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....