From: jim on


Jim Yanik wrote:
>
> "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul(a)hovnanian.com> wrote in
> news:4B1734F6.7E8C5192(a)hovnanian.com:
>
> > Scott in SoCal wrote:
> >>
> >> [Excerpt from "Suburban Nation" by Andres Duany and Elizabeth
> >> Plater-Zybeck, pp. 94-7.]
> >>
> >> But the real question is why so many drivers choose to sit for hours
> >> in bumper-to-bumper traffic without seeking alternatives.
>
> because a personal vehicle takes you right to your final destination,where
> mass transit merely gets you close;you either walk or take a cab for the
> rest of the trip.
> And you don't have to wait or walk in the rain,cold,or snow.

That is your choice and you are the sum of your own choices. But given
your choice why would you not want others to ride on mass transit so
that they aren't competing with you for space on the road or space to
park your car?


> >
> > Bcause the alternative is a bus. Its stuck in the same bumper-to-bumper
> > traffic. And on the bus, I'd have to sit next to some smelly hobo.
> >
> Or worse....
>
> and be more vulnerable to robbery or assault,even mass murders.
> anybody remember the LIRR and Colin Ferguson? Or Bernhard Goetz?
> at least Goetz was able to defend himself,despite NYC's gun ban.

But not every one is a delusional and excessively paranoid. This again
is your choices no one is preventing you from choosing whatever mental
condition you want. Mass transit is statistically a much safer mode of
travel than the travel by auto is. Some people actually like the
convenience of being able to travel without the hassles of owning,
maintaining and driving a car.

-jim
From: Paul Hovnanian P.E. on
jim wrote:

[snip]

> Some people actually like the
> convenience of being able to travel without the hassles of owning,
> maintaining and driving a car.

And some people like the convenience of urinating right where they are
sitting without the hassle of looking for a restroom. I just don't like
sitting on the bus next to them.

--
Paul Hovnanian paul(a)hovnanian.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.
From: Paul Hovnanian P.E. on
Scott in SoCal wrote:

> The authors Stanley Hart and Alvin Spivak have explained that:
>
> We learn in first-year economics what happens when products or
> services become "free" goods. The market functions chaotically; demand
> goes through the roof. In most American cities, parking spaces, roads
> and freeways are free goods. Local government services to the motorist
> and to the trucking industry - traffic engineering, traffic control,
> traffic lights, police and fire protection, street repair and
> maintenance - are all free goods.

So, lets turn the clock back to a date just before the advent of the
automobile. The above argument assumes that the only beneficiary of all of
this spending is the auto. So, what did our cities look like before it
existed? Were there roads? Parking? "Traffic engineering"? Police and fire
protection? Yes to all of the above. For horses and wagons. And how much
was spent to support this infrastructure, including the care and feeding
(not to mention the cleaning up after) this mode of transportation?

Local governments have always been in the business of providing
infrastructure for transportation in whatever form happens to be the most
efficient. Back then, it was horses. Today its cars, trucks and buses.

--
Paul Hovnanian paul(a)hovnanian.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.
From: Matthew Russotto on
In article <37ugh55794r4i0p10h6bbceai4pbbaf3qr(a)4ax.com>,
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Flying in an airplane will get you there faster, there are no traffic
>jams, and the view from the air is much more interesting. And yet we
>don't always choose to fly even when it is a viable option. Why is
>that?

The TSA and the airlines.

>If you were about to say that cost is a factor, that's because when
>you fly you pay most of the actual costs directly out of your pocket;
>very little of the cost of flying comes from sales, property, and
>other taxes.

Very little of the cost of long distance driving comes from those
taxes either.

>Bottom line, if you had to pay the FULL costs of driving and parking
>DIRECTLY, instead of through hidden subsidies, you might choose to
>take public transit (or fly, or bike, or walk) rather than sit for
>hours in bumper-to-bumper traffic.

No, you wouldn't. Because you're more subsidized in public transit
than you are anywhere else already.
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.