HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (Spiros Triantafyllopoulos)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Nature's Revenge (toll booths vs. cars)
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:58:18 GMT
Organization: Delco Electronics Corp.


Hi folks,

a while back we discussed (too civil a word :-)) whether cars pay their
fair share of using roads and other public facilities (bridges, police,
environmental, etc). Tollways were considered a way in which to get cars
to pay for some of that. 

On a trip to Chicago a couple of weeks ago, I noticed the following while
on 294 north, A 3+3 lane highway. Traffic would flow quite well, and then,
every few miles, a TOLL PLAZA... 

We had to go thru four of these each way. Each time, before the TOLL
PLAZA we'd be driving along quite well. Then, a 15 - 20 minute stop'n'go
session to pay tolls. A few miles of faster driving, and ad nauseaum.

1 hour for the trip and 1 hour for the delay in the toll plazas. A sub
story here was that the plazas had both automated and manual stations.
Most people would go thru the automated booths and thus wait even
LONGER there, while the manual lanes were noticeably faster.

Why the tolls were collected, I don't know. All I can tell is that 
the road quality was reminiscent of Bagdhat (sp?) AFTER the war, 
and lots and lots of narrow lanes/construction zones/.... 

I can see the state getting a double homer on this. First tolls are
collected, and second, lots more gasoline has to be burned in order to
collect the tolls (while waiting, hence more state tax). The motorists
get hit by a double homer also, paying for the tolls and getting
crappy roads, wasting time (LOTS of IT), gasoline (Ditto), ...

And for the sci.environment crowd. Is the benefit from collecting what
MAY amount to fair share of road cost worth the environmental cost of
having 3 miles' worth of trafic jam every few miles? 

Please don't suggest bicycles or mass transit... Pedalling 20 miles thru
the south side / south suburbs of Chicago (or using mass transit there :-)
is not all that feasible in all cases.

Spiros
-- 
Spiros Triantafyllopoulos                    c23st@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com
Software Technology, Delco Electronics       striantafyll@kosds1.gm.hac.com
GM Hughes Electronics, Kokomo, IN 46904      [A Different Kind of Disclaimer]
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10628 sci.aeronautics:1828
From: rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Appropriate Newsgroup?
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:45:50 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

sci.geo.meteorology

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: water in Siberia
Date: 12 Aug 92 04:23:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: techbook.1992Aug12.042359.16587
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135

In article <1992Aug10.171938.28656@alw.nih.gov> pruss@helix.nih.gov (dmitry pruss) writes:

>Now, a few numbers and considerations.
>An idea to use Siberian waters for irrigation was widely considered by
>commies. Their 2-step project included, at the first stage, pumping 90 km
>cube of Irtysh waters thru the steppe of Turgai, with seasonal excesses
>allowed to flow further so as to fill the Aral sea. The final step incuded
>pumping 240 km3 annually from both Irtysh and Ob and distributing it
>throughout the Western Turkestan...
>
>The entire project fell victim of Russian environmentalists, too a great
>disappointment of middle Asian environmentalists ;-) 
>
>They (Russians) referred to enormous areas to be flooded and to climate
>changes (substantial lowering of temperatures at the North of Siberia,
>could describe their way of reasoning separately).

Could you elaborate on this?  Also, how many new wetlands could be
created by such a project?  I lived in Eastern Washington state (Moses
Lake) for several years.  This lake and hundreds of square miles of new
wetlands were created by diverting some of the Columbia River for
irrigation.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81)
From: stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu (Steve Jascourt)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Different Transit Plans for Different Population Clusters
Date: 18 Aug 92 05:47:45 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In article <JMC.92Aug16203921@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>Mr. Tarasov has been paying too much attention to people who
>exaggerate.  There is plenty of water in almost all parts
>of the U.S.  However, if every project to get more is blocked
>
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305

Now let's see who is doing some exaggerating.
Is there plenty of water in California? Nevada? Arizona? Oregon? Utah?
I know Colorado has more water rights assigned than all of the water in
the state. This is a fact, and it happened because the water rights were
divided up during the wettest year in Colorado history. Lots of other
places have water shortages too. But John's statement is particularly 
ludicrous coming from a place with such acute shortage as California.
Or perhaps John will give a whole new meaning to the word "plenty" or the
word "almost" (or maybe both when used in the same sentence). Or, maybe
he considers the Pacific Ocean a suitable water source because he knows of
a secret desalination plant nobody else knows about.

