"Miguel Cruz" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
    > I disagree. The density on the streets is just too high. Cars won't fit.

Cars didn't fit in Bangkok during most of the 1980's and 1990's. (until they
constructed more roads and the Skytrain). Still, all Thais that could afford
them bought cars. Talking to my Vietnamese colleagues, the same will happen
in Hanoi and HCM City.

Sjoerd

Seriously,
The traffic with just the motorcycles and bicycles can completely gridlock
at times depending on what is going on. There was an aids benefit at one of
the turnabouts and it took almost 2 hours just to get through the
intersection with a taxi. Even on a motorcycle it would have taken an hour.
I don't think your off topic, this all relates to travel and it's
information well received by people traveling to different places to know
ahead of time what to expect. I drive in Saigon when I am there, but the
rules of the road maybe similar, but they sure aren't practiced that way.
I'd much prefer my wife to drive as she is used to it. We were clipped twice
by other drivers on the same day. Usually not a problem but even in the city
where the speeds are about 20-25 mph people still die from accidents. Let
alone on the highways where you would think people are completely insane.
LOL
You're right about the cars, there are very few and the high taxes on them
limits the people that can purchase. Usually it's the elite and those that
have them, like to flaunt them. You'll always see the mercedes or lexus
parked in front of the sidewalk cafes on Nguyen Hue so that everyone can see
them. Myself I prefer driving a scooter as it would take you forever to get
through town.
"George W. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Miguel Cruz <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
    > > George W. Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > > Miguel Cruz <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > >> The closest thing to a real car-free city I've seen is Saigon.
Millions
    > > >> of people and in many parts of town you'll only see one car for every
500
    > > >> mopeds. Cars are so slow there that they're only used by people for
whom
    > > >> the prestige value is worth the wait.
    > > >>
    > > >> Which points to the eventual reason why many cities will probably
have to do
    > > >> without cars: In places with truly high population density, the cars
just
    > > >> won't fit. Saigon's streets are completely saturated already with
vehicles
    > > >> that are nimbler and 1/8 the size of cars. Replace them and you'll
have
    > > >> permanent and total gridlock.
    > > >
    > > > I go to Saigon once or twice a year and each time I can't fail notice
    > > > the seemingly huge increase in the number of private four-wheeled
    > > > vehicles in the city.
    > > >
    > > > Cars will come to Saigon just as they did everywhere else --
    > > > eventually. The only limiting factor is cost.
    > >
    > > I disagree. The density on the streets is just too high. Cars won't fit.
Now
    > > you see 200 a day instead of 10 a few years ago, but that rate of growth
    > > can't go on indefinitely.
    > I'm sure that was said about Bangkok, Jakarta and Hong Kong. It's
    > remarkable how places adapt to vast numbers of traffic. If Vietnam
    > continues on its present rate of growth and increasing urban affluence
    > the number of cars will grow. And they will fit ... somehow, same as
    > they did elsewhere.
    > What you will see over time is less street life as roads are widened
    > and heavily used roads such as Nguyen Hue become more car-oriented.
    > Neither Ho Chi Minh City nor Hanoi have any multistorey or large
    > street-level car parks, though several are planned over the next few
    > months. (Hey, another blight!).
    > This year, Hanoi tried to restrict the number of motorcycles on the
    > road by refusing to register them. All that did was increase the
    > number of unregistered vehicles. Crackdowns are patchy because
    > authorities fear alientating too much of the population, sparking
    > social unrest.
    > Both cities have tentative plans for light rail systems, but at cost
    > estimates of US$2 billion for HCMC and $1 billion for Hanoi, don't
    > hold your breath.
    > Sorry, this is geographically off topic for r.t.e. and r.t.u-c
    > Regards,
    > George W. Russell
    > Hanoi

Miguel Cruz wrote:

    > George W. Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>Miguel Cruz <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>The closest thing to a real car-free city I've seen is Saigon. Millions
    >>>of people and in many parts of town you'll only see one car for every 500
    >>>mopeds. Cars are so slow there that they're only used by people for whom
    >>>the prestige value is worth the wait.
    >>>Which points to the eventual reason why many cities will probably have to do
    >>>without cars: In places with truly high population density, the cars just
    >>>won't fit. Saigon's streets are completely saturated already with vehicles
    >>>that are nimbler and 1/8 the size of cars. Replace them and you'll have
    >>>permanent and total gridlock.
    >>I go to Saigon once or twice a year and each time I can't fail notice
    >>the seemingly huge increase in the number of private four-wheeled
    >>vehicles in the city.
    >>Cars will come to Saigon just as they did everywhere else --
    >>eventually. The only limiting factor is cost.
    >
    >
    > I disagree. The density on the streets is just too high. Cars won't fit. Now
    > you see 200 a day instead of 10 a few years ago, but that rate of growth
    > can't go on indefinitely.
    >
    > The main roads are already incredibly wide, and they're packed solid with
    > machines that fit about 8 times as many people per unit of road space as
    > cars. miguel

No rate of increase goes on indefinitely. A truism lost on media folks
who love long term extrapolations. The true question is "At what point
will the rate top out and how will changes continue?"

A number of models are available. The eternal paving of some US cities.
Restricting access to the central city -- perhaps the London model.
Just stuffing more machines in -- The Bangkok model.

Another question is how high will the congestion go before something
will be done. Experience suggests very high densities.

Since Vietnam runs to more planning than most they well may find a limit
mechanism early but I doubt it.

Gregory Morrow extrapolated from data available...


    >
    >
    > Castro's revolution *really* benefited the poor and rural folk, who
    > were living in horrendous and even slave - like conditions (thanks in
    > large part to US companies like United Fruit, etc.) Much of the Cuban
    > middle and upper classes (who had a prosperous US - style lifestyle)
    > fled because they lost everything when Castro came to power...they had
    > nothing to lose by going to Miami or wherever.
    >

.....and a Hell of a lot of what the Revolution provided for the poor came
from the assets (certainly those of the very rich, but in no small amount
from the assets of what was certainly in numbers and percetages, the
Caribbean's and Central America's largest "Middle Class".

Even with the level of corruption prevalent in the preCastro bureaucracy, I
suspect that almost any government would have realized the eventual hazards
arising from allowing Meyer's Lansky's version of the Mob to run unchecked.
As for narcotics, what's one more transit point in the chain? Cocaine and
its distributors seek the cheapest least vulnerable transit routes,
altering to meet circumstances, and I'm not sure that Cuba (except for its
numerous small airfields within easy range of CONUS) would have been any
less risky or "cheaper" than Mexico upon which much of the trade has
devolved. Would Cubans have required a lower level of moedida than did the
Mexicans?

TMO

Following up to Olivers

    >> If US had lifted its sanctions years ago Cuba would probably not
    >> now be either poor or communist.
    >If you really believe that, it may be time to change your prescription.

If you cant discuss it politely, do the other thing.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

On Tue, 11 May 2004 04:21:48 -0600, "Steve Austin"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > Prove that I'm wrong when I say European cities are going car-free.
    >And prove it that no car-free cities are going up in the US, Europe, Mexico,
    >etc. Prove it. I have proof to the contrary. It's at www.carfree.com.

Well, it's kind of hard to prove a neagative -- prove something isn't
happening -- but there's no news of anyone building anything on the
scale of the carfree cities on the web site. And even then, note the
huge areas lableed "parking."

I was just in New York City -- I stayed in Elmsford and took the train
in for the day on Thursday. Walking may be the best way to get around
Manhattan, but there was still a good chunk of private cars mixed in
with the taxi cabs. Traffic was also unbelievable in Queens -- I
drove to my dad's grave -- and cars are prevelant in Westchester
County.

If the Greater New York Metropolitan Area is going carfree. they are
doing a very good job of keeping it a secret from the rest of the
human race.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

The Reids <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Following up to Olivers
    >
    > >While we might argue constantly over the state of Cuban economy and the
    > >financial outlook for Cubans, the bottom line is that as long as Fidel
    > >Castro or a government drawn from successors who emulate his policies
    > >remains in place, Cuba's economy and Cubans will lag behind the country's
    > >economic potential (punished as it were for the sins of its masters, an
    > >undeserved fate for most Cubans, and one not easily avoided).
    >
    > If US had lifted its sanctions years ago Cuba would probably not
    > now be either poor or communist.

While Cuba certainly has its share of economic problems and much
political oppression, as a country to live in, it's really not much
worse (and in some cases better) than some other Latin American
countries. Had it not been for the US embargo, it would probably have
been an affluent, if dictatorial, country. Not unlike many of the middle
eastern states the US is so fond of.

