[sustran] Re: Value of modes

[Markus Sander]

On Mon, Jul 16, 2007 at 06:45:14PM -0400, Eric Bruun wrote:

> You are being too kind to agree with Daryl as far as you go. Saying
> that the motorcycle, car and jet have higher value is a gross overgeneralization.

Of course it is. Daryl says it by adding "for most people" to his
sentence. Don't forget that these "most people" didn't even try a
different transportation mode.


> It depends on the situation. For my case, being forced to drive
> everywhere would diminish my quality of life, not to mention help to
> impoverish me. 

Thats you (also my) point of view. Did you ever meet people that
(seriously) laugh at you because your car has less than 100PS (horse
powers)?

> Moreover, many of the situations where the value is higher are a result of investment and planning choices that favor certain modes.

That's exactly what I tried to point out with the subsidary-examples. Of
course, a car is very handy when you live in an infrastructure that is
desinged for cars. I would make car users pay for this infrastructure.




> >On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 12:05:14PM -0400, Daryl Oster wrote:
> >
> >> The motorcycle, car, and jet have already beaten the bike, bus, and
> >> train in transportation value
> >> 
> >> The ONLY way to beat the car is by implementing a transportation mode
> >> that offers a quantum improvement in VALUE for most people.
> >
> >I agree up to here.
> >

-- 
 (c) markus