Stephen Jascourt   stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10716 ba.transportation:2034 rec.railroad:6590
From: whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,ba.transportation,rec.railroad
Subject: Re: The Rebuilding of the Wrecked West Oakland I-880 Segment
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:58:07 GMT
Reply-To: whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <1992Aug17.193600.23657@Veritas.COM> joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.161507.5091@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>>Do you think a BART extension to Livermore would have an effect on
>>traffic on the complex from the I80-I580 through the I580-I980-Ca24
>>area?
>
>Of course not.  BART runs near 880 for most of its length, and 880 has
>the worst traffic of any non-bridge in the area.  

It runs parallel to (and, what?, about a mile away--less in spots)
from I80, too.  I would have thought the 'calim to fame' you cite
would apply to I80 through Berkeley and Emeryville, or the roads
leading to the Caldecott Tunnel.

However, the claim was that the money would be better spent building
BART to Livermore than spending it to rebuild the I880 link.  Since
you agree that extending BART won't help the particular corridor in
question, is it that you think rebuilding the 'Cypress' won't have any
effect either?  If so, having driven through the area fairly
frequently both with and without the 'Cypress', I'm afraid I have to
disagree.  Traffic through there is significantly worse without that
link than it was with it.

	--Hal

-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: bg055@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Stewart Rowe)
Subject: Emission Permit Adjustments
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 01:39:47 GMT


 
OK, who knows anything about this:
 
The conservation literature and bbs's have been full of comments about 
one (or maybe it's two) regulations forced on EPA by OMB and Council 
on Competitiveness.
 
First I read about _utilities_ being allowed to increase their emissions,
without re-applying for their permit, whenever they make a process 
or equipment change which _increases_ their output (or their capacity?).
In this story, there was no limit on the amount of the increase, 
and they were required to notify the state; no public notice; 
modification of the permit is automatic if the state does not object 
within _seven_ days.
 
Now I read that _any_ polluter may be allowed to increase his emissions
by "up to" 245 tons annually, again without public notice. He must
notify the state, can start immediately with the increased emissions,
and the change is permanent unless the state objects in _90 days_,
or the EPA within 45 days. Is this a new version of the previously-
mentioned proposal, or a different one? 
 
We probably cannot affect the US regs, but it seems that local action
could make sure that the state publishes whatever notices they receive,
or at least make them available to the public in a timely manner and
a convenient location. Then, while the public may have no _regulatory_
right to object, there is always the political right, as in the
East Liverpool incinerator case, to make a stink and maybe get some
action.
 
Can you resolve my confusion noted above? Have these rules actually
issued, or are even they "frozen"? If necessary, I can spend a
half day at the library with the Federal Register and get the details,
but I'm hoping someone knows.
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10804 ca.environment:811 ba.transportation:2108
From: howard@titan.hal.com (Howard Gayle)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,ca.environment,ba.transportation
Subject: Re: US Autos on Welfare: Summary of Studies
Summary: If subsidies are roughly as reported, highways should be private.
Date: 23 Aug 92 15:47:43 GMT
Reply-To: howard@hal.com (Howard Gayle)
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc., Campbell, California
NNTP-Posting-Host: titan.hal.com
In-reply-to: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)

In article <1992Aug20.210048.25841@ntmtv>, adrian@ntmtv (Adrian Brandt) writes:
>Total U.S. Auto Subsidies
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                        $/gallon        $/vehicle/yr    total $billion/yr
>
>Ketcham & Komanoff      10.07           4,110           730
>Littman                  7.08           2,965           513
>MacKenzie, Dower & Chen  5.52           2,312           400
>Moffet                   5.21 - 8.86    2,185 - 3,636   378 - 629
>Vorhees                  8.70           3,647           631

If these numbers are anywhere near reality, environmentalists
should support privatized highways for the following reasons:

1) Subsidies to private firms are harder to arrange and harder
   to hide than subsidies from one government bureaucracy to
   another.

