In most American cities, the auto-park is a solution looking for a problem. The machinery itself is fairly complex to build and maintain. The average cost of a parking spot in the auto-park is $25,000. In most American cities, the average cost of a parking spot is a lot less than that. Now you tell me which is the "waste of money".
Hm... UCLA spent $38,000 per space to dig up the IM field and build a parking garage under it (then put the field back). Granted, that's somewhat extreme, but the typical cost used to calculate the price of building a below-grade parking garage in an urban environment these days is $30,000 per space, excluding land costs. For comparison, a surface lot is about $7,000/space and a parking structure is around $15,000.
Huhh?? What does expensive stack parking have to do with pollution? I hope you're not suggesting that the extra 100 yards a car has to drive in your average parking lot is a measurable source of pollution. Ditto for sprawl.
Pollution: the Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by people *looking for a cheap parking space* is astonishing. I'm too lazy to dig up my notes right now, but a study done in Westwood Village (home to UCLA) found that the average person circled for 3 minutes looking for street parking there (because it's significantly cheaper than structure parking, which generally isn't full). The math came out to some staggering total like 90,000 Annual VMT just from those people circling.
So, having structured parking that you just drive in and leave your car could significantly reduce VMT if it got people to stop circling. You also have to price alternatives correctly though.
Sprawl: When you have to build 2 parking spaces per apartment, it drives up development costs very quickly. It also drives down your FAR (Floor Area Ratio). You end up building fewer, bigger apartments, because then you have to build less parking. In either event, though, you have to buy a lot of land.
Now, let's see... if I need a whole lot of land, will I get it cheaper in the central city, or on the outskirts? Where will I have fewer complaints from the neighbors about noise from construction (because there are fewer neighbors anyway)? Where am I more likely to avoid toxic cleanup issues, especially if I don't have to dig underground to build parking? Gee, I wonder...
The best solution, of course, is to reduce the demand for parking (by pricing driving and parking appropriately and making alternatives more attractive), and reduce the acreage needs of development that way. But, if you can build a municipal parking structure in a more compact place, and then let developer in-lieu fees pay for it (they pay a fee per space that they don't have to provide, since the parking is already there), you make developing in urbanized areas more attractive again.
the value proposition is just not there for the majority of places. Once the value proposition gets there, there will be more of these around.
Well, sure. But no one's trying to build these in Enid, Oklahoma. On the other hand, Enid isn't trying to figure out where they're going to put the 50% population increase they're expecting in the next two decades, either. Southern California has been promised (by the gurus at the Census Bureau, I think... who usually have underestimated us in the past) that the equivalent of "two Chicagos" will be added to the region's population by 2025. And they'll probably all bring a gigantic SUV with them, unless we do something...
Every new building in crowded centers should build 150% of their parking capacity requirement into their architecture, and get all parked cars off our congested streets.
The problem is, all kinds of research has shown that parking (and highways, roads, all private transportation infrastructure) operates on an "if you build it, they will come" principle. If you build 150% of "capacity," one of two things will happen: either a third of your parking spaces will be empty even during Christmas Eve shopping frenzy (because you really did build 50% over capacity needs), or you will have 50% more cars there than before (because the place is in such high demand that parking is a limiting factor).
Unless, of course, you *charge* for parking. Properly priced parking can manage demand very effectively. Old Pasadena is a good example of this. Expensive parking meters that operate until midnight keep street spaces at high turnover for people stopping in quick here or there, while slightly lower-priced municipal garages take the longer-term cars off the street and leave people free to wander around. And they do... the place is *packed* with pedestrians on Friday and Saturday nights, and many other times during the week too. Now that you can take the Metro Gold Line there, it's even better.
Sorry I didn't provide any links, but if you're really interested, look into the work of Donald Shoup at UCLA. He's the parking god.
It doesn't look like it's very accessible - if you forget your phone or a book or whatever, I wonder if can you walk down underground and get it instead of waiting for the car to come back up. Looks like you'd just get sliced by the machinery. I thought there might be a pathway around the outer walls so you could still get to your car.
Part of the reason it works is because they don't have to put enough space between the cars for people to get in and out the doors. So, no, even if you could walk up and say hi to your car when it's down there, you couldn't get anything out of it.
You ever think about taking an 80lb concert grand harp on a train or bus? No, I didn't think so. I know several professional harpists that would have that limitation. String bass would be tricky too.
Your examples, by and large, would have issues using a standard car as well. Transporting a harp or string bass or 60 lbs of camping equipment is difficult no matter how you do it. But this is a small fraction of the population. Boy Scouts going on camping trips and professional musicians do not contribute hugely to rush-hour traffic.
As if it would be more convenient for us suburban types to walk a few miles...When I lived downtown, I rode the bus back and forth everywhere.
You chose to live in a place without accessible transit. Sure, you probably had your reasons... of course, if our public policy didn't encourage people to buy as much house as they can possibly afford, and we didn't make it so much cheaper to develop in the outskirts than in the city, your choice might have been different. But it's still the choice you made.
