On 05/31/2022 09:27 PM, Don Y wrote:
> On 5/31/2022 7:40 PM, rbowman wrote:
>> On 05/31/2022 12:00 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>> The roads in many areas of Boston tend to be laid out about where the
>>> carts went, there doesn't seem to be a lot of design to it though.
>
> You could do like Denver -- lay out the *grid* along the Platte, then
> decide
> that a compass points orientation would be smarter!

https://globecharting.com/borders/rose-park-missoula-behind-the-slant-street-neighborhood/

The full story is even juicier. Bickford and Stephens, two lawyers,
platted 'South Missoula' parallel to the wagon road. Judge Knowles, who
had no love for either lawyer owned the land between their holding and
the river. In the west the land is divided into sections of 640 acres
and the Judge made the argument that it was more appropriate to lay out
the streets parallel to the section lines. The Higgins Ave. bridge, now
to be called the Bearpaws Bridge if they ever finish the project, needed
replacing. Higgins, another prime mover, sided with the judge so the
bridge connects directly to South Higgins, which is parallel to the
section line and is the eastern edge of the slants.

> There's really no need to drive *in* Boston as public transit and other
> livery services abound. Moreso than many other metro areas.

If you're patient... The evening hours have sparse service. One company
I worked for was on Memorial Dr. near Western and I had an apartment in
Allston. Walking was faster than messing with public transportation.
Another time I lived in Somerville on Winter Hill and if I did anything
in the evening in Boston or Cambridge walking was much faster. I guess
the Green Line finally got there. Ditto when I lived on Beacon Hill and
was working at the old Schrafft factory in Sullivan Square.

Sometimes I'd go exploring and take the Green Line out to Cleveland
Circle or another terminus and walk back but I never depended on it for
transportation.

On 5/31/2022 10:20 PM, Ricky wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 1:37:10 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
>> On 5/31/2022 11:34 AM, Ricky wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 10:09:20 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Elon Musk doesn't give a fuck if any particular person can get to the
>>>> grocery store or not.
>>>
>>> Sorry that you are not able to understand what I wrote. Nowhere did I say anything about prying cold, dead hands off steering wheels. I guess you have an ICE reaction like some people have when trying to discuss gun control. No one is trying to take your guns, but we want to have more controls over who can buy them.
>> I don't own any guns. But the gun control hoopla is something both
>> factions in the US tend to get wrapped up in while ignoring the entirely
>> more relevant point that the US has a peculiarly violent culture made up
>> of large numbers of peculiarly violent and self-centered people, and
>> that can't be changed in a day by legislation or the Supreme Court.
>>
>> Most intelligent people can see that with estimated 400 million guns
>> already in circulation whether there are 300 or 500 or what the number
>> is precisely probably doesn't matter too much once you're into the nine
>> figures.
>>
>> It's just something people like to squabble about & accomplishes nothing
>> but it feels good to squabble about after every mass shooting because it
>> feels like _some_ kind of song and dance needs to occur instead of
>> nothing, "mission accomplished."
>
> It is a bit humorous that you think there is no value to restricting the sale of guns. If it really does not matter if we restrict guns since there are multiple weapons for every man, woman and child in the US, then why do so many shooters buy the gun they shoot with rather than using one of the many, many already out there? Why do guns continue to be bought? Clearly, someone is hoarding all the guns and not letting everyone have their fair share! That's the cause of all the trouble. People aren't willing to share. Selfish bastards!
I didn't say there was no value. Gun sales are already restricted to
some degree or another everywhere in the US, but in many of those places
the laws that are on the books aren't enforced that well to begin with.
Gun owners seem to be pretty much universally in favor of universal
background checks and restricting sale to felons, people considered
dangerously mentally ill, etc.

But as for singling out certain guns for special treatment, with 400
million of all types in circulation, yeah, I think it's a bit late to
hope turning off a small part of the tap will help much.

And the mass shooter who buys their guns only a few days before their
shooting is somewhat uncommon, most have already owned guns or had them
available for months or years. These people aren't mass shooters until
they pull the trigger, if they acquired their guns legally they're just
"legal gun owners" before that, same as any other, and the guns they own
are just part of the set of "the many out there" same as anyone else's.

>> If the US government cared about getting gas-burners off the roads any
>> more than it cares about reducing the number of guns in circulation it'd
>> offer an attractive buy-back/incentive program to encourage people to
>> trade them in for a cleaner alternative. Hey you could bring both and
>> get double the points towards your purchase.
>
> There's no need to buy them back. They will be scrapped soon enough. Beside, there aren't enough guns... I mean BEVs available for everyone to scrap their ICE right now. We can exchange ICE for BEVs 17,000,000 a year. But then, you know that. You just like being silly. A person would think you were on a late night talk show. Or maybe you've bought Merv Griffin's set and are trying to boost ratings?

Last I checked new cars are only getting more expensive and BEVs tend to
be more expensive than most. Is this a trend you foresee as changing? I
can't say I'm confident this will change anytime soon. Meanwhile 50% of
the population is dead broke, 25% is afraid of ending up that way and
the other 25% doesn't have a big problem with paying for $5 gas.

<https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1134702_americans-dont-want-ev-yet-half-wont-pay-extra-for-electrified>

5% saw their next vehicle being an EV, the financial incentives to pull
the trigger aren't that great.

Like being silly? No I think there's been a concerted effort by
government and industry to push climate change off on the individual and
make it one more bullshit Puritan personal-responsibility kind of thing,
like you'd better go buy one now or you're a bad person, while those
guys fuck around like business-as-usual and the US military dumps more
CO2 into the atmosphere each year than all personal cars combined, and
we send $50 billion for guns to Ukraine for a war that can't be won,
like that's good for the planet.

So yeah a big "fuck you" from Joe Consumer in response to some guilt
trip about his personal car-buying choices is totally understandable.
Let some of the fat cats get off their fat asses and do something if
they care so much (they don't.)

On 6/1/2022 2:47 AM, bitrex wrote:

> 5% saw their next vehicle being an EV, the financial incentives to pull
> the trigger aren't that great.
>
> Like being silly? No I think there's been a concerted effort by
> government and industry to push climate change off on the individual and
> make it one more bullshit Puritan personal-responsibility kind of thing,
> like you'd better go buy one now or you're a bad person, while those
> guys fuck around like business-as-usual and the US military dumps more
> CO2 into the atmosphere each year than all personal cars combined

Correction, that's too high. About 100 million metric tons for the
military vs 600 million metric tons for all _passenger_ vehicles
including light trucks and SUVs, IDK what it is if you exclude light
trucks and SUVs.

I bet the military does give just personal "cars" like all sedans in the
US a run for their money, though..

On 5/31/2022 10:57 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On 05/31/2022 11:37 AM, bitrex wrote:
>> If the US government cared about getting gas-burners off the roads any
>> more than it cares about reducing the number of guns in circulation it'd
>> offer an attractive buy-back/incentive program to encourage people to
>> trade them in for a cleaner alternative. Hey you could bring both and
>> get double the points towards your purchase.
>
> Cash for Clunkers? That worked so well. It was a windfall for people who
> could afford a new car which they probably would have bought anyway. It
> raised the price of used cars screwing the people who couldn't afford
> going up-market and hurt the charitable donation programs. At the end of
> the day there was a very minor increase in fuel economy.

