Cars - How Did I Miss This One?

Scott en Aztlán wrote: <brevity snips>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/26/ma...26HIGHWAY.html
>
> When engineers in San Diego sent a caravan of eight Buicks down I-15
> at 65 miles per hour, the steady-handed computers at the steering
> wheels kept the cars spaced just 15 feet apart. By squeezing three
> times as many cars on the highway, this technology could drastically
> ease traffic congestion -- if only engineers could figure out a way to
> get millions of drivers to buy these systems.

Cars and trucks frequently travel I-15 at 65(+) mph 5'-10'-15' apart.
Nobody is interested in saving time, their goal is to drive faster and
enjoy the illusion of saving time. Nobody likewise, is interested in
easing congestion... unless it involves the actions or "sacrifices" of
"other people". Nobody feels they're part of congestion, it's
everybody else.

> Suburban car culture traps women. Critics complain that mothers in the
> suburbs are sentenced to long hours chauffeuring children to malls and
> soccer games and piano lessons, which are tasks that do indeed require
> a car. But so do most of their jobs.
>
> [I see you "forgot" the corollary: Suburban car culture traps
> CHILDREN, too - a fact that's not so easily dismissed.]

That's subjective. Parents today have no more inclination to say "no"
to their children than they do to themselves. In the 50's-60's we
walked or rode bikes, made friends in our neighborhood and, with a
sense of non-entitlement learned by example, entertained ourselves, got
JOBS delivering newspapers, mowing grass and raking leaves. Very
little was "given" to our parents and, since they were smart, didn't
feel inclined to give us everything we wanted or merely asked for.
Without today's constant and varied activities requiring travel by car
we developed and used our imaginations. A visit to a mall was maybe a
thrice-yearly event.

I liken it to education today. Virtually nothing has changed in 100
years that a child needs to learn... but the teaching methods that
proved so successful in the past have been ****canned, barred,
outlawed... and blame applied to the teachers when it's actually the
result of poor parenting.

> Drivers are getting a free ride. Yes, the government spends a lot more
> money on highways than transit, but most of that money comes out of
> the drivers' pockets. If you add up the costs of driving -- the car
> owner's costs as well as the public cost of building and maintaining
> highways and local streets, the salaries of police patrolling the
> roads -- it works out to about 20 cents per passenger mile, and
> drivers pay more than 19 of those cents, according to Cox.
>
> [20 cents per mile? Hell, GASOLINE ALONE costs more than that if you
> drive the average SUV. Check Edmunds.com, Consumer Reports, or anyone
> else that evaluates cars - for a 2 door Honda Civic, one of the
> cheapest cars to own and operate, the "true cost of ownership" is
> $0.4/mile - more than double that $0.20 figure. The Federal
> government's mileage reimbursement guidelines are also over
> $0.40/mile. And NEITHER of these mileage cost figures includes the
> costs of infrastructure, parking, environmental/societal costs,
> traffic cop salaries, etc. Bottom line, this $0.20/mile claim is
> complete and utter bull****, but that's just the sort of lies that you
> have to tell in order to make the personal automobile appear to be
> cheaper than mass transit.]

Twenty cents per "passenger" mile? I guess that could be correct... if
every vehicle was a 60 passenger bus. Funny... $0.20 per mile equals
(say average) $20K vehicle purchase price and operated for 100K miles
(one passenger) sans fuel or anything else.
-----

- gpsman