XPost: alt.autos.toyota, rec.autos.driving, alt.society.liberalism
XPost: alt.fan.michael-moore
From: alangbaker@telus.net
In article ,
Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 23:33:41 GMT, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
> >In article ,
> >dr_jeff wrote:
> >>
> >>So? Having a car costs around $100 a week. That can be put to other
> >>things, like retirement funds. Sounds like a good idea to me. Saving
> >>money is a good thing.
> >
> >Having a car does not cost $100/week.
>
> (for you).
>
> >On the other hand, my public transit commute does cost $90/week.
> >
> >>You forgot reason #7:
> >>
> >>Taking the bus or subway is often more convenient than driving. For
> >>example, during rush hour, I can go from lower Manhattan to the Bronx or
> >>Brooklyn in 1/2 hour. You can't do that by car, even if you have lights
> >>and a siren.
> >
> >The large majority of the time (which includes almost all the time in
> >places in the US other than NYC), the car is more convenient.
>
> Bullshit of course. Do you really think large and medium sized cities
> are exempt from gridlock? Do you think sitting in traffic on a
> freeway is more convenient than the rail line running next to it?
How many people can truly live without an automobile?
>
>
> > "Often"
> >is vastly overstating the case unless you restrict yourself to NYC.
> >(and Lower Manhattan to the Bronx in 1/2 hour is pushing it; you've
> >got to catch the right subway without any waiting)
>
> You're equating speed with convenience. They are not the same.
How else would you measure it?
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
