have meanwhile the drivers have to bring in their own duct tape to hold the buses together and try to nurse them through the day. If a private company was managed like this we'd have gone out of business long ago.
The NY constitution separate what is available to the general public and paid for through taxes. What it does not allow is something that profits an individual.
An electric car owner is one of those.
iceracer wrote: The NY constitution separate what is available to the general public and paid for through taxes. What it does not allow is something that profits an individual. An electric car owner is one of those.
Ok, then explain how said car owner is different than a parent of a school-aged child, a recipient of an educational grant or subsidized loan, a person whose medical bills are covered by medicaid, or an owner of a building that's on fire. Making use of an openly provided public service in a way that benefits you is not "profit", and if this provision of the constitution were enforced as interpreted here across the board, any act of government that materially benefits citizens could potentially be declared unconstitutional. What's scary is how many people actually might actually say they want that.
There are plenty of ways to argue against the actual policy - explain why it won't meet its goals or that its costs are greater than its benefits, or any number of valid reasons that would lead to reasonable debate, but this constitutional argument is stupid and dangerous and should be regarded as such. Unfortunately such tactics in lieu of honest discussion seem to be par for the course these days.
novaderrik wrote:ShadowSix wrote: In reply to novaderrik: I'm no WWII expert, but just through being in a lot of European cities it seems like the only ones where your really don't see much pre-war architecture are in Germany, and even there the worst seems to have been the really big cities, smaller cities still have lots of old buildings. France, Spain, Italy, BeNeLux, Scandinavia all seem to have survived the war without city-scape-changing damage. If you mean that the Europeans were recovering from economic ruin in the same decade we were building suburbs and '57 Bel Airs and watching Leave it to Beaver, and so there was some efficiency-by-necessity, then you may be on to something.yeah, i was talking about both the need to actually physically rebuild and the economics behind the decisions that were made. the bigger cities needed to be totally rebuilt, and the rest of the cities in the country more or less followed their lead in how they did things.. they were trying to just get crap working and get back to something resembling normal life while we were watching Leave it to Beaver and arguing over who gets to use which water fountain..
Another factor for our urban sprawl was just having the extra space to do it in. There will come a point when it gets too far though.
NYC should be separated from NYS.
The point of the charging stations is why should someone get their auto fuel free.
Some of the what ifs quoted above are for groups, not an individual.
the gov't should buy my gas.
iceracer wrote: NYC should be separated from NYS.
Yes, but both are equally and seperetly berkeleyed up.
I would kill for bike lanes like that around here.
ProDarwin wrote: I would kill for bike lanes like that around here.
I think they'd be really cool, IF, if they didn't take away car space to build it.
Here in FW they've got some very cool bike paths following the river and along parks. This lets you get to a lot of the city without ever entering the streets, it's just when you need to go a long ways off these paths that you get into competition with the cars.
iceracer wrote: NYC should be separated from NYS.
A lot of people would agree. Without being able to tax NYC to death the rest of the state would shrivel up.
Oh, I thought it as the other way around.
bgkast wrote: The county building here in Vancouver WA has metered spots for normal cars and free charging spaces for electric cars which always remain empty. I'm always tempted to park my 16mpg RX-8 on one of the spots and run the charge cord under the hood so it looks like it's charging.
If you had a permanent-mount battery maintainer, you could even have something to plug it into.
iceracer wrote: The point of the charging stations is why should someone get their auto fuel free. the gov't should buy my gas.
1) the governemtn is asking us to choose alternative energy for our cars to reduce pollution in the cities and reduce our dependence on oil. Since we are paying extra to own alternative fuel vehicles, then "giveing" a few pennies worth of "fuel" every hour is a pittance towards achieving that goal.
2) the government already subsidizes big oil to keep your fuel costs low. So in a way, the government spends MORE to keep your fuel costs low than it does "giving away" free electricity to someon like me.
Please, try another arguement.
Does anyone make an adapter that plugs in to a free charging station so that I can run my welder or air compressor?
Chris_V wrote:iceracer wrote: The point of the charging stations is why should someone get their auto fuel free. the gov't should buy my gas.1) the governemtn is asking us to choose alternative energy for our cars to reduce pollution in the cities and reduce our dependence on oil. Since we are paying extra to own alternative fuel vehicles, then "giveing" a few pennies worth of "fuel" every hour is a pittance towards achieving that goal. 2) the government already subsidizes big oil to keep your fuel costs low. So in a way, the government spends MORE to keep your fuel costs low than it does "giving away" free electricity to someon like me. Please, try another arguement.
I'll keep that in mind as I pay $ 40 to fill my gas tank.
Chris_V wrote:iceracer wrote: The point of the charging stations is why should someone get their auto fuel free. the gov't should buy my gas.1) the governemtn is asking us to choose alternative energy for our cars to reduce pollution in the cities and reduce our dependence on oil. Since we are paying extra to own alternative fuel vehicles, then "giveing" a few pennies worth of "fuel" every hour is a pittance towards achieving that goal. 2) the government already subsidizes big oil to keep your fuel costs low. So in a way, the government spends MORE to keep your fuel costs low than it does "giving away" free electricity to someon like me. Please, try another arguement.
OK. I mean this, and I mean it respectfully.
The government should not be buying my gas/electricity/other energy source
iceracer wrote: I'll keep that in mind as I pay $ 40 to fill my gas tank.
Great point, if more people used renewable energy sources to power their electric vehicles instead of burning fossil fuels it would likely drive down fuel costs! So glad you're trying to understand the motivation for these policies instead of just being cynical and reactionary!
In reply to tuna55:
So you ready for gasoline priced like Europe for your DD? If we end oil subsidies, that'll happen. The government pays for a lot of things, and keeping transportation costs down for interstate commerce and freedom of travel is only a tiny portion of what they are doing. Moving us to alternative energy is reducing overall pollution and frankly, only a governent can DO that (like California did to make it so you could breathe in LA). Give business the opportunity, it will E36 M3 all over the environment, as they are finding in China right now. But IF government is going to regulate alternative energy and alternative fuel sources, they have a responsibility to make it affordable to the general public so that it WILL get adopted and the clean air programs can have an effect. It's part of regulating for the public health and welfare and it is indeed what our government is constitutionally bound to do. Sorry you don't like it.
You'll need to log in to post.