Where do you work? Do you commute to a place where you're competing with tens of thousands of other people for road space? If so, then moving out to the suburbs just made everything that tiny bit worse for all of us. If you work at home or somewhere near where you live, then it makes a bit more sense.
In sociological/psychological circles, sex is what your 23rd chromosome pair dictates. Gender is your sexual identity. This is a really useful distinction when discussing transsexuals, hermaphrodites, and other people where gender and sex don't quite line up, such as Agnes, a classic study in the social nature of gender.
I can't help you on the new name, but to get the name you want make sure withhold the epidural until the little lady complies.
Skipping the episiotomy could be the next step, but let's hope your demands are met in good time.
If she gets ahold of the Hypnobirth CD, though, you'll find that your leverage will quickly evaporate...
And, I dunno about most women, but frankly, if you'll promise me no episiotomy, I'd be very happy. Those HURT! (And, if you do your perineal massage beforehand, you probably don't need it.)
Neither governor raised UC fees. As a matter of fact, no governor has. Blame the UC Board of Regents for the UC fees. And it's not just the UCs, it's the Cal State system as well as the community colleges.
Or, more accurately, the governor says "I'm cutting your budget by this much. This won't hurt if you raise fees by this much." Then the UC Regents usually compromise, raising fees somewhat, but not to the extent recommended by Sacramento.
However the 40% for graduate fees does come right from the Governator's office, not from the Regents. Sure, they have to approve it. But if he says "You're going to have to pay for this somehow," they have fewer and fewer options.
If UCs and Cal States stopped spending so much money on Division I sports programs (CSUN being the most laughable) they'd have more money for students.
That may be true for some schools. UCLA is something of an exception. Division I sports is part of why UCLA can make tons of money off of licensing its logos and stuff. They also pack in crowds to Pauley and the Rose Bowl each year, and get *tons* of donations from alumni because of sports. I'm willing to bet they would suffer a pretty big net loss if they dropped sports.
It seems to me Arizona and Austin are most attractive because of the low cost of living and lots of open space.
The low cost of living argument doesn't help anyone in the US anymore. If a company is interested in relocating some of its jobs (like call centers) to somewhere with a low cost of living, they have *no* motivation to choose somewhere inside the US. They can do much, much better by relocating overseas.
On another note, I saw Ross DeVol (cited in the article) speak at a panel on Southern California's Regional Economy at UCLA last fall. He had some interesting stuff to say/show about the differences between Southern California and the rest. The issue of importing well-educated labor came up then, too... and he wasn't the only one who brought it up. California is going to keep falling behind as long as we keep raiding our school systems for money:-/. (Last year, Governor Davis raised UC fees by 30%, and this year Governor Schwarzenegger is raising graduate UC fees by 40%. For the professional [law, med, business] schools, there's almost no difference between UC and private institutions... except that the privates tend to be better at getting you scholarships. The UC system used to do a great job at keeping our best and brightest in the state, as well as attracting those from far and wide... but we're seriously losing that edge.)
Not only do they not have a duty to check Microsoft's source for infringing code, they don't even have the ability to do so. With open source products, the end user does have access to the source.
But, even having access to the Linux source isn't sufficient... because they (theoretically) don't have SCO's copyrighted, trade-secret, patented, whatever source to compare it to (unless they signed that NDA and took a look).
In *no* case is it reasonable to hold end-users liable for copyright infringement in software. That would be like holding every Harry Potter reader liable if JK Rowling cribbed some paragraphs from Stephen King. It's a ridiculous contention.
The only risk to end-users is if SCO actually won their suit, it might halt development and support of existing Linux distributions. It does not open them up to any legal liability, but it could certainly be very inconvenient. This assumes that SCO has a snowball's chance, of course, which most of us agree it does not.
"Can you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. McBride?"
Ah... that's one of the best quotes ever... thanks for reminding me. (Though it drove me nuts at first, because I could hear the whole thing in my head, but couldn't remember who said it on what show... yay imdb!)
It's an illusion that air travel would be more economical. I do understand that somebody can end up in a conclusion like that when omitting two critical factors from the equation:
a) currently airlines pay no tax on fuel b) pollution
Those are related.
The "external costs" column is an approximation of the *per passenger* costs of pollution, noise, etc. Those costs are external because the airlines (and therefore passengers) don't pay them; society does.
Fuel taxes are one way to internalize those costs.
In California, we apparently do charge taxes on jet fuel. Had trouble finding any really solid info, but here's a link that mentions it. I'm sure that, like automobile fuel, we don't charge enough to capture the full environmental impact... but it's a start.
It doesn't take a Transportation Planner to figure out that moving people closer to cities will make transportation cheeper.
But, apparently it does take a Transportation Planner to figure out that because all forms of transportation are heavily subsidized, living far away from city centers is cheaper than it should be, causing society as a whole to share the costs of the decisions of a minority.
Transportation, at least by private automobile, needs to be *more expensive*, not cheaper. Then people will have a reason to move closer.
Hmm.. are you in Transportation 101? Have you learned anything outside of Transportation Planning?