David

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

"David Horne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gdye9f.1nlyszqtyrevsN%[email protected]...
    > The Reids <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > Following up to Olivers
    > > >While we might argue constantly over the state of Cuban economy and the
    > > >financial outlook for Cubans, the bottom line is that as long as Fidel
    > > >Castro or a government drawn from successors who emulate his policies
    > > >remains in place, Cuba's economy and Cubans will lag behind the
country's
    > > >economic potential (punished as it were for the sins of its masters, an
    > > >undeserved fate for most Cubans, and one not easily avoided).
    > >
    > > If US had lifted its sanctions years ago Cuba would probably not
    > > now be either poor or communist.
    > While Cuba certainly has its share of economic problems and much
    > political oppression, as a country to live in, it's really not much
    > worse (and in some cases better) than some other Latin American
    > countries. Had it not been for the US embargo, it would probably have
    > been an affluent, if dictatorial, country.
    > David

Nonesense. No Communist country in the history of the world has ever been
"affluent". Cuba wouldn't be any exception. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3000 live cameras or
visit NASA, play games, read jokes, send greeting cards & connect
to CNN news, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards or learn all
about Hawaii, Israel and more: http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

David Horne extrapolated from data available...


    > While Cuba certainly has its share of economic problems and much
    > political oppression, as a country to live in, it's really not much
    > worse (and in some cases better) than some other Latin American
    > countries. Had it not been for the US embargo, it would probably have
    > been an affluent, if dictatorial, country.

Affluent like Rumania? Dictatorial like East Germany?

Gosh, there are Socialist states that managed to avoid affluence or liberty
without a US embargo.

I suspect Castro would have managed to keep Cuba at about the same level as
the Rumanians managed under Communism, a state of affairs from which
they'll take a half century from which to recover.

Many Germans, their faces shining with joy at the Fall of the Wall, might
today claim that their Eastern acquisition/reattachment doesn't quite yet
pay its own way, and has a long way to go to catch up.

TMO

Olivers <[email protected]> wrote:

    > David Horne extrapolated from data available...
    >
    >
    > > While Cuba certainly has its share of economic problems and much
    > > political oppression, as a country to live in, it's really not much
    > > worse (and in some cases better) than some other Latin American
    > > countries. Had it not been for the US embargo, it would probably have
    > > been an affluent, if dictatorial, country.
    >
    > Affluent like Rumania? Dictatorial like East Germany?
    >
    > Gosh, there are Socialist states that managed to avoid affluence or liberty
    > without a US embargo.

Uh, they weren't just off the coast of Florida.

    > I suspect Castro would have managed to keep Cuba at about the same level as
    > the Rumanians managed under Communism, a state of affairs from which
    > they'll take a half century from which to recover.

You don't address what I said about the standard of living there being
comparable to other latin american countries- save the most affluent
(Chile etc.)

That's the point- if the US were a trading partner rather than an enemy,
it would have made a big difference IMO.

    > Many Germans, their faces shining with joy at the Fall of the Wall, might
    > today claim that their Eastern acquisition/reattachment doesn't quite yet
    > pay its own way, and has a long way to go to catch up.

West Germany was among the world's most affluent countries- it's hardly
a surprise. As I pointed out, there are plenty of "free" countries in
latin america which have miserable standards of living- worse compared
to Cuba, in fact.

David

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

David Horne extrapolated from data available...

    > Olivers <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> David Horne extrapolated from data available...
    >>
    >>
    >> > While Cuba certainly has its share of economic problems and much
    >> > political oppression, as a country to live in, it's really not much
    >> > worse (and in some cases better) than some other Latin American
    >> > countries. Had it not been for the US embargo, it would probably
    >> > have been an affluent, if dictatorial, country.
    >>
    >> Affluent like Rumania? Dictatorial like East Germany?
    >>
    >> Gosh, there are Socialist states that managed to avoid affluence or
    >> liberty without a US embargo.
    >
    > Uh, they weren't just off the coast of Florida.

Cuba could have gotten the embargo removed at any time. Token free
elections, release a few political prisoners, avoid the Mariel imbroglio in
which thousands of convicted criminals and residents of institutions were
in essence "deported", literally giving the US a choice of saving their
lives or letting them drown/die of exposure, and provide compensation for
expropriation.....sentiment to remove the US embargo would have been pretty
strong. Castro step down and retire, US embargo would disappear with days.


    >
    >> I suspect Castro would have managed to keep Cuba at about the same
    >> level as the Rumanians managed under Communism, a state of affairs
    >> from which they'll take a half century from which to recover.
    >
    > You don't address what I said about the standard of living there being
    > comparable to other latin american countries- save the most affluent
    > (Chile etc.)

In 1959, the standard of living in Cuba was comparable to the most affluent
of Latin American countries. 45 years of Castro saw it lag behind
Aregentina, Chile and a couple of others. Cuba lost ground.



    >
    > That's the point- if the US were a trading partner rather than an
    > enemy, it would have made a big difference IMO.

At any moment in time, Castro could have changed the relationship for the
benefit of his countrymen. Even now, the only things which keeps the doors
open are dollar remittances from expatriates and limited tourist earnings.

