What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands



G

george conklin

Guest
"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> ...
>>> Me? I don't really believe in banning things, unless you're talking
>>> about over-the-counter sales of cyanide or something. I was just taking
>>> your reasoning to its logical conclusion.

>>
>> Nonsense.
>>
>> Cycle-rickshaw pullers are among the most vulnerable section of the urban
>> poor
>> The work is very arduous and debilitating. Though the daily earning of
>> the puller would be about Rs 100-150 ($ 2-3),

>
> We're talking about New York!
>


The physical abuse is the same.
 
C

Chris

Guest
>>> That ain't going to happen on a bicycle. I won't even happen on my
>>> motorcycle.-

>>
>> Most people do drive under 5 miles, and that can happen on a bike.
>>

> There was never any argument about commuting one's own person to work.
> Just try to haul a load of lumber on a bike and see how far you get.
> Bill Baka


I ran into an interesting situation the other day. A collage student,
going home for the summer was shipping all her belongings home, via the
post office. She priced it out, and it only cost her $250. A rental truck
and the gas were going to be over $500.

How are we going to get by when gas, doubles and/or triples in price?

Everyone blames those 'greedy' oil companies, but it is simply supply and
demand. Demand is up 3% in last 6 months, and supply is only up 1%. With
no new refineries being built in the US (I don't want that nasty thing in
my back yard) the price will continue to rise.

China is the main new demand.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
C

Chris

Guest
donquijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Jun 1, 2:38 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> > How did we go from "Let's get rid of the worst drivers and make it
>> > a *little* more difficult to get a license" to "zOMG people are
>> > going to STARVE to death!1!!one!" ? Would that be a Red Herring or
>> > a Strawman?

>>
>> I didn't say people are going to starve. But there would be little
>> political support for making it more difficult to get a driver's
>> license, because people know that it simply isn't practical in most
>> places not to be able to drive. Therefore, making getting a license
>> harder amounts to cruel and unusual punishment for people who have
>> not done anything wrong--their only crime is that they have not
>> gotten their license yet. Which is precisely why people are not
>> going to starve, unless something goes wrong with our ability to
>> distribute fuel or the highway system.

>
> The real starvation will start when there's diruption of oil flow.
> Then America will be the less fit to survive. I can already picture
> those couch potatoes sweating and panting the first few weeks.
>


Plenty of reserve fat to live on for 6 - 8 months.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 
A

Amy Blankenship

Guest
"george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> "george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>> ...
>>>> Me? I don't really believe in banning things, unless you're talking
>>>> about over-the-counter sales of cyanide or something. I was just
>>>> taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion.
>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>>
>>> Cycle-rickshaw pullers are among the most vulnerable section of the
>>> urban poor
>>> The work is very arduous and debilitating. Though the daily earning of
>>> the puller would be about Rs 100-150 ($ 2-3),

>>
>> We're talking about New York!
>>

>
> The physical abuse is the same.


Let's see. First you objected to pedicabs in New York because they are
abusive in India. Then it was pointed out to you that most pedicab
operators in New York are actually entrepreneurs, doing it quite by their
own choice. You then decided you were against it because a pedicab operator
might wear out his knees. It was pointed out to you that many other
professions in the US have a far greater potential for damage or injury to
the person involved in them than pedicab driver. You stated as clearly as
you ever state anything that you don't object to those other professions.
So obviously you *do not* object to damaging professions per se.

More recently, you're back to the argument that because the culture of India
makes the lot of a pedicab driver less than optimal, we should not have
pedicabs in New York. When I point out to you that the culture of India has
no effect on the pedicab drivers in New York, you're back to claiming that
the "physical abuse" is the basis of your objection. Since you've made it
clear that physical abuse in one's vocation per se is not something you
object to across the board, then what, specifically, is it about pedicab
drivers that you *really* object to?

-Amy
 
D

donquijote1954

Guest
On Jun 2, 2:35 pm, "george conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:

> > The real starvation will start when there's diruption of oil flow.
> > Then America will be the less fit to survive. I can already picture
> > those couch potatoes sweating and panting the first few weeks.

