two for one: On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 09:38:24PM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 03:58:10PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > Now the question is, do you really need three motor vehicles, or are two > > of 'em a crutch for not leaning on your local officials to fix public > > transport? > > well, 4 when you throw in the suzuki ;) no we don't really need three, but we'll call it two since one is for special purpose stuff only. But unfortunately, like so much of American, we've gotten ourselves committed to a situation where we need them both, or we have to somehow completely re-arrange our lives. I'm not opposed to that except that it is financially not viable in the short term which prevents us from getting to the long-term returns of the fewer cars. We have unfortunately locked ourselves into a situation from which there is no extrication without serious serious long-term consequences. But we could seriously reduce, if we had even just slightly better public transport. And actually, if we had the means to turn over our vehicle fleet to an all electric option, that would be okay because we could then affor dto rent the long-range car for those times we need it. > Now the question is, do you really understand that in much of America > public transport is *not* viable and would be a terrible waste of energy > *and* money. yet, in so much of America where it could work, and work well, it still isn't used. A
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature