Trouble in open access paradise?

[Anonymous]

     I guess when Dave fixes all our railroad ills. we'll send him over there to fix yours.  Don't hold your breath.

"Slip slidin' away...."

You just keep sinking into the depths of the Sea of Sophomoric Smarminess.  I remember a time when the guy from SD would willingly engage in conversation rather than ill-educated attacks.  Since you are seemingly unaware of this slide into ignorance, I will remind you of something here....

You have bestowed upon Cogland the title of "He Who Speaks For All Britons Regarding The British Rail Privatization."  Yet, if you care to go back over your "British Railway Operations" thread, you will find that of all the submissions from our British forum participants regarding the British privatization experience, Cogland's are consistently on the most negative side of opinions, while others such as owlsroost and Tuylar, et al, have taken a more optimistic view of the privatization.  While these perhaps more enlightened guys may or may not agree with my views on the subject, we do have one important thing in common regarding British rail privatization - an optimism of how things are working themselves out in the transition from nationalized system to privatized system, especially when it comes to getting freight off roads and onto rails.

Have a nice day.

[Murphy Siding]

     I guess when Dave fixes all our railroad ills. we'll send him over there to fix yours.  Don't hold your breath.

"Slip slidin' away...."

You just keep sinking into the depths of the Sea of Sophomoric Smarminess.  I remember a time when the guy from SD would willingly engage in conversation rather than ill-educated attacks.  Since you are seemingly unaware of this slide into ignorance, I will remind you of something here....

You have bestowed upon Cogland the title of "He Who Speaks For All Britons Regarding The British Rail Privatization."  Yet, if you care to go back over your "British Railway Operations" thread, you will find that of all the submissions from our British forum participants regarding the British privatization experience, Cogland's are consistently on the most negative side of opinions, while others such as owlsroost and Tuylar, et al, have taken a more optimistic view of the privatization.  While these perhaps more enlightened guys may or may not agree with my views on the subject, we do have one important thing in common regarding British rail privatization - an optimism of how things are working themselves out in the transition from nationalized system to privatized system, especially when it comes to getting freight off roads and onto rails.

Have a nice day.

    

     I can say with all honesty, that I believe I have read each post that you and cogload have written in the roughly year and a half that I've been on this forum.  Having never met either one of you, my opinion of each can only be formed by what I have read.  Optimism, or pessimism depends a lot on perception.  For example, I do not recall you ever saying anything optimistic(or nice for that matter) about BNSF.   The point is,cogload appears to have more of a grasp of the situation in his own county-and his field, as a matter of fact, than you do.  Perhaps the opposite would be true, if the subject were energy something-or-other in the Pacific Northwest.  My perception, is that you appear foolish in this particualar discussion.  But, that's just me.(shrugs).

     For what it's worth, while cogload certainly has the right to call me an idiot, if he so pleases, he has not found the need to do so.  You, on the other hand, have found the need to do so.(shrugs again).  As I "slide into ignorance", I've found, that for the most part, it's easier to just pretend you're invisible.  It works for me.

[Limitedclear]

     I guess when Dave fixes all our railroad ills. we'll send him over there to fix yours.  Don't hold your breath.

"Slip slidin' away...."

You just keep sinking into the depths of the Sea of Sophomoric Smarminess.  I remember a time when the guy from SD would willingly engage in conversation rather than ill-educated attacks.  Since you are seemingly unaware of this slide into ignorance, I will remind you of something here....

You have bestowed upon Cogland the title of "He Who Speaks For All Britons Regarding The British Rail Privatization."  Yet, if you care to go back over your "British Railway Operations" thread, you will find that of all the submissions from our British forum participants regarding the British privatization experience, Cogland's are consistently on the most negative side of opinions, while others such as owlsroost and Tuylar, et al, have taken a more optimistic view of the privatization.  While these perhaps more enlightened guys may or may not agree with my views on the subject, we do have one important thing in common regarding British rail privatization - an optimism of how things are working themselves out in the transition from nationalized system to privatized system, especially when it comes to getting freight off roads and onto rails.

Have a nice day.