It was to stimulate the economy by pulling ahead spending, not start
some green revolution. Obama the "Droner-in-Chief" was too busy blowing
up peasant families in the Middle East for much of his tenure to really
do much of substance on the environmental front:

<https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/4/28/15472508/obama-climate-change-legacy-overrated-clean-power>

> As irony, my '86 pickup which has a very rudimentary ECU and couldn't
> pass a CA smog test on a bet wasn't eligible -- it was too old.
>
> Would the firearms program mean I could trade in my 80 year old bolt
> action rifle for a shiny new AR?
>

If you have an 80 year old rifle and an '86 pickup you're not the type
to trade them in anyway, you are likely an old-junk hoarder like Sanford
& Son, saving rusty screws in a jar too.

<https://youtu.be/FUjWYm8bh8U>

On 6/1/2022 3:26 AM, bitrex wrote:
> On 5/31/2022 10:57 PM, rbowman wrote:
>> On 05/31/2022 11:37 AM, bitrex wrote:
>>> If the US government cared about getting gas-burners off the roads any
>>> more than it cares about reducing the number of guns in circulation it'd
>>> offer an attractive buy-back/incentive program to encourage people to
>>> trade them in for a cleaner alternative. Hey you could bring both and
>>> get double the points towards your purchase.
>>
>> Cash for Clunkers? That worked so well. It was a windfall for people
>> who could afford a new car which they probably would have bought
>> anyway. It raised the price of used cars screwing the people who
>> couldn't afford going up-market and hurt the charitable donation
>> programs. At the end of the day there was a very minor increase in
>> fuel economy.
>
> It was to stimulate the economy by pulling ahead spending, not start
> some green revolution. Obama the "Droner-in-Chief" was too busy blowing
> up peasant families in the Middle East for much of his tenure to really
> do much of substance on the environmental front:
>
> <https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/4/28/15472508/obama-climate-change-legacy-overrated-clean-power>

They gave him the Nobel Peace prize and then he went on to blow up
several thousand innocent peasants. "Mission Accomplished!"

On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 2:47:10 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
> On 5/31/2022 10:20 PM, Ricky wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 1:37:10 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
> >> On 5/31/2022 11:34 AM, Ricky wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 10:09:20 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Elon Musk doesn't give a fuck if any particular person can get to the
> >>>> grocery store or not.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry that you are not able to understand what I wrote. Nowhere did I say anything about prying cold, dead hands off steering wheels. I guess you have an ICE reaction like some people have when trying to discuss gun control. No one is trying to take your guns, but we want to have more controls over who can buy them.
> >> I don't own any guns. But the gun control hoopla is something both
> >> factions in the US tend to get wrapped up in while ignoring the entirely
> >> more relevant point that the US has a peculiarly violent culture made up
> >> of large numbers of peculiarly violent and self-centered people, and
> >> that can't be changed in a day by legislation or the Supreme Court.
> >>
> >> Most intelligent people can see that with estimated 400 million guns
> >> already in circulation whether there are 300 or 500 or what the number
> >> is precisely probably doesn't matter too much once you're into the nine
> >> figures.
> >>
> >> It's just something people like to squabble about & accomplishes nothing
> >> but it feels good to squabble about after every mass shooting because it
> >> feels like _some_ kind of song and dance needs to occur instead of
> >> nothing, "mission accomplished."
> >
> > It is a bit humorous that you think there is no value to restricting the sale of guns. If it really does not matter if we restrict guns since there are multiple weapons for every man, woman and child in the US, then why do so many shooters buy the gun they shoot with rather than using one of the many, many already out there? Why do guns continue to be bought? Clearly, someone is hoarding all the guns and not letting everyone have their fair share! That's the cause of all the trouble. People aren't willing to share. Selfish bastards!
> I didn't say there was no value. Gun sales are already restricted to
> some degree or another everywhere in the US, but in many of those places
> the laws that are on the books aren't enforced that well to begin with.
> Gun owners seem to be pretty much universally in favor of universal
> background checks and restricting sale to felons, people considered
> dangerously mentally ill, etc.
>
> But as for singling out certain guns for special treatment, with 400
> million of all types in circulation, yeah, I think it's a bit late to
> hope turning off a small part of the tap will help much.
>
> And the mass shooter who buys their guns only a few days before their
> shooting is somewhat uncommon, most have already owned guns or had them
> available for months or years. These people aren't mass shooters until
> they pull the trigger, if they acquired their guns legally they're just
> "legal gun owners" before that, same as any other, and the guns they own
> are just part of the set of "the many out there" same as anyone else's.

No one is a mass shooter until the pull the trigger. You miss the point. They did not have any weapons until they bought them. So clearly, the point of purchasing a gun is a great opportunity to prevent potentially dangerous people from getting their hands on them. In many cases, these guys would set off alarm bells easily.

As an analogy, there are 250 million cars in the US, yet you can't get a drivers license without passing a test or below a certain age, having training. Is that too much to impose on people for having guns? Hell, in the waters of Washington, D.C. I can't paddle a kayak without a license.

You can throw up your hands and say "we can't do it", but that's just pure bullshit defeatism. We can have an impact and there's zero reason to not do it.

The idea of people "buying their guns legally" is the whole point. We need to be more strict about who can buy weapons. I think anyone of age to be in high school is too young.

> >> If the US government cared about getting gas-burners off the roads any
> >> more than it cares about reducing the number of guns in circulation it'd
> >> offer an attractive buy-back/incentive program to encourage people to
> >> trade them in for a cleaner alternative. Hey you could bring both and
> >> get double the points towards your purchase.
> >
> > There's no need to buy them back. They will be scrapped soon enough. Beside, there aren't enough guns... I mean BEVs available for everyone to scrap their ICE right now. We can exchange ICE for BEVs 17,000,000 a year. But then, you know that. You just like being silly. A person would think you were on a late night talk show. Or maybe you've bought Merv Griffin's set and are trying to boost ratings?
> Last I checked new cars are only getting more expensive and BEVs tend to
> be more expensive than most. Is this a trend you foresee as changing? I
> can't say I'm confident this will change anytime soon. Meanwhile 50% of
> the population is dead broke, 25% is afraid of ending up that way and
> the other 25% doesn't have a big problem with paying for $5 gas.

I've heard that 87.4% of all statistics are made up! Yeah, when you make up your own statistics, you can prove anything you want.

> <https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1134702_americans-dont-want-ev-yet-half-wont-pay-extra-for-electrified>
>
> 5% saw their next vehicle being an EV, the financial incentives to pull
> the trigger aren't that great.

You are ignorant of the facts. BEVs are selling, limited only by how fast they can make them, literally! Tesla has a months long waiting list. Instead of trying to promote BEVs by selling a lower end model, they've dropped all the cheaper versions, yet people are pounding on their doors with cash in hand! There's nothing you can say about people not wanting to drive BEVs.