>
> Fuel-inefficient transit buses will get the first cut.-


And who will inherit the roads, the bikes? Well, I don't have a
problem with that. It will be even be good for the couch potatos, in
the long run.
 
D

donquijote1954

Guest
On Jun 3, 10:26 am, Bolwerk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
> > "Dane Buson" <[email protected].edu> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]
> >> "This is why raising the drinking age to 21 amounts to cruel and unusual
> >> punishment for people who have not done anything wrong--their only crime
> >> is that they have not passed the arbitrary age we allow drinking at."

>
> >> I hardly think that making a test harder and raising the fee counts as
> >> cruel and unusual punishment. I'm getting our roles confused here,
> >> aren't I supposed to be the bleeding heart liberal weenie?

>
> > You don't have to drink alcohol to live...

>
> It helps sometimes. ;)
>
> And it's a great way to have fun with all those surplus grains we grow!



If MADD catches you saying that you'd be in deep ****. They seem to
have a way with the HP (via lawyers, who also get a cut in it), and
politicians (who can catch on the photo op) who otherwise look the
other way to no less dangerous driving like DUCP (driving under cell
phone influence) and DUSUV (driving under supersized unnecessary
vehicle influence).
 
D

donquijote1954

Guest
On Jun 3, 4:29 pm, Arif Khokar <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > I hate to say it but a lot of cops are liars, and they get away with
> > it with impunity. Prove them wrong. And to add fuel to the fire, a
> > prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted. It does not take much
> > more to really screw you.

>
> > That is the reason I am supporting Barak Obama for Pres. I want to
> > see the drug laws ELIMINATED, completely.

>
> Then you should support Ron Paul for president instead, because I'm
> quite sure that Democrats, nor Barak Obama have any interest in
> repealing drug laws.


Some people say our presidents and politicians are just puppets of the
corporations that finance their profession. If that were to be the
case, you'd be wasting your time and it would be smart to vote for a
real puppet...

http://www.teddybearfriends.co.uk/images/teddy-bears/large/gund-teddy-bear-mambo-monkey.jpg

with ther real platform...

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote1

(if it sounds repetitious is because in politics you have to repeat
things 1000 times to get your point across)
 
P

Pat

Guest
On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]
>
> > Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems
> > simple enough to me.

>
> Simple is as simple does ;-)



Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a
car" and "want a car".

There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far
from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world
might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and
cabs, etc.

Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten
path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and
not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby
(thankfully). So a car is needed.

Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge
distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes,
which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance
scales are very different.

But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car
but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait
for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out.

I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be
if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide.
If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should
do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to
live without a car. But it's a person's decision.

Take me, for example, do I NEED a motorcycle. No. It's back-up
transportation on a good day. It's less safe, has less pollution
control, and carries less. OTOH, it's a lot of fun to ride. I don't
NEED one, but I WANT one (okay, two or three depending on how you
count them).

Rather than fighting over a few cars that are in good shape. I think
the government would do better targetting the few worst pollution cars
out there -- the ones running too rich or burning oil. Getting the
worse 10% off the road through some incentive package would probably
do a lot to reduce air pollution.
 
A

Amy Blankenship

Guest
"Pat" <groups[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> messagenews:[email protected]
>>
>> > Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems
>> > simple enough to me.

>>
>> Simple is as simple does ;-)

>
>
> Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a
> car" and "want a car".
>
> There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far
> from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world
> might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and
> cabs, etc.
>
> Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten
> path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and
> not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby
> (thankfully). So a car is needed.
>
> Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge
> distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes,
> which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance
> scales are very different.
>
> But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car
> but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait
> for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out.
>
> I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be
> if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide.
> If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should
> do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to
> live without a car. But it's a person's decision.


That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people
would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there
are many who do.

-Amy
 
P

Pat

Guest
On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> messagenews:[email protected]

>
> >> > Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems
> >> > simple enough to me.

>
> >> Simple is as simple does ;-)

>
> > Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a
> > car" and "want a car".

>
> > There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far
> > from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world
> > might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and
> > cabs, etc.

>
> > Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten
> > path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and
> > not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby
> > (thankfully). So a car is needed.