 

Cogland gets the title of Brit who has seen through your lame facade FM. He's made a lot of good points and set forth support for his position. You, as usual in you transparent bluff have merely set forth your customary "My way or no way" It's still just as lame talking about Great Britian as it is in the States...

Give it a rest...

LC

 

[edblysard]

Actually, Dave, just you have named him that.

Of course, the fact that cogland has worked for EWS, in the industry he is commenting on, lends a certain amount of credence and substance to his words…

You on the other hand…

 

Have a nice day.

 

Ed

     I guess when Dave fixes all our railroad ills. we'll send him over there to fix yours.  Don't hold your breath.

You have bestowed upon Cogland the title of "He Who Speaks For All Britons Regarding The British Rail Privatization." 

[owlsroost]

Cogland's are consistently on the most negative side of opinions, while others such as owlsroost and Tuylar, et al, have taken a more optimistic view of the privatization.  While these perhaps more enlightened guys may or may not agree with my views on the subject,

Well, I might be a bit more optimistic about the future, but I'd agree pretty much 100% with Cogload's analysis of the UK situation as covered in this thread.

It's basically the passenger business that pays for the railway system here (and it's been that way for at least the last 30 years or so). Without the passenger trains, a large part of the network would have been abandoned years ago, so the post-privatisation revival of freight traffic would have been impossible because there wouldn't have been any rails left to run on....

As for modal choices between road, rail and air for passengers, most people consider more than just cost and travel time when deciding how to travel - I'm far from the only person who would go by train rather than drive a 300 mile round trip in nose-to-tail motorway traffic.

Dave, have you ever been to the UK (or anywhere else in Europe) ?

If you haven't, I think it might be an eye-opening experience to see a busy, mixed-traffic railway system at work - we're quite friendly really and we've got several hundred EMD locomotives to make you feel at home

Tony

[jeaton]

I will admit that I was off the mark with the title of this topic.  The franchise system is is certainly not a pure open access deal, but it does have a major element of open access, i.e., the separation of ownership between operating companies and infrastructure companies.  I share the view of many, both on and off this forum, that splitting ownership in this manner sets a condition where management of the system will range from difficult to impossible.  Appearantly the Tories now recognize that the system they promoted needs some work.

Being in Idaho, FM has little comprehension of life in a place with a population density of the United Kingdom.  The UK has an area of about 245,000 square kilometers and a population 60 million.  50 million live in England which is maybe a little more than half the area of the UK.  Idaho covers an area of 214,400 square kilometers and has a population of about 1.4 million people.  Boise, ID is the states largest city with a population of 190,000.  Do you think that might have something to do with the differences in culture and politics?

[owlsroost]

Do you think that might have something to do with the differences in culture and politics?

Undoubtedly - I travelled through Idaho on one of the last runs of the Amtrak 'Pioneer' so I've got a little bit of a feel for the area.

It's worth noting that it's political 'silly season' here - parliament is in recess and we're working up to the party conferences in the autumn, so this sort of political 'kite flying' is partly to generate a bit of media coverage in the summer - it doesn't mean that if the Tories won the next general election (which is probably several years away) they would actually change anything much.....

Tony

[MichaelSol]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas and which is, in fact, dominated politically by the "People's Republic of King County."

For whatever it's worth, a slightly different perspective than "Idaho."

[n012944]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas

 

But nothing even close to England, with maybe the exception of downtown Seattle, so the point is moot.

 

Bert

[MichaelSol]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas

 <>But nothing even close to England, with maybe the exception of downtown Seattle, so the point is moot.

Bert

And have you been to England?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas and which is, in fact, dominated politically by the "People's Republic of King County."

For whatever it's worth, a slightly different perspective than "Idaho."

Regardless, his disdain for anything east of the Mississippi River and those who dare to disagree with him comes through strongly even though he seems to inhabit a parallel universe.

In another time, he could have been a speechwriter for Spiro Agnew.

[TomDiehl]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington,

Wow, that's more specific than Dave has ever told us.

[n012944]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas

 <>But nothing even close to England, with maybe the exception of downtown Seattle, so the point is moot.

Bert

And have you been to England?

Yes I have, what is your point?

 

Bert

[MichaelSol]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas

 <>But nothing even close to England, with maybe the exception of downtown Seattle, so the point is moot.