I suspect that the US attitude would change the moemnt Castro providied any
indication of altering his policies. Afet all, we've started letting
Ghadafi off the hook.

    >
    >> Many Germans, their faces shining with joy at the Fall of the Wall,
    >> might today claim that their Eastern acquisition/reattachment doesn't
    >> quite yet pay its own way, and has a long way to go to catch up.
    >
    > West Germany was among the world's most affluent countries- it's
    > hardly a surprise.

Even for a country as affluent as was West germany, absorbing the East has
been costly and damaging to German economic growth.

    > As I pointed out, there are plenty of "free"
    > countries in latin america which have miserable standards of living-
    > worse compared to Cuba, in fact.

But none which had the standard of living enjoyed by Cuba in 1959, relative
or actual, has advanced at the slow rate of the Cuban economy. Even
countries far less afluent than Cuba have now passed it, while the poorest
of Latin American states remain basket cases, but have had "relative"
growth in many instances more raid than Cuba's.

Following up to Olivers

    >Affluent like Rumania? Dictatorial like East Germany?
    >Gosh, there are Socialist states that managed to avoid affluence or liberty
    >without a US embargo.

and East Germany is no longer communist while Cuba is? Castro can
blame the US for everything and there is no drip drip of
"americanisation".
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Olivers

    >> You don't address what I said about the standard of living there being
    >> comparable to other latin american countries- save the most affluent
    >> (Chile etc.)
    >In 1959, the standard of living in Cuba was comparable to the most affluent
    >of Latin American countries. 45 years of Castro saw it lag behind
    >Aregentina, Chile and a couple of others. Cuba lost ground.

so that proves Castros system isnt good and/or embargos hurt. It
doesnt prove the embargo worked for its objective, which
presumably wasnt to impoverish the Cuban people?
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Olivers <[email protected]> wrote:

    > In 1959, the standard of living in Cuba was comparable to the most affluent
    > of Latin American countries. 45 years of Castro saw it lag behind
    > Aregentina, Chile and a couple of others. Cuba lost ground.

Indeed, but in some respects (education, health) Cuba has managed to
stay ahead. It's undeniable that the economy hasn't been decimated, but
45 years later, with virtually no trade with its largest ecomonic
neighbour- it could be a lot worse. And, as I keep on saying, it
certainly _is_ a lot worse in much of latin america, where there is
often a massive difference between the rich and the poor.

    > At any moment in time, Castro could have changed the relationship for the
    > benefit of his countrymen. Even now, the only things which keeps the doors
    > open are dollar remittances from expatriates and limited tourist earnings.
    >
    > I suspect that the US attitude would change the moemnt Castro providied any
    > indication of altering his policies. Afet all, we've started letting
    > Ghadafi off the hook.

You must be kidding. For a start, there is not an extremely vocal and
politically powerful expatriate Libyan-American community in the US. The
resentment of Castro is ingrained in many US politicians, and not
without reason given the 1960's missile crisis etc.- but after a while,
it would be a good idea to let these things go I think.

    > But none which had the standard of living enjoyed by Cuba in 1959, relative
    > or actual, has advanced at the slow rate of the Cuban economy. Even
    > countries far less afluent than Cuba have now passed it, while the poorest
    > of Latin American states remain basket cases, but have had "relative"
    > growth in many instances more raid than Cuba's.

The problem with many latin american countries is, that in spite of
economic growth, this has very rarely tricked down to poorest in the
society. The standard of living enjoyed by Cubans in 1959 was pretty
uneven. Revolutions don't usually start for nothing.

David

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

David Horne extrapolated from data available...
The standard of living enjoyed by Cubans in 1959 was pretty
    > uneven.

I'm sure that those in Cuba who would aspire to higher personal standards
of living are quite happy that aside from a handful of government
functionaries, the standard of living is pretty equally modest for
everybody (with the possible exception of a handful of folks with rich
and generous family in the US)


Revolutions don't usually start for nothing.
    >

....But are perverted or betrayed by ideologues.

Unless and until Cuba provides US politicians with a substantial incentive
for dropping the embargo, it will likely remain in place. Obviously, the
exile community represents a substantial basis for its support, but a far
wider cross section of American voters continue to see it as a significant
issue. Only a handful of the most liberal of serving Democrats would hang
their careers on supporting changes to the current policy re:Cuba. That's
a principal reason that any realistic motivation for change likely must
come from Cuba. There's nothing to be gained arguing sociopolitical rights
or wrongs, simply the reality of a half century's experience.

TMO

TMO