Hypothetical question

On Jun 8, 8:50 am, danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> wrote:
> In <484bd333$0$7715$4c368...@roadrunner.com> "J.R.Guthrie" <jguthr...@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>  [snip ]
>
> >That's right. And the blind often find things like sidewalk cuts dangerous,
> >for example, though the ones with the raised "bumps" marginally better. But
> >don't tell that to the wheelchair people. AND NYC is absolutely not the
> >place to find "talking" walk/don't walk signals.
>
> Actuall, NYC has a couple of pilot, or test, locations
> with various "chirping" and other sound enhanced
> traffic signals.
>
> The one I recall is at 23rd street and, umm, that
> avenue that's one block east of seventh... It was
> picked because there's a large assisted living
> complex for visually impaired folk next door.

Avenue of the 6 Flags?

I saw a kid walking around from that housing, his face looked like it
had melted, with bits of flesh dangling from it.

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Jun 5, 1:44 pm, "Bernie Kovack" <berniekovac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:a00cad23-c27b-4a3f-83f2-04dc629b3c7c@t54g2000hsg.************.com...
>>> On Jun 5, 1:43 am, "Bernie Kovack" <berniekovac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> It's January 2010 and 95% of New Yorkers can't afford to pay $10 per
>>> gallon
>>> of gas and decide to take transit instead.
>>> Will the system be able to handle that many passengers? If not, what would
>>> need to be done, and how long would it take?
>>> How many more passe, er, "customers" is that than now? Maybe 50% more?
>>> Less than that?
>> Maybe 50% of Manhattan, but not the entire metro area.
>
> You didn't ask about "the entire metro area." Considerably less than
> 50% of New York City residents have a car (the figures are regularly
> posted here), so considerably more than 50% of New Yorkers with jobs
> either walk or take transit to their jobs. If 65% is the current
> figure, then 95% represents a less than 50% increase.

I believe the number is closer to 55% that have a car, although many
probably don't use it to go to work (likewise, many probably use a car
they don't own, such as commercial drivers).

Manhattan is about 70%-80% car-less though.

> the NE US, but you are way, way off on your claims of nat. gas prices
> being lower.
> , prices now are much higher than even the highest katrina levels and
> almost equal to the highest prices seen after rita, hardly a 75%
> decline

The question is, how much of that price inclrease is due to supply and
demand, and how much is simply because competive heating fuels have risen so
much that the price of gas can increase simply because the alternatives are
worse?

Even more to the point: if some portion of the oil increase is due to a
speculative bubble, how much is the natural gas increase reflective of that
bubble?

One might look at the price of anthracite on another front vis a vis oil and
gas to add some perspective: There were huge battles over anthracite prices
a hundred years ago, because sometimes it was $4.00 a ton. Today it's $150 a
ton. The price of oil and natural gas has not seen that kind of inflation.
This is all as good a lesson in supply and demand and the pricing of natural
resources as one can get.

Cheers,
Jim