Bert

And have you been to England?

Yes I have, what is your point?

Bert

Do you feel you know more about the organizational and financial aspects of the British railroad system as a result of having been there?

[MichaelSol]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas

But nothing even close to England, with maybe the exception of downtown Seattle, so the point is moot.

Bert

Well, as a whole the PNW urban corridor is more heavily urbanized than England as a whole. Everett to Portland contains just under 8 million people, in a 30 mile wide by 202 mile long area, which is 1,320 people per square mile. That compares to England with 50 million people over 50,356 square miles, or about 993 persons per square mile. The Seattle-Tacoma urban area has approximately 4,166 persons per square mile.

The PNW urban corridor is the northern reach of the I-5 corridor which includes California's population of 36 million. The population corridor between Vancouver BC and San Diego is relatively narrow, and over that 1400 mile distance, represents a population density of approximately 1,000 persons per square mile.

Within that PNW corridor is a veritable smorgasboard of passenger rail transportation operations, experiments, and planning, and political entities ranging from WDOT ("we have this new model") to Portland Light Rail (Well, what about the Roses?") to Puget Sound Transit (King County: "There's no vote that we can't count enough times to get the right result" and "We don't like the Monorail, no matter what the Voters say") to Tacoma ("Go Tacorail!").

 

[Anonymous]

  My perception, is that you appear foolish in this particualar discussion.  But, that's just me.(shrugs).    

I appear foolish?!  For engaging in debate?  For questioning ideas that have been taken for granted by others?

For what it't worth, I think it is foolish to say something that has never been tried is "unworkable, inefficient, and stupid" as Cogland stated regarding methods for introducing intramodal competition such as slot bidding.

I think it is foolish to claim a profitable passenger train system when said system is both subsidized and benefits from market skewing via road taxes that are higher than that needed for road expenditures.

I think it is foolish to wish for a privatized integrated rail system for formerly nationalized rail systems when one has all the evidence one could want from the US experience regarding differential/monopolistic pricing that such an idea would be a disaster for the European railroads.

It has been stated on this forum by many of my detractors, not to mention TRAINS contributors, that "no passenger system in the world is profitable".  Again, not my words, but words which I have taken verbatum for this particular discussion.  Cogland has refuted this axiom, without so much as an acknowledgement of the subsidies and relative tax disparity of British transporation.  After all is said and done, I will stick with the axiom as it is, without the Cogland modification, until such a day as we see private passenger trains running without any subsidy/tax advantages over other transport modes.

That being said, I am suprised that the British have minimized actual open access participation, seemingly prefering franchising over real time intramodal competition.  Given that such changeovers from nationalized system to privatize/separated systems take time to work out the kinks, I would have thought Britain would have gone all out with OA, then modified it as problems cropped up.  They chose franchising instead for the most part, although two freight OA operators apparently have their feet in the door.  In fact, it appears these OA operators are on the verge of taking business away from the franchised EWS - Cogland's baby - which may explain his disdain for OA and his subsequent capitulation for the IO model.  Not suprisingly, EWS is owned by CN, a North American integrated Class I operator, and we all know how those integrated NA rail operators feel about OA.

Problems in "open access" paradise?  More like problems with people like you just being able to understand the subcontext of what is being debated here.  But, hey, that's just my opinion.

 

[Anonymous]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas and which is, in fact, dominated politically by the "People's Republic of King County."

For whatever it's worth, a slightly different perspective than "Idaho."

Regardless, his disdain for anything east of the Mississippi River and those who dare to disagree with him comes through strongly even though he seems to inhabit a parallel universe.

My only disdain is for those folks who feel the unholy need to spew out insults and/or smarmyness rather than just simply debating the topic at hand.  Other than that, you can disagree with me 100% of the time and get nothing more negative than a terse rebuttal.

And no, I didn't care for Spiro Agnew either.

[Anonymous]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas and which is, in fact, dominated politically by the "People's Republic of King County."

For whatever it's worth, a slightly different perspective than "Idaho."

Clarification - I am a resident of the State of Idaho, but the family farm is across the border in Washington.