Actually, I'm finishing my Master's in June. The Urban Planning program I'm in requires quite a bit of interdisciplinary work. Besides planning theory, economics, and quantative analysis, the transportation series emphasizes land use/transportation connections and how urban design influences transportation (and vice versa). I also took a Java class from the Architecture department... but all I really learned there is that I don't like Java.
The only thing "smart growth" policies do is keep the workers in dense urban areas and allow the wealthy to live in wide open areas. Its that easy. Your a tool.
The only thing current policies do is exactly that, but then the workers living in dense urban areas subsidize the rich people living in the suburbs.
Let people live in suburbia if they want to... just *make them pay for it*. Simple enough.
Do the figures you cite include the massive governmental subsidies of highway systems? The Federal Highway Administration alone will spend more than $32 billion in FY 2005. This goes up to $36 billion next year and doesn't include the massive expenditures by state and local governments. That's tax money coming directly out of your pocket and mine.
Believe me, I know. But I don't know whether or not those numbers include those costs. Unfortunately, they're quoted out of context in a class lecture, without complete citation.
However, the fact that they do include external costs implies that they're fairly complete. Also note that highway use has by far the highest proportion of externalized costs; this seems to match reality.
Based on your second link, you'd probably really enjoy the work that Donald Shoup is doing at UCLA. His big thing is parking. Check out some of his articles in Access Magazine. (He's a kick to listen to, also... if you're ever on the West Coast when he's speaking somewhere, check him out!)
Most notably, you should read case studies in the proposed maglev train in Dutch transportation. Their model accounts for employment (indirectly induced) and population satisfaction.
The data put together by the California High Speed Rail Authority takes these factors into account. However, the claims are somewhat dubious. Think about it: what is "induced employment?" Are those really jobs we wouldn't have otherwise? Or are we simply moving jobs from one place to another?
LAX and the Los Angeles/Long Beach Port Complex each like to tout how many jobs they are responsible for, directly and indirectly, in the region. But the claim is spurious: those jobs exist because Los Angeles has a unique combination of geography, climate, and population that make it a great place to send goods and people. The air and sea ports exist *because* of those jobs, not the other way around.
Another important aspect that needs to be considered is the kind of transportation that is congested and needs relief. As you all know, the airline industry is complaining about lack of customers. The concentration of efforts should be on ground transportation, or whomever it serves.
When the CHSR proposal was first put together, it was to address the congestion at the airports. LAX has been trying to expand for years, either at their current location or at other regional airports such as Burbank, Van Nuys, Ontario, or Palmdale. For one reason or another, it's been an uphill battle. SFO is facing similar constraints on traffic. HSR is supposed to relieve exactly that congestion. Although the airlines may still be suffering post-9/11 downturns, these two airports haven't gotten noticeably less crowded.
And again, an important fact. Maglevs and highspeed transportation is suitable for higly dense populated areas geographically confined (ie it's not suitable for coast-to-coast connectedness).
Or for anywhere that you can't string together lots of dense areas. Only a quarter of the ridership on the Paris-Lyon HSR is end-to-end; the LA-SF route would be more like 90%. This is another reason why the current proposal doesn't add up well.
It really bums me out, because dammit, I want that rail line!;-)
imagine carrying 5 bags of groceries back from the market on a bus or train on a regular basis.. certainly NOT fun!
In a well-designed city, this doesn't have to happen.
1) You don't take a bus or train home from shopping; you go to your neighborhood markets and walk home.
2) People shop more frequently for fewer items at a time.
I do most of the grocery shopping for our household, and I don't have a car. I usually go to Trader Joe's or Gelson's, which are easy walking distance. I can buy frozen stuff at Trader Joe's and get it into the freezer in 20 minutes, on foot.
The trick is using a basket instead of a cart... that way you don't pick up more than you can carry;-)
Some sort of AI based network of vehicles that are available on demand (the nearest parked car will come to you -- or to the nearest "junction"). No one needs to "own" a vehicle. They will all be safe too.
That's more or less what my "recommendation" will be for my Comprehensive Exam (which is supposed to take the form of a report on the impact of new technologies on the feasibility of paratransit as a replacement for traditional fixed-route transit). But, as a practical matter, what I'm probably going to recommend is that new technologies be employed to make existing fixed-route transit *and* private auto transportation more efficient, such that they both approach paratransit from opposite sides. Until we get to such a point as having JohnnyCabs everywhere.
Or, as one of my former (now graduated) classmates would say, with an enthusiastic and enigmatic grin, "Podcars!"
It seems to me that, since these events I need to "get around" for are in the future, there's time for them to change so they'll occur where I'll be at the time. Anything else is bad planning.
/sigh... it's people like you that make my job hard...
Seriously, if you want things to happen where you are, you need to give politicians, developers and banks a stiff talking-to. They're the ones who think we need to isolate distinct land uses from each other, preferably surrounded by acres of convenient, free parking. Don't blame the planners. We're TRYING!
People like their space, in the U.S. especially. And we have LOTS of space left. Things are just going to get more and more spread out.
