cj001f Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 scott_harpell said: fucking hippies. have you looked at the amount of pollutants that come out of running a lawn mower for an hour? None. I have a rotary mower. For most people who "need" an SUV it'd be cheaper to buy a Honda Civic to drive around town, and say, a used LandCruiser - than to buy an SUV that'd actually be useful in the mountains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Ratboy said: I drive an SUV because I need one when I'm in the mountains. I don't need one in town, obviosuly, but I can't afford 2 cars, so I just have the one. It is one of the smaller ones so it gets better mileage (21mpg or so), but that's still pretty low. I'd rather see the mandatory fuel efficiency increased than a gas tax. I also think there's an untapped market for high-efficiency SUVs that's not being met by the auto companies. I know I'd buy one as long as it wasn't outrageously priced. yeah, but you are sidestepping the issue. people drinve here more than anyplace in the world, and that is because of a lack of pub. trans., which is because so many people drive which is because of a lack of public trans. make driving costly and provide alternatives and you will fix many ploblems we have. think this way ratboy: if you could ride a bus to work everyday, you could have your SUV for the mountains only and would only have to use it when conditions dictate or when you are making a special trip. just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 scott_harpell said: people drinve here more than anyplace in the world, and that is because of a lack of pub. trans., which is because so many people drive which is because of a lack of public trans. Bullshit. First off, you have to look at developed countries where people are rich enough to own cars. In Europe distances are far smaller, so public transportation is a more viable option. A similarly effective public transportation system in North America would be WAAAAY more expensive. It's not the vicious cycle you make it out to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 cracked said: scott_harpell said: people drinve here more than anyplace in the world, and that is because of a lack of pub. trans., which is because so many people drive which is because of a lack of public trans. Bullshit. First off, you have to look at developed countries where people are rich enough to own cars. In Europe distances are far smaller, so public transportation is a more viable option. A similarly effective public transportation system in North America would be WAAAAY more expensive. It's not the vicious cycle you make it out to be. Have you ever lived in Europe Cracked? I have spent near 1/2 of my life there. The distances really are not that much farther than here except for between cities, but no-one is proposing light rail between cities. There are already existing train routes that do this; no-one uses them though. There will be a day when the PNW will have to build a light rail. They will see the traffic and have no more space to widen the roads and will have to hurriedly build a light rail. There are other cities in the U.S. that have done this. N.Y. for example. The real problem is with the social norms in the U.S. pertaining to car ownership as a status symbol and the demanding of the freedom thata car gives at a low low cost. Quit talking out of your ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Fuck you Scott, I've spent enough time in Europe to know that population centers are more dense, and hence public transportation is a more viable option. Quit blabbing on about your 'light rail', whatever you mean by that. You can't transfer a system from one scenario to a vastly different one and expect it to work. BTW, do us all a favor and learn to spell sometime. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 cracked said: Fuck you Scott, I've spent enough time in Europe to know that population centers are more dense, and hence public transportation is a more viable option. Quit blabbing on about your 'light rail', whatever you mean by that. You can't transfer a system from one scenario to a vastly different one and expect it to work. BTW, do us all a favor and learn to spell sometime. Thanks! Went to EuroDisney with the 'rents? Good on ya mate! ...Yes I can say that we can learn from countries that have gone through this 100's of years ago. We are going through the same population/transportation problems that they did, so why not learn fro their mistakes? Oh and light rail Cracked; we are already supposed to be 1/2 way through construction of it in case you didn't already know, but the drivers of WA state in their infinite wisdom and the greedy politicians in their unabated angst decided we no longer need one because we now have $30 car tabs. Cracked, it is obvious you dont know shit. Name one big, highly populated city that does not have a form of mass transit like this. Vancouver has one and is currently expanding it to reflect the projected growth of the area. Where is the plan for Seattle's mass transit before our highways become even more innundated with vehicles than they already are. As to my spelling; I will 'learn' to spell, when you learn to read and think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Scott, you keep changing your arguments. First we don't have any adequate public transportation, then you tell me to name the cities that DON'T have adequate public transportation. What you are saying doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I'm not going to argue anymore, it's clear who the idiot is. Have fun with your infinite wisdom! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Fairweather said: A recent hate-filled 'anti-SUV' thread here on cc.com got me ta' thinking.... Wow! Did you know a round trip flight to New Zealand will pump aver 104,000 gallons of Jet-A exhaust into the atmosphere? (w/o the benefit of a catalytic converter, even!) Anyway, Have a nice trip JoshK. Fairweather, you are obviously more of an idiot than I ever thought if you believe your own spew. First, do the simple math. How many 747s exist in the world? 500? How many SUVs exist? 100 million? Yeah, go ahead and come up with some formulas ya dumb fuck. Now, tell me how comparing the *ONLY* method of transportation (aside from a month long sea voyage, wasting much more fuel) to a particular place compares in any way with driving a completely absurd vehicle, by yourself, to the mall when a fucking geo metro would accomplish the same thing. I'm sure this is only an attempt to get me riled up and you aren't actually this dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratboy Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Jim: Your assumptions that I only drive to trailheads is wrong. I need the clearance and interior capacity of an SUV for where I go and what I do in the mountains, not that I need to justify it to you. I'd hardly call a Toyota RAV4 "mondo", and it's far from "shiny". I have it because I need it. Sorry if that breaks your stereotypes. Scott: I am all for public transportation. I was giving my reasons for owning an SUV, not saying that people should do what I do. I took the bus to work every day at my old job because it was convenient, even more so that driving. Now it's just the opposite. It would take 1 hour to take the bus from home to work, but 20 minutes to drive. So I drive. If there was a valid public transportation system that worked for my daily commute, I'd happily use it. But there isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 cracked said: Scott, you keep changing your arguments. What you are saying doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I'm not going to argue anymore, it's clear who the idiot is. Yes it certainly is. Your avoidance of the issue that We are outgrowing our road infrastructure and are in dire need or mass transportation systems before it becomes out of hand clearly shows that you have 1) no clue what you are talking about and 2) that you are still weening off your mother's tit. Let me guess; still touchy about that new SUV that your 'rents bought you for graduation? yellow H2 jah? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Ratboy said: Jim: Your assumptions that I only drive to trailheads is wrong. I need the clearance and interior capacity of an SUV for where I go and what I do in the mountains, not that I need to justify it to you. I'd hardly call a Toyota RAV4 "mondo", and it's far from "shiny". I have it because I need it. Sorry if that breaks your stereotypes. Scott: I am all for public transportation. I was giving my reasons for owning an SUV, not saying that people should do what I do. I took the bus to work every day at my old job because it was convenient, even more so that driving. Now it's just the opposite. It would take 1 hour to take the bus from home to work, but 20 minutes to drive. So I drive. If there was a valid public transportation system that worked for my daily commute, I'd happily use it. But there isn't. I agree. That is why we should make it easy and affordable to use mass transit. If it didn't take me 4 hours to take a bus to work, I would. It is faster for me to walk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Fairweather, since it's obvious math, economics, and common sense are all things you are not familiar with, I'll give you a little help to start you out. 1. find the distance between here and new zealand 2. calculate the number of gallons it would take you in a hummer to get there 3. do the same for the 747 then divide that by the 500 people it carries For extra credit why don't you also read up on the efficiency of modern turbofan jet engines, such as those employed by the 747. Also, take a look at the composition of jet fuel as compared to auto fuel and the various emissions produced by the burning of a cleaner fuel in a more efficient engine (P&W, GE or RR's turbofans) versus the burning of a dirtier fuel in a ridiculously inefficient engine (a GM V8.) If you really want to impress the class, find out how much energy is used to produce a few thousand SUVs with an average lifespan of 8 years versus the energy used to produce a single 747 with a 20 or 25 year life span. Then compare the total number of people miles (people carried x miles traveled) for the 747 over a lifetime versus a hummer. Put your money where your mouth is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 scott_harpell said: We are outgrowing