Jump to content
Clearly the city is wrestling with the use of our shared resources during the summer months. Just a few weeks ago we were presented with the concept of changing the meaning of a STOP sign to a Yield sign for cyclists. Now this proposal. As noted above, there are times during the summer months when the Core Trail's mixed use already presents hazards to walkers and others. The several almost blind underpasses come to mind as relevant examples. Rather than continue looking at these proposals--I cannot believe there won't be more in the future--I suggest that the city take a deep breath and obtain use data over the coming summer along the length of the trail, at various times and over many different days, before making any decisions. Ditto for cyclists and STOP signs. Too often ideas are presented without relevant use data that would allow a reasoned discussion and decision-making process. I know that already some are avoiding the Core Trail for their walks (think about that for a minute!) because of the possibility of an accident with a fast moving cyclist.
While I am loathe to argue with prognostications, and perhaps because I have reached a 'certain' age, I am content to wait beyond two weeks, say until mid-terms, and see how that works out. Meanwhile, I see the current president as doing what he said he was going to do, and while that is surprising in current day politics, it is not sufficient reason for knicker-twisting! And again, perhaps because of age, I cannot seem to recall 'protests' (there are those of us who would call them unlawful activities or riots) in January and February 2009 or 1993. The most telling aspect for me is the loss of governorships, congressional seats and state legislature seats by the Dems in the last eight years and what may happen to cause that to be reversed?
That's why the 25 lines for the proof..................
So, if I understand it, your model completely ignores the carbon emitted to clear the core trail.
OK, Scott, and I will leave the rest of the carbon footprint discussion to Eric, but could see that a good portion of the core trail cleaning ought to be assigned to bikes rather than others, as bikes needs a greater for safety reasons.
Back to my question, what are the independent variables and how do they interact in your mental model that lead you to the conclusion that the sustainability argument is weak because trip distances are short? Takes me back to some of my maths texts where the common expression was "It is immediately obvious to the casual observer that....." and the proof took 25 lines of calculus to get you there!
Yes, but I thought the delta carbon question had to do with the carbon required to clear the core trali vs the savings your referred to. No?
Scott--Pls give a more detailed description of your mental model that produced the statement that the sustainability argument is weak because the trip distances are short. Thank you.
So, Scott, may we understand that "STOP" will be entering into Oz-land along with Bill Clinton's 'meaning of is....."?
Scott--First, it's not costs, it's 5% of revenue that Rex mentioned--raise prices by 5%! Second, he said the increase in min wage was going to cost his business $150,000. I do not know how he arrived at that number but since he appears to be the most successful restaurant operator in town, I would have to guess that he understands the effects, no? Third, it appears you are limiting the min wage effect to servers. Is there no 'knock-on' effect with other costs, employees, etc.? I am not sure what his total revenue is, and I do not buy into the inelasticiy of demand argument that seems to be the basis for your conclusion. And so that ends my POV and with that I wish you a very happy new year! Cheers and regards.
Scott--I would hesitate to challenge Rex on his math. It's his business. I would hazard a guess that he is averaging the estimated $150,000 increase over his total restaurant revenues, not the calculation you performed. Do you know the total restaurant rev's?
Scott--Thanks, but I was attempting to make two different points--first, the 35000 is what is commonly known in business as a WAG (there's another term, too, that is even less polite) unless we are told how the 35000 was determined. Second, and this is so much the problem with every community conversation we have--presenting solutions looking for problems! This is an example of trickle down--see how they do it and DC and let's try to do it here!
Last login: Wednesday, February 15, 2017
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2017 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |