Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

6529Re: producing oil from waste etc....

Expand Messages
  • bumpkinbubba
    Dec 1, 2003
      --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Dawson"
      <m82a1_dawson@h...> wrote:
      > TF, I noticed how you mentioned this lists almost polar opposite,
      > "Transport-Policy" in your letter.

      TF: Only some of the members of each list are "polar opposites" of
      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, one
      more from
      > the right and one more from the left. One wants to tear down
      cities, while
      > one wants to rebuild them. One sees traffic congestion as problem,
      while one
      > sees it as a chance to move on.
      > One says that government has failed, the other says that the market
      > failed, the funny thing is that both are correct on this account.
      > I like to consider my self as a "left of centre conservative",

      TF: Close enough; I've often called myself a "Carter Republican". I'm
      a Republican who voted for Carter both times because Carter wanted to
      make energy conservation the "moral equivalent of war".

      > so I take
      > some what of a middle of the road approach. I've worked at Canadian
      Tire and
      > Loblaws, so I've dealt with mufflers to tires and have spent
      countless hours
      > in parking lots. For some this is a wet dream, for some this is
      > Also, just so you know there are highway boondoggles, as well as
      > boondoggles.
      > 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.
      > I'm not against tolls on roads, so long as the money goes to things
      > health care or education.
      > Big box stores can be better, if they are built with their parking
      > them and treat their workers with a little more respect.
      > Pedestrians and transit are important just as with cars, when
      > transportation policy.
      > Suburbs aren't bad (I live in one, St.Laurent), they've just been
      made worse
      > over the years.
      > Also with this item: http://www.demographia.com/rac-montreal.pdf
      > Economically, Montreal is lucky that there is no belt route and
      that the
      > trunk roads (A-20 & A-40) pass through on the island of Montreal.
      > 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 that
      of the
      > federal government.
      > 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.
      > >
      > >Still nothing to be sneezed at.

      TF: To which Jym Dyer replied that the carbon ought to stay locked up
      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.
    • Show all 32 messages in this topic