Do bicycles and cars mix?

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


wrote in message
nk.net...

Dr Engelbert Buxbaum 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?

Oh yes, I have actually done it.

How often do you go to Home Depot? Once a year? No point in keeping a
car for that, is there?


Three times a week, and when in the mountain home, more often than
that.
You are obviously a very impractical person who relies on others to do
most
of your work for you.

"Three times a week"!? to Home Depot? Can't you buy more than one board at
a time? Are you so disorganized?

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


wrote in message
nk.net...

Dr Engelbert Buxbaum wrote in message
...
PC wrote:


But in the end, there is still more to life than money.

The triple bottom line generally applied to public projects measures
the economic (money), social and environmental cost and benefit of a
project..

And what about those people who can not drive a car for reason of age or
disability?

Then they should be allowed by law to ask any driver to take them
where
they want to go for a fee agreeable to both. But that is not legal because
governments do not want any competition from their massively inefficient
transit systems designed to make people travel where it is politically
correct, i.e.downtown to old-fashioned stores no one wants to shop in.

The hell it ain't legal, george. In fact, 42% of all trips in the Portland
metro area are Shared Rides.

"Dr Engelbert Buxbaum" wrote in message
...
Jack May wrote:

So your cab costs 2 bucks a mile. Your journey is, what, 5 miles? Thats
10 bucks each way, 20 bucks total. During waiting time you can do
something else, so that doesn't add to the costs (unless you are bad on
planning, that is).

Ha! You are standing outside waiting for a cab trying to spot them before
they give up trying to find you. They arrive at random times, so there is
no planning

Why is there a fixed cost for a car. If you use a car less, it cost
less
per year. Since most people these days drive a car until it is worn
out,
the cost is mainly a function of mileage (including insurance). There
are
some time fixed cost, but a large part is mileage based.

A small car costs about 10,000 $, and lasts, on average, 8 years. Thats
104 $ a month average write-of costs. As most people don't have those
10,000 $ you need to add financing costs: A 3 year 8% credit adds 1600 $
to the price tag, 17 $ per month if spread over the lifetime of the car.
And note, that was just a small car! OK, lifetime is somewhat usage
dependent, but that does not substantially change the calculation.

To that you have to add insurance, road tax, road worthiness testing and
the costs for a garage to put the car in (even if you own one, you could
use it for something else or let it).

It still comes out at officially 35 cents per mile including all those cost.
BTW, cars last much longer than 8 years. Of course the latest results say
that German cars are now of lower reliability than US and Japanese cars.


I don't know US prices, but here in Germany that's a total of 300-400 $
(or Euro) a month in fixed costs, before you have driven a single mile.
Thats 15 journeys with a taxi, one every second day. Very wise economic
decission!

So what, Europe continually finds ways to screw up their society.

Even if you only include road building that relationship is probably
wrong. Just compare the price of a mile of new road with that of a new
bus.

I was comparing transit to cars. There are also multiple ways of
increasing road capacity without building roads. The alternative road
approaches inside a city are usually cheaper than building roads. The
figures come from a lot of project I have seen as part of the transportation
politics of Silicon Valley. Plus, remember in the US we look towards the
future with innovation instead of living in the past and avoiding change
like Europeans.

But what about all the additional costs involved: Environmental damage,
hospitals for accident victims, lost working hours, pensions for widdows
and orphans, separation costs, reduction of living quality along major
roads with consequential reduction of property value,....

What are the associated cost of similar items for transit that you forget in
your highly dishonest argument. The environment damage is transit is far
higher. That 100 to one ratio means there will be far more congestion and
thus far more pollution if you spend the money on transit instead of
spending it to reduce automobile congestion. Transit spend in almost all of
the US leads to increased congestion which leads to increased pollution.

The accident and death rate in the US for transit accidents are about the
same as cars (including both people in and out of the transit vehicle).
Again you make a highly dishonest statement that cars are evil and transit
is totally problem free. No way is that true in the real world.

In the US road increase property values and in most places transit decreases
property values. Transit here is mainly for poor people which leads to
more crime and less money to maintain their houses. In Europe the amount
of transit use is inversely proportional to income. I suspect there is a
similar problem there, but since you seem to be unaware of the world around
you, you may not see the effect.

Jack May wrote in message
news:ieC0b.204149$Ho3.27417@sccrnsc03...

"Dr Engelbert Buxbaum" wrote in message
...
Jack May wrote:

So your cab costs 2 bucks a mile. Your journey is, what, 5 miles? Thats
10 bucks each way, 20 bucks total. During waiting time you can do
something else, so that doesn't add to the costs (unless you are bad on
planning, that is).