None of which has any bearing on one's ability to debate open access vs closed access vs nationalization vs privatization vs franchising vs integrated operations vs *profitable* passenger trains vs overtaxed road users.  Being there does not instantly make one an expert on the economic fallout of the move from nationalization to privatization, with or without separation, with or without franchising. 

I am quite quite familiar with the Seattle area transporation situation.  If the British urbanside is anything like the Puget Sound, the problems may have the same root cause:  Not enough dispersed redundancy in the road system.  Passenger rail is not the answer, it only adds to the problems.  And it's the "problems" that keep the *elected* officials seemingly engaged from the public perception perspective.

[Murphy Siding]

  My perception, is that you appear foolish in this particualar discussion.  But, that's just me.(shrugs).    

I appear foolish?!  For engaging in debate?  For questioning ideas that have been taken for granted by others?

For what it't worth, I think it is foolish to say something that has never been tried is "unworkable, inefficient, and stupid" as Cogland stated regarding methods for introducing intramodal competition such as slot bidding.

I think it is foolish to claim a profitable passenger train system when said system is both subsidized and benefits from market skewing via road taxes that are higher than that needed for road expenditures.

I think it is foolish to wish for a privatized integrated rail system for formerly nationalized rail systems when one has all the evidence one could want from the US experience regarding differential/monopolistic pricing that such an idea would be a disaster for the European railroads.

It has been stated on this forum by many of my detractors, not to mention TRAINS contributors, that "no passenger system in the world is profitable".  Again, not my words, but words which I have taken verbatum for this particular discussion.  Cogland has refuted this axiom, without so much as an acknowledgement of the subsidies and relative tax disparity of British transporation.  After all is said and done, I will stick with the axiom as it is, without the Cogland modification, until such a day as we see private passenger trains running without any subsidy/tax advantages over other transport modes.

That being said, I am suprised that the British have minimized actual open access participation, seemingly prefering franchising over real time intramodal competition.  Given that such changeovers from nationalized system to privatize/separated systems take time to work out the kinks, I would have thought Britain would have gone all out with OA, then modified it as problems cropped up.  They chose franchising instead for the most part, although two freight OA operators apparently have their feet in the door.  In fact, it appears these OA operators are on the verge of taking business away from the franchised EWS - Cogland's baby - which may explain his disdain for OA and his subsequent capitulation for the IO model.  Not suprisingly, EWS is owned by CN, a North American integrated Class I operator, and we all know how those integrated NA rail operators feel about OA.

Problems in "open access" paradise?  More like problems with people like you just being able to understand the subcontext of what is being debated here.  But, hey, that's just my opinion.

     Holy Cow! Batman!  I feel as though I gave you a battle cry to circle the wagons and ralley 'round the flag!       It conjures up images of John Belushi in Animal House: " Over!!??  Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!!??" Rock On!!

[Limitedclear]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas and which is, in fact, dominated politically by the "People's Republic of King County."

For whatever it's worth, a slightly different perspective than "Idaho."

Clarification - I am a resident of the State of Idaho, but the family farm is across the border in Washington.

None of which has any bearing on one's ability to debate open access vs closed access vs nationalization vs privatization vs franchising vs integrated operations vs *profitable* passenger trains vs overtaxed road users.  Being there does not instantly make one an expert on the economic fallout of the move from nationalization to privatization, with or without separation, with or without franchising. 

I am quite quite familiar with the Seattle area transporation situation.  If the British urbanside is anything like the Puget Sound, the problems may have the same root cause:  Not enough dispersed redundancy in the road system.  Passenger rail is not the answer, it only adds to the problems.  And it's the "problems" that keep the *elected* officials seemingly engaged from the public perception perspective.

 

FM is still in his own private Idaho...

FOFLMAO...

LC

 

 

[n012944]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas

 <>But nothing even close to England, with maybe the exception of downtown Seattle, so the point is moot.

Bert

And have you been to England?

Yes I have, what is your point?

Bert

Do you feel you know more about the organizational and financial aspects of the British railroad system as a result of having been there?

 

No I don't.  I also am not arguing with people who DO live there.  I know little of Englands operations, which is why for the most part I have stayed on the sidelines on this thread. 

 

Bert

[n012944]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas

But nothing even close to England, with maybe the exception of downtown Seattle, so the point is moot.

Bert

Well, as a whole the PNW urban corridor is more heavily urbanized than England as a whole. Everett to Portland contains just under 8 million people, in a 30 mile wide by 202 mile long area, which is 1,320 people per square mile. That compares to England with 50 million people over 50,356 square miles, or about 993 persons per square mile. The Seattle-Tacoma urban area has approximately 4,166 persons per square mile.

The PNW urban corridor is the northern reach of the I-5 corridor which includes California's population of 36 million. The population corridor between Vancouver BC and San Diego is relatively narrow, and over that 1400 mile distance, represents a population density of approximately 1,000 persons per square mile.

Within that PNW corridor is a veritable smorgasboard of passenger rail transportation operations, experiments, and planning, and political entities ranging from WDOT ("we have this new model") to Portland Light Rail (Well, what about the Roses?") to Puget Sound Transit (King County: "There's no vote that we can't count enough times to get the right result" and "We don't like the Monorail, no matter what the Voters say") to Tacoma ("Go Tacorail!").

 

 

Again what is your point?  The only thing  you have to offer is, my urban area is bigger that your urban area?  Who cares?  Nothing of what you have said has anything to do with open access or Englands railroad operations.  I don't understand the relevance, unless your are just trying to take some heat off your buddy FM, who has made himself look foolish on this thread.

 

Bert

[n012944]

[

My only disdain is for those folks who feel the unholy need to spew out insults and/or smarmyness rather than just simply debating the topic at hand. 

Something you are well known for on these boards.  A little bit of the pot calling the kettle black here.

 

Bert

 

[jeaton]

Dispersed redundancy of the highway system?  In Seattle?  Perhaps you propose to fill in Lake Washington and Puget Sound? 

I do suppose that the US could have many more highways if we were willing to double or triple the "user fees" on motor vehicles.  Any takers?

[Limitedclear]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas and which is, in fact, dominated politically by the "People's Republic of King County."

For whatever it's worth, a slightly different perspective than "Idaho."

Regardless, his disdain for anything east of the Mississippi River and those who dare to disagree with him comes through strongly even though he seems to inhabit a parallel universe.

My only disdain is for those folks who feel the unholy need to spew out insults and/or smarmyness rather than just simply debating the topic at hand.  Other than that, you can disagree with me 100% of the time and get nothing more negative than a terse rebuttal.

And no, I didn't care for Spiro Agnew either.

Wow...all that self loathing, reaching for a religious context...quick get out the DSM V...

We'll be back for a diagnosis shortly with Dr S. Freud...

FOFLMAO...

FM you just kill me...LOLOLOLOLOL...

LC

 

 

[edblysard]

And he used smarmy in two separate replies on the same thread…

Guess he ran out of really masculine insults, or lost his thesaurus...

 

[beaulieu]

Dave, I am going to break this up to simply things.

  My perception, is that you appear foolish in this particualar discussion.  But, that's just me.(shrugs).    

I appear foolish?!  For engaging in debate?  For questioning ideas that have been taken for granted by others?

For what it't worth, I think it is foolish to say something that has never been tried is "unworkable, inefficient, and stupid" as Cogland stated regarding methods for introducing intramodal competition such as slot bidding.

Dave can you explain to me how your slot bidding would work? The situation right now is that the freight companies say that they can barely afford the cost of their slot fees right now. How would they be able to offer more money for a slot in a bidding process?

I think it is foolish to claim a profitable passenger train system when said system is both subsidized and benefits from market skewing via road taxes that are higher than that needed for road expenditures.

They are only profitable, because they are like US Class I railroads, a monopoly provider, they do have limited competition in a small number of markets, and even with that, only two are making money.

I think it is foolish to wish for a privatized integrated rail system for formerly nationalized rail systems when one has all the evidence one could want from the US experience regarding differential/monopolistic pricing that such an idea would be a disaster for the European railroads.

It has been stated on this forum by many of my detractors, not to mention TRAINS contributors, that "no passenger system in the world is profitable".  Again, not my words, but words which I have taken verbatum for this particular discussion.  Cogland has refuted this axiom, without so much as an acknowledgement of the subsidies and relative tax disparity of British transporation.  After all is said and done, I will stick with the axiom as it is, without the Cogland modification, until such a day as we see private passenger trains running without any subsidy/tax advantages over other transport modes.

