On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 11:09:49 GMT, wrote:


Dave Head wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 14:04:56 +0200, Dr Engelbert Buxbaum
wrote:

George Conklin wrote:

The more radical environmentalists have
published letters in our local newspaper saying that the goal of the
enviromental movement is to STOP TRAVEL or at least make it expensive
and to
minimize all travel. This is no different from the old British nobles
who
were against railroads because it would encourage the peasants to move
around too much. No difference today. Environmentalists are white
elitists.


The issue never was to stop travel, that would be nonsense. The idea
must be to use the right mode of transportation for each journey at
hand. For short (up to about 20 km) trips of a healthy single person
without heavy luggage, this is the bike. This is probably the most
comman type of trip.

Damn, I live just about that far from work. 24 miles of biking per day?
I
don't think so. Not only would I kill someone to avoid that sort of
imposition, it would also waste about 2 hours per day, not including the
necessary shower after each ride. I get to work and home in about 22
minutes
with the car.

Plus, on the roads around here with the blind corners and sharp hill
crests,
biker would get killed. I see _nobody_ biking these roads. No one is
that
stupid.

For other journeys, it may be bus, train, ship or plane.

Fatal flaw on all these: They run on a schedule. That means you have to
wait
for them to get to where you are in order to ride them. Efficiency of
travel
would go down, as would our overall productivity. Recreational travel
would
probably be nearly completely discouraged.

If this is the goal of "environmentalism", I'll oppose such
environmentalism
with all my strength as long as I'm alive.


The whole goal of making people live in modern mill towns is to cut down
ALL travel. At least our local radicals admit that, while planners hide
their hand and spout fumes.

Yep - deception is part of the environmentalist's strategy, esp. at higher
levels. I mostly don't believe a word they say.



And for some
journeys, it's the car. Even I get into situations were I use a car,
about once a month on average. Of course I do not keep a car for that,
but call a taxi.

Last taxi I took was from the airport in Indianapolis to home, across
town.
$50. I am not that rich! Fortunately, it was for work, and they paid for
it.

Taxis are an imposition on the public, put there because we cannot
make private deals with ordinary drivers to take us where we want to go for
a fee we both agree upon. Environmentalists know this, but their goal is to
discourage travel.

Yep.

The problem is not travel per se, but the missuse of an inappropriate
mode of transportation.

Anything you have to wait for in order to ride is "inappropriate", in my
opinion.

Want to get public transport actually accepted in this country? Build it
so
you don't have to wait for it. See the "personal rapid transit" mode of
operation as elaborated on the website www.taxi2000.com, and other places.
Trains, both inside cities and between cities, could adopt this model.
Buses
would have a problem with it, but the trains would be so ubiquitous, you
wouldn't need the buses anyway

How about saying, "Tripple your taxes?"

Maybe, maybe not. If the thing were _useful_ 24/7, then it might actually make
money.

If you could get up at 4 AM on Sunday morning, and drive across town with NO
traffic whatsoever in 45 minutes, or take a personal rapid transit and get
there in 10 minutes, how would you go? What would you pay for it? Suppose its
11 AM Sunday, and you're going to the Football stadium, and it would take you
45 minutes by car, plus parking time, plus $10 to park the car, or you could
get there in 10 minutes by personal rapid transit? I know how I'd get there,
and it would be worth something significant to do it.

Dave Head