The next common enemy... - Page 7 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

cmac2012 · #91 03-18-2006, 07:07 AM

Money is an imperfect thing. Placing positive cash flow on a pedestal and following its dictates only has problems just as surely as going whole hog the other way.

I sound like Marx? What am I supposed to say, you sound like Hitler? Marx was a pompous dreamer. I'm a private contractor. I work for myself. You think I want that kind of control over my affairs, the Marxist sort, that is? Forget about categories.

Lebenz · #92 03-18-2006, 12:28 PM

There is no reason for a vow of poverty and there is nothing wrong with enjoying the fruits of ones good fortune or hard labor. Looking for equality in energy consumption is kind of a lost cause. All that can really be done by way of motivation is to provide incentives or to drive the cost up. A good public transit system would not only do neither but it would also provide a net gain. The 2x per day miles long traffic snarls would be a thing of the past. The sprawling throw away that is the motor vehicle would be traded for reasonable payment for time spent in common, and even upscale transport. The massive outlays for roadway maintaince could be curtailed by over half. Pick you up at your door, make no more than a few other stops and drop you and your baggage at your destination. It would be perfect for tasks ranging from going to the grocery store or bank to the daily commute.

If folks want to have their own personal transport, they can, it will only cost more. At this time we are so deluded with the perceived need for personal transport, we cant see beyond the hood for the huge savings and gain in convenience. I think this is why the attack on the wealthy takes place as in the end the only concern is fear of change. That is the driving fear of our president and congress...........

aklim · #93 03-18-2006, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebenz

There is no reason for a vow of poverty and there is nothing wrong with enjoying the fruits of ones good fortune or hard labor. Looking for equality in energy consumption is kind of a lost cause. All that can really be done by way of motivation is to provide incentives or to drive the cost up. A good public transit system would not only do neither but it would also provide a net gain. The 2x per day miles long traffic snarls would be a thing of the past. The sprawling throw away that is the motor vehicle would be traded for reasonable payment for time spent in common, and even upscale transport. The massive outlays for roadway maintaince could be curtailed by over half. Pick you up at your door, make no more than a few other stops and drop you and your baggage at your destination. It would be perfect for tasks ranging from going to the grocery store or bank to the daily commute.

If folks want to have their own personal transport, they can, it will only cost more. At this time we are so deluded with the perceived need for personal transport, we cant see beyond the hood for the huge savings and gain in convenience. I think this is why the attack on the wealthy takes place as in the end the only concern is fear of change. That is the driving fear of our president and congress...........

Boy, it sounds so good it is too good to be true. Here is the downside of public transport. Been there, done that as far as the public transport system goes. You also didn't mention that you might have to stand outside in incliment weather, at some times in the night when you may or may not feel safe and the bus cannot pick up from door to door at the time of your choosing. More popular routes get more service and so on. You wait time could be anywheres from say 5 mins to maybe 30+ mins. What about when the service stops? You going to run it 24X7? That is how Singapore has no curfew but has a curfew. Bus stops after midnight. Gas costs much more and you have to bid for the right to buy a car. Oh, taxi fees double after midnight.

The bottom line is it all comes at a price. Which are you willing to pay? You are going to pay. Public transport is not a freebie that gives you something for nothing. Me, I'd rather drive. I get up and go when I want, where I want and don't have to ride next to some clown that hasn't seen a bath in years and doesn't know what soap is. What convenience are you talking about? You trade off maintenance and the ability to go as you please. It is not a free lunch.

