"1506" wrote in message
...
On May 3, 6:04 am, Martin Edwards wrote:
Chris Tolley wrote:
Jack May wrote:

Brits are really ****ed with all rail building draining money from
roads
along with causing high congestions and the crumbling of the roads.

When most of Britain's railways were built, crumbled was the natural
state of most of the roads.

For the information of UK posters, many of whom may not be familiar with
Mr May, he is a far right Californian fanatic carhead, a kind of one man
Waffen-AA.

Or, Waffen-AAA! Is May from California? I know him to be a merchant
banker who visits Los Angeles from time to time. He then writes utter
drivel about her young and developing rail system.

Gee I am just repeating what the managers of the LA rail systems have said
publicly. Are you calling them liars or are you calling them totally
ignorant of the systems they manage?

I do work in California as an engineer developing advanced electronic
technology on the projects I win as well as managing those projects and the
other people that work for me.

He will tell you that LA's rail system carries no more people today
than before it was build. In those days it carried 0 people (how
could it?). It now caries between 100,000 and 200,000 passengers per
day on a very limited system.

May is utterly incapable of logical thought.


Your irrationality is that you think all the passengers get out of their
cars to use the LA rail system. Transportation people, especially in LA
have found that people are not getting out of their cars to ride rail
transit.

Instead they find that a very high percentage of the people are already
using transit and just switch to other transit systems when they open
because of an advantage in getting to work cheaper, faster, better than the
transit system they were using. So building new transit systems tends to
not decrease car traffic.

We know that people select their mode of transportation by going with the
one that is lowest cost to them mainly in their perceived value of their
time. Since cars typically are a faster mode of transportation than
transit, exceedingly few people will get out of their car to use a new
transit system because they value their time far too highly to use a slow
transit system.

The gut level cost of a trip has been determined by economist to be:

Total trip cost = out of pocket $'s + time outside the vehicle (waiting,
walking) * hourly income + tune inside the vehicle * hourly salary /2

Since it obvious that you have made an extremely irrational analysis, maybe
you should spend time trying to understand transportation more before
shooting off your mouth with more nonsense and your drivel.

Just go ask some of your friends why they do not use transit. You will
find that most of the time they will say transit just to long to use to get
anywhere. There are effectively saying that their time is too valuable to
use slow transit system. Poor people don't place a high value on their
time which is why so many of them use and have used transit for almost all
of their life, not just when a new transit line start operation.

Of course since you use transit you are probably not financially well off
either. We also know cities that subsidies the expenses of cars for poor
people, the income of those people goes up an average of 45% because they
then have the flexibility with a car to find and commute to higher paying
jobs.

Supporting transit is essentially supporting keeping poor people poorer
which is sick and highly immoral.