Comments on: Back in the Air Again

By: the highwayman

the highwayman — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 22:21:42 +0000

Bullshit, it’s not hard to debunk O’Toole, you just have to look at the communist street in front of your house!

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 07:34:09 +0000

That VTI guy is adept at false arguments, but short on substance.
That was my 1st reaction years ago & it continues with his 1-sidedness.
Is open space really a problem in Canada?
In ANWAR it must be?

If I had 20 hours with him, I could educate him, without force.
Well, maybe I would knock him around repeatedly, & again, to knock cents [sic] into him.

By: FrancisKing

FrancisKing — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:29:30 +0000

“You know what would be the ultimate PRT? If each person had a transit mechanism whereby they could pilot the vehicle themselves, and steer it toward any destination they wanted. It would be very cool if they could play whatever music they wanted to listen to, and maybe have some room to carry other passengers or cargo. That would be SOOOO great!”

Yep. Bicycles.

By: Frank

Frank — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 00:33:54 +0000

I was watching NWIN this morning, and when an indigenous person said he loved the ocean (the Puget Sound), I couldn’t help but envision Dan schoolin’ him on semantics.

“…actual overarching point remains that Seattle is restricted in its land availability. The area is in demand. Demand is a strong driver of prices. Combine that with limited supply, and you have high Ricardian rent.”

Can’t argue with that.

But that doesn’t take away from the fact that you’re a trolling, name calling, nitpicking, narcissistic gasbag.

By: Andy

Andy — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 23:10:27 +0000

You know what would be the ultimate PRT? If each person had a transit mechanism whereby they could pilot the vehicle themselves, and steer it toward any destination they wanted. It would be very cool if they could play whatever music they wanted to listen to, and maybe have some room to carry other passengers or cargo. That would be SOOOO great!

By: Dan

Dan — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 19:34:39 +0000

This may be a decent solution for the ‘last mile problem’, connecting homes to transit.

By: C. P. Zilliacus

C. P. Zilliacus — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:17:28 +0000

Dan wrote: If you want to build on the side of a mountain or on soil subject to liquefaction, go right ahead Randal , if you can get a public safety and public infra variance. Dan (and Randal), my bigger concern about Vancouver (and probably Seattle and other low-lying places near saltwater in Oregon, Washington and British Columbia) is the threat of a tsunami. The current issue of the National Geographic has an interesting and alarming discussion of tsunamis (influenced in part because of the massive one that struck parts of Japan last year). Bottom line - no amount of Smart Growth and anti-highway ideology will lessen the threat from one or more massive waves (apparently a real threat in part because of the Cascadia Subduction Zone). And headed east, away from the Pacific Ocean, several of the high peaks in the Cascades are volcanoes, which could come back to life, as Mount St. Helens did back in 1980.

By: Andy

Andy — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 06:25:05 +0000

“bullying me again, calling me names and purposely mischaracterizing my comments”

You are looking the mirror, Danny Boy. Do you realize that you are staring at the man in the mirror? “Take a look at yourself and make a change.”

http://youtu.be/F9Nh84lfvW0

By: FrancisKing

FrancisKing — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 20:00:47 +0000

I should have thought so, under certain circumstances. A general PRT system isn’t going to work. It has to deal with peak traffic all over town, and so is big and expensive. But a subset would work, e.g. connecting a business park (offices) with a transit stop. Like an elevator, it wouldn’t be chargeable. It would be part of the site, like an elevator.

PRT runs at 20mph, so bicycles running on an elevated track can at the least keep pace, and yet can deliver door-to-door service. So PRT will work in places where people left their bicycles at home.

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:12:34 +0000

What else would we expect from a narcissistic gasbag like Dan? Name calling, nitpicking, trolling, and using some iteration of the phrase â€œmaking shit upâ€ ad nauseum. Quality contributions, all.

You are bullying me again, hurting my fee-fees by calling me names and purposely mischaracterizing my comments. And scurrilously cherry-picking definitions in a vain attempt to further bully me by falsely and maliciously implying a sound is the ocean.

Nevertheless, aside from unfamiliarity with the region and incorrect terminology leading to wrong conclusions being the original point, the actual overarching point remains that Seattle is restricted in its land availability.

Combine that with abundant natural resources, city proper being built out and plethora of SFD buildings, and the area has high prices. The area is in demand. Demand is a strong driver of prices. Combine that with limited supply, and you have high Ricardian rent. Utterly basic stuff. Few places get more simple than that. Completely and utterly elementary. It can hardly get simpler.