A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

How Did I Miss This One?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 29th 06, 07:53 PM posted to rec.autos.driving,misc.transport.urban-transit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 29th 06, 09:03 PM posted to rec.autos.driving,misc.transport.urban-transit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 29th 06, 10:13 PM posted to rec.autos.driving,misc.transport.urban-transit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 29th 06, 11:06 PM posted to rec.autos.driving,misc.transport.urban-transit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 30th 06, 12:19 AM posted to rec.autos.driving,misc.transport.urban-transit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 30th 06, 12:21 AM posted to rec.autos.driving,misc.transport.urban-transit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 30th 06, 01:07 AM posted to rec.autos.driving,misc.transport.urban-transit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 30th 06, 05:17 AM posted to rec.autos.driving,misc.transport.urban-transit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 30th 06, 05:58 PM posted to rec.autos.driving
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old January 30th 06, 07:10 PM posted to rec.autos.driving,misc.transport.urban-transit
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
97 Stratus Miss Firing on Cylinder 4 jh0828 Dodge 2 January 12th 06 12:46 AM
97 stratus miss firing Jeff Dodge 2 January 7th 06 12:07 AM
GM Techs....i have a grand am problem with my 3.3...slight miss scale Technology 12 February 22nd 05 01:48 AM
Follow-up: 2000 Contour miss and Check Engine Light Craig Williams Technology 1 December 31st 04 07:00 AM
2000 Contour miss and Check Engine Craig Williams Technology 3 December 21st 04 02:11 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.