NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/ba/transpor/2917

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 3.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sun-barr!olivea!veritas!joshua
From: [e-mail] (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:50:09 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: VERITAS Software
Lines: 77

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Vandeman) writes:
>-year head start, is now rarly used?  Or the one which pays for itself,
>-and is heavily used?
>
>If you still think cars "pay for themselves", you haven't been listening.

I've been reading this group for years.  I have never seen anyone post
even the most basic number about the cost of cars.  They simply assert
that cars don't pay for them selves.

For example: the federal highway fund has 100s of millions of dollars
in it as surplus.  This is inspite of the fact that 100s of millions
more are used for transit projects.  If we stop subsidizing transit,
we could have done all the "Measure A" work out of gas tax money.

25% of the DMV's gross revenue is sent directly to counties and cities
to help pay for road maintainence, yet mass transit people ignore all
DMV moneys.  That 25% BTW does not include the money the DMV sends
back to the state's general fund.

>-Do you want to build your 21 century system out of the 20 century's
>-failure, or its success?
>
>As sustainable transportation, cars are a failure.

The house you live in is not sustainable.  The office you work in is
not sustainable.  The Internet you use is not sustainable.  The busses
and trains you advocate are not sustainable, yet you insist that
cars be sustainable.  Why?  Is a car less sustanable than your house or
office building?  Considering their relative costs, I doubt it.

>--1) ...  It has progressed
>--as far as it has only because the substantial external costs have
>--been ignored or institutionalized until now.
>-
>-I know this is part of the mass transit dogma, but you igore the
>-massive external costs of mass transit: my time!  You also ignore
>
>I don't. Cars waste more time, because they cause drivers to waste
>their time. On transit, 100% of the time is useful time for me.

Great, for you.  For the rest of us a 50 minute biking/train/bus
ride to replace a 15 minute car ride looks like a big waste of time.

>--As we begin to account
>--for these "hidden" costs -- an essential "market" step in moving the
>--world economy toward sustainability -- the real costs of driving will
>--be more apparent, and "better" will take on a new meaning.
>-
>-I'm all in favor of this process, and if it leads to mass transit,
>-so be it.  In fact, I suspect it will lead to better pollution control
>-for cars, which is a good thing IMHO.  As well as better control
>
>Transit still comes out far ahead of the auto. And more important, by
>2020 we won't have affordable fuel for more than a few cars.

You only get to cry wolf once.  I remember people in the 1970s
claiming that we had 20 or 30 years of gas left.  We currently have
20 to 40 years (depending of which of your postings I take seriously).
That looks pretty good to me.  After 20 years, we have discovered more
gas than we have used.

>--To offer time-efficient
>--alternatives to auto use, we need a frequent and fairly speedy backbone
>--or grid.  Trains are here -- let's develop them into this backbone.
>-
>-We could build this backbone out of cars -- they are here also.  They
>-are faster, far more flexible, pollute less, but are politically
>
>You are living in a fantasy world.

I enjoy your humor!  Over 90% of the people commute by cars, yet
I live in a fantasy world for suggesting a car based transit system.
About 3% of the people commute by mass transit, yet you want to
force it on everyone, or almost everyone.

Joshua Levy  ([e-mail])