On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 04:39:54 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 22:32:52 on Thu, 12 Aug
2004, remarked:
Well, that's obviously *enough* usage for you, then. Odd how it varies
from person to person. PT's big drawback is assuming one size fits
all.

Er. Buses, buses with winding routes, buses on express routes, trains,
the underground, all that. Is that one-size? If so, the worlds most
fabulously comprehensive public transport system could be sniped at by
saying "it assumes one size fits all". Perahps you mean PT's big
drawback is not providing people with their own car?

I was saying "one size does not fit all *people*", not "all routes". And
yes, the car is more successful at fitting, having everything on offer
from an old banger to a brand new Range Rover.

Public transit is more successful at fitting people than the private
automobile. The nearest parking lot to me is farther away than the
nearest subway station. Then when I got to my destination, the same would
probably be true. It's just easier to take the subway.

--
Lance Lamboy

"Go F*ck Yourself" ~ Dick Cheney

In message , at
08:31:17 on Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Lance Lamboy
remarked:
Public transit is more successful at fitting people than the private
automobile.

Some people.

The nearest parking lot to me is farther away than the nearest subway
station. Then when I got to my destination, the same would probably be
true. It's just easier to take the subway.

Yes, it will be true for some people. But try taking a train from
Atlanta to Orlando (rather than driving). Takes 2 days via Washington!
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:02:28 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at
08:31:17 on Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Lance Lamboy
remarked:
Public transit is more successful at fitting people than the private
automobile.

Some people.

The nearest parking lot to me is farther away than the nearest subway
station. Then when I got to my destination, the same would probably be
true. It's just easier to take the subway.

Yes, it will be true for some people. But try taking a train from
Atlanta to Orlando (rather than driving). Takes 2 days via Washington!

So the claim that driving is more successful at fitting all people is
demolished. As for Atlanta to Orlando, have you thought about taking a
plane or a bus? It is not at all clear that driving is more convenient
for that trip than public transit.

--
Lance Lamboy

"Go F*ck Yourself" ~ Dick Cheney

In message , at
09:20:11 on Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Lance Lamboy
remarked:
So the claim that driving is more successful at fitting all people is
demolished.

There was no *absolute* claim to that effect. Indeed, it is your
absolute claim that PT is always more successful that is in peril.

As for Atlanta to Orlando, have you thought about taking a
plane or a bus? It is not at all clear that driving is more convenient
for that trip than public transit.

Everyone cringes when mentioning the bus in USA. Taking the plane will
be an economic decision. For a family of five, the car will likely win.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:47:50 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at
09:20:11 on Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Lance Lamboy
remarked:
So the claim that driving is more successful at fitting all people is
demolished.

There was no *absolute* claim to that effect. Indeed, it is your
absolute claim that PT is always more successful that is in peril.

That is not my claim. Sometimes a helicopter will be the best
transportation option. Othertimes a dog sled will be optimal. In Iraq,
it is foolish to travel in an unarmored vehicle.


As for Atlanta to Orlando, have you thought about taking a plane or a
bus? It is not at all clear that driving is more convenient for that
trip than public transit.

Everyone cringes when mentioning the bus in USA.

It beats driving.

Taking the plane will
be an economic decision. For a family of five, the car will likely win.

This will depend on the mileage cost. This will depend on what kind of
car the family has, how the car is driven, etc. However if we take the
IRS standard rate then you are right, the car will likely be cheaper for a
family of five.

--
Lance Lamboy

"Go F*ck Yourself" ~ Dick Cheney

In message , at
11:09:16 on Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Lance Lamboy
remarked:
Everyone cringes when mentioning the bus in USA.

It beats driving.

As always, the context is important. I wouldn't drive in Manhattan; but
when I lived in Atlanta the nearest bus stop was further away than the
shopping mall.

What sane person would suggest I took a bus to the shopping mall?
--
Roland Perry

"Lance Lamboy" wrote in message
news
That is not my claim. Sometimes a helicopter will be the best
transportation option. Othertimes a dog sled will be optimal. In Iraq,
it is foolish to travel in an unarmored vehicle.

Like LA?

--
Everything above is the personal opinion of the author, and nothing to do
with where he works and all that lovely disclaimery stuff.
Posted in his lunch hour too.

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 at 14:02:28, Roland Perry
wrote:

Yes, it will be true for some people. But try taking a train from
Atlanta to Orlando (rather than driving). Takes 2 days via Washington!

I'm afraid those distances mean nothing to me - how long would it take
if you drove? I loved Amtrak trains when I used them, so I wouldn't
actually mind 2 days, but if it's a case of "going to Birmingham by way
of Bethnal Green", then perhaps not!
--
Annabel - "Mrs Redboots"
(trying out a new .sig to reflect the personality I use in online forums)

Annabel Smyth wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 at 14:02:28, Roland Perry
wrote:

Yes, it will be true for some people. But try taking a train from
Atlanta to Orlando (rather than driving). Takes 2 days via
Washington!

I'm afraid those distances mean nothing to me - how long would it take
if you drove? I loved Amtrak trains when I used them, so I wouldn't
actually mind 2 days, but if it's a case of "going to Birmingham by
way of Bethnal Green", then perhaps not!

Is that Birmingham, Alabama or Birmingham, Warrwickshire?

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
Is that Birmingham, Alabama or Birmingham, Warrwickshire?

Birmingham, West Midlands.
Or (offically, postal wise): Birmingham, United Kingdon.