Re: Cars make more economic sense than transit: fact

[Iskandar Baharuddin <brengsek@highway1.com.au>]

Matt Cremer wrote:
> 
> Iskandar Baharuddin wrote in message <379ED656.8BE6063C@highway1.com.au>...
> ...
> >The bus company has a licence to operate. The pay-to-ride car
> >pool is illegal. That's the only difference I can think of - but
> >it is enough to stop most people from having a go.
> ...
> 
> Yes, so in essence you're saying
> (a) public transport is bad
> (b) pay-to-ride car pools are good
> (c) pay-to-ride car pools are public transport except for the name
> 
> So you would be happy if we renamed "public transport" to "all people access
> movement" or something?
> 
> -Forg (Elsewhere)

When I use the term 'public transport' I refer to the officially
authorized services which traverse set routes and charge set
fares.

'Public transport' is not a bad thing; it is just not done all
that well.

If pay-to-ride car pools were legal they would not quite fit
into the definition above. They would be contractual, and not
subject to flag-downs.

We have put ourselves into a situation in which we are allowed
to ride on trains, ferries and buses, or in private cars.

I can see advantages in expanding the menu.

A few problems too, but what else is new?

-- 
Regards,

Izzy

"Stop the world - I want to get off!"