"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.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
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.


Yeah, like knowing which end of the "Slow" sign they're holding is up.

I can teach a guy to frame a house a whole lot faster and easier than
teaching him the engineering of same building. Sure the apprentices take
some tech courses, but no where near the amount needed for a degree. Maybe
an AA if they also took 30 semester units of liberal arts courses and 14
units of advanced math / english.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
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.

Calif Bill wrote:

I can teach a guy to frame a house a whole lot faster and easier than
teaching him the engineering of same building. Sure the apprentices take
some tech courses, but no where near the amount needed for a degree. Maybe
an AA if they also took 30 semester units of liberal arts courses and 14
units of advanced math / english.


Uh-huh. Try apprenticing in the electrical trades.

--
* * *
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

Mark Browne wrote:

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.

There is a big difference between a highly skilled tradesman, and an
unskilled laborer. In a free market economy, your wages should be in
proportion to your demand in society. Skilled tradesmen are in high
demand, therfore they should be paid accordingly.

Where the unions are a problem is when they elevate the wages of un- or
underskilled laborers on the coattails of the skilled tradesmen. While a
heavy equipment operator, for example, should be paid well for his job,
the guy waving the flags, is a dime a dozen commodity, and should not
be.



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;

Like liberal arts.


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.

They want the skills to do the job. How they got them should be
irrelevant.

Dave