kob2@... wrote:

> >> Higher percentages of the culture's trips serviced by mass
> >> transit and walking in communities easy to service
> >> with mass transit and walking - not more bicycling - is the needed
> >> big-picture-primary correction to _transportation_.
>
> >What makes you think that low powered private vehicles are not the
> >needed big-picture-primary correction to _transportation_?
>
> Not this list's topic for discussion.

So why did YOU initially bring up what is "needed" in your opinion to
solve our transportation woes?

>
> >Nobody has said anything anti mass transit. I merely stated facts.
>
> You are discussing a snapshot. You are drawing artificial
> limits to all the possible changes to inputs to the set of
> "facts" you claim...

Here's your "snapshot" on the fuel economy facts of various modes.

The following websites show how much energy in BTUs is used by various
modes.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/favorites/fcvt_fotw221.html

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_
transportation_statistics/2004/html/table_04_20.html

As you can see, single occupant cars (even in their current wasteful
form) are roughly 3500 BTUs per passenger mile, while bus and rail
transit are roughly the same or usually worse.


>
> >Therefore I conclude that
> >it is proper for bicycling advocates to oppose subsidizing a system that
> >reduces bicycling (and walking), creating chauffered motorists. Further,
> >such heavy vehicles accelerate the destruction of the pavement, an
> >important element of bicycling advocacy.
>
> I would find it even more important to fight/oppose bicyclist advocacy
> that took this tact - with all the wide ranging and complicated claims
> it automatically incorporates

Knock yourself out!

Wayne