It's true that people like their space. But, with most things that people like, demand raises the price. There *is* a cost to providing people that space, and currently, we externalize most of that cost.
"Smart growth" policies that simply require new development to pay for new infrastructure are a great starting point. Houses out in the boonies are much cheaper per square foot, and not just because of land prices and lack of cleanup issues... currently, most municipalities shell out to bring sewers, roads, and schools to greenfield developments. By simply removing this subsidy, we can go a long way to equalizing the costs of greenfield and infill development.
Transportation is too cheap, also. We subsidize private auto use very heavily. In 2000, California collected only 1/3 of road and highway maintenance/operating expenditures from gas taxes, registration fees, and truck fees combined. Compared to that, a 27% average farebox recovery ratio for all California public transit properties doesn't sound *quite* so bad. Making people pay some of the external costs for those 50-mile commutes would make condos and smaller lots in the city a lot more attractive.
read Alfred Bester's SF novel "The Stars My Destination", where teleportation and it's effects on society is a major theme. And, it happens to be arguably the best SF novel ever.
I evangelize all my fellow Transportation Planning students to read that book. It's a really great thought experiment on the role of transportation in our society and economy.
I predict higher population density, growing urbanization and the increase of public transportation and pedestrians.
No, way! Really?;-)
The increase of pedestrians is not such a given, though. You can have very high residential density without accomodating pedestrian activity at all. A great example of this is along Wilshire Boulevard just east of Westwood in Los Angeles. The high-rise apartment buildings turn the street into a canyon, but you're very unlikely to see a single person out walking along that street. That's with a population density that's nearly double the County average... 18,769 persons per square mile. (Average density of Los Angeles County census tracts is 10,229 persons per square mile as of Census 2000... The Los Angeles/Long Beach MSA is actually the densest in the country at more than 7,000 p/sq mi. New York/New Jersey is in the 5,000's. You can see for yourself by checking out Appendix D of this PDF document. The density figures for LACo and Tract 2652 are from my own GIS fun.)
For pedestrians to become plentiful, you need a streetscape that accomodates and even encourages them. This means more mixed-use development (i.e. ground-floor retail with housing above), more sidewalk-facing storefronts (rather than all the entrances in the back off the parking lot), and lighting that doesn't just illuminate the asphalt between the sidewalks, among other things.
They require completely new airports - out of the question in most large cities, where the cities grew around the airport and there is no possibility of expansion.
Apparently, LAX can already handle the new Airbus A380... at least, to the same extent it can handle existing aircraft. (For years now, the space between the jetways has been inadequate for two planes to pull out side by side... they have to dovetail them carefully.)
Where the problem really lies is not in the physical size of the runways and terminals, but the people-carrying capacity of the big hub airports. They already run most of them on a pulse system, where all the flights come in at the same time to make transfers easier. This means you're handling all your traffic at once, and have to hire enough people, open enough gates, etc. to handle all those passengers simultaneously (while those employees sit around with pretty much nothing to do for hours at a time between pulses). By increasing the number of people that can arrive on each plane, you stress the baggage claim, security checkpoints, vendors, etc. *inside* the airport a great deal.
But for an airport like LAX, this isn't an issue. Flights are constantly arriving and departing, and 86% of the passenger traffic is beginning or ending their journey... very little transfer traffic, so not much pulsing. They're not overly concerned about the A380s. I think the Department of Transportation is more worried about the added street traffic they might generate.
There should be a way to meta-mod that (Score:2, Informative) as "funny".
Hey, speak for yourself! I for one didn't know that the government has transporters, or that they were in league with the aliens. This information is very important to keeping my tin-foil hat in tune.
It's a lot more economical than air travel, can be just as fast (with aiport wait times and all), and is just as if not safer than flying.
Unfortunately, it's not necessarily more economical.
Believe me, I much, much prefer rail to air. It's far more comfy, safer, and the view is better. But a study (done in 1996 by David Levinson) of the proposed California High Speed Rail system for the Los Angeles to San Francisco corridor found that the costs per trip, compared to air travel, will be about double. That includes externalized costs, such as fuel emissions and noise. The proposed HSR system would even be more expensive than driving.
The good news is, a much, much higher ratio of the costs are internalized in those figures. That means that passengers would be bearing almost the full costs of their journey, unlike highway and air journeys where more costs are externalized.
The numbers go like this: ..........Internal...External...Total Highway...135........21.........156 Air.......77.5.......4.5........82 HSR.......157.65.....1.35.......159
That's in dollars per passenger. (I tried to make it legible. I'm afraid it's in/.'s hands now.)
Now, Levinson is very hung up on the enormous capital cost of building the system, so he is possibly incorporating debt maintenance into those cost figures. However, the location I'm citing (which is a PDF of a class lecture presentation) references "fuel costs," so that may be the only consideration. (That seems unlikely, though, since it costs a lot less than $135 to fill your tank twice for the drive up to the Bay Area.)