You won't. And inspite of what has been said, there are no profitable passenger operations unless they are a total monopoly. The examples cited do not have to cover the cost of their infrastructure. In otherwords all they have to pay for is their own costs, plus maintain the infrastructure. Under those circumstances they can be said to be making money. If they had to build any new capacity they cannot do it. Period.

That being said, I am suprised that the British have minimized actual open access participation, seemingly prefering franchising over real time intramodal competition.  Given that such changeovers from nationalized system to privatize/separated systems take time to work out the kinks, I would have thought Britain would have gone all out with OA, then modified it as problems cropped up.  They chose franchising instead for the most part, although two freight OA operators apparently have their feet in the door.  In fact, it appears these OA operators are on the verge of taking business away from the franchised EWS - Cogland's baby - which may explain his disdain for OA and his subsequent capitulation for the IO model.  Not suprisingly, EWS is owned by CN, a North American integrated Class I operator, and we all know how those integrated NA rail operators feel about OA.

Repeat after me EWS is not franchised, they are an OA Operator, again and again until it sinks in. The other OA Operators are stealing business from EWS because it is bigger  and more established and so has slightly higher costs. Some business it lost because other companies undercut it. In other cases the customer went out of business. The steel mill at Llanwern is mostly closed except for one small part. A couple of coal fired power stations closed or converted to Gas, etc. The only market growing is imported containers, the very same market that you say US railroads don't make much money on.
If you think that US railroads can't make much money hauling containers 1000 miles how much money do you think UK railways can make hauling it 100 miles. Take for example the coal fired powerplant at Drax, the largest in the UK, they receive 40 trains per day. The business is split three ways, EWS, Freightliner, and GB Railfreight each have a portion. Five years ago EWS had it all as they were the only company with enough assets to handle the business. The power company was cagy though, they split their total business into many smaller contracts, both Freightliner and GB Railfreight could handle one of the smaller contracts. Gradually the other two have become larger. Now the power company splits the business something like 50, 30, 20 percent with the lowest bidder getting the biggest piece, be too far off the lowest bidders price and you might get nothing at all. Its a buyers market, but the power company knows that it is in their best interest to keep everybody in the game if they are at least competitive. In a sense this is "Open Access" paradise. But the only if the game is use the tools the government gives you. The OA Operators are nowhere near where they could think about building any trackage. Neither are the customers in most cases will to pay for a simple siding.

Problems in "open access" paradise? 

<snipped>

[MichaelSol]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas

But nothing even close to England, with maybe the exception of downtown Seattle, so the point is moot.

Bert

Well, as a whole the PNW urban corridor is more heavily urbanized than England as a whole. Everett to Portland contains just under 8 million people, in a 30 mile wide by 202 mile long area, which is 1,320 people per square mile. That compares to England with 50 million people over 50,356 square miles, or about 993 persons per square mile. The Seattle-Tacoma urban area has approximately 4,166 persons per square mile.

The PNW urban corridor is the northern reach of the I-5 corridor which includes California's population of 36 million. The population corridor between Vancouver BC and San Diego is relatively narrow, and over that 1400 mile distance, represents a population density of approximately 1,000 persons per square mile.

Within that PNW corridor is a veritable smorgasboard of passenger rail transportation operations, experiments, and planning, and political entities ranging from WDOT ("we have this new model") to Portland Light Rail (Well, what about the Roses?") to Puget Sound Transit (King County: "There's no vote that we can't count enough times to get the right result" and "We don't like the Monorail, no matter what the Voters say") to Tacoma ("Go Tacorail!").

Again what is your point?  The only thing  you have to offer is, my urban area is bigger that your urban area?  Who cares? 

Then why did you suggest the PNW urban corridors are "nothing even close to England"? You seemed to feel that was a significant point, but now I see you confess you have no actual data on "England" nor any realization of how the PNW urban corridor compares.

Suddenly it's "who cares" but only after you made it an issue.

Isn't this a pattern with you?