Lebenz · #94 03-18-2006, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Boy, it sounds so good it is too good to be true. Here is the downside of public transport. Been there, done that as far as the public transport system goes. You also didn't mention that you might have to stand outside in incliment weather, at some times in the night when you may or may not feel safe and the bus cannot pick up from door to door at the time of your choosing. More popular routes get more service and so on

The overall idea is to use a vehicles similar to sprinter vans, and smaller. They drive door to door, but will take up to, say 3 additional passengers, if convenient, between point A and B. The combination of a GPS based navigation system along with a flexible reservation system could go a long way to help make stops extremely efficient. If you’ve seen some of the file sharing software that is around, you’ll see the software shows how many folks are backed up ahead of you and when it is expected to arrive. Add to that a mechanism to give an option for the first available out of scores of prospects and there you are. That is the navigation system. Integrate this with a means to show where folks are waiting and you can not only direct every driver to their next stop but keep the system operating effectively. This doesn’t quite exist as driver navigation or routing tools are within our grasp. The system would provide very accurate time information for the riders. The system would use enough vehicles for a neighborhood or community, and most commuters could retire the vast majority of cars. The difference would amount to a 10 minute wait now and again, but compare that with a 50% to 70% reduction of vehicles on the road, no rush hour traffic because about half the vehicles are off the road, and comparable reduction of fuel consumption, road usage, pollution, and maintenance.

Payment for services could be automated, and the vehicles could easily offer drinks, phone and web access.

I haven’t worked it out far enough to determine the number of vehicles needed, but a guess would be one vehicle for around 30 passengers over 8 hours. There would naturally be peaks in ridership. I’m not suggesting it be free. And also not suggesting it replace current infrastructure but add to it. The so called “rich” Hollywood types might even prefer it to having a fleet of over priced and under used vehicles to maintain. The target market would be suburbia and urbanites.

Cost would be a fraction of what most spend for a private vehicle, considering the vehicle, fuel, maintenance. And the leap is only in abandoning what is perhaps the 2nd most needlessly redundant element of society…

aklim · #95 03-18-2006, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebenz

I haven’t worked it out far enough to determine the number of vehicles needed, but a guess would be one vehicle for around 30 passengers over 8 hours. There would naturally be peaks in ridership. I’m not suggesting it be free. And also not suggesting it replace current infrastructure but add to it. The so called “rich” Hollywood types might even prefer it to having a fleet of over priced and under used vehicles to maintain. The target market would be suburbia and urbanites.

Cost would be a fraction of what most spend for a private vehicle, considering the vehicle, fuel, maintenance. And the leap is only in abandoning what is perhaps the 2nd most needlessly redundant element of society…

Yes, even with all the software and all that, the issue is that you cannot go when you want. I can pick up my set of keys and just walk out. Oops, forgot something, turn back. etc, etc. Also, like I said, I can choose who I want in my car without an issue. A smaller scale of this idea is the car pool. IT works to some extent but people still want their freedom to move as they please.

Yes, we all know that. That extra cost is the price you pay for the freedom to come and go as you please. NILIF. Nothing In Life Is Free. You get alll the savings but you lose some of your freedom to move around.

mikemover · #96 03-18-2006, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

...Too much money...

There is no such thing.

Mike

aklim · #97 03-18-2006, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

There is no such thing.

Mike

I wish I knew someone with that problem. I could help them out.

mikemover · #98 03-18-2006, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebenz

The overall idea is to use a vehicles similar to sprinter vans, and smaller. They drive door to door, but will take up to, say 3 additional passengers, if convenient, between point A and B. The combination of a GPS based navigation system along with a flexible reservation system could go a long way to help make stops extremely efficient. If you’ve seen some of the file sharing software that is around, you’ll see the software shows how many folks are backed up ahead of you and when it is expected to arrive. Add to that a mechanism to give an option for the first available out of scores of prospects and there you are. That is the navigation system. Integrate this with a means to show where folks are waiting and you can not only direct every driver to their next stop but keep the system operating effectively. This doesn’t quite exist as driver navigation or routing tools are within our grasp. The system would provide very accurate time information for the riders. The system would use enough vehicles for a neighborhood or community, and most commuters could retire the vast majority of cars. The difference would amount to a 10 minute wait now and again, but compare that with a 50% to 70% reduction of vehicles on the road, no rush hour traffic because about half the vehicles are off the road, and comparable reduction of fuel consumption, road usage, pollution, and maintenance.

