LA Times: U.S. Love Affair With The Car Ending

"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
I'm going to snip all of the loaded and elitist statements and respond
only to the the substantive parts of your post.

Jack May wrote:










Oops, I'm left with nothing to say,

Considering how all the railfans here dump on every other form
transportation, notably including buses, that is not surprising.

Whose leg are you pulling???

Almost no one takes their SUVs off paved roads!


On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:38:55 -0500, RJ wrote:

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 07:14:42 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
wrote:

SMS said in misc.transport.urban-transit:

Actually what needs to be done is to find ways to encourage people to
leave the SUV or mini-van at home, and use a smaller vehicle for
commuting, and use the larger vehicle only when necessary.

Or, better still, use public transit for commuting, and *rent* the SUV
when you actually need one.

The major rental companies will not let you take even a 4x4 SUV off
paved roads. So if that's what you want an SUV to do, you have a
problem

ROTFLMFAO!

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:44:41 -0500, Bolwerk wrote:

I'm going to snip all of the loaded and elitist statements and respond
only to the the substantive parts of your post.

Jack May wrote:










Oops, I'm left with nothing to say,

Wow! Then I am sure glad that I bought a Corolla and didn't spend the
extra $8K - $10 K for a Prius.

There are no car pool lanes within 150 miles of where I live, so being
able to drive in them is no advantage to me.

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 22:59:05 -0800, SMS
wrote:

Bob Gardner wrote:
I was bemused by the mention of hybrids in the president's speech....when
you cut off the tax benefit after only 60,000 cars have been sold, you're
not doing too much to help.

The tax benefit should be based on the actual mpg, not whether or not
the vehicle has some batteries in the power train.

A Toyota Corolla driven at 65 mpg gets better highway mpg than a Prius
driven at the same speed, without all the environmental issues.

Jack May wrote:
"Scott en Aztlán" wrote in message
...
SMS said in misc.transport.urban-transit:

Actually what needs to be done is to find ways to encourage people to
leave the SUV or mini-van at home, and use a smaller vehicle for
commuting, and use the larger vehicle only when necessary.
Or, better still, use public transit for commuting, and *rent* the SUV
when you actually need one.

There is no advantage to society in using transit and major negative factors
in using transit.

Scott, please remember that there is no future in the 19th Century. Your
view that transportation technology reached its peak in the 19th Century
and solves the transportation problems of the 21st Century is worthless and
shows no understanding of the society you live in.


It would be if he or anybody else held it.

--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

Jack May wrote:
"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
Jack May wrote:
"SMS" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

They already did that. That's how we ended up with so many highways in
the first place.

The highways are an inherent result of technology evolution, society needs,
and normal progress. Trying to hold on to past with obsolete technology
always fails in a free society.

People that do not want to use the most effective technology are called
laggards and are the bottom 16% of society in measures such as income,
mental ability, connectivity to others, and effectiveness in society in
general.

Society in general is not run by the least effective people in the lowest
levels of society.


It's run by the pezzonovanti.

--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

Bolwerk wrote:
I'm going to snip all of the loaded and elitist statements and respond
only to the the substantive parts of your post.

Jack May wrote:










Oops, I'm left with nothing to say,

Yeah, he's elusive.

--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

Sancho Panza wrote:
"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
I'm going to snip all of the loaded and elitist statements and respond
only to the the substantive parts of your post.

Jack May wrote:








Oops, I'm left with nothing to say,

Considering how all the railfans here dump on every other form
transportation, notably including buses, that is not surprising.


What rot. I have always said that below a certain size of conurbation
there is no place for local rail and public transport will be provided
by buses. This is a transit newsgroup, not a rail newsgroup.

--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

Sancho Panza wrote:
"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
I'm going to snip all of the loaded and elitist statements and respond
only to the the substantive parts of your post.

Jack May wrote:








Oops, I'm left with nothing to say,

Considering how all the railfans here dump on every other form
transportation, notably including buses, that is not surprising.

I'm not sure "all the railfans" do that, since I'm having a rather hard
time finding a single example. Of course, I'm sure there is an example
somewhere on usenet or elsewhere of a railfan actually believing that
all transportation should simply be by rail with no exception - it's
just a rather rare viewpoint on this board, and in polite society in
general.

Either way, one example hardly shows that "all the railfans" do anything
of the sort. Perhaps a "tiny fraction of the railfans" have so offended
the mighty bus, plane, and automobile. At most, many think that rail
use should be drastically expanded.

I think nearly everyone here can agree that thinking cars, buses,
planes, horse-drawn carriages, swing sets, and whatever else should be
permanently removed from service is roughly as absurd as Jack's
assertion that transit is worthless, transit riders are pea-brained
laggards, and that transit should never under in circumstances be funded.

Sancho Panza wrote:
"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...

I'm going to snip all of the loaded and elitist statements and respond
only to the the substantive parts of your post.

Jack May wrote:









Oops, I'm left with nothing to say,


Considering how all the railfans here dump on every other form
transportation, notably including buses, that is not surprising.



Well, I for one have never taken a dump on a trolley, "light rail
vehicle", bus, airplane or in a private automobile.

But I have taken a dump on a train.

--meanmrmustard