> Like being silly? No I think there's been a concerted effort by
> government and industry to push climate change off on the individual and
> make it one more bullshit Puritan personal-responsibility kind of thing,
> like you'd better go buy one now or you're a bad person, while those
> guys fuck around like business-as-usual and the US military dumps more
> CO2 into the atmosphere each year than all personal cars combined, and
> we send $50 billion for guns to Ukraine for a war that can't be won,
> like that's good for the planet.

Funny you put it that way. That's not really thinking in any sense of the word. That's just you creating your own fantasy.

> So yeah a big "fuck you" from Joe Consumer in response to some guilt
> trip about his personal car-buying choices is totally understandable.
> Let some of the fat cats get off their fat asses and do something if
> they care so much (they don't.)

Nobody is laying a guilt trip on anyone else. Drive what you want. Give it a bit of time and your only choice will be BEV or drive 10 miles to find a gas station. Not too long after that, your gasoline will have a $5 a gallon tax, like in the EU. So it will be selling for $15 a gal. Drive all you want! I don't give a damn. You will be 1 in 100 and will be purely irrelevant.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 5/31/2022 11:27 PM, Don Y wrote:
> On 5/31/2022 7:40 PM, rbowman wrote:
>> On 05/31/2022 12:00 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>> The roads in many areas of Boston tend to be laid out about where the
>>> carts went, there doesn't seem to be a lot of design to it though.
>
> You could do like Denver -- lay out the *grid* along the Platte, then
> decide
> that a compass points orientation would be smarter!
>
>> When you start with a town square that really is an irregular pentagon
>> things go to hell in a hurry. Then you have to remember the Back Bay
>> really was a bay and the Fens a tidal marsh. Even the Fens got redone
>> when they dammed the Charles and it went from brackish to fresh water.
>>
>> It adds charm. I enjoyed walking around the town when I had work in
>> the area. 'Walking is the operant word. I'd drive down from NH Sunday
>> night and park the car, only retrieving it to drive home Friday
>> afternoon.
>
> There's really no need to drive *in* Boston as public transit and other
> livery services abound.  Moreso than many other metro areas.
>
> And, the region is relatively dense.  E.g., the core metro area would fit
> *in* the city limits of Chicago.

The public transit in Boston is adequate-on-a-good-day at best, and a
nightmare when the system isn't having a good day

On 5/31/2022 10:00 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On 05/31/2022 09:27 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> On 5/31/2022 7:40 PM, rbowman wrote:
>>> On 05/31/2022 12:00 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>>> The roads in many areas of Boston tend to be laid out about where the
>>>> carts went, there doesn't seem to be a lot of design to it though.
>>
>> You could do like Denver -- lay out the *grid* along the Platte, then
>> decide
>> that a compass points orientation would be smarter!
>
> https://globecharting.com/borders/rose-park-missoula-behind-the-slant-street-neighborhood/
>
> The full story is even juicier. Bickford and Stephens, two lawyers, platted
> 'South Missoula' parallel to the wagon road. Judge Knowles, who had no love for
> either lawyer owned the land between their holding and the river. In the west
> the land is divided into sections of 640 acres and the Judge made the argument
> that it was more appropriate to lay out the streets parallel to the section
> lines. The Higgins Ave. bridge, now to be called the Bearpaws Bridge if they
> ever finish the project, needed replacing. Higgins, another prime mover, sided
> with the judge so the bridge connects directly to South Higgins, which is
> parallel to the section line and is the eastern edge of the slants.

Roads in the west (and to a lesser extent, the midwest) at least tend to be
laid out to *some* sort of plan. And, often have *some* sort of naming
convention that can assist the driver/navigator.

[Of course, you have roads like Wacker Dr that exists with N, S, E & W
addresses. As well as "upper", "lower" and "lower lower" modifiers :-/ ]

And, tend to be considerably *longer* within a given domain (e.g., Western
Ave is ~30 miles *in* the city's limits).

OTOH, it was nice (East) to be able to get on TownB Rd, in TownA,
and know that it would get you *to* TownB (at which point, the road
would be renamed TownA Rd, curiously :> )

>> There's really no need to drive *in* Boston as public transit and other
>> livery services abound. Moreso than many other metro areas.
>
> If you're patient... The evening hours have sparse service.

Patience is relative. Here (AZ), many routes run *hourly*. Heaven help
the fool who misses a connection! I'm sure there's nothing after 11P
(which kinda puts a damper in using it after a night on the town!)

And, stops are relatively far apart and outside the residential
neighborhoods. So, a fair bit of walking to get *to* a stop
and then a fair bit to get *from* the stop.

> One company I
> worked for was on Memorial Dr. near Western and I had an apartment in Allston.
> Walking was faster than messing with public transportation. Another time I
> lived in Somerville on Winter Hill and if I did anything in the evening in
> Boston or Cambridge walking was much faster. I guess the Green Line finally got
> there. Ditto when I lived on Beacon Hill and was working at the old Schrafft
> factory in Sullivan Square.

But the distances are relatively short. E.g., I could walk from The Zone to
Park St or Charles St stations in almost the same amount of time -- considering
a T at Park St would end up bringing me *to* Charles St whereas walking would
get me there directly. :<

Or, Central Sq to CSDL in about the same time as from Kendall Sq.

> Sometimes I'd go exploring and take the Green Line out to Cleveland Circle or
> another terminus and walk back but I never depended on it for transportation.

I only found a car "useful" when driving out of the metro area... work in
Westwood, trips out to Maynard, Methuen, etc. Visiting a cousin at BC was
considerably less effort by car vs. T.

OTOH, *storing* a car was always tedious -- esp if you didn't have a driveway
or parking area set aside for your use (on both ends of the trip).

[I recall stashing the car in Stark Raving's garage the evening before the `78
blizzard; a truly fortuitous decision! :> ]

On 6/1/2022 1:08 AM, bitrex wrote:
> On 5/31/2022 11:27 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> On 5/31/2022 7:40 PM, rbowman wrote:
>>> On 05/31/2022 12:00 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>>> The roads in many areas of Boston tend to be laid out about where the
>>>> carts went, there doesn't seem to be a lot of design to it though.
>>
>> You could do like Denver -- lay out the *grid* along the Platte, then decide
>> that a compass points orientation would be smarter!
>>
>>> When you start with a town square that really is an irregular pentagon
>>> things go to hell in a hurry. Then you have to remember the Back Bay really
>>> was a bay and the Fens a tidal marsh. Even the Fens got redone when they
>>> dammed the Charles and it went from brackish to fresh water.
>>>
>>> It adds charm. I enjoyed walking around the town when I had work in the
>>> area. 'Walking is the operant word. I'd drive down from NH Sunday night and
>>> park the car, only retrieving it to drive home Friday afternoon.
>>
>> There's really no need to drive *in* Boston as public transit and other
>> livery services abound. Moreso than many other metro areas.
>>
>> And, the region is relatively dense. E.g., the core metro area would fit
>> *in* the city limits of Chicago.
>
> The public transit in Boston is adequate-on-a-good-day at best, and a nightmare
> when the system isn't having a good day

I don't think you understand how "nightmarish" public transit can be ALL
of the time!

