If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
How Did I Miss This One?
"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message ... >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. The problem is not people buyng the technology, people are already buying similar technology when it is offered on cars. The problems is Luddite infested transportation organizations that want to go back to almost useless rail systemss. The car companies are designing the technology to be independent of the Luddite infested and very low levels o competence in Governments > > 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. Talk to some women for a change to get a dose of reality. Very few of them are going to put their children on transit without the protection of an adult. Women won't even let their children ride bikes now even though that was the main way kids got around before all the TV scare stories. The transit also will not go to many of the places they are taking their children. Again you are describing a world that does not exist. > 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. You are implying that transit is free that nobody pays for which of course is absurd. Transit is tens of times more expensive in both taxes and the cost of time. In your area, most of the taxes for transportation paid mainly by drivers is spent on transit, not car infrastructure. If we went to everyone using transit, sales taxes would have to go above 100% The total cost of driving is still cheaper than the total cost of transit per person transported. Bring in the cost of time into the equation and the total cost of driving including required tax support is far cheaper than transit. No surprise except to Luddites that never seem to understand that cost go down, not up as technology advances. Very old technology like transit inherently will be far more expensive. That is exactly what the technology evolution S curves say. New technology is better and cheaper than old technology or it will not replace that old technology. Even kids know this obvious fact that is a total mystery to Luddites. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
How Did I Miss This One?
Jack May wrote: > "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message > ... > > >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. > > The problem is not people buyng the technology, people are already buying > similar technology when it is offered on cars. The problems is Luddite > infested transportation organizations that want to go back to almost useless > rail systemss. The car companies are designing the technology to be > independent of the Luddite infested and very low levels o competence in > Governments > > > > > > 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. > > Talk to some women for a change to get a dose of reality. Very few of them > are going to put their children on transit without the protection of an > adult. Women won't even let their children ride bikes now even though that > was the main way kids got around before all the TV scare stories. This is probably a function of some particular communities. In some cities I've lived in it's common for children to ride transit alone, in others it's not. > > The transit also will not go to many of the places they are taking their > children. Again you are describing a world that does not exist. True in some cases but probably not all. > > > 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. > > You are implying that transit is free that nobody pays for which of course > is absurd. Transit is tens of times more expensive in both taxes and the > cost of time. In your area, most of the taxes for transportation paid > mainly by drivers is spent on transit, not car infrastructure. If we went > to everyone using transit, sales taxes would have to go above 100% If *everyone* used transit, it would be profitable and not require a tax subsidy. > > The total cost of driving is still cheaper than the total cost of transit > per person transported. Bring in the cost of time into the equation and > the total cost of driving including required tax support is far cheaper than > transit. > > No surprise except to Luddites that never seem to understand that cost go > down, not up as technology advances. Very old technology like transit > inherently will be far more expensive. Transit itself is not a technology. Transit is a method of use of technology. > > That is exactly what the technology evolution S curves say. New technology > is better and cheaper than old technology or it will not replace that old > technology. Even kids know this obvious fact that is a total mystery to > Luddites. Being pro-transit is not being a Luddite. No one advocates horse-drawn streetcars.... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
How Did I Miss This One?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Jack May" > wrote in message ... > > > Talk to some women for a change to get a dose of reality. Very few of them > are going to put their children on transit without the protection of an > adult. They do it all the time in Japan. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
How Did I Miss This One?
John Charles Wilson > wrote:
> If *everyone* used transit, it would be profitable and not require > a tax subsidy. and the economy would tank. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
How Did I Miss This One?