Ha! You are standing outside waiting for a cab trying to spot them before
they give up trying to find you. They arrive at random times, so there
is
no planning

Why is there a fixed cost for a car. If you use a car less, it cost
less
per year. Since most people these days drive a car until it is worn
out,
the cost is mainly a function of mileage (including insurance). There
are
some time fixed cost, but a large part is mileage based.

A small car costs about 10,000 $, and lasts, on average, 8 years. Thats
104 $ a month average write-of costs. As most people don't have those
10,000 $ you need to add financing costs: A 3 year 8% credit adds 1600 $
to the price tag, 17 $ per month if spread over the lifetime of the car.
And note, that was just a small car! OK, lifetime is somewhat usage
dependent, but that does not substantially change the calculation.

To that you have to add insurance, road tax, road worthiness testing and
the costs for a garage to put the car in (even if you own one, you could
use it for something else or let it).

It still comes out at officially 35 cents per mile including all those
cost.
BTW, cars last much longer than 8 years. Of course the latest results say
that German cars are now of lower reliability than US and Japanese cars.


I keep a car 15 years on the average myself, or about 225,000 miles (not
km). Every now and then we get rid of one sooner. The Mercedes 190D we hav
e is highly trouble prone and is in the shop constantly for multiple
problems. I also find it uncomfortable.





I don't know US prices, but here in Germany that's a total of 300-400 $
(or Euro) a month in fixed costs, before you have driven a single mile.
Thats 15 journeys with a taxi, one every second day. Very wise economic
decission!

So what, Europe continually finds ways to screw up their society.

Even if you only include road building that relationship is probably
wrong. Just compare the price of a mile of new road with that of a new
bus.

I was comparing transit to cars. There are also multiple ways of
increasing road capacity without building roads. The alternative road
approaches inside a city are usually cheaper than building roads. The
figures come from a lot of project I have seen as part of the
transportation
politics of Silicon Valley. Plus, remember in the US we look towards the
future with innovation instead of living in the past and avoiding change
like Europeans.

But what about all the additional costs involved: Environmental damage,
hospitals for accident victims, lost working hours, pensions for widdows
and orphans, separation costs, reduction of living quality along major
roads with consequential reduction of property value,....

What are the associated cost of similar items for transit that you forget
in
your highly dishonest argument. The environment damage is transit is far
higher. That 100 to one ratio means there will be far more congestion and
thus far more pollution if you spend the money on transit instead of
spending it to reduce automobile congestion. Transit spend in almost all
of
the US leads to increased congestion which leads to increased pollution.

The accident and death rate in the US for transit accidents are about the
same as cars (including both people in and out of the transit vehicle).
Again you make a highly dishonest statement that cars are evil and transit
is totally problem free. No way is that true in the real world.

In the US road increase property values and in most places transit
decreases
property values. Transit here is mainly for poor people which leads to
more crime and less money to maintain their houses. In Europe the amount
of transit use is inversely proportional to income. I suspect there is a
similar problem there, but since you seem to be unaware of the world
around
you, you may not see the effect.

David Jensen wrote:
In misc.transport.urban-transit, Krist wrote in
:


wrote:

Krist wrote in message
...


wrote:


Keith F. Lynch wrote in message
...



wrote:



Tranasit makes it harder for people to get to work.

If this were true, nobody would ride it to work.
--


Sure you would. Anything highly subsidized will get some takers.

Unsubsidezed transit does exist, you know...

--
Krist



It used to.

It still does.


Any examples?

Many of the Japanes railways. Some around Tokyo are _very_ profitable
(farebox recovery rates of 150% - 200% are not uncommon), the Kowloon -
Kanton railway in China, probably others too.

In the UK several light rail systems run without running subsidies if
I'm not mistaken.

--
Krist

In misc.transport.urban-transit, Krist wrote in
:

David Jensen wrote:
In misc.transport.urban-transit, Krist wrote in
:


wrote:

Krist wrote in message
...


wrote:


Keith F. Lynch wrote in message
...



wrote:



Tranasit makes it harder for people to get to work.

If this were true, nobody would ride it to work.
--


Sure you would. Anything highly subsidized will get some takers.

Unsubsidezed transit does exist, you know...

--
Krist



It used to.

It still does.


Any examples?

Many of the Japanes railways. Some around Tokyo are _very_ profitable
(farebox recovery rates of 150% - 200% are not uncommon), the Kowloon -
Kanton railway in China, probably others too.

That seems reasonable.

In the UK several light rail systems run without running subsidies if
I'm not mistaken.

It may be.

"Krist" wrote in message
...
David Jensen wrote:
In misc.transport.urban-transit, Krist wrote in
:


wrote:

Krist wrote in message
...


wrote:


Keith F. Lynch wrote in message
...



wrote:



Tranasit makes it harder for people to get to work.