E.g., my most common drive is to my volunteer gig. It's about 20 minnutes
in a private vehicle.

If I had to rely on public transit (busses, here), it would mean a 1.25 mile
walk to the bus stop -- hopefully timed to arrive just before a bus departs
on the route in which I'm interested.

Then, a 22 minute (per their schedule) drive to another stop -- where I'd
wait ~20 minutes (assuming all is going well!) for my connection. Then, a
5 minute drive to the final stop. And a half mile walk to the destination.

At my 4MPH walking pace, that's ~25 minutes on foot plus 27 minutes on wheels.
Almost three times longer than my "drive WHEN it is convenient for me to do so"
approach. And, having to deal with *sharing* the vehicle with "others"...

[And, who knows how I would drag any rescued kit home via the busline!]

Of course, I have no idea what the MTA is like, now as it's been decades
since I've been there. And, I've not a clue as to how Big Dig is mucking
with surface transportation...

On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 4:09:00 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
> On 5/31/2022 11:27 PM, Don Y wrote:
> > On 5/31/2022 7:40 PM, rbowman wrote:
> >> On 05/31/2022 12:00 PM, bitrex wrote:
> >>> The roads in many areas of Boston tend to be laid out about where the
> >>> carts went, there doesn't seem to be a lot of design to it though.
> >
> > You could do like Denver -- lay out the *grid* along the Platte, then
> > decide
> > that a compass points orientation would be smarter!
> >
> >> When you start with a town square that really is an irregular pentagon
> >> things go to hell in a hurry. Then you have to remember the Back Bay
> >> really was a bay and the Fens a tidal marsh. Even the Fens got redone
> >> when they dammed the Charles and it went from brackish to fresh water.
> >>
> >> It adds charm. I enjoyed walking around the town when I had work in
> >> the area. 'Walking is the operant word. I'd drive down from NH Sunday
> >> night and park the car, only retrieving it to drive home Friday
> >> afternoon.
> >
> > There's really no need to drive *in* Boston as public transit and other
> > livery services abound. Moreso than many other metro areas.
> >
> > And, the region is relatively dense. E.g., the core metro area would fit
> > *in* the city limits of Chicago.
> The public transit in Boston is adequate-on-a-good-day at best, and a
> nightmare when the system isn't having a good day

Isn't that true for all transportation in cities? I know DC traffic has no upper limit for ETA.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 6/1/2022 5:11 AM, Don Y wrote:
> On 6/1/2022 1:08 AM, bitrex wrote:
>> On 5/31/2022 11:27 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>> On 5/31/2022 7:40 PM, rbowman wrote:
>>>> On 05/31/2022 12:00 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>>>> The roads in many areas of Boston tend to be laid out about where the
>>>>> carts went, there doesn't seem to be a lot of design to it though.
>>>
>>> You could do like Denver -- lay out the *grid* along the Platte, then
>>> decide
>>> that a compass points orientation would be smarter!
>>>
>>>> When you start with a town square that really is an irregular
>>>> pentagon things go to hell in a hurry. Then you have to remember the
>>>> Back Bay really was a bay and the Fens a tidal marsh. Even the Fens
>>>> got redone when they dammed the Charles and it went from brackish to
>>>> fresh water.
>>>>
>>>> It adds charm. I enjoyed walking around the town when I had work in
>>>> the area. 'Walking is the operant word. I'd drive down from NH
>>>> Sunday night and park the car, only retrieving it to drive home
>>>> Friday afternoon.
>>>
>>> There's really no need to drive *in* Boston as public transit and other
>>> livery services abound.  Moreso than many other metro areas.
>>>
>>> And, the region is relatively dense.  E.g., the core metro area would
>>> fit
>>> *in* the city limits of Chicago.
>>
>> The public transit in Boston is adequate-on-a-good-day at best, and a
>> nightmare when the system isn't having a good day
>
> I don't think you understand how "nightmarish" public transit can be ALL
> of the time!
>
> E.g., my most common drive is to my volunteer gig.  It's about 20 minnutes
> in a private vehicle.
>
> If I had to rely on public transit (busses, here), it would mean a 1.25
> mile
> walk to the bus stop -- hopefully timed to arrive just before a bus departs
> on the route in which I'm interested.
>
> Then, a 22 minute (per their schedule) drive to another stop -- where I'd
> wait ~20 minutes (assuming all is going well!) for my connection.  Then, a
> 5 minute drive to the final stop.  And a half mile walk to the destination.
>
> At my 4MPH walking pace, that's ~25 minutes on foot plus 27 minutes on
> wheels.
> Almost three times longer than my "drive WHEN it is convenient for me to
> do so"
> approach.  And, having to deal with *sharing* the vehicle with "others"...
>
> [And, who knows how I would drag any rescued kit home via the busline!]

Yes, I live far enough from Boston proper that if I wanted to get to
South Station downtown as of 10 AM this morning without using a car or
taxi at all my adventure starts with a 20 minute walk to a bus stop,
then a 50 minute bus ride, then a 35 minute heavy rail train ride.

Google sometimes routes me a bit differently with a shorter bus ride and
longer train ride depending on the time of day, but it always ends up
suggesting a trip that takes over 2 hours. By car even in traffic the
same trip would take me 45 minutes tops, it's only about 25 miles away I
don't live _that_ far outside the city.

But housing closer in within easy striking distance of a light rail
station tends to command a premium price tag.

> Of course, I have no idea what the MTA is like, now as it's been decades
> since I've been there.  And, I've not a clue as to how Big Dig is mucking
> with surface transportation...

The Big Dig has been done for pushing 20 years and made getting in and
out of town by car a _lot_ better, but mucked with public transit in
Boston a lot. A large amount of the debt for that got shoveled off onto
the MBTA, circa 2010 a quarter of the MBTA's operating budget was spent
on Big Dig debt service.

The system was running really threadbare for many years and it came to a
head in 2014-2015 when the exceptional snowfall of that winter regularly
ground the subway system to a halt, stuff was massively breaking down
every week. The average age of a trainset a decade ago was like 32 years
old or something.

The joke was the MBTA's general manager Beverly Scott had announced her
resignation "before the snow had even stopped falling" which wasn't far
from the truth.

As of a few years back they've begun investing more money in track &
equipment upgrades and they've got several hundred new trainsets built
in Springfield MA by Chinese state-owned CRRC (grumble grumble), however
they're having teething troubles as new trainsets tend to do:

<https://www.wbur.org/news/2022/05/20/orange-red-line-trains-out-of-service-mbta>

On 6/1/2022 10:03 AM, bitrex wrote:

> Yes, I live far enough from Boston proper that if I wanted to get to
> South Station downtown as of 10 AM this morning without using a car or
> taxi at all my adventure starts with a 20 minute walk to a bus stop,
> then a 50 minute bus ride, then a 35 minute heavy rail train ride.
>
> Google sometimes routes me a bit differently with a shorter bus ride and
> longer train ride depending on the time of day, but it always ends up
> suggesting a trip that takes over 2 hours. By car even in traffic the
> same trip would take me 45 minutes tops

At the absolute peak of weekday rush hour it might take an hour.