Slashdot Mirror
In most American cities, the auto-park is a solution looking for a problem. The machinery itself is fairly complex to build and maintain. The average cost of a parking spot in the auto-park is $25,000. In most American cities, the average cost of a parking spot is a lot less than that. Now you tell me which is the "waste of money".
Hm... UCLA spent $38,000 per space to dig up the IM field and build a parking garage under it (then put the field back). Granted, that's somewhat extreme, but the typical cost used to calculate the price of building a below-grade parking garage in an urban environment these days is $30,000 per space, excluding land costs. For comparison, a surface lot is about $7,000/space and a parking structure is around $15,000.
Huhh?? What does expensive stack parking have to do with pollution? I hope you're not suggesting that the extra 100 yards a car has to drive in your average parking lot is a measurable source of pollution. Ditto for sprawl.
Pollution: the Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by people *looking for a cheap parking space* is astonishing. I'm too lazy to dig up my notes right now, but a study done in Westwood Village (home to UCLA) found that the average person circled for 3 minutes looking for street parking there (because it's significantly cheaper than structure parking, which generally isn't full). The math came out to some staggering total like 90,000 Annual VMT just from those people circling.
So, having structured parking that you just drive in and leave your car could significantly reduce VMT if it got people to stop circling. You also have to price alternatives correctly though.
Sprawl: When you have to build 2 parking spaces per apartment, it drives up development costs very quickly. It also drives down your FAR (Floor Area Ratio). You end up building fewer, bigger apartments, because then you have to build less parking. In either event, though, you have to buy a lot of land.
Now, let's see... if I need a whole lot of land, will I get it cheaper in the central city, or on the outskirts? Where will I have fewer complaints from the neighbors about noise from construction (because there are fewer neighbors anyway)? Where am I more likely to avoid toxic cleanup issues, especially if I don't have to dig underground to build parking? Gee, I wonder...
The best solution, of course, is to reduce the demand for parking (by pricing driving and parking appropriately and making alternatives more attractive), and reduce the acreage needs of development that way. But, if you can build a municipal parking structure in a more compact place, and then let developer in-lieu fees pay for it (they pay a fee per space that they don't have to provide, since the parking is already there), you make developing in urbanized areas more attractive again.
the value proposition is just not there for the majority of places. Once the value proposition gets there, there will be more of these around.
Well, sure. But no one's trying to build these in Enid, Oklahoma. On the other hand, Enid isn't trying to figure out where they're going to put the 50% population increase they're expecting in the next two decades, either. Southern California has been promised (by the gurus at the Census Bureau, I think... who usually have underestimated us in the past) that the equivalent of "two Chicagos" will be added to the region's population by 2025. And they'll probably all bring a gigantic SUV with them, unless we do something...
Every new building in crowded centers should build 150% of their parking capacity requirement into their architecture, and get all parked cars off our congested streets.
The problem is, all kinds of research has shown that parking (and highways, roads, all private transportation infrastructure) operates on an "if you build it, they will come" principle. If you build 150% of "capacity," one of two things will happen: either a third of your parking spaces will be empty even during Christmas Eve shopping frenzy (because you really did build 50% over capacity needs), or you will have 50% more cars there than before (because the place is in such high demand that parking is a limiting factor).
Unless, of course, you *charge* for parking. Properly priced parking can manage demand very effectively. Old Pasadena is a good example of this. Expensive parking meters that operate until midnight keep street spaces at high turnover for people stopping in quick here or there, while slightly lower-priced municipal garages take the longer-term cars off the street and leave people free to wander around. And they do... the place is *packed* with pedestrians on Friday and Saturday nights, and many other times during the week too. Now that you can take the Metro Gold Line there, it's even better.
Sorry I didn't provide any links, but if you're really interested, look into the work of Donald Shoup at UCLA. He's the parking god.
It doesn't look like it's very accessible - if you forget your phone or a book or whatever, I wonder if can you walk down underground and get it instead of waiting for the car to come back up. Looks like you'd just get sliced by the machinery. I thought there might be a pathway around the outer walls so you could still get to your car.
Part of the reason it works is because they don't have to put enough space between the cars for people to get in and out the doors. So, no, even if you could walk up and say hi to your car when it's down there, you couldn't get anything out of it.
You ever think about taking an 80lb concert grand harp on a train or bus? No, I didn't think so. I know several professional harpists that would have that limitation. String bass would be tricky too.
Your examples, by and large, would have issues using a standard car as well. Transporting a harp or string bass or 60 lbs of camping equipment is difficult no matter how you do it. But this is a small fraction of the population. Boy Scouts going on camping trips and professional musicians do not contribute hugely to rush-hour traffic.
As if it would be more convenient for us suburban types to walk a few miles...When I lived downtown, I rode the bus back and forth everywhere.
You chose to live in a place without accessible transit. Sure, you probably had your reasons... of course, if our public policy didn't encourage people to buy as much house as they can possibly afford, and we didn't make it so much cheaper to develop in the outskirts than in the city, your choice might have been different. But it's still the choice you made.
Where do you work? Do you commute to a place where you're competing with tens of thousands of other people for road space? If so, then moving out to the suburbs just made everything that tiny bit worse for all of us. If you work at home or somewhere near where you live, then it makes a bit more sense.