[n012944]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas

But nothing even close to England, with maybe the exception of downtown Seattle, so the point is moot.

Bert

Well, as a whole the PNW urban corridor is more heavily urbanized than England as a whole. Everett to Portland contains just under 8 million people, in a 30 mile wide by 202 mile long area, which is 1,320 people per square mile. That compares to England with 50 million people over 50,356 square miles, or about 993 persons per square mile. The Seattle-Tacoma urban area has approximately 4,166 persons per square mile.

The PNW urban corridor is the northern reach of the I-5 corridor which includes California's population of 36 million. The population corridor between Vancouver BC and San Diego is relatively narrow, and over that 1400 mile distance, represents a population density of approximately 1,000 persons per square mile.

Within that PNW corridor is a veritable smorgasboard of passenger rail transportation operations, experiments, and planning, and political entities ranging from WDOT ("we have this new model") to Portland Light Rail (Well, what about the Roses?") to Puget Sound Transit (King County: "There's no vote that we can't count enough times to get the right result" and "We don't like the Monorail, no matter what the Voters say") to Tacoma ("Go Tacorail!").

Again what is your point?  The only thing  you have to offer is, my urban area is bigger that your urban area?  Who cares? 

Then why did you suggest the PNW urban corridors are "nothing even close to England"? You seemed to feel that was a significant point, but now I see you confess you have no actual data on "England" nor any realization of how the PNW urban corridor compares.

Suddenly it's "who cares" but only after you made it an issue.

Isn't this a pattern with you?

Again, comparing England to the PNW is comparing apples to oranges.  I guess that is too much for you to understand.  So one question Michael, do have anything to bring to this thread?  Or are you just going to sit and nitpick over little things like spelling and what state FM lives in?  Oh wait, that would break YOUR pattern.

 

Bert

[MichaelSol]

I am sure the misunderstanding is the result of the usual careful attention to detail, but unless he moved recently, Futuremodal lives in the State of Washington, which does, in fact, have heavily urbanized areas

But nothing even close to England, with maybe the exception of downtown Seattle, so the point is moot.

Bert

Well, as a whole the PNW urban corridor is more heavily urbanized than England as a whole. Everett to Portland contains just under 8 million people, in a 30 mile wide by 202 mile long area, which is 1,320 people per square mile. That compares to England with 50 million people over 50,356 square miles, or about 993 persons per square mile. The Seattle-Tacoma urban area has approximately 4,166 persons per square mile.

The PNW urban corridor is the northern reach of the I-5 corridor which includes California's population of 36 million. The population corridor between Vancouver BC and San Diego is relatively narrow, and over that 1400 mile distance, represents a population density of approximately 1,000 persons per square mile.

Within that PNW corridor is a veritable smorgasboard of passenger rail transportation operations, experiments, and planning, and political entities ranging from WDOT ("we have this new model") to Portland Light Rail (Well, what about the Roses?") to Puget Sound Transit (King County: "There's no vote that we can't count enough times to get the right result" and "We don't like the Monorail, no matter what the Voters say") to Tacoma ("Go Tacorail!").

Again what is your point?  The only thing  you have to offer is, my urban area is bigger that your urban area?  Who cares? 

Then why did you suggest the PNW urban corridors are "nothing even close to England"? You seemed to feel that was a significant point, but now I see you confess you have no actual data on "England" nor any realization of how the PNW urban corridor compares.

Suddenly it's "who cares" but only after you made it an issue.

Isn't this a pattern with you?

Again, comparing England to the PNW is comparing apples to oranges.  I guess that is too much for you to understand.  So one question Michael, do have anything to bring to this thread?  Or are you just going to sit and nitpick over little things like spelling and what state FM lives in?  Oh wait, that would break YOUR pattern.

 

Bert

Then, why did you say, "nothing even close to England" as though pretending there was a comparison, that you knew something about it, and that it was relevant enough to make the specific "claim" when no one else did?

And of course, it is transparently obvious that I was the first and only one who felt it "important" as to where Futuremodal lived, as to the credibilty of his observations.

Of course. I was the first! If you disregard an earlier comment "Being in Idaho, FM has little comprehension of life in a place with a population density of the United Kingdom."

Gosh, you were sure silent on that one.