2) It should be feasible to collect damages for pollution from
   a large private highway firm.  (It does not currently appear
   to be feasible to collect damages from individual drivers.)

3) Currently, highways are overcrowded weekday mornings and
   evenings, and underused the rest of the time.  Demand for
   more highways and lanes comes from the peak usage periods.
   Private firms could charge time-sensitive prices, thus
   spreading out usage and reducing demand for more highways and
   lanes.

4) Unlike governments, private firms could not use the power of
   eminent domain to acquire land for new highways.  They would
   have to negotiate mutually agreeable prices with the land
   owners, or no new highways would be built.

5) To the extent that private highways constitute local
   monopolies and are able to charge monopoly prices, highway
   use would decrease.

6) Some of the money obtained by auctioning off public highways
   could be used to benefit the environment.
--
Howard Gayle
HAL Computer Systems, Inc.
1315 Dell Avenue
Campbell, California 95008
USA
howard@hal.com
Phone: +1 408 379 7000 extension 1080
FAX  : +1 408 379 5022
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10720 ba.transportation:2038 rec.railroad:6595
From: jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,ba.transportation,rec.railroad
Subject: Re: The Rebuilding of the Wrecked West Oakland I-880 Segment
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:58:16 GMT
Followup-To: sci.environment
Organization: Investment Management Services Inc., NYC

John McMahon <mcmahon@tgv.com> writes:

	However, they called a smog alert for the Silicon Valley today
	and I begin to wonder whether or not that $700 million should
	have been used to improve public transit in that region and get
	more people out of their cars.

I'm willing to bet that replacing that segment will do lots for the
environment already.  The loss of that segment means that many more
cars and trucks spend more time crawling bumper-to-bumper through the
I-{5,}80 interchange.  The Southbound 80->580->980->880 zig-zag is
particularly nasty.

/jordan
Newsgroups: sci.environment
From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Subject: Re: Different Transit Plans for Different Population Clusters
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:23:40 GMT

In article <JMC.92Aug19184738@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
>
>The environmentalists today are the successors, and maybe even
>descendants, of the religious enthusiasts in the U.S. of the
>last century.  However, it doesn't seem as though they are having
>quite the same success.  For example, many colleges, in response
>to the religious enthusiasm, required that everyone attend chapel
>at 7am.  It took a while to get rid of that.
>
>I suppose some environmentalists and PC enthusiasts might develop
>enthusiasm for the equivalent of compulsory chapel, but so far they
>have only managed consciousness raising sessions in some college
>dormitories.
>
>--
>John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
>*
>He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
>

John must be back from vacation!  (Must have rained too much).

-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)
From: pgravel@nap.amoco.com (Philip L. Gravel)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Plastic or Paper...which is environmentally correct?
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:31:13 GMT
Reply-To: pgravel@nap.amoco.com (Philip L. Gravel)
Organization: Amoco Corporation

In article <65589@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gt3791a@prism.gatech.EDU (gt3791a 
Johnson, Mark R.) writes:

>                                                              I would like
> to know what the petroleum byproducts of making PE are.

There are relatively few by products in the manufacture of polyethylene,
primarily low molecular weight polymer.  As far as the manufacture of
ethylene via steam cracking is concerned, the "by-products" are propylene,
butylenes, and heavier hydrocarbons.  They all have various uses.

>                                                          I know petroleum
> is not purely hydrocarbons, so what happens to the impurities?