On 06/01/2022 01:26 AM, bitrex wrote:
> On 5/31/2022 10:57 PM, rbowman wrote:
>> On 05/31/2022 11:37 AM, bitrex wrote:
>>> If the US government cared about getting gas-burners off the roads any
>>> more than it cares about reducing the number of guns in circulation it'd
>>> offer an attractive buy-back/incentive program to encourage people to
>>> trade them in for a cleaner alternative. Hey you could bring both and
>>> get double the points towards your purchase.
>>
>> Cash for Clunkers? That worked so well. It was a windfall for people
>> who could afford a new car which they probably would have bought
>> anyway. It raised the price of used cars screwing the people who
>> couldn't afford going up-market and hurt the charitable donation
>> programs. At the end of the day there was a very minor increase in
>> fuel economy.
>
> It was to stimulate the economy by pulling ahead spending, not start
> some green revolution. Obama the "Droner-in-Chief" was too busy blowing
> up peasant families in the Middle East for much of his tenure to really
> do much of substance on the environmental front:
>
> <https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/4/28/15472508/obama-climate-change-legacy-overrated-clean-power>
>
>
>> As irony, my '86 pickup which has a very rudimentary ECU and couldn't
>> pass a CA smog test on a bet wasn't eligible -- it was too old.
>>
>> Would the firearms program mean I could trade in my 80 year old bolt
>> action rifle for a shiny new AR?
>>
>
> If you have an 80 year old rifle and an '86 pickup you're not the type
> to trade them in anyway, you are likely an old-junk hoarder like Sanford
> & Son, saving rusty screws in a jar too.
>
> <https://youtu.be/FUjWYm8bh8U>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp7HYBMee00

Stuff that works... I still have the Gibson J-45 I bought in '63. The
fretboard could use a little work but it sounds good. I didn't pay $3000
for it either.

The Mosin Nagant works too. Just ask Simo Hayha.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4

The way the Finns are prodding the bear they may need a few guys like him.

I miss Red Green. That, Austin City Limits, and a few other programs on
PBS are about my only TV consumption.

On 06/01/2022 01:29 AM, bitrex wrote:
> On 6/1/2022 3:26 AM, bitrex wrote:
>> On 5/31/2022 10:57 PM, rbowman wrote:
>>> On 05/31/2022 11:37 AM, bitrex wrote:
>>>> If the US government cared about getting gas-burners off the roads any
>>>> more than it cares about reducing the number of guns in circulation
>>>> it'd
>>>> offer an attractive buy-back/incentive program to encourage people to
>>>> trade them in for a cleaner alternative. Hey you could bring both and
>>>> get double the points towards your purchase.
>>>
>>> Cash for Clunkers? That worked so well. It was a windfall for people
>>> who could afford a new car which they probably would have bought
>>> anyway. It raised the price of used cars screwing the people who
>>> couldn't afford going up-market and hurt the charitable donation
>>> programs. At the end of the day there was a very minor increase in
>>> fuel economy.
>>
>> It was to stimulate the economy by pulling ahead spending, not start
>> some green revolution. Obama the "Droner-in-Chief" was too busy
>> blowing up peasant families in the Middle East for much of his tenure
>> to really do much of substance on the environmental front:
>>
>> <https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/4/28/15472508/obama-climate-change-legacy-overrated-clean-power>
>
>
> They gave him the Nobel Peace prize and then he went on to blow up
> several thousand innocent peasants. "Mission Accomplished!"
>

The was one of the most egregious examples of affirmative action in
history. Well, maybe since they gave one to Kissinger. It chafes me that
I finally agree with him on something.

On 6/1/2022 3:29 AM, Ricky wrote:

> I've heard that 87.4% of all statistics are made up! Yeah, when you make up your own statistics, you can prove anything you want.
>
>
>> <https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1134702_americans-dont-want-ev-yet-half-wont-pay-extra-for-electrified>
>>
>> 5% saw their next vehicle being an EV, the financial incentives to pull
>> the trigger aren't that great.
>
> You are ignorant of the facts. BEVs are selling, limited only by how fast they can make them, literally! Tesla has a months long waiting list. Instead of trying to promote BEVs by selling a lower end model, they've dropped all the cheaper versions, yet people are pounding on their doors with cash in hand! There's nothing you can say about people not wanting to drive BEVs.

They're selling many other vehicles as fast as they can make them, too,
prices for new vehicles are up across the board. 250,000 pickup trucks
get sold every month in the US IIRC that's close to what Tesla sells in
a year in the US.

Difference is Tesla buyers may be pounding on Tesla's door cash-in-hand
but the average pickup buyer doesn't have cash in hand they're taking
out 72, 84 month loans on those and I expect the number of people who're
going to default over that timeframe is a lot.

It hardly seems sustainable just from a financial perspective. But
simultaneously the imminent death of the ICE seems exaggerated.

On 06/01/2022 02:08 AM, bitrex wrote:
> On 5/31/2022 11:27 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> On 5/31/2022 7:40 PM, rbowman wrote:
>>> On 05/31/2022 12:00 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>>> The roads in many areas of Boston tend to be laid out about where the
>>>> carts went, there doesn't seem to be a lot of design to it though.
>>
>> You could do like Denver -- lay out the *grid* along the Platte, then
>> decide
>> that a compass points orientation would be smarter!
>>
>>> When you start with a town square that really is an irregular
>>> pentagon things go to hell in a hurry. Then you have to remember the
>>> Back Bay really was a bay and the Fens a tidal marsh. Even the Fens
>>> got redone when they dammed the Charles and it went from brackish to
>>> fresh water.
>>>
>>> It adds charm. I enjoyed walking around the town when I had work in
>>> the area. 'Walking is the operant word. I'd drive down from NH Sunday
>>> night and park the car, only retrieving it to drive home Friday
>>> afternoon.
>>
>> There's really no need to drive *in* Boston as public transit and other
>> livery services abound. Moreso than many other metro areas.
>>
>> And, the region is relatively dense. E.g., the core metro area would fit
>> *in* the city limits of Chicago.
>
> The public transit in Boston is adequate-on-a-good-day at best, and a
> nightmare when the system isn't having a good day

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/as-crews-continue-to-work-on-red-line-derailment-damage-commuters-remain-troubled/114667/

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/red-line-service-down-replaced-with-shuttle-bus/2428171/

https://www.wcvb.com/article/mbta-orange-line-braking-problem-removed-from-service-may-19-2022/40050137

They can't even buy new trains and get them to work.