Payment for services could be automated, and the vehicles could easily offer drinks, phone and web access.

I haven’t worked it out far enough to determine the number of vehicles needed, but a guess would be one vehicle for around 30 passengers over 8 hours. There would naturally be peaks in ridership. I’m not suggesting it be free. And also not suggesting it replace current infrastructure but add to it. The so called “rich” Hollywood types might even prefer it to having a fleet of over priced and under used vehicles to maintain. The target market would be suburbia and urbanites.

Cost would be a fraction of what most spend for a private vehicle, considering the vehicle, fuel, maintenance. And the leap is only in abandoning what is perhaps the 2nd most needlessly redundant element of society…

Sounds wonderful.

Except.....

I don't like public transporation. A LOT of people don't.

I don't WANT to ride in a van with a bunch of other people... At the mercy of someone else's schedule, driving habits, etc.... No thanks.

I LIKE driving my car. Alone. I like going where I want, when I want, how I want.

When I want to grab my keys and go get coffee, I want to go NOW... not 20 or 30 minutes from now.

Your utopian vision of blissfully efficient transportation doesn't take into account the most important aspect of the equation: HUMANS.

Most people do not want to give up their personal car and the freedom and convenience it provides. I certainly will not EVER do so.

Mike

Botnst · #99 03-18-2006, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebenz

The overall idea is to use a vehicles similar to sprinter vans, and smaller. They drive door to door, but will take up to, say 3 additional passengers, if convenient, between point A and B. The combination of a GPS based navigation system along with a flexible reservation system could go a long way to help make stops extremely efficient. If you’ve seen some of the file sharing software that is around, you’ll see the software shows how many folks are backed up ahead of you and when it is expected to arrive. Add to that a mechanism to give an option for the first available out of scores of prospects and there you are. That is the navigation system. Integrate this with a means to show where folks are waiting and you can not only direct every driver to their next stop but keep the system operating effectively. This doesn’t quite exist as driver navigation or routing tools are within our grasp. The system would provide very accurate time information for the riders. The system would use enough vehicles for a neighborhood or community, and most commuters could retire the vast majority of cars. The difference would amount to a 10 minute wait now and again, but compare that with a 50% to 70% reduction of vehicles on the road, no rush hour traffic because about half the vehicles are off the road, and comparable reduction of fuel consumption, road usage, pollution, and maintenance.

Payment for services could be automated, and the vehicles could easily offer drinks, phone and web access.

I haven’t worked it out far enough to determine the number of vehicles needed, but a guess would be one vehicle for around 30 passengers over 8 hours. There would naturally be peaks in ridership. I’m not suggesting it be free. And also not suggesting it replace current infrastructure but add to it. The so called “rich” Hollywood types might even prefer it to having a fleet of over priced and under used vehicles to maintain. The target market would be suburbia and urbanites.

Cost would be a fraction of what most spend for a private vehicle, considering the vehicle, fuel, maintenance. And the leap is only in abandoning what is perhaps the 2nd most needlessly redundant element of society…

That's an intriguing idea, Tracy.

The point of interest is where the desire for independent travel and cost of travel as a proportion of income, intersect. This is what makes mass transit work in its current state--people who cannot afford to maintain a car must choose alternate means. The trick is to raise the cost so high that the majority will accept mass transit as a viable alternative.

In order for that to happen there must be a real need, or politicians must convince society that a sacrifice today will have a definite pay-off in a realizable future. I don't think that the political case has been made and I do not believe it will be possible to make the political case until the market is already convincingly headed in that direction.

But if the market is going to be the driving force, why not leave things as they are until the market forces a change?

B

cmac2012 · #**100** 03-19-2006, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

There is no such thing.

Your delusion runs deep. Had you lived as a peasant under some feudal landlord who would be happy to squander the entire profit of a year's worth of your labor in one night in some drunken bacchanal, you might have a different view of "too much money."