Sulfur (which make a crude oil sour) is generally recovered as elemental
sulfur.  Petroleum also contains nitrogen and oxygen containing compounds and
metals.  I don't know what happens to the oxygen and nitrogen containing
materials, but the metals end up in the asphalt and coke.  

> 
> Also, in order to address the paper vs. plastic problem, we must look at the
> sources of material for each.  In other words, the focus should not stop
> with looking at the process of forming PE.  If the primary source of PE is
> still the cracking of petroleum, we must also look at the environmental
> impact of drilling, transporting, and refining crude oil.  This is
> something that has caused a number of disasters already (due to accidents).

True. But what has paper pulp production done to our forests?  What about the
by-products from this production?

> To answer the question, we most look at the overall processes needed to form
> (and dispose of) paper and plastic.  Then, once we have the numbers, it
> should be rather simple to compare the environmental impact of each.

Yes.  One needs to look from cradle to grave....


Phil

-----
Philip L. Gravel                      Internet: pgravel@nap.amoco.com
Amoco Corporation, Chicago, IL        Phone:    (312)856-3553
----------
These opinions aren't worth the paper they're written on and
certainly don't reflect those of my employer.
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10747 sci.energy:4053
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nature's Revenge (toll booths vs. cars)
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:05:13 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Aug15.023333.24172@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> mancus@norm.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes:

[as an example of a good efficient turnpike system]

>Go take a trip on the New Jersey turnpike.

...

>exit the turnpike.  You then present your card and pay the amount shown.
>You have been traveling ~55 mph for the entire trip.

If I had to pay directly for using an intercicty turnpike and could
only travel at an average of 55 mph I'd feel distinctly cheated. How
come that in the land of free-enterprise, market forces, and as little
Govt intervention as possible, this sorry state of affairs is regarded
as _freedom_?
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
Xref: sparky sci.environment:10734 ba.transportation:2051 rec.railroad:6651
From: loren@netcom.com (Loren Hart)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,ba.transportation,rec.railroad
Subject: Re: The Rebuilding of the Wrecked West Oakland I-880 Segment
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:17:56 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
: In article <1992Aug16.222841.23030@news.arc.nasa.gov> mcmahon@tgv.com writes:
: >However, they called a smog alert for the Silicon Valley today and
: >I begin to wonder whether or not that $700 million should have
: >been used to improve public transit in that region and get
: >more people out of their cars.
: 
: I doubt that I-880 will have much of an effect on the So. Bay's air.

Actually, since the normal (non-storm) wind pattern in the So. Bay is
from the bay, through the valley, out into the central valley.  East
bay pollution does affect our air quality.

: On the general topic . . .  Am I the only one that noticed that the
: predictions of air quality data were consistnely worse that the actual
: measurements?  Last week the Chron was prediciting worse air quality
: than actually happened.

Actually the BAAQMB is claiming that the pollution was lower than
predictions because they got the word out to people to pollute less
(e.g. drive less, not have BBQs, etc) and they did.  I don't know what
evidence they had to support this claim, but it is what they claim.

-- Loren

-- 
=============================================================================
Mr Loren L. Hart                                       The Ada Ace Group, Inc
loren@netcom.com                                       P.O. Box 36195
				                       San Jose, CA  95158
Newsgroups: sci.environment,ca.environment,rec.bicycles,ba.transportation
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Nature's Revenge (toll booths vs. cars)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 03:43:01 GMT


	[Chicago toll road vs. NJ Turnpike, another toll road]

	[Chicago: a toll plaza every 15 minutes]

	[NJ Turnpike, toll plazas only at entrances and exits; one
gets a card when entering telling where one entered and tolls at each
exit]

	The Pennsylvania Turnpike also works like that, though I've
never been in contact with the card part. But that card reminds me of
the automatic fare system of BART, the Washington Metro, and some
other urban rapid-transit railroads. One puts some money into a ticket
machine and gets a ticket with that amount of money in it. When one
enters, one puts the ticket into a faregate, and the gate opens for
you. The same when one leaves, and the faregate prints on your ticket
how much you have left.

