Trains already work very nicely for New York and Boston, not to mention
virtually ALL of Europe.

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



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

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

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



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



We do things backwards.

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

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

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

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



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



We do things backwards.

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

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



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

Calif Bill wrote:

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

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



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



We do things backwards.

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

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



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




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

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

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

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

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



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



We do things backwards.

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

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



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




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

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


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

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

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

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



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



We do things backwards.

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

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



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




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

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


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



Well, many construction jobs do require skill, Bill.

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

snip

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


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

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

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

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

Mark Browne

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

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

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



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



We do things backwards.

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

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



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




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

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

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

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 23:50:12 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

[snip]

Bart ends in my town. Livermore,
Calif is 7 miles away, and has also been paying BART taxes since 1957.

We should be nicer to each other, Bill, seeing as how we're neighbors!

Joe Parsons
Dublin, CA