Re: Cars make more economic sense than transit: fact

[Forg <forg@zip.com.au>]

Mark Gibson wrote:
...
> Mass transit is generally a major scam perpetrated upon innocent taxpayers.
> The fact that it rarely pays for itself and the fact that most people
> rarely, if ever, use it strongly support my point.
> 
> If all mass transit disappeared tomorrow, society might be inconvenienced
> for a few weeks, but life would go on.  If private road-based motor vehicular
> traffic disappeared tomorrow, society would be well on its way to oblivion
> within a week.  Face facts.  We don't need mass transit to get by.  Those
> few places that do are overcrowded and would benefit more by reducing their
> population density.
...

Mate, you're living in a dream world. The entire financial structure of
the world would collapse; all the major financial centres are in major
cities that could not operate without public transport. Even Sydney is
not big on a global scale, and single-day train strikes make the place
grind to a halt; and that's just one form of public transport. I haven't
seen any figures for daily use, but for the peak hour there are 5 or so
lines, with 1000 people per train every 3-5 minutes; let's say 15000 per
line in that hour, or 75000 extra cars you would put on the road during
that single hour. There is NO WAY that wouldn't turn the
already-polluted city into a big smog-blanket, let alone the fact that
doubling the width of the roads wouldn't help (which you couldn't do
overnight one night, anyway).

Sure, you need both. But more cars, in their current form, basically
means more dead people. 

Of course public transport doesn't pay for itself, it isn't supposed to.
Are you saying that you pay, directly, for the roads you use? Sheesh!!


--
Forg!                   -DUH#6=- (Y1)

"Flamin' heck; another Volvo Driver!"

"...
 Another Turnip Boy;
 A Forg stuck in the road
 ..."
 [Greenday]