Re: Cars make more economic sense than transit: fact

[qldspeed-spamsevil@geocities.com (qldspeed)]

On Mon, 26 Jul 1999 03:48:00 GMT, dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David
Bromage) wrote:

>Iskandar Baharuddin (brengsek@highway1.com.au) wrote:
>: David Bromage wrote:
>: > 
>: > qldspeed (qldspeed-spamsevil@geocities.com) wrote:
>: > : My point is, that taking the above into consideration, to bring the
>: > : present systems of public transport up to a level where even 30% of
>: > : the public would find public transport a viable attractive option,
>: > : would cost a fortune - Well beyond to cost of fixing up the general
>: > : road systems, which would benefit 100% of the population.
>: > 
>: > The flaw in your argument is assuming that 100% of the population owns
>: > cars.
>
>: Give him a break. I think he is including the ones who have to
>: take buses and taxis on the same roads.
>
>But buses and taxis are public transport. Remember we have to abolish
>public transport and spend that money on roads. [insert heavy sarcasm]

be as sarky as you like - you just look silly.

>
>Cheers
>David

I never said "abolish public transport" - it has its place, but public
transport is NOT the solution to everyone's problems  - at best it is
a second best solution to some peoples problems, and a good solution
for a small number.

Even people who use rail exclusively cannot escape some reliance on
the road network (even hermits need food deliveries) - hence I stand
by my 100% population gets the benefit of a better more free flowing
(and hence lower polution) traffic system.

Qldspeed