>
> > Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge
> > distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes,
> > which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance
> > scales are very different.

>
> > But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car
> > but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait
> > for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out.

>
> > I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be
> > if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide.
> > If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should
> > do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to
> > live without a car. But it's a person's decision.

>
> That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people
> would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there
> are many who do.
>
> -Amy


I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that
would be redundant. ;-)
 
D

Doc O'Leary

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Since you've made it
> clear that physical abuse in one's vocation per se is not something you
> object to across the board, then what, specifically, is it about pedicab
> drivers that you *really* object to?


Based on his posting history, I'd wager that he's astroturfing for some
segment of the automobile industry. He's such a moron, though, that it
ends up doing more harm than good. I highly suggest a killfile entry.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
 
G

George Conklin

Guest
"Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Bolwerk
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most
> >>> other forms of exercise.
> >>
> >>
> >> Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on feet
> >> and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks
> >> every day.
> >>
> >> Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our
> >> sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk or
> >> jog on?

> >
> > The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including
> > "self-abuse," should all be banned.
> >
> > George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics, ditch
> > digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a

mild
> > occupational hazard.

>
> Ballet, pro football, mining, sewing...
>
>


Pedicabs are abusive of labor and there is no point in bring third-world
horrors to the USA just because you planners have no ideas about what to do.
 
A

Amy Blankenship

Guest
"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>> "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>> > [email protected] wrote:
>> >> In article <[email protected]>, Bolwerk
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most
>> >>> other forms of exercise.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on
>> >> feet
>> >> and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks
>> >> every day.
>> >>
>> >> Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our
>> >> sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk
>> >> or
>> >> jog on?
>> >
>> > The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including
>> > "self-abuse," should all be banned.
>> >
>> > George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics,
>> > ditch
>> > digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a

> mild
>> > occupational hazard.

>>
>> Ballet, pro football, mining, sewing...
>>
>>

>
> Pedicabs are abusive of labor and there is no point in bring third-world
> horrors to the USA just because you planners have no ideas about what to
> do.


So in other words, you have no valid objection to it. You just don't like
it.
 
P

Pat

Guest
On Jun 5, 9:56 am, "George Conklin" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bolwerk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]
> > > [email protected] wrote:
> > >> In article <[email protected]>, Bolwerk
> > >> <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > >>> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most
> > >>> other forms of exercise.

>
> > >> Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on feet
> > >> and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks
> > >> every day.

>
> > >> Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our
> > >> sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk or
> > >> jog on?

>
> > > The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including
> > > "self-abuse," should all be banned.

>
> > > George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics, ditch
> > > digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a

> mild
> > > occupational hazard.

>
> > Ballet, pro football, mining, sewing...

>
> Pedicabs are abusive of labor and there is no point in bring third-world
> horrors to the USA just because you planners have no ideas about what to do.



Still waiting for my example, George.
 
P

Pat

Guest
On Jun 5, 12:10 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Amy Blankenship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]

>
> >> "Bolwerk" <bolw..[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]
> >> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> >> In article <[email protected]>, Bolwerk
> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >> >>> From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most
> >> >>> other forms of exercise.

>
> >> >> Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on
> >> >> feet
> >> >> and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks
> >> >> every day.

>
> >> >> Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our
> >> >> sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk
> >> >> or
> >> >> jog on?

>
> >> > The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including
> >> > "self-abuse," should all be banned.

>
> >> > George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics,
> >> > ditch
> >> > digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a

> > mild
> >> > occupational hazard.

>
> >> Ballet, pro football, mining, sewing...

>
> > Pedicabs are abusive of labor and there is no point in bring third-world
> > horrors to the USA just because you planners have no ideas about what to
> > do.

>
> So in other words, you have no valid objection to it. You just don't like
> it.


I think that pedicabs are like a lot of things. Yeah, they probably
are abusive or whatever, but if you are poor and starving and living
in a slum somewhere, is it better to have a pedicab and maybe make
some money or is it better to starve.

