From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Tue Feb 11 2003 - 14:36:03 MST
In a message dated 2/11/2003 3:22:59 PM Central Standard Time,
thespike@earthlink.net writes: I dunno about that, but it sure makes life in
Melbourne considerably more comfortable and pleasant than it would be
otherwise. New York, too, for that matter.
Damien,
I can assume you are entirely correct insofar as you go. But assume
that the implications of what Mike and I are saying is true also.
Basically assume that the mass transit doesn't move folks as fast as
an auto even in rush hour traffic. That is what Mike and I found. In
addition Mike came up with a higher cost per passenger than the auto if I
remember his letter accurately.
The truth is that when I could make a simple Point A to Point B trip
along the main line of the El system (no transfers and the express train most
times) I voluntarily rode the El.
So the question becomes this: if mass transit typically runs a deficit
as ours does in the Chicago area, and only a small percentage of commuters
can get aboard then who is paying for our riding in comfort. Believe me in
Chicago if we shut down the autos the transit system could never carry the
entire load. Nor would the city, state, or nation ever be able to afford to
build a transit system that could take over.
Ron h.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 11 2003 - 14:38:47 MST