On 6/1/2022 10:25 AM, rbowman wrote:
> On 06/01/2022 02:08 AM, bitrex wrote:
>> On 5/31/2022 11:27 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>> On 5/31/2022 7:40 PM, rbowman wrote:
>>>> On 05/31/2022 12:00 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>>>> The roads in many areas of Boston tend to be laid out about where the
>>>>> carts went, there doesn't seem to be a lot of design to it though.
>>>
>>> You could do like Denver -- lay out the *grid* along the Platte, then
>>> decide
>>> that a compass points orientation would be smarter!
>>>
>>>> When you start with a town square that really is an irregular
>>>> pentagon things go to hell in a hurry. Then you have to remember the
>>>> Back Bay really was a bay and the Fens a tidal marsh. Even the Fens
>>>> got redone when they dammed the Charles and it went from brackish to
>>>> fresh water.
>>>>
>>>> It adds charm. I enjoyed walking around the town when I had work in
>>>> the area. 'Walking is the operant word. I'd drive down from NH Sunday
>>>> night and park the car, only retrieving it to drive home Friday
>>>> afternoon.
>>>
>>> There's really no need to drive *in* Boston as public transit and other
>>> livery services abound.  Moreso than many other metro areas.
>>>
>>> And, the region is relatively dense.  E.g., the core metro area would
>>> fit
>>> *in* the city limits of Chicago.
>>
>> The public transit in Boston is adequate-on-a-good-day at best, and a
>> nightmare when the system isn't having a good day
>
> https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/as-crews-continue-to-work-on-red-line-derailment-damage-commuters-remain-troubled/114667/
>
>
> https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/red-line-service-down-replaced-with-shuttle-bus/2428171/
>
>
> https://www.wcvb.com/article/mbta-orange-line-braking-problem-removed-from-service-may-19-2022/40050137
>
>
> They can't even buy new trains and get them to work.

The Orange Line in particular will be much improved once they get the
bugs out, the Hawker Siddeley cars are almost as old as I am but haven't
aged nearly as well.

On 5/31/2022 5:26 PM, Don Y wrote:
> On 5/31/2022 10:14 AM, Rich S wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 2:52:31 PM UTC, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-31 01:05, Rich S wrote:
>>> [...] We really need "inoculation" at a young age to be
>>>> critical thinkers. What schooling & parenting should be...
>>>> regards, rs
>>>>
>>> Disagree. Ideas drilled into you at a young age are
>>> uncritically accepted as beliefs. Critical thinking
>>> comes later. Weak logic and cognitive fallacies are
>>> of all ages, but advanced education helps, even if
>>> it's no panacea.
>>>
>>> Jeroen Belleman
>>
>> I agree, partially, Jeroen. To me "young" is as "old" as 18 y.o.
>> :-)  Anyway, I hypothesize, we (educators in U.S., in particular)
>> generally underestimate the age at which the brain
>> can begin to think critically. True, you don't want the
>> students to be disruptive, and begin challenging everything
>> being taught.
>
> You can encourage "free thought" without inviting outright
> challenges to (ahem) "dogma".
>
> Even activities like "choosing a science fair project"
> require some initiative on the part of the student;
> what do you want to do and what do you expect to show, etc.
>
>> But if we (in U.S.) are treating 18 y.o. as an
>> adult, legally, with some serious responsibilities and decisions
>> (that affect them, me, and everyone around them)
>> then we better prepare them accordingly. Unfortunately
>> the source for this preparation is increasingly dependent
>> of the public schools.
>
> And, "know-better" legislators want to lay a heavy hand on WHAT
> they can be exposed to and, by extension, be able to "think for
> themselves" about.
>
> Imagine a whole class of people terrified of certain *books*
> (likely because you can't SHOOT a book!) or *concepts*...
>
> Gotta pity the poor children so constrained in their thoughts.
> Wonder what life will be like when they are LATER, exposed to
> people (in positions of power/influence) who espouse DIFFERENT
> "beliefs"?

No time for public education, need to ban pornography, clearly
responsible for low birth rates and the degeneration of our precious
American bodily fluids in general:

<https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2022/5/31/23148731/jd-vance-ohio-senate-candidate-pornography-should-be-banned-to-save-families-birth-rate-marriage-us>

Achtung raus! Hup! Raus mein Fuhrer jawohl! Zee good Germans is heah to
save Ameirka.

And public education is next on the chopping block after Roe v Wade, we
have to ensure educators are teaching young women menstrual blood is the
cum of a demon and the devil needs to be beaten out of them to prevent
his cum from getting in there, as is proper, not any of that boring
scientific or medical crap about it. It's probably all tainted with the
CRT anyway.

On 5/30/2022 7:36 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:12:54 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 15:51:37 +0100, Martin Brown
>> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 29/05/2022 14:19, Ricky wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Mining the lithium for the batteries is a nasty business despoiling
>>> various pristine habitats with little concern for the inhabitants.
>
> It can be be. It doesn't have to be.
>
>>> Out of sight out of mind for those that want to pretend that there is no downside to electric vehicles and growth of Lithium batteries. They also end up with radioactive tailings in Peru (or uranium as a by-product).
>
> They can. It is a matter of choice. The fact that uranium deposits were found nearby is a coincidence, and the choice about what to do with them is entirely independent.
>
>>> https://www.mining-technology.com/analysis/cracking-lithium-triangle-will-new-legislation-open-gates-peru/
>
>>> You have a strange imagination. Chances are if this technology had been
>>> available back then only the very richest people would ever have had a
>>> car. Until mass production petrol cars were rich men's expensive toys.
>
> Battery cars were popular early on. There weren't many of them so they were just as expensive as petrol cars.
>
>>> EVs have proved difficult to mass produce economically.
>
> Twaddle.
>
>>>> Instead, many of us think spoiling our environment is secondary to
>>>> our convenience, as if we had a birthright to roaming the earth in
>>>> ways that destroy the environment, our "convenience" is paramount!
>>>> Convenience über alles!
>>>
>>> The next generation can pay for it. Politicians can't ever see any
>>> further than the next election and often not even that far :(
>>
>> Lifespans, nutrition, crop yields, access to education and medical
>> care, human rights, practically anything you can name keeps getting
>> better. Oil and gas are major contributors to human well-being.
>
> Oil and gas were major contributors to human well-being. Now that we've burnt enough of them to generate appreciable global warming, the downsides are starting to become more obvious (not that John Larkin wants to know).
>
> <snip - reversion to the Middle Ages isn't the only choice available>
>

This is a real person with actual power in the US government:

<https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1531024532231839744>

“They want to know when you are eating,” she said, 'they want to know if
you are eating a cheeseburger which is very bad because Bill Gates wants
you to eat his fake meat that grows in a peach tree [sic] dish.'"

So while we might not have to revert to the Middle Ages, there's a
pretty good chance we will.