As for coming to America, who cares. We have lots of jobs, a minimum
wage, a permitting system, and things like OSHA. If a person doesn't
WANT to do it, then they don't HAVE to do it. It's a person's choice
or employment. If they want to do it, great. Why not? It beats the
heck out of a lot of other jobs out there.

I guess I see things in shades of gray, not in absolutes.
 
J

John Kane

Guest
On May 29, 10:48 pm, Nobody <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 29 May 2007 13:57:53 -0700, John Kane <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 28, 10:06 pm, Nobody <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:16:20 -0700, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
> >> wrote:

>
> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >> > Nobody <[email protected]> writes:

>
> >> >>>> It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by
> >> >>>> wish or function.

>
> >> >>>It is for me, and for many others.

>
> >> >> Yeah, but what youse who like this "challenge" in transportation don't
> >> >> seem to appreciate, you're not even in the slightest minority.

>
> >> >We have enough presence to show up in modal share statistics
> >> >for numerous North American cities.

>
> >> >> I lke to go biking for exercise, enjoyment...but for basic
> >> >> transportation to and from my place of employment 10 km away? Go jump
> >> >> in the closest pond.

>
> >> >10 km might be a bit much for a beginning rider.
> >> >But it doesn't take long to be able to easily
> >> >and routinely ride that distance, and even further.

>
> >> >> It just does not make sense for most of us. As I say, it is not
> >> >> "practicable". (And that's different than beng practical.)

>
> >> >Who exactly /is/ "most of us"?

>
> >> >And why are you so vehement about discouraging people
> >> >from cycle-commuting by denying its practice-ability?

>
> >> ***********, what you're suggesting is a situation of "enthusiasts"
> >> dictating what they believe the rest of humanity should be doing.

>
> >> I'm not discouraging anybody from doing anything.

>
> >> So, regardless of distance, let's say, I can (i.e. "am able to") ride
> >> a bicycle to work. Um, urban size dictates that is gonna be a
> >> time-consuming, and in weather-challenging conditions, rather
> >> unpleasant.

>
> >Depends on where you live and work. In Canada the median commuting
> >distance is 7.2 km or perhaps 15-20 minutes by bike[1]. Given that
> >that is the median time it is likely that for a lot of people the
> >distance is significantly less. In fact for female commuters it is 6.4
> >km.

>
> >Here is a simple bar chart showing a rough breakdown of who commutes
> >how far
> >http://ca.geocities.com/jrkrideau/cycling/commute.png. Over 60% of
> >the Canadian working population have a less than 10 km (or 20-30
> >minute by bike) commute.

>
> >The way I see it there's lots of room for people to cycle (or even
> >GASP, walk) to work while some people clearly would find it difficult
> >or completely impractical.

>
> >John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

>
> And how far are YOU going to cycle in Kingston in
> December/January/February/March?


Well I only do about 1.5 km since I live near work. When working in
Ottawa my commute was 7.5 km and I did it all year round. Much
healthier and more relaxing than driving though I do recommend studded
tires for winter riding.

Sorry to take so long getting back to you. Next question?

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada


>
> >1. Commuting to Work, 2001 Census Catalogue no.: 97F0015XIE2001001
> > Unfortunately it does not give a breakdown by community size or
> >urban/rural split.

>
> >--clip ---
 
On Jun 5, 5:07 pm, John Kane <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 29, 10:48 pm, Nobody <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 29 May 2007 13:57:53 -0700, John Kane <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > >On May 28, 10:06 pm, Nobody <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:16:20 -0700, [email protected] (Tom Keats)
> > >> wrote:

>
> > >> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > >> > Nobody <[email protected]> writes:

>
> > >> >>>> It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by
> > >> >>>> wish or function.

>
> > >> >>>It is for me, and for many others.

>
> > >> >> Yeah, but what youse who like this "challenge" in transportation don't
> > >> >> seem to appreciate, you're not even in the slightest minority.

>
> > >> >We have enough presence to show up in modal share statistics
> > >> >for numerous North American cities.

>
> > >> >> I lke to go biking for exercise, enjoyment...but for basic
> > >> >> transportation to and from my place of employment 10 km away? Go jump
> > >> >> in the closest pond.