Gender is purely a grammar term.
Er, no.
In sociological/psychological circles, sex is what your 23rd chromosome pair dictates. Gender is your sexual identity. This is a really useful distinction when discussing transsexuals, hermaphrodites, and other people where gender and sex don't quite line up, such as Agnes, a classic study in the social nature of gender.
I can't help you on the new name, but to get the name you want make sure withhold the epidural until the little lady complies.
Skipping the episiotomy could be the next step, but let's hope your demands are met in good time.
If she gets ahold of the Hypnobirth CD, though, you'll find that your leverage will quickly evaporate...
And, I dunno about most women, but frankly, if you'll promise me no episiotomy, I'd be very happy. Those HURT! (And, if you do your perineal massage beforehand, you probably don't need it.)
Neither governor raised UC fees. As a matter of fact, no governor has. Blame the UC Board of Regents for the UC fees. And it's not just the UCs, it's the Cal State system as well as the community colleges.
Or, more accurately, the governor says "I'm cutting your budget by this much. This won't hurt if you raise fees by this much." Then the UC Regents usually compromise, raising fees somewhat, but not to the extent recommended by Sacramento.
However the 40% for graduate fees does come right from the Governator's office, not from the Regents. Sure, they have to approve it. But if he says "You're going to have to pay for this somehow," they have fewer and fewer options.
If UCs and Cal States stopped spending so much money on Division I sports programs (CSUN being the most laughable) they'd have more money for students.
That may be true for some schools. UCLA is something of an exception. Division I sports is part of why UCLA can make tons of money off of licensing its logos and stuff. They also pack in crowds to Pauley and the Rose Bowl each year, and get *tons* of donations from alumni because of sports. I'm willing to bet they would suffer a pretty big net loss if they dropped sports.
It seems to me Arizona and Austin are most attractive because of the low cost of living and lots of open space.
:-/. (Last year, Governor Davis raised UC fees by 30%, and this year Governor Schwarzenegger is raising graduate UC fees by 40%. For the professional [law, med, business] schools, there's almost no difference between UC and private institutions... except that the privates tend to be better at getting you scholarships. The UC system used to do a great job at keeping our best and brightest in the state, as well as attracting those from far and wide... but we're seriously losing that edge.)
The low cost of living argument doesn't help anyone in the US anymore. If a company is interested in relocating some of its jobs (like call centers) to somewhere with a low cost of living, they have *no* motivation to choose somewhere inside the US. They can do much, much better by relocating overseas.
On another note, I saw Ross DeVol (cited in the article) speak at a panel on Southern California's Regional Economy at UCLA last fall. He had some interesting stuff to say/show about the differences between Southern California and the rest. The issue of importing well-educated labor came up then, too... and he wasn't the only one who brought it up. California is going to keep falling behind as long as we keep raiding our school systems for money
Not only do they not have a duty to check Microsoft's source for infringing code, they don't even have the ability to do so. With open source products, the end user does have access to the source.
But, even having access to the Linux source isn't sufficient... because they (theoretically) don't have SCO's copyrighted, trade-secret, patented, whatever source to compare it to (unless they signed that NDA and took a look).
In *no* case is it reasonable to hold end-users liable for copyright infringement in software. That would be like holding every Harry Potter reader liable if JK Rowling cribbed some paragraphs from Stephen King. It's a ridiculous contention.
The only risk to end-users is if SCO actually won their suit, it might halt development and support of existing Linux distributions. It does not open them up to any legal liability, but it could certainly be very inconvenient. This assumes that SCO has a snowball's chance, of course, which most of us agree it does not.
"Can you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. McBride?"
Ah... that's one of the best quotes ever... thanks for reminding me. (Though it drove me nuts at first, because I could hear the whole thing in my head, but couldn't remember who said it on what show... yay imdb!)
...the need for all engineers to have mandatory training in evidence collection, documenting and testifying...
Let's be glad that the PHBs of the world are not also trained litigators...
Bin Laden is an even worse example since he was the conduit for Saudi aid to the mujahadein, he was not the conduit for US aid.
Wasn't he also trained by the CIA to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan?
It's an illusion that air travel would be more economical. I do understand that somebody can end up in a conclusion like that when omitting two critical factors from the equation:
a) currently airlines pay no tax on fuel
b) pollution
Those are related.
The "external costs" column is an approximation of the *per passenger* costs of pollution, noise, etc. Those costs are external because the airlines (and therefore passengers) don't pay them; society does.
Fuel taxes are one way to internalize those costs.
In California, we apparently do charge taxes on jet fuel. Had trouble finding any really solid info, but here's a link that mentions it. I'm sure that, like automobile fuel, we don't charge enough to capture the full environmental impact... but it's a start.
It doesn't take a Transportation Planner to figure out that moving people closer to cities will make transportation cheeper.
But, apparently it does take a Transportation Planner to figure out that because all forms of transportation are heavily subsidized, living far away from city centers is cheaper than it should be, causing society as a whole to share the costs of the decisions of a minority.
