Do bicycles and cars mix?

In article ,
Jordan Bettis wrote:
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.

Apparently it's taught you badly; the internet is good at that.

Percentage of time used is not a good metric for determining whether
something makes economic sense or not. The toothbrush analogy shows
that.


--
Matthew T. Russotto
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

In article ,
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.

Oops, but also where most of the transportation-related tax money
comes from.

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

But lots of transportation-related tax money comes from airlines too.

No transportation-related tax money comes from transit.
--
Matthew T. Russotto
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

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?

I own a house but do not own a car. I do improvement projects around
the house. I try to shop locally where possible instead of Home Depot.
For many projects items can be carried. Although perhaps some people
might have thought I was a nut carrying a 2x6x8 down the sidewalk, who
knows. For bigger things there is the store that delivers, a taxi (no
I haven't taken lumber in a taxi but for instance when buying a large
rug I took a taxi), or borrowing a vehicle from friend or family (or
riding with them if they are helping me with the project) The latter
is still using a car but I if I only need to use a car a few times a
year I see no justification to actually need to buy one. Major urban
centers often also have car-sharing programs where you pay based on
usage so if you are "car-lite" it is cheaper than owning your own.
Cars are useful tools but not necessary for the vast majority of trips
they are used for.

wrote:

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.

That's funny, go tell that to your nearest realtor agent. He will laugh at you.
Our 1900 house has sextupled in value since the late 1970s because (a) it is
historic, and (b) it is within walking distance of transit, schools and parks.
Those are the only reasons generally cited. Same is true in *every* other
historic neighborhood that has transit access in the US. Like I said, talk
to your realtor, ask him what the average value/sqf of an older house within
walking distance of a transit station vs. a newer home elsewhere. The main
urban planning problem is keeping prices *affordable* near rail transit, so
it can remain useful to middle-income-and-under families.

wrote:

Keith F. Lynch wrote in message
...
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.


Airports are cash cows my friend. They make money unless they try very
very hard not to. They could pay taxes and still make profits. Ticket
taxes pay for airports, as do PFCs (in the USA). ATC is a profit-maker in
Canada, and should be in the USA too. It is also a profit-maker in
Switzerland.

ATC a profit-maker eh? Then I guess transit systems with dedicated
sales taxes are profit-makers too... especially ones like DC Metro where
the economic impact of building the system is greater than the entire
system cost... go visit Ballston or Bethesda if you don't believe me.

-BER

John David Galt wrote in message ...
Irrelevant. In a free society, people justifiably demand the freedom to go
exactly where they want, exactly *when* they want.

Well I'd like to exactly where I want and when I want too, but I don't
think that the car is the way to do it. By car, I can *leave* when I
want to go *where* I want, but I don't necessarily get there *when* I
want. At many times of day and many places automobile traffic is too
congested to get people where they want to go when they want.

This is largely deliberate on the part of planning bureaucrats who hate
the car, and therefore is not to be blamed on drivers.

No its a function of how much space a typical vehicle occupies. While
granted you can build more roads, usually in a city space has already
been allocated to different uses. What are you going to do, raze a
neighbourhood to make more roads, that will soon become more congested
too as people see that driving is now easier, and drive more often?

too. Problem is people that drive the cars whine too loudly about
taking away some of the space that is now theirs to use for people
that want to get places quickly by taking 50+ single occupancy
vehicles and putting their occupants in one slightly larger vehicle.

Not comparable for several reasons. Transit doesn't go everywhere,
doesn't run all the time, and cannot be trusted for either safety or
reliability compared to one's own car.

If you look at the accident rates for buses, subways and the like as
opposed to cars I think you'll find that the death rate of transit
occupants is much lower than that of car occupants. How is transit
less safe? As far as reliability goes, that's why I was making the
argument that for transit to be more reliable it needs to have right
of way over single occupancy traffic.
can hardly say its because of money.

You have it backwards. For most people, the car is a necessity because
the job can't be reached (sufficiently easily and reliably) without it.
Thus the fixed cost goes under necessities, and the relevant comparison
for the rider is the incremental cost of driving vs. the bus ticket.
(The relevant comparison for public policy is the same except that the
tax subsidy to the transit system has to be counted in its cost.)

In large urban areas with sufficient density either transit provides a
way to reach the job for the vast majority of people, or it is
economically and practically feasible to do so, but perhaps the
political will is not there. In smaller places with less density
transit does not become as practical to implement. In these places
where home and work are relatively close, a bicycle commute may often
be the most economical and practical (in terms of time) choice.

In instances where people work in one town or city and live in another
one - and where it isn't where enough people are going to make a
commuter train practical - then they really don't have much choice
other than to drive to work. But they do have choice of where to live
and where they work and if they choose to commute a huge distance -
then they should bear the costs of doing so. As driving is currently a
highly subsidized activity then they are not paying the full costs.

something called traffic. And that's the main problem with automobiles
- while cars give you freedom to go where you want when you want, once
too many people start enjoying the freedom, nobody goes anywhere at
all, the steel boxes just crawl along like little ants.

Again, that is not a problem with automobiles. It only becomes a problem
when city planners prevent enough roads from being built to catch up to
traffic demand. The solution is to abolish the planning bureaucracies and
privatize the transportation industry completely.

So would you like your neighbourhood to be razed to make room for
another expressway? Aside from the fact that building more roads
hardly ever solves traffic congestion to begin with:
http://www.nmpirg.org/traffic/cexesum.html

What the majority of people want with their automobiles is increased
mobility. If planning means that someone can live in the neighbourhood
they want, take a quick train to work, walk to their gym, walk to the
bakery, etc. then they have high mobility without the necessity of the
automobile. They may still choose to own an automobile for driving to
their cottage or other locations, but they do not have to use their
car all the time because they have true freedom of mobility.

Tanya

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.

Well as 100% of car driving costs are not borne by the drivers then it
doesn't make sense to offer it either by that logic.

Besides when you have efficient transit, you have less cars on the
road, and this makes drivers happy too when they have less traffic to
contend with You also have more mobility among the population,
making it easier for people to get to work and be economically
productive and add to the overall economy of the city. You can build
new dense developments which bring in new taxpayers because you have a
way to move them around without impossibly congesting roads - oh but
wait you didn't notice because you had to outlay some extra subsidy
out front. Hmm.

Tanya Quinn wrote in message
om...
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.


It is cheaper to pick up what you need, unless you are a contractor with
a huge storage area. You have obviously never done anything practical.

Tanya Quinn wrote in message
m...
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?

I own a house but do not own a car. I do improvement projects around
the house. I try to shop locally where possible instead of Home Depot.

I can see it now. Internet poster carrying home 4x8 plywood on her back.
Yes sir.

Tanya Quinn wrote in message
om...
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.

Well as 100% of car driving costs are not borne by the drivers then it
doesn't make sense to offer it either by that logic.

Besides when you have efficient transit, you have less cars on the
road, and this makes drivers happy too when they have less traffic to
contend with You also have more mobility among the population,
making it easier for people to get to work and be economically
productive

Tranasit makes it harder for people to get to work. You have to spend a
lot more time, a lot more effort, and you must take a job where transit
happens to be, which is politically determined, NOT where the jobs are.