>
> > >> >10 km might be a bit much for a beginning rider.
> > >> >But it doesn't take long to be able to easily
> > >> >and routinely ride that distance, and even further.

>
> > >> >> It just does not make sense for most of us. As I say, it is not
> > >> >> "practicable". (And that's different than beng practical.)

>
> > >> >Who exactly /is/ "most of us"?

>
> > >> >And why are you so vehement about discouraging people
> > >> >from cycle-commuting by denying its practice-ability?

>
> > >> ***********, what you're suggesting is a situation of "enthusiasts"
> > >> dictating what they believe the rest of humanity should be doing.

>
> > >> I'm not discouraging anybody from doing anything.

>
> > >> So, regardless of distance, let's say, I can (i.e. "am able to") ride
> > >> a bicycle to work. Um, urban size dictates that is gonna be a
> > >> time-consuming, and in weather-challenging conditions, rather
> > >> unpleasant.

>
> > >Depends on where you live and work. In Canada the median commuting
> > >distance is 7.2 km or perhaps 15-20 minutes by bike[1]. Given that
> > >that is the median time it is likely that for a lot of people the
> > >distance is significantly less. In fact for female commuters it is 6.4
> > >km.

>
> > >Here is a simple bar chart showing a rough breakdown of who commutes
> > >how far
> > >http://ca.geocities.com/jrkrideau/cycling/commute.png. Over 60% of
> > >the Canadian working population have a less than 10 km (or 20-30
> > >minute by bike) commute.

>
> > >The way I see it there's lots of room for people to cycle (or even
> > >GASP, walk) to work while some people clearly would find it difficult
> > >or completely impractical.

>
> > >John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

>
> > And how far are YOU going to cycle in Kingston in
> > December/January/February/March?

>
> Well I only do about 1.5 km since I live near work. When working in
> Ottawa my commute was 7.5 km and I did it all year round. Much
> healthier and more relaxing than driving though I do recommend studded
> tires for winter riding.
>
> Sorry to take so long getting back to you. Next question?
>
> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
>
>
>
> > >1. Commuting to Work, 2001 Census Catalogue no.: 97F0015XIE2001001
> > > Unfortunately it does not give a breakdown by community size or
> > >urban/rural split.

>
> > >--clip ---


Must have been fun with an average 80 inches and 121 days of snow
cover

http://www.travelingo.org/north-america/canada/guide/72039/
 
In article <[email protected]>, Chris
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I ran into an interesting situation the other day. A collage student,
> going home for the summer was shipping all her belongings home, via the
> post office. She priced it out, and it only cost her $250. A rental truck
> and the gas were going to be over $500.
>
> How are we going to get by when gas, doubles and/or triples in price?



As oil becomes more expensive, other production methods are more
economical. Brazil recently became a net oil producer due to deep level
sea drilling, but that is only economical if oil remains at a high price.

One news article about a year ago indicated that Venezuela actually has
larger proven oil reserves than the middle east does, but it is expensive
to get them. With oil at higher prices, Chavez becomes a more important
figure than he was previously.


> Everyone blames those 'greedy' oil companies, but it is simply supply and
> demand. Demand is up 3% in last 6 months, and supply is only up 1%. With
> no new refineries being built in the US (I don't want that nasty thing in
> my back yard) the price will continue to rise.
>
> China is the main new demand.



There's also the issue of instability in oil producing countries. The
last little spike happened due to Nigeria's turmoil. With the fairly
significant number of deaths caused during that raid on the Chinese oil
platform in Ethiopia, and various other troubles in oil-producing African
nations, we can expect that to be an ongoing problem. Nigeria represents
8% of the world's oil production right now. With 1/3 of their production
shut down due to turmoil and other troubles, things don't look good for
oil or for Nigeria.

On the other hand, if you were an oil company executive and needed to
increase profits by increasing oil prices, it doesn't cost much to make
trouble in Africa. I know it sounds too much like a goofball conspiracy
theory, but if you could make $$billions from creating a little political
turmoil in Africa, I think you would find there are a fair number of
people that would accept whatever moral loss they might have.

--
-Glennl
The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately
now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too!
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.