On Tue, 31 May 2022 19:02:49 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 31 May 2022 14:30:51 -0700, John Larkin
><jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>
>...
>>This is fun, St Mary's Park.
>>
>>https://www.dropbox.com/s/5mhmlrn456unoto/St_Marys_Park.jpg?raw=1
>>
>>It's amazing that all the houses were built on hillsides, streets with
>>30% grades, using horses and people to haul wood and bricks.
>
>I just came back from Portugal. Here is a historical example of just
>that:
>
>.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porto#/media/File:Ribera_area_along_the_river_Duoro,_Porto,_Portugal,_2019.jpg>
>
>
>The whole Douro River is like that, only vineyards not buildings. Lots
>of olive and almond trees as well. The slopes often exceed 30%, and
>it's mostly to all hand work.
>
>.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douro#/media/File:Rio_Douro_-_Portugal_(32615481975)_(cropped).jpg>
>
>.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douro#/media/File:Douro_Valley_Regua.jpg>
>
>
>Joe Gwinn

Looks like you could tip a cow and it would roll all the way down into
the river.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On Tue, 31 May 2022 20:40:55 -0600, rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
wrote:

>On 05/31/2022 12:00 PM, bitrex wrote:
>> On 5/31/2022 11:05 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 21:13:30 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/29/2022 9:19 AM, Ricky wrote:
>>>>> What is amazing in the debates over BEV adoption, is the sense of
>>>>> entitlement.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2,000 years ago, the Romans built pipes of lead and were slowly
>>>>> poisoned. 200 years ago, we tossed our trash anywhere we felt and
>>>>> suffered the disease. 100 years ago we mined resources without
>>>>> regard to the damage done and lived with being slowly poisoned.
>>>>> Now, all of those things are recognized as being harmful to our
>>>>> society and none are allowed. It costs us convenience and even
>>>>> money, but we recognize that it is important to not live in an
>>>>> environment of filth and waste.
>>>>>
>>>>> Come the year 2000, we have despoiled our air with the fumes of
>>>>> toxic auto emissions, released enough CO2 to raise the temperature
>>>>> of the planet and are on our way to the blackening of the world we
>>>>> live in, not so different from the poisonous fogs of London. Yet,
>>>>> so many of us deny this reality and refuse solutions. In
>>>>> particular, with autos, they act as if spewing noxious emissions for
>>>>> our personal transportation convenience is a birthright!
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no birthright to transportation, other than the right to
>>>>> walk. We have reached a point where, if we want to continue to roam
>>>>> the world in cages of steel and glass, we must abandon the most
>>>>> poisonous forms of transportation. Even with the existing
>>>>> regulations, fossil fuels continue to spoil our air and very
>>>>> importantly, release CO2, the most serious form of pollution in this
>>>>> century. Meanwhile, we are presented with a paradigm shift that can
>>>>> resolve much of the impact of our transport plight, the battery
>>>>> electric vehicle. Yet, so many refuse to consider it, simply
>>>>> because it is different, with different advantages and different
>>>>> liabilities.
>>>>>
>>>>> If this were 120 years ago and we were presented with this sort of
>>>>> transportation, the world would jump at it and it would have swept
>>>>> aside all the noxious gas burning autos to become the only form of
>>>>> land transportation. We would have never known about smog or the
>>>>> disasters of oil spilling into our water ways, destroying miles of
>>>>> coastline environments. But mostly, we would all be enjoying the
>>>>> convenience of battery powered cars.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead, many of us think spoiling our environment is secondary to
>>>>> our convenience, as if we had a birthright to roaming the earth in
>>>>> ways that destroy the environment, our "convenience" is paramount!
>>>>> Convenience über alles!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "There is no birthright to transportation, other than the right to
>>>> walk."
>>>>
>>>> Then again, nobody ASKED to be born into a country called the USA that
>>>> was designed around the automobile and had much of its public
>>>> transportation infrastructure dismantled in favor a long time ago.
>>>
>>> No. The USA was "designed around" horses and mules and canoes and
>>> sailing ships and wagons. People like to move themselves and their
>>> stuff around. If anything designed our country, it was the collective
>>> personal preferences.
>>
>> The roads in many areas of Boston tend to be laid out about where the
>> carts went, there doesn't seem to be a lot of design to it though.
>
>When you start with a town square that really is an irregular pentagon
>things go to hell in a hurry. Then you have to remember the Back Bay
>really was a bay and the Fens a tidal marsh. Even the Fens got redone
>when they dammed the Charles and it went from brackish to fresh water.
>
>It adds charm. I enjoyed walking around the town when I had work in the
>area. 'Walking is the operant word. I'd drive down from NH Sunday night
>and park the car, only retrieving it to drive home Friday afternoon.

Lots of California towns started with random placed houses, and
streets were declared later, so are a mess. Dutch Flat has nice
straight streets with houses aligned to sidewalks, because every time
it burned down it was rebuilt a little better.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On 6/1/22 01:08, bitrex wrote:
> On 5/31/2022 11:27 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> On 5/31/2022 7:40 PM, rbowman wrote:
>>> On 05/31/2022 12:00 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>>> The roads in many areas of Boston tend to be laid out about where the
>>>> carts went, there doesn't seem to be a lot of design to it though.
>>
>> You could do like Denver -- lay out the *grid* along the Platte, then
>> decide
>> that a compass points orientation would be smarter!
>>
>>> When you start with a town square that really is an irregular
>>> pentagon things go to hell in a hurry. Then you have to remember the
>>> Back Bay really was a bay and the Fens a tidal marsh. Even the Fens
>>> got redone when they dammed the Charles and it went from brackish to
>>> fresh water.
>>>
>>> It adds charm. I enjoyed walking around the town when I had work in
>>> the area. 'Walking is the operant word. I'd drive down from NH Sunday
>>> night and park the car, only retrieving it to drive home Friday
>>> afternoon.
>>
>> There's really no need to drive *in* Boston as public transit and other
>> livery services abound.  Moreso than many other metro areas.
>>
>> And, the region is relatively dense.  E.g., the core metro area would fit
>> *in* the city limits of Chicago.
>
> The public transit in Boston is adequate-on-a-good-day at best, and a
> nightmare when the system isn't having a good day

Sooo, did Charlie ever get off the MTA? :-)

On 6/1/2022 11:07 AM, wmartin wrote:
> On 6/1/22 01:08, bitrex wrote:
>> On 5/31/2022 11:27 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>> On 5/31/2022 7:40 PM, rbowman wrote:
>>>> On 05/31/2022 12:00 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>>>> The roads in many areas of Boston tend to be laid out about where the
>>>>> carts went, there doesn't seem to be a lot of design to it though.
>>>
>>> You could do like Denver -- lay out the *grid* along the Platte, then decide
>>> that a compass points orientation would be smarter!
>>>
>>>> When you start with a town square that really is an irregular pentagon
>>>> things go to hell in a hurry. Then you have to remember the Back Bay really
>>>> was a bay and the Fens a tidal marsh. Even the Fens got redone when they
>>>> dammed the Charles and it went from brackish to fresh water.
>>>>
>>>> It adds charm. I enjoyed walking around the town when I had work in the
>>>> area. 'Walking is the operant word. I'd drive down from NH Sunday night and
>>>> park the car, only retrieving it to drive home Friday afternoon.
>>>
>>> There's really no need to drive *in* Boston as public transit and other
>>> livery services abound. Moreso than many other metro areas.
>>>
>>> And, the region is relatively dense. E.g., the core metro area would fit
>>> *in* the city limits of Chicago.
>>
>> The public transit in Boston is adequate-on-a-good-day at best, and a
>> nightmare when the system isn't having a good day
>
> Sooo, did Charlie ever get off the MTA? :-)

No ("He'll never return") -- and, after all that, O'Brien lost!