I read where you had a close relationship w/ Christianity and now have little patience for it. Ditto. However, after separating myself from the posturing piety of the Mormon church, I discovered that JC may perhaps be the real deal -- an avatar, a realized being. His words, in spite of a couple thousand years of transcription, still have power.

Why would it be said that money is the root of all evil? Some say it was supposed to read, the "lust" for money. Perhaps. Money systems do facilitate trade. The downside is in representing vast amounts of labor and resources with the cash that can fit in a briefcase. It becomes much more easy to squander and trash items of real value with the use of a pile of cash which only has representative value.

Pergo mon thinks I'm hung up on the noble savage. Some real creeps among native Americans, historically. Check out the film "Black Robe" for an interesting treatment of that. Some wise sages too. Living close to the rhythms of the earth, they had much more opportunity to feel the power of what gives them life. In modern times, with the use of money, we have separated ourselves from the pulse of life. I've experienced the strength and clarity of mind that comes from living and working in the country, with better oxygen, way less noise and light pollution, and the feel of the wind, sweet smelling wind, on one's face. And I've experienced the mind numbing life of the big city. Some changes ahead.

Get ready, cause it's coming:

Once upon a time you dressed so fine
You threw the bums a dime in your prime, didn't you?
People'd call, say, "Beware doll, you're bound to fall"
You thought they were all kiddin' you
You used to laugh about
Everybody that was hangin' out
Now you don't talk so loud
Now you don't seem so proud
About having to be scrounging for your next meal.

cmac2012 · #**101** 03-19-2006, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebenz

There is no reason for a vow of poverty and there is nothing wrong with enjoying the fruits of ones good fortune or hard labor. Looking for equality in energy consumption is kind of a lost cause. All that can really be done by way of motivation is to provide incentives or to drive the cost up. A good public transit system would not only do neither but it would also provide a net gain. The 2x per day miles long traffic snarls would be a thing of the past. The sprawling throw away that is the motor vehicle would be traded for reasonable payment for time spent in common, and even upscale transport. The massive outlays for roadway maintaince could be curtailed by over half. Pick you up at your door, make no more than a few other stops and drop you and your baggage at your destination. It would be perfect for tasks ranging from going to the grocery store or bank to the daily commute.

If folks want to have their own personal transport, they can, it will only cost more. At this time we are so deluded with the perceived need for personal transport, we cant see beyond the hood for the huge savings and gain in convenience. I think this is why the attack on the wealthy takes place as in the end the only concern is fear of change. That is the driving fear of our president and congress...........

I'm not doing some psuedo noble sacrifice by trying to use less energy. IME, efficiency has great rewards. Every drop of energy I use has to be paid for, cept sunlight, of course, that's why hanging clothes out to dry appeals to me.

I see people choke on money and gee-gaws. I've worked on around 15 to 20 multi-million dollar homes, several in the 15 to 25 thousand sq. ft. range. Some of these people will never know how clueless they appear. They're smart in some narrow, focused way, but the way they clutter up their houses with excessive stuff is a bit sad.

Energy efficiency is a growth industry and will be for a long time. I'm going to do my best to be ready to cash in. Practicing it now is the first step.

cmac2012 · #**102** 03-19-2006, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

Sounds wonderful.

Except.....

I don't like public transporation. A LOT of people don't.

I don't WANT to ride in a van with a bunch of other people... At the mercy of someone else's schedule, driving habits, etc.... No thanks.

I LIKE driving my car. Alone. I like going where I want, when I want, how I want.

When I want to grab my keys and go get coffee, I want to go NOW... not 20 or 30 minutes from now.

Your utopian vision of blissfully efficient transportation doesn't take into account the most important aspect of the equation: HUMANS.

Most people do not want to give up their personal car and the freedom and convenience it provides. I certainly will not EVER do so.