	The NJ and PA Turnpike systems work well when there are not
too many entrances/exits per unit distance, which is generally the
case in thinly populated areas. But for urban and suburban roads, that
is clearly not the case, which is perhaps one reason why toll roads
are not more common -- one would need lots of toll plazas.

/Loren
Newsgroups: sci.environment,ba.transportation,rec.railroad
From: marc@octel.com (Marc Lewert)
Subject: Re: The Rebuilding of the Wrecked West Oakland I-880 Segment
Organization: Octel Communications Inc., Milpitas Ca.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 20:28:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.222841.23030@news.arc.nasa.gov> mcmahon@tgv.com writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug15.032831.18159@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>(about the I-880 section along Cypress in Oakland...)
>
>=
>=	Now, it will be rebuilt, as I have learned from recent
>=newspaper stories (for example, _The San Francisco Examiner_, Aug. 13,
>=1991, p. A4)
>=
>=	The original 1.25 mi. stretch will be rebuilt for about $695
>=million. The job will be started in January 1994, and the rebuilt
>=freeway segment should open in 1998.
>
>I suspect those folks who were forced onto other routes because of the
>loss of I-880 will be happy to hear it's on the way back.  I doubt the
>folks in that Oakland neighborhood will be happy, I think the area
>looks and sounds a lot nicer without I-880 going through it.
>
>However, they called a smog alert for the Silicon Valley today and
>I begin to wonder whether or not that $700 million should have
>been used to improve public transit in that region and get
>more people out of their cars.
>

Please realize that Silicon Valley is 40-50 miles south of Oakland, even 
though I880 does go through both of them.

As for public transit in the region, they are cutting back on the transit
because less money is expected to be forthcoming from the state, IF we ever
get a budget.

From California, the I-OWE-YOU state, day 51?

	marc

-- 
[ Marc Lewert                      Phone: (408) 321-6626                 ]
[ Octel Communications Corp.       AspenNet(tm): (408) 321-6700 MB 6626  ]
[ 890 Tasman Dr.		   USENET: ...!mips!octela!marc          ]
[ Milpitas, CA 95035               Smart Mailer: marc@octel.com          ]
[ Disclaimer:  The company knows what I think, I tell them often enough. ]
[ zen hugs - the hugs that you would get, if we were there,              ]
[            if we could hug you, but we aren't, and we can't            ]
[            - Anne McCaffrey, Mercedes Lackey, "The Ship Who Searched"  ]
From: charlesv@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Charles Van Duren)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Mary Jane has a great Biomass
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:49:56 GMT

bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano) writes:


>What we need and right away is to start growing the nonpotent strains
>of hemp in commercial farming.

Why non-potent? Why not have it both ways?

>Actually a similar situation exists with farm produced alcohol.
>Only 8 acres of corn or similar crop is sufficient to produce 
>enough alcohol to power a car for a year of average use.

Corn culture is very hard on the growing medium, and uses a great
deal of energy input. Not to mention distillation. Sort of like
building a machine which produces 1 gallon of fuel from an input of
10 gallons.

>Same problem though...alcohol is also an inebriant, etc....and if
>a thousand farms each have their own stills---er processing plants...
>such a perfect fuel could be misused.

Some might argue that using it in engines is misusing it.......

What's this puritanical strain I detect here?

CvD
From: coney@socs.csu.murdoch.edu.au (Jeff Coney)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Australian Satellite Weather Maps
Summary: Access to Aussie Satellite Weather Maps?
Keywords: Weather Australian Maps
Date: 16 Aug 92 14:18:54 GMT
Organization: Murdoch University


Would very much like to obtain satellite weather maps for Australia -
especially Western Australia.  These are readily available for the
USA, but I have not yet managed to find a network source for Aussie maps.
Can anyone help?

Jeff Coney

coney@socs.murdoch.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.environment,ba.transportation,rec.railroad