Transportation, at least by private automobile, needs to be *more expensive*, not cheaper. Then people will have a reason to move closer.
Hmm.. are you in Transportation 101? Have you learned anything outside of Transportation Planning?
Actually, I'm finishing my Master's in June. The Urban Planning program I'm in requires quite a bit of interdisciplinary work. Besides planning theory, economics, and quantative analysis, the transportation series emphasizes land use/transportation connections and how urban design influences transportation (and vice versa). I also took a Java class from the Architecture department... but all I really learned there is that I don't like Java.
The only thing "smart growth" policies do is keep the workers in dense urban areas and allow the wealthy to live in wide open areas. Its that easy. Your a tool.
The only thing current policies do is exactly that, but then the workers living in dense urban areas subsidize the rich people living in the suburbs.
Let people live in suburbia if they want to... just *make them pay for it*. Simple enough.
Do the figures you cite include the massive governmental subsidies of highway systems? The Federal Highway Administration alone will spend more than $32 billion in FY 2005. This goes up to $36 billion next year and doesn't include the massive expenditures by state and local governments. That's tax money coming directly out of your pocket and mine.
Believe me, I know. But I don't know whether or not those numbers include those costs. Unfortunately, they're quoted out of context in a class lecture, without complete citation.
However, the fact that they do include external costs implies that they're fairly complete. Also note that highway use has by far the highest proportion of externalized costs; this seems to match reality.
Based on your second link, you'd probably really enjoy the work that Donald Shoup is doing at UCLA. His big thing is parking. Check out some of his articles in Access Magazine. (He's a kick to listen to, also... if you're ever on the West Coast when he's speaking somewhere, check him out!)
Most notably, you should read case studies in the proposed maglev train in Dutch transportation. Their model accounts for employment (indirectly induced) and population satisfaction.
;-)
The data put together by the California High Speed Rail Authority takes these factors into account. However, the claims are somewhat dubious. Think about it: what is "induced employment?" Are those really jobs we wouldn't have otherwise? Or are we simply moving jobs from one place to another?
LAX and the Los Angeles/Long Beach Port Complex each like to tout how many jobs they are responsible for, directly and indirectly, in the region. But the claim is spurious: those jobs exist because Los Angeles has a unique combination of geography, climate, and population that make it a great place to send goods and people. The air and sea ports exist *because* of those jobs, not the other way around.
Another important aspect that needs to be considered is the kind of transportation that is congested and needs relief. As you all know, the airline industry is complaining about lack of customers. The concentration of efforts should be on ground transportation, or whomever it serves.
When the CHSR proposal was first put together, it was to address the congestion at the airports. LAX has been trying to expand for years, either at their current location or at other regional airports such as Burbank, Van Nuys, Ontario, or Palmdale. For one reason or another, it's been an uphill battle. SFO is facing similar constraints on traffic. HSR is supposed to relieve exactly that congestion. Although the airlines may still be suffering post-9/11 downturns, these two airports haven't gotten noticeably less crowded.
And again, an important fact. Maglevs and highspeed transportation is suitable for higly dense populated areas geographically confined (ie it's not suitable for coast-to-coast connectedness).
Or for anywhere that you can't string together lots of dense areas. Only a quarter of the ridership on the Paris-Lyon HSR is end-to-end; the LA-SF route would be more like 90%. This is another reason why the current proposal doesn't add up well.
It really bums me out, because dammit, I want that rail line!
imagine carrying 5 bags of groceries back from the market on a bus or train on a regular basis .. certainly NOT fun!
;-)
In a well-designed city, this doesn't have to happen.
1) You don't take a bus or train home from shopping; you go to your neighborhood markets and walk home.
2) People shop more frequently for fewer items at a time.
I do most of the grocery shopping for our household, and I don't have a car. I usually go to Trader Joe's or Gelson's, which are easy walking distance. I can buy frozen stuff at Trader Joe's and get it into the freezer in 20 minutes, on foot.
The trick is using a basket instead of a cart... that way you don't pick up more than you can carry
Some sort of AI based network of vehicles that are available on demand (the nearest parked car will come to you -- or to the nearest "junction"). No one needs to "own" a vehicle. They will all be safe too.
That's more or less what my "recommendation" will be for my Comprehensive Exam (which is supposed to take the form of a report on the impact of new technologies on the feasibility of paratransit as a replacement for traditional fixed-route transit). But, as a practical matter, what I'm probably going to recommend is that new technologies be employed to make existing fixed-route transit *and* private auto transportation more efficient, such that they both approach paratransit from opposite sides. Until we get to such a point as having JohnnyCabs everywhere.
Or, as one of my former (now graduated) classmates would say, with an enthusiastic and enigmatic grin, "Podcars!"
Seriously, if you want things to happen where you are, you need to give politicians, developers and banks a stiff talking-to. They're the ones who think we need to isolate distinct land uses from each other, preferably surrounded by acres of convenient, free parking. Don't blame the planners. We're TRYING!
