"Keith F. Lynch" wrote:
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.

I've heard the same claims about transit systems around the US. When they
cost more than twice the fare in subsidies, take longer door-to-door,
increase the commute distance, run unused enough to not save energy or
pollution over individual modern vehicles, and just plain don't live up to
the hype once in.

If you want me to believe that about yours, you'll have to cite someone
other than the transit authority who substantiates those claims.

And passengers can read or work, rather than
giving their full attention to driving.

I can't do either on a train or bus. I've tried.

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.

I have free parking at both ends. I have at every place I have ever
worked.

It seems that the problem is that the situation for, say, Washington D.C.
is used as an ideal, when it simply doesn't work in Dallas. In D.C., my
sister was renting a place. The only way she could get an assigned spot
would have been to buy it for $15,000. Then, she would have had to pay
over $250 a month for parking at work. For someone wanting basic
transportation, they'd have to pay as much or more to park the car than for
the car itself. She could either afford a car or a place to park it, but
not both.

As for Dallas, parking outside downtown is generally free. There are many
more jobs out of downtown than in it. Often, even downtown jobs will
include parking. I know of no one that has to pay to park at their
residence. But then, there are almost no residences in downtown.

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

Busses can't be that user friendly, either. They are charging less than
they cost to run, so they are trying to assist people that aren't able to
afford it financially. There have been other posters here pointing out
that busses are far from inclusive regarding medical conditions. There
isn't a set minimum age for busses, but I'd expect that there may be some
ages where there would be problems. If a 1 year old that wasn't even
speaking yet stumbled on with bus fare taped to his forehead, I don't
expect that he'd be riding.

I'm not sure of anyone that is *unable* to drive because of temperamental
reasons (should not be driving and unable to drive are separate), but if
someone was so tense over commuting in a car, I can imagine that they could
have similar problems when they have no control of the situation in a bus
as well. I find it frustrating in a bus when the driver parks for 15
minutes because he is getting ahead of schedule, and I have no such
problems in a car.

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.

Well, we ought to just have our teeth removed and have some machine chew
our food for us as well. Teeth cause many health problems, and not having
to use them would be a benefit to society. Heck, why even bother to think,
as everyone (other than Marilyn) can be out-thought by someone else as
well.

Just because it can be automated or outsourced does not mean it is a good
idea to do so.

(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?)

But what if driving is your hobby? You are posting to a driving group.
One must expect that there would be people in such a forum that would claim
to have driving as a hobby. If it is a hobby you like and you can do it
every day, why would you go out of your way to not do it?

The only reason why cars are so common is because of distortions in the
economy caused by various government policies, taxes, and subsidies.

Or the lack thereof. In Europe, there are significant taxes that support
much more than just the auto infrastructure. In the US, the taxes are much
smaller and are more closely tied to the source of the revenue.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"