XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: robban@clubtelco.com   
      
   On 15/01/2014 4:48 am, Leszek Karlik wrote:   
   > On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:02:59 +0100, Doc O'Leary   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   > [...]   
   >>> The sentence "Some people can't afford a taxi." doesn't mean that   
   >>> some people are not able to buy a taxi cab. :-)) When I was a student,   
   >>> I used public transport, because taxis were pretty much too expensive   
   >>> for my budget.   
   >>   
   >> But that is the application of current, scarcity-constrained thinking on   
   >> the matter.  A taxi is a car + driver, and the majority expense in that   
   >> equation is the driver.  A bus works essentially the same way, but by   
   >> spreading the cost of the driver across more people.  They *should* be   
   >> treated very much alike, but current systems fail to subsume them   
   >> properly.   
   >   
   > Cost is only one factor, and may not the most significant. In dense   
   > European cities a small economy-class car could be cheaper than mass   
   > transit, but it will be less convenient (because of congestion,   
   > bus-only lanes and the problems with finding a parking spot). Also, if   
   > everybody would commute by car, the traffic would be unbearable, or you   
   > would have to devote humongous areas of concrete-covered wasteland   
   > solely for communication and parking purposes, thus turning thriving   
   > European cities into, well, American ones ;-)))   
   >   
   >>> Whey there's a fleet of municipal smart cars that don't need taxi   
   >>> drivers, you could plausibly have taxis at a price point of   
   >>> public transport. Say, a monthly "taxi card", with a discount   
   >>> for being lower-priority (for students and poor people) and   
   >>> surcharge for being a high-priority passenger.   
   >>   
   >> In reality, you could do this today with some adjustments to logistics.   
   >> Public transit is *not* efficient when your best idea is to have big   
   >> empty busses moving along fixed routes at fixed schedules.   
   >   
   > In Europe, you have plenty of buses moving along fixed routes at fixed   
   > schedules (and trams, and metro, and light rail and such), and they are   
   > rarely empty. Again, it's the issue of population density and   
   > traffic congestion. With cities such as here, you can't have everyone   
   > commuting by car because cities would become completely gridlocked.   
   > And when you have an efficient public transport system, it makes sense   
   > to use it for purposes other than commuting to work or to school.   
   >   
   > In China, for example, the car culture of the US will probably never   
   > develop.   
   >   
      
   I saw some TV footage only the other day about how middle class Chinese   
   are buying SUVS like they're going out of fashion. This, despite   
   restrictions on car ownership.   
      
   --   
   Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England   
                       1972-now W Australia   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)