Do bicycles and cars mix?
 

Marc writes:

My toothbrush sits unused for more than 99% of the time as well.
However, I think that is a good purchase, even if it is only used
for a short time every day. The same goes with cars for most people
as well.

How much of your income does your toothbrush consume? How about your car?

If the internet has taught me one thing it's how to recognize bad
anologies.

--
Jordan Bettis http://www.hafd.org/~jordanb
Such as it is, the press has become the greatest power within the
Western World, more powerful than the legislature, the executive and
judiciary. One would like to ask: by whom has it been elected, and to
whom is it responsible?
-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Do bicycles and cars mix?
 

wrote in message
hlink.net...

1% of transit riders get 17% of funds.

Ha! Our California transportation fools are much more foolish than your
fools. Our Northern California fools spend 75% of their funds on 3%
transit riders.

Do bicycles and cars mix?
 

Krist wrote:
I do think that it is possible to create a transit system that allows a
large fraction of the population this type of choice. The place I live in
proves that. Some places in the States.

In some other places it might not be possible...
But then, the role of transit is not te force people out of their car, the
role ought to be to offer choice where offering choice makes sense.

I totally agree. But "makes sense" is defined economically. If it takes
taxpayer subsidies for transit to exist at all, offering it doesn't make
sense.

Do bicycles and cars mix?
 

John David Galt wrote:
I totally agree. But "makes sense" is defined economically. If it
takes taxpayer subsidies for transit to exist at all, offering it
doesn't make sense.

So we should close all the roads and highways? That's where most of
the transportation-related tax money goes.

Next we should close all the airports? That's where most of the rest
of the transportation-related tax money goes.

Once users of those modes all have to pay their own way, I think mass
transit will be very competitive, and will no longer need subsidies.

Metro in the median of I-66, for instance, can carry more people
faster, more efficiently, while using less energy, in less space,
more safely, while producing less pollution, more quietly, than the
surrounding highway. And passengers can read or work, rather than
giving their full attention to driving. Nor do they have a massive
upfront capital cost, or the need to carry what amounts to an internal
passport, or the need to find and pay for a parking space at both ends
of every trip.

Also, Metro can carry everyone. Millions of people are unable to
drive cars for medical, financial, legal, age, or temperamental
reasons.

If you don't generate your own electricity, sew your own clothes,
build your own house, or grow your own food, why should you drive
your own vehicle? Specialization just makes sense.

(Yes, I know what Heinlein said. It's good to be *able* to drive a
car, swim, send morse code, survive in the wilderness, fly a plane,
repair a CD player, etc, but unless that's your profession or a hobby
you enjoy, why do it every day?)

The only reason why cars are so common is because of distortions in the
economy caused by various government policies, taxes, and subsidies.
--
Keith F. Lynch - - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.

Do bicycles and cars mix?
 

"Keith F. Lynch" wrote in message
...

So we should close all the roads and highways? That's where most of
the transportation-related tax money goes.

Its also where the transportation taxes come from that more than pay for the
roads and some of the transit.

Next we should close all the airports? That's where most of the rest
of the transportation-related tax money goes.

Also where a lot of the taxes come from which are part of the price you pay
for a ticket.

Once users of those modes all have to pay their own way, I think mass
transit will be very competitive, and will no longer need subsidies.

Transit receives large subsidies and does not contribute much in taxes
unlike road and airlines. You are not even in the ballpark of being correct


Metro in the median of I-66, for instance, can carry more people
faster, more efficiently, while using less energy, in less space,
more safely, while producing less pollution, more quietly, than the
surrounding highway.

All theoretical but reality is far different and not very pretty for
transit.

The rest of your post is good for a laugh, but it mainly shows you are
living in a fantasy world instead of reality.

Do bicycles and cars mix?
 

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, Krist wrote:

But then, the role of transit is not te force people out of their car,
the role ought to be to offer choice where offering choice makes sense.

YES! That's why politicians' and self-proclaimed environmentalists'
determination to "get people out of their cars" is a bassackward way of
addressing the issue. Lane restrictions, fuel taxes, and other punitive
measures aimed at "getting people out of their cars" will never work as
well as offering a true alternative that works. If they build it, I will
come.

DS

Do bicycles and cars mix?
 

Dave Head wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 12:11:47 GMT, wrote:


Dave Head wrote in message
.. .
On 09 Aug 2003 17:40:05 -0500, Jordan Bettis
wrote:

writes:

Nope, but I was just pointing out the economics. People complain
that
cabs are too terribly expensive, but they don't consider the fixed
costs of the automobile if they use that automobile extremely
infrequently. If they still prefer the car that's their choice but
they can hardly say its because of money.


People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do
nothing
around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?

Home depot dosen't deliver large items? I'd go somewhere that does.

Yes they do, but they do it on Tuesdays an Saturdays. You either have
to
take
off work to meet the truck on Tuesday, or possibly put off a trip to
something
fun on Saturday, plus wait 'til Saturday. Its much more satisfying to
have
your 4' X 8' sheets of plywood on the roof of the Jeep the same night,
with no
waiting.

Dave Head


That was the problem with the old-fashioned urban delivery systems.
Women
would put on their white gloves, take the trolley downtown, and then have
to
be there on Tuesdays or Saturdays when delivery would take place. It
assumed an upper class lifestyle where women stayed home all day or the
maid
took delivery for you.

Plywood on the roof? Dangerous. I put it inside.

Not inside a Jeep Cherokee, I think.

Dave Head



That is one reaerson why my wife and I compromised on a Suburban: big
enough for plywood and not open to the elements, so the dogs can travel in
comfort. Otherwise, a sedan and a pickup would have been in order, both
4-wheel drive, however, due to the remote location of the place we live 6
months a year. Very remote.

Do bicycles and cars mix?
 

John David Galt wrote in message
.. .
Krist wrote:
I do think that it is possible to create a transit system that allows a
large fraction of the population this type of choice. The place I live
in
proves that. Some places in the States.

In some other places it might not be possible...
But then, the role of transit is not te force people out of their car,
the
role ought to be to offer choice where offering choice makes sense.

I totally agree. But "makes sense" is defined economically. If it takes
taxpayer subsidies for transit to exist at all, offering it doesn't make
sense.


Research Triangle Park in NC does not fit modern urban planning models.
It was set up to be a PARK, with 18% of the land not covered in trees or
ponds. It worked. But no one lives there. Planners say, "Redevelop it."
Durham's long-range plan calls for 'compact' business development where
people live. In short, in Durham RTP has been soundly repudiated by the
planners, but a huge economic success. Why? People do not want to live in
1900 houses.
So now we have buses to take people to RTP. They get back 11% of the
costs in fares. Is that good economic sense? Planners say YES. The rest
of us say NO.

Do bicycles and cars mix?
 

Marc wrote in message
...
wrote:

People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do nothing
around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?

Yes. I see people do it all the time.
I have never seen a taxi at a Home Depot, and I got 3 times a week and
for years on end. You cannot carry anything in a taxi.

Do bicycles and cars mix?
 

wrote in message thlink.net...
Mitch Haley wrote in message
...
wrote:
People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do
nothing
around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?


People who post drivel like the above...
Can you really justify a year's worth of truck payments
to have it handy for a couple of trips to the home improvement
store? Makes as much sense as paying $200 a sheet for plywood.
On second thought, you ARE paying $200 a sheet for plywood.
Mitch.

People don't drive a truck only to Home Depot. The F150 is the most
popular vehicle in the nation, and for good reasons. I have to hit home
depot several times a week. And now that home updating is on the schedule,
probaby every day.

Sounds like you don't plan out your projects very well if you have to
hit home depot every day.