On 4 syys, 14:21, "samuli.saare...@googlemail.com" <samuli.saare...@googlemail.com> wrote: On 4 Sep, 11:05, Jorma.M...@gmail.com wrote: ....on näillä paikkakunnilla, jos tiedot pitävät paikkansa Maarianhamina Ylitornio (Ruotsi) Türi (Viro) Hasselt (Belgia) Lübben (Saksa) Nuo ovat kai kaikki hyvin pieniä kaupunkeja, joten niistä on vähän vaikea vetää

In article <679s9jF2o48ejU1@mid.individual.net>, dgs1300@gee-mail.com (dgs) says... California Poppy wrote: The only two cities in the US where the car is a liability instead of an asset are New York City and San Francisco. For the rest of us, the car is a necessity. I'd add Chicago and Boston, and I've found it pretty easy to get around Washington DC without a car

Greg Sutherland wrote: Greg Gritton wrote: That is what makes the Portland system so worthless. Traditional streetcars died out long ago, as they couldn't compete speed-wise with the automobile. (There is argument as to whether automobile/tire/oil companies helped speed up their demise, but many were clearly dying either way.) The few that survived (such as some Boston

Hello Paul, On Nov 13, 9:24 am, Greg Gritton <grittonNO.famil...@AMcomcast.net> wrote: (Of course, it really shouldn't cost $1.70 for a short trip. The US really needs to replace its "fareless squares" with cheap short trip tickets that are useful anywhere like in some places in Europe.) TriMet sells "Short Hopper" tickets. They're good for only one zone and only

Greg Gritton <grittonNO.familySP@AMcomcast.net> wrote: One thing to remember is that almost the entire streetcar line is in Portland's fareless square, so that riding it is free. What does that have to do with whether it is "useless for transpiration" or not? Thus, if the streetcar is about to come, many who would otherwise walk will take it. And the problem here is what? It