If this were true, nobody would ride it to work.
--


Sure you would. Anything highly subsidized will get some takers.

Unsubsidezed transit does exist, you know...

--
Krist



It used to.

It still does.


Any examples?

Many of the Japanes railways. Some around Tokyo are _very_ profitable
(farebox recovery rates of 150% - 200% are not uncommon), the Kowloon -
Kanton railway in China, probably others too.

In the UK several light rail systems run without running subsidies if
I'm not mistaken.

--
Krist


Overall Japan has overinvested in both trains and roads, and this problem
is one of the things dragging their economy into deflation and and
bankrupting the banks. Land was bid up to unsustainable prices and now the
are collapsing due to overinvestment in people-concentraing rail schemes.

Jack May wrote:


It still comes out at officially 35 cents per mile including all those cost.
BTW, cars last much longer than 8 years. Of course the latest results say
that German cars are now of lower reliability than US and Japanese cars.

Cars can last longer than 8 years, but some get wraped around a tree on
thei first jorney. That is the point of averages, they deal not with
individual cases but with populations. And the average lifetime of a
car, according to industry figures, is 8 years.

And if American cars realy were so much more relible than Europeans, why
did Daimler buy Crysler, rather than the other way round? Fact is that
American cars are a joke to the rest of the world.


I was comparing transit to cars. There are also multiple ways of
increasing road capacity without building roads.

There are, for example by slowing down car traffic to reduce the
distance required between cars. But those effects are usually minor. In
the end, a car has a certain footprint, a street a certain area, and
area divided by footprint (plus safety distance) is the number of cars
that a road can carry. If you want to increase that, you build new
streets.

Plus, remember in the US we look towards the
future with innovation instead of living in the past and avoiding change
like Europeans.

Oh, so thats why Europeans have a stable supply with electric power, and
the Americans have blackouts every so often.


But what about all the additional costs involved: Environmental damage,
hospitals for accident victims, lost working hours, pensions for widdows
and orphans, separation costs, reduction of living quality along major
roads with consequential reduction of property value,....

What are the associated cost of similar items for transit that you forget in
your highly dishonest argument. The environment damage is transit is far
higher.

A car uses 10 l of gas for every 100 km and usually sits one person. A
bus needs about 25 l of gas per 100 km and accomodates 100 persons (30
of peak). Now calculate the amount of exaust gases produced per
passenger km.

Calculate the amount of waste that has to be recycled when that bus gets
retired (based on passenger km) and compare that figure with the figure
for 100 SUVs. If you want to talk nonsense, at least make it non-obvious
nonsense.

That 100 to one ratio means there will be far more congestion and
thus far more pollution if you spend the money on transit instead of
spending it to reduce automobile congestion. Transit spend in almost all of
the US leads to increased congestion which leads to increased pollution.

100 persons in a bus take less space on the road than 100 persons in 100
SUVs (ok, make that 90 SUVs to account for the few cars with more than 1
person in it). Even in off-peak times, when the bus carries only 30
people, the ratio is still better. So public transport reduces
congestion, rather than increasing it.

Again you make a highly dishonest statement that cars are evil and transit
is totally problem free. No way is that true in the real world.

I don't. But people have to get around, and the amount of problems
caused by mass transit are less than those caused by cars, especially in
densly populated areas. And that means that transit is the better
option, relatively speaking.

And I havee never said that cars are evil, I said that they have a place
in the transportation mix of a modern society. But the indiscriminant
use of cars for all travel causes problems.

In the US road increase property values and in most places transit decreases
property values.

Talk to a property agent about the house prices along a heavyly used
motorway compared with a quiet back street, other factors being equal.
He will tell you that the house in the quiet area will be worth several
times that on the motorway.

Do a sociographic study: Who is living in quiet areas (rich people) and
who is living on major roads (poor people).

Get your facts right before you make a fool out of yourself.

wrote:


Using the same kind of fake and false data, you can show that transit
systems cost $15 a mile to operate.

Just because you don't like them does not mean that data are faked. In
fact, before you accuse scientists of faking data, you should really
have some good evidence. Faking data means the end of the carreer for a
scientist.

In this particular case of course there is no room for faking, as the
relevant data are public knowledge.

wrote:


How often do you go to Home Depot? Once a year? No point in keeping a
car for that, is there?


Three times a week, and when in the mountain home, more often than that.
You are obviously a very impractical person who relies on others to do most
of your work for you.


No, I just organise myself properly. Going 3 times a week to the same
shop may be appropriate for a bakery, but not for Home Depot.

And I delegate those things that can be done better (or more cheaply) by
others. That's what a modern society is about, only cave people did
everything themself.