On Wed, 01 Jun 2022 10:16:51 -0700, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 31 May 2022 19:02:49 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 May 2022 14:30:51 -0700, John Larkin
>><jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>
>>...
>>>This is fun, St Mary's Park.
>>>
>>>https://www.dropbox.com/s/5mhmlrn456unoto/St_Marys_Park.jpg?raw=1
>>>
>>>It's amazing that all the houses were built on hillsides, streets with
>>>30% grades, using horses and people to haul wood and bricks.
>>
>>I just came back from Portugal. Here is a historical example of just
>>that:
>>
>>.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porto#/media/File:Ribera_area_along_the_river_Duoro,_Porto,_Portugal,_2019.jpg>
>>
>>
>>The whole Douro River is like that, only vineyards not buildings. Lots
>>of olive and almond trees as well. The slopes often exceed 30%, and
>>it's mostly to all [done by] hand work.
>>
>>.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douro#/media/File:Rio_Douro_-_Portugal_(32615481975)_(cropped).jpg>
>>
>>.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douro#/media/File:Douro_Valley_Regua.jpg>
>>
>>
>>Joe Gwinn
>
>Looks like you could tip a cow and it would roll all the way down into
>the river.

Yes. It's way too steep and broken for cattle. You do see sheep, and
mountain goats would also work.

Joe Gwinn

On 6/1/2022 7:03 AM, bitrex wrote:
> On 6/1/2022 5:11 AM, Don Y wrote:
>> On 6/1/2022 1:08 AM, bitrex wrote:
>>> On 5/31/2022 11:27 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>>> On 5/31/2022 7:40 PM, rbowman wrote:
>>>>> On 05/31/2022 12:00 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>>>>> The roads in many areas of Boston tend to be laid out about where the
>>>>>> carts went, there doesn't seem to be a lot of design to it though.
>>>>
>>>> You could do like Denver -- lay out the *grid* along the Platte, then decide
>>>> that a compass points orientation would be smarter!
>>>>
>>>>> When you start with a town square that really is an irregular pentagon
>>>>> things go to hell in a hurry. Then you have to remember the Back Bay
>>>>> really was a bay and the Fens a tidal marsh. Even the Fens got redone when
>>>>> they dammed the Charles and it went from brackish to fresh water.
>>>>>
>>>>> It adds charm. I enjoyed walking around the town when I had work in the
>>>>> area. 'Walking is the operant word. I'd drive down from NH Sunday night
>>>>> and park the car, only retrieving it to drive home Friday afternoon.
>>>>
>>>> There's really no need to drive *in* Boston as public transit and other
>>>> livery services abound. Moreso than many other metro areas.
>>>>
>>>> And, the region is relatively dense. E.g., the core metro area would fit
>>>> *in* the city limits of Chicago.
>>>
>>> The public transit in Boston is adequate-on-a-good-day at best, and a
>>> nightmare when the system isn't having a good day
>>
>> I don't think you understand how "nightmarish" public transit can be ALL
>> of the time!
>>
>> E.g., my most common drive is to my volunteer gig. It's about 20 minnutes
>> in a private vehicle.
>>
>> If I had to rely on public transit (busses, here), it would mean a 1.25 mile
>> walk to the bus stop -- hopefully timed to arrive just before a bus departs
>> on the route in which I'm interested.
>>
>> Then, a 22 minute (per their schedule) drive to another stop -- where I'd
>> wait ~20 minutes (assuming all is going well!) for my connection. Then, a
>> 5 minute drive to the final stop. And a half mile walk to the destination.
>>
>> At my 4MPH walking pace, that's ~25 minutes on foot plus 27 minutes on wheels.
>> Almost three times longer than my "drive WHEN it is convenient for me to do so"
>> approach. And, having to deal with *sharing* the vehicle with "others"...
>>
>> [And, who knows how I would drag any rescued kit home via the busline!]
>
> Yes, I live far enough from Boston proper that if I wanted to get to South
> Station downtown as of 10 AM this morning without using a car or taxi at all my
> adventure starts with a 20 minute walk to a bus stop, then a 50 minute bus
> ride, then a 35 minute heavy rail train ride.

The trip I described is just over 9 miles -- roughly the distance from Park St
station to Big Joyce Chen's (@ Fresh Pond). Note that we occupy ~230 sq mi
(almost exactly the size of Chicago) while Beantown clocks in at under 50
(almost exactly the size of San Francisco). So, *practical* distances here
are considerably larger.

> Google sometimes routes me a bit differently with a shorter bus ride and longer
> train ride depending on the time of day, but it always ends up suggesting a
> trip that takes over 2 hours. By car even in traffic the same trip would take
> me 45 minutes tops, it's only about 25 miles away I don't live _that_ far
> outside the city.

Our "pilgrimage" is a regular trip to the oriental market. It's about
15 driven miles -- 30 minutes. By bus, *90* minutes including two
transfers. (and, of course, you're stuck with *their* schedule instead
of your own) And, would have to carry your groceries that 1.25 miles
from the "local" bus stop to the house.

> But housing closer in within easy striking distance of a light rail station
> tends to command a premium price tag.

Our "light rail" is confined to downtown/university -- typically only used by
students too lazy to use their legs...

>> Of course, I have no idea what the MTA is like, now as it's been decades
>> since I've been there. And, I've not a clue as to how Big Dig is mucking
>> with surface transportation...
>
> The Big Dig has been done for pushing 20 years and made getting in and out of
> town by car a _lot_ better, but mucked with public transit in Boston a lot. A
> large amount of the debt for that got shoveled off onto the MBTA, circa 2010 a
> quarter of the MBTA's operating budget was spent on Big Dig debt service.
>
> The system was running really threadbare for many years and it came to a head
> in 2014-2015 when the exceptional snowfall of that winter regularly ground the
> subway system to a halt, stuff was massively breaking down every week. The
> average age of a trainset a decade ago was like 32 years old or something.
>
> The joke was the MBTA's general manager Beverly Scott had announced her
> resignation "before the snow had even stopped falling" which wasn't far from
> the truth.
>
> As of a few years back they've begun investing more money in track & equipment
> upgrades and they've got several hundred new trainsets built in Springfield MA
> by Chinese state-owned CRRC (grumble grumble), however they're having teething
> troubles as new trainsets tend to do:

The mass transit folly, here (besides lack of light rail or other non-bus
transport) is the adoption of the same sorts of vehicles that you would
find in a "big (dense) city" where our ridership is considerably lighter
and more geographically varied. A smarter solution would be "kiddie
busses" running more frequently and over more routes.