"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message ... > On 29 Jan 2006 12:03:28 -0800, "John Charles Wilson" > > wrote: > >>> You are implying that transit is free that nobody pays for which of >>> course >>> is absurd. Transit is tens of times more expensive in both taxes and >>> the >>> cost of time. In your area, most of the taxes for transportation paid >>> mainly by drivers is spent on transit, not car infrastructure. If we >>> went >>> to everyone using transit, sales taxes would have to go above 100% >> >> If *everyone* used transit, it would be profitable and not require >>a tax subsidy. > > And the involvement need not reach 100% (or even close) to achieve > profitability. As late as the 1940s, passenger rail transit in this > country was profitable without any government subsidies at all. In > fact, some of these railroads (streetcars) actually had rather > one-sided franchise agreements that required them to maintain the very > same roads that were use by automobile traffic - in effect, the > railroads subsidized the automobile AND paid taxes on the property > they owned. Yet somehow they managed to make a profit, at least for a > while. > > There is no reason to believe that passenger rail could not be > profitable once again given sufficient ridership. At the rate our > freeways are clogging up, that may happen sooner rather than later. There are lots of reason and those reasons are what lead to the failure of rail. Please learn about the normal evolution of technology before make such illiterate statements. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
How Did I Miss This One?
"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:53:09 -0800, "Jack May" > > wrote: > >> >>"> Speaking of reality, how much reality is behind that irrational fear? > Starting with my second day of Kindergarten, I walked or rode the "L" > to school. In high school, I rode a CTA bus or walked. I walked to > after school sports activities. I walked to my friends' houses. I > never needed an automobile ride to get anywhere. Probably very little reality except in the minds of mothers. Reality is not as important as perception for many people. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
How Did I Miss This One?
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- "RJ" > wrote in message ... > John Charles Wilson > wrote: > > > If *everyone* used transit, it would be profitable and not require > > a tax subsidy. > > and the economy would tank. Given how American automakers are doing right now, your claim is invalid. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
How Did I Miss This One?
"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:53:09 -0800, "Jack May" > > wrote: > >> >>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message . .. >> >>>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. >> >>The problem is not people buyng the technology, people are already buying >>similar technology when it is offered on cars. The problems is Luddite >>infested transportation organizations that want to go back to almost >>useless >>rail systemss. > > I'll be honest with you: if every car were equipped with some sort of > guidance system that would GUARANTEE that the car would move in an > optimal manner at all times, I would personally help you scrap every > locomotive and every inch of rail in the entire country. With > self-driving cars that cannot be used to block traffic, the need for > public transit evaporates. This is the "Creative Design" argument. If there is any imperfection in what is working, then it must be abandoned to purse something that has almost no chance of working. A totally incoherent, totally irrational argument. Congratulations, you have hit rock bottom with no way but up. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
How Did I Miss This One?
Scott en Aztlán > wrote in
: > On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:53:09 -0800, "Jack May" > > wrote: > >> >>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message . .. >> >>>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. >> >>The problem is not people buyng the technology, people are already >>buying similar technology when it is offered on cars. The problems is >>Luddite infested transportation organizations that want to go back to >>almost useless rail systemss. > > I'll be honest with you: if every car were equipped with some sort of > guidance system that would GUARANTEE that the car would move in an > optimal manner at all times, I would personally help you scrap every > locomotive and every inch of rail in the entire country. With > self-driving cars that cannot be used to block traffic, the need for > public transit evaporates. But rail also moves a lot of heavy cargo that trucks cannot move;like loads of coal for electric powerplants,chemicals or raw materials for industry,and so on. Public transit is not the sole use of the US rail system. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
How Did I Miss This One?
Jack May wrote:
The car companies are designing the technology to be > independent of the Luddite infested and very low levels o competence in > Governments Sheer poetry. -- You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
97 Stratus Miss Firing on Cylinder 4 | jh0828 | Dodge | 2 | January 11th 06 11:46 PM |
97 stratus miss firing | Jeff | Dodge | 2 | January 6th 06 11:07 PM |
GM Techs....i have a grand am problem with my 3.3...slight miss | scale | Technology | 12 | February 22nd 05 12:48 AM |
Follow-up: 2000 Contour miss and Check Engine Light | Craig Williams | Technology | 1 | December 31st 04 06:00 AM |
2000 Contour miss and Check Engine | Craig Williams | Technology | 3 | December 21st 04 01:11 AM |