Lee wrote:
>
> > trains are obsolete. Don't you think it's kind of stupid to make 999
> > people on a train stop when one wants to get off? I was talking a
> > personal transportation vehicle, not a mass transit vehicle. Same
> > obsolescence applies to busses.
> >
> > Ciao,
> >
> > David A. Bandel
>
> Problem with private vehicles is that they need the same roads and parking
>facilities. The only why
> to cut down on overall pollution would be to shift to gas/electric. But, even that
>is not a
> solution. Electricity has to be generated by burning coal, natural gas, or oil.
>Unless you're going
> to make a big commitment to nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal the pollution from the
>gas engine will
> just be displaced from the the vehicle site to the generating site. Example: I live
>in Apalachicola,
> FL. The real Florida outbacks. Power to this area is delivered from the grid where
>it is generated
> in Panama City, 70 mi to the west, and Crystal Rive, 100 mi+ to the se. Thus, the
>pollution from my
> electric car will be transferred from Apalachicola to Panama City.
I understand what little I posted lacked detail. The vehicles never
need be "parked". They can go to holding areas or just circulate with
other vehicles (though holding areas make more sense).
Each vehicle would have a solar panel and would not only generate its
own power, but when it's not using power can transfer that power to the
system. So areas like Seattle would still get enough solar power, just
from another part of the grid.
>
> As for electric trains being obsolete, I have only one experience to judge from. In
>the early 60s I
> was stationed in Boston for 4 yrs. I had my car with me, a 1957 TR3 a real joy to
>drive, but I
> seldom drove it. Why? The MTA. Despite the Kingston Trio's," Get Charlie Off the
>MTA" the price was
> reasonable ($.20), you could go anywhere in Boston, stations were usually no more
>that two blocks
> apart heated with wide platforms, the trains ran every ten minutes, no packup of
>riders, and best of
> all you didn't have to contend with Boston traffic. Ergo: electric was so much more
>convenient and
> cost effective that the TR3 stayed home except when I left town.
But why stop at each station if a no passengers need to get on or off?
It takes more energy to stop and start than maintain a constant speed.
>
> As an ex air pollution planner. I can tell when you want electric mass transit to
>compete
> successfully with public transportation the two most important factors are
>convienance (10 min
> between trains, heated stations ect and no vehicle traffic) and cost (MTA $.20,
>gasoline at the time
> $.32/gal + insurance+maintenance.) Total pollution way down. But as this a Linux
>list let me add
> this:
> I AM NOT A FREELOADER
Never said you were.
Ciao,
David A. Bandel
--
Focus on the dream, not the competition.
-- Nemesis Racing Team motto
_______________________________________________
http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc
->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