People like their space, in the U.S. especially. And we have LOTS of space left. Things are just going to get more and more spread out.
It's true that people like their space. But, with most things that people like, demand raises the price. There *is* a cost to providing people that space, and currently, we externalize most of that cost.
"Smart growth" policies that simply require new development to pay for new infrastructure are a great starting point. Houses out in the boonies are much cheaper per square foot, and not just because of land prices and lack of cleanup issues... currently, most municipalities shell out to bring sewers, roads, and schools to greenfield developments. By simply removing this subsidy, we can go a long way to equalizing the costs of greenfield and infill development.
Transportation is too cheap, also. We subsidize private auto use very heavily. In 2000, California collected only 1/3 of road and highway maintenance/operating expenditures from gas taxes, registration fees, and truck fees combined. Compared to that, a 27% average farebox recovery ratio for all California public transit properties doesn't sound *quite* so bad. Making people pay some of the external costs for those 50-mile commutes would make condos and smaller lots in the city a lot more attractive.
read Alfred Bester's SF novel "The Stars My Destination", where teleportation and it's effects on society is a major theme. And, it happens to be arguably the best SF novel ever.
I evangelize all my fellow Transportation Planning students to read that book. It's a really great thought experiment on the role of transportation in our society and economy.
I predict higher population density, growing urbanization and the increase of public transportation and pedestrians.
;-)
No, way! Really?
The increase of pedestrians is not such a given, though. You can have very high residential density without accomodating pedestrian activity at all. A great example of this is along Wilshire Boulevard just east of Westwood in Los Angeles. The high-rise apartment buildings turn the street into a canyon, but you're very unlikely to see a single person out walking along that street. That's with a population density that's nearly double the County average... 18,769 persons per square mile. (Average density of Los Angeles County census tracts is 10,229 persons per square mile as of Census 2000... The Los Angeles/Long Beach MSA is actually the densest in the country at more than 7,000 p/sq mi. New York/New Jersey is in the 5,000's. You can see for yourself by checking out Appendix D of this PDF document. The density figures for LACo and Tract 2652 are from my own GIS fun.)
For pedestrians to become plentiful, you need a streetscape that accomodates and even encourages them. This means more mixed-use development (i.e. ground-floor retail with housing above), more sidewalk-facing storefronts (rather than all the entrances in the back off the parking lot), and lighting that doesn't just illuminate the asphalt between the sidewalks, among other things.
They require completely new airports - out of the question in most large cities, where the cities grew around the airport and there is no possibility of expansion.
Apparently, LAX can already handle the new Airbus A380... at least, to the same extent it can handle existing aircraft. (For years now, the space between the jetways has been inadequate for two planes to pull out side by side... they have to dovetail them carefully.)
Where the problem really lies is not in the physical size of the runways and terminals, but the people-carrying capacity of the big hub airports. They already run most of them on a pulse system, where all the flights come in at the same time to make transfers easier. This means you're handling all your traffic at once, and have to hire enough people, open enough gates, etc. to handle all those passengers simultaneously (while those employees sit around with pretty much nothing to do for hours at a time between pulses). By increasing the number of people that can arrive on each plane, you stress the baggage claim, security checkpoints, vendors, etc. *inside* the airport a great deal.
But for an airport like LAX, this isn't an issue. Flights are constantly arriving and departing, and 86% of the passenger traffic is beginning or ending their journey... very little transfer traffic, so not much pulsing. They're not overly concerned about the A380s. I think the Department of Transportation is more worried about the added street traffic they might generate.
There should be a way to meta-mod that (Score:2, Informative) as "funny".
Hey, speak for yourself! I for one didn't know that the government has transporters, or that they were in league with the aliens. This information is very important to keeping my tin-foil hat in tune.
Thanks for the informative post, ePhil_One!
It's a lot more economical than air travel, can be just as fast (with aiport wait times and all), and is just as if not safer than flying.
..........Internal...External...Total
/.'s hands now.)
Unfortunately, it's not necessarily more economical.
Believe me, I much, much prefer rail to air. It's far more comfy, safer, and the view is better. But a study (done in 1996 by David Levinson) of the proposed California High Speed Rail system for the Los Angeles to San Francisco corridor found that the costs per trip, compared to air travel, will be about double. That includes externalized costs, such as fuel emissions and noise. The proposed HSR system would even be more expensive than driving.
The good news is, a much, much higher ratio of the costs are internalized in those figures. That means that passengers would be bearing almost the full costs of their journey, unlike highway and air journeys where more costs are externalized.
The numbers go like this:
Highway...135........21.........156
Air.......77.5.......4.5........82
HSR.......157.65.....1.35.......159
That's in dollars per passenger. (I tried to make it legible. I'm afraid it's in
Now, Levinson is very hung up on the enormous capital cost of building the system, so he is possibly incorporating debt maintenance into those cost figures. However, the location I'm citing (which is a PDF of a class lecture presentation) references "fuel costs," so that may be the only consideration. (That seems unlikely, though, since it costs a lot less than $135 to fill your tank twice for the drive up to the Bay Area.)