6529Re: producing oil from waste etc....
- Dec 1, 2003--- In email@example.com, "Andrew Dawson"
> TF, I noticed how you mentioned this lists almost polar opposite,TF: Only some of the members of each list are "polar opposites" of
> "Transport-Policy" in your letter.
the equally-limited-in-number, "in"-crowd of the other list. Others,
such as myself, see both smart and dumb things in _each_ of the two
(or any other two "polar opposite") lists.
> These two lists deal with issues from different perspectives, onemore from
> the right and one more from the left. One wants to tear downcities, while
> one wants to rebuild them. One sees traffic congestion as problem,while one
> sees it as a chance to move on.has
> One says that government has failed, the other says that the market
> failed, the funny thing is that both are correct on this account.TF: Close enough; I've often called myself a "Carter Republican". I'm
> I like to consider my self as a "left of centre conservative",
a Republican who voted for Carter both times because Carter wanted to
make energy conservation the "moral equivalent of war".
> so I takeTire and
> some what of a middle of the road approach. I've worked at Canadian
> Loblaws, so I've dealt with mufflers to tires and have spentcountless hours
> in parking lots. For some this is a wet dream, for some this isnightmare.
> Also, just so you know there are highway boondoggles, as well as
> In my locality, a proposed Autoroute 30 extension and the Laval
> extension are examples.TF: Notice the textbook example, above, of the idiocy of making
assumptions about "polar opposites". Transit boondoggles? I'm _for_
Even Amtrak's allegedly "unprofitable" route that I once took via
North Dakota, is more profitable than the high-friction-tire
monoculture when you count the fact that the high-friction-tire
monoculture has to break the law in order to keep expanding. Here's
the dirty little secret of how the high-friction tires retain their
monopoly: Around 1970, more and more highways were beginning to fill
up to several hundred percent of capacity due to non-enforcement of
speed and following distance laws. That was when it became time to
admit that the expansion of high-friction-tire transport had reached
the point of diminishing returns in these more-congested areas. The
problem wasn't a shortage of road space; rather, the problem was (and
still is) the erroneous attitude that the portion of the car-use
expansion that came about as a result of lawbreaking should be
I think _all_ highway expansions are boondoggles for the above
> For the private sector the Bell(Molson) Centre is also a boondoggle.like
> I'm not against tolls on roads, so long as the money goes to things
> health care or education.beneath
> Big box stores can be better, if they are built with their parking
> them and treat their workers with a little more respect.planning
> Pedestrians and transit are important just as with cars, when
> transportation policy.made worse
> Suburbs aren't bad (I live in one, St.Laurent), they've just been
> over the years.that the
> Also with this item: http://www.demographia.com/rac-montreal.pdf
> Economically, Montreal is lucky that there is no belt route and
> trunk roads (A-20 & A-40) pass through on the island of Montreal.rail
> With the Ste.Julie photos, where are the sidewalks?
> As for Mirabel its problems (location and lack of proper road and
> links) are more of a result of the provincial government then thatof the
> federal government.address
> Till later, Andrew Dawson
> "bumpkinbubba" wrote:
> >This scheme was also discussed about one month ago on the "CarFree"
> >and "Transport-Policy" lists. The conclusions were that 1) The
> >garbage can't exist in the first place without mankind having
> >consumed _more_ energy when, a while earlier, mankind charged the
> >solar battery that is the garbage; and 2) The major problem,
> >therefore, that any success of the scheme might significantly
> >is not energy but rather, landfills.TF: To which Jym Dyer replied that the carbon ought to stay locked up
> >Still nothing to be sneezed at.
in the landfills where it won't contribute to global warming.
Well, does the major greenhouse gas, _methane_, mean anything to the
"in"-crowd of this "from the left" list?
- BumpkinBubba, a puppet of the keystrokes of TF (Editor of the
Bicyclists' Rights Triad http://www.newmilfordbike.com/Triad.htm ),
signing off now to go back down under my bridge for a while.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>