You meet more ladies on BART Bay Area Rapid Transit -- a subway) or the bus than you do in your car. Actually, you meet more riding a bike, cause you can chat them up when you spot them on the sidewalk. The enhanced blood circulation doesn't hurt -- rosy cheeks and all.

I don't like riding on the bus that much though. My car is much more convenient. How did our ancestors manage to survive for millions of years w/o them? Bet those were some STRONG mo-fos. Well, at least they were until their bodies wore out at around 40 years. I'm looking for the ideal balance.

aklim · #**103** 03-19-2006, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I don't like riding on the bus that much though. My car is much more convenient. How did our ancestors manage to survive for millions of years w/o them? Bet those were some STRONG mo-fos. Well, at least they were until their bodies wore out at around 40 years. I'm looking for the ideal balance.

Well, they wore out their bodies and also didn't have a lot of the life sustaining technology that we do today. We can keep people alive a lot longer too. They get ill and they either get better or they die. Personally, I don't care to live for forever. 70 would be the limit for me. After that I estimate the body is too weak to support what I want it to do. IOW, at that point, my body would have deteriorated so far that it would be much further than what I deem acceptable. I wouldn't be able to do the same things as I can do at say 40 or 50 and what not. The body is like wine. It gets better with age till a certain point then it becomes vinagar.

cmac2012 · #**104** 03-19-2006, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Well, they wore out their bodies and also didn't have a lot of the life sustaining technology that we do today. We can keep people alive a lot longer too. They get ill and they either get better or they die. Personally, I don't care to live for forever. 70 would be the limit for me. After that I estimate the body is too weak to support what I want it to do. IOW, at that point, my body would have deteriorated so far that it would be much further than what I deem acceptable. I wouldn't be able to do the same things as I can do at say 40 or 50 and what not. The body is like wine. It gets better with age till a certain point then it becomes vinagar.

I'll go along with all of that. This talk of living til 200, well uhh, not sure if I want articial joints replacing 80% of my original ones. There are limits to what we can do to prolong life, a meaningful life anyway, methinks.

gdemoss01 · #**105** 03-19-2006, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebenz

We are all part of the problem. We need leadership. Congress can pass a bill to make much more stringent CAFÉ requirements over the next 7 years. Establish tough requirements for each class of vehicle. Gaining efficiency each year until in 2013 when the vehicles with the least and most efficient fuel consumption gets 25% or more improvement. We could do half of that today just by getting rid of the biggest vehicles in each class of consumer vehicles alone. Business vehicles would require proof of utility if they are below minimum consumption.

A fuel consumption tax on license renewal would be applied. The better efficiency the lower the tax down to 0. Use the proceeds to pay to retire older vehicles. At 10 years (2016) mandate that vehicles that don’t get 30 mpg are off the road. At 15 years mandate it at 35 mpg. Business would pass their fuel costs off to the consumer and we get a major revolution in the auto industry for the deal. Could even help dig Detroit out of it’s bankruptcy spirals...

But no, instead of even hinting at that Congress does a rare by-partisan dog and pony show. What the he** is wrong with them?!

If all cars were required to go 40 miles to a gallon of gas then no, NO oil would need be imported.

What is wrong with diesel vehicles? Many, if not most vehicles in Europe are diesel. (I learned this to my chagrin when I first rented a car in France and attempted to fill it up with TOTAL gas. I didn't know it was diesel when I rented it or drove it.

Ethanol is another corporate farm subsidy to Archer-Daniels-Midland. Why not just use vegetable oil fueled diesel engines to eliminate oil imports? Nothing facy pie-in-sky hybrid futuristic BS, just proven get me there.

Why not pour money into high speed express trains paralleling interstate systems. Call it a military defence project. Billions poured into Iraq could be used for jobs and infrastructure in this country.

Airlines have only made money if you discount government infrastructure subsidies. Most the time they haven't made money even then. And these days what a PIA it is to take an airplane anywhere.