our road infrastructure and are in dire need or mass transportation systems before it becomes out of hand scott_harpell said: Name one big, highly populated city that does not have a form of mass transit like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Public transportation works in Europe because people have learned over time that using it does not infringe on their freedom to move around town quickly. The train systems like British Rail are set up really well to interface inter city transport with intra city transport. The really fast trains only stop in the big towns, and you can hop on slower ones that make more stops to cruise around within towns. Or there is a subway. Rail lines in France don't go through every dinker town out there either. The TGV doesn't have to slow down all the time, since they put in purpose-built lines with few curves way out in farmers' fields and stuff. It's a really cool system if people in the states could just get over the my car is my personality crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 iain said: It's a really cool system if people in the states could just get over the my car is my personality crap. Well, it's all you've got if you have no personality or other defining qualities...example...big ol rednecks with big ol trucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 cracked said: scott_harpell said: We are outgrowing our road infrastructure and are in dire need or mass transportation systems before it becomes out of hand scott_harpell said: Name one big, highly populated city that does not have a form of mass transit like this. no shit! That is my point dumbfuck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 JoshK said: 1. find the distance between here and new zealand 2. calculate the number of gallons it would take you in a hummer to get there 3. do the same for the 747 then divide that by the 500 people it carries cracked said: This piqued my curiosity, so I did a rough calculation. A 747 can go about 6100 miles w/out refueling. Max fuel capacity is 48,000 gallons, typical passenger load is 400 people. A Hummer gets roughly 10mpg, though it's impossible to find an "official" figure. Since most Hummers carry one person, occasionally two, it would take 610 gallons of gas to drive two people in a Hummer those 6100 miles to where the 747 lands. So that's 300 or so gallons per person. Compare to the 747: 120 gallons per person for the same distance. So the 747 is 2.5 times as efficient! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 In 2000, I remember a SPI article that said that in 2006, the Seattle light rail will be the most used light rail in the continent. But we are now 2 years away from the expected completion date and what do we have to show for it? Nada. 60% of voters said they would take an increase in taxes for light rail but here we are 3 years later and nothing completed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 scott_harpell said: In 2000, I remember a SPI article that said that in 2006, the Seattle light rail will be the most used light rail in the continent. But we are now 2 years away from the expected completion date and what do we have to show for it? Nada. 60% of voters said they would take an increase in taxes for light rail but here we are 3 years later and nothing completed. Ah, yes, Scotty's 'light rail' . The panacea for everything! It will solve traffic jams, health problems, cancer, reduce unemployment and homelessness, and even cure AIDS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 cracked said: is this guy giving the stinkfinger? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 cracked said: scott_harpell said: In 2000, I remember a SPI article that said that in 2006, the Seattle light rail will be the most used light rail in the continent. But we are now 2 years away from the expected completion date and what do we have to show for it? Nada. 60% of voters said they would take an increase in taxes for light rail but here we are 3 years later and nothing completed. Ah, yes, Scotty's 'light rail' . The panacea for everything! It will solve traffic jams, health problems, cancer, reduce unemployment and homelessness, and even cure AIDS! theoretically, it will do all of these except the last. stinky fingers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 JoshK said: Well, it's all you've got if you have no personality or other defining qualities...example...big ol rednecks with big ol trucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mos_Chillin Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 So, anyone going to NZ with Josh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiskeybreath Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 who the hell are you, his travel agent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted December 15, 2003 Share Posted December 15, 2003 Bronco said: JoshK said: Well, it's all you've got if you have no personality or other defining qualities...example...big ol rednecks with big ol trucks. Hehe, I knew I'd get somebody with that. Actually, if I can think of anybody that defines an otherwise worthless persona through their cars it's freaking riceboys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.