[WS:] That is remarkable from an engineering point of view, but the larger question is 'what for?' Why do we have to have individual and individually owned cars that sit on the parking lot most of the time, instead using economies of scale i.e. public transit?
I have the same problem with US presidential candidates - they talk about new fuels but the mode of transit - individial car - is to stay. In other words, more of the same disguised as a radical change.
Individual cars make no economic sense - they are the least effcient mode of transit bot in terms of fuel efficiency and cost per pound. The cost of transporting of 90 kg of human is about 50c per mile or about .56 c per kilogram per mile. That is very expensive. At that rate the local delivery of food (10 tons of food over the distance of 100 miles) would cost $5,600!
It therefore makes more economic sense to deliver most merchandise to people than people to merchandise (i.e. to supermarkets). However, the cost of delivery of people to merchandise is borne entirely by people, not merchants, so we have delivery of people to merchandise not the other way around.
Not to mention the fact thaty individual car ownership makes the cost of owning that car far more expensive than collective transit. A transit company can have a mechanic on its staff working full time (about 1700 hrs per year) for about $50k. Individual car owners, otoh, would have to pay 170k - over three times as much - for 1700 hours of car repair work (garages charge about $100 per hour).
Then there is the time factor. It may take longer to use transit to commute to work by transit than by car, but th etime on transit belongs mostly to the commuter (i.e. he can read, work on her laptop, or sleep) whereas the time behind the wheel must be utlized entirely fro driving and none of the above activities are possible. Stated diffrently, a 1 hour commute by car is 1 hour taken away from my schedule, but 2 hour commute by transit is maybe 15 minutes taken from my schedule (for boarding etc.) and I can utilize the remaining 1hr45 min for activities other than driving the damn thing.
Thern there is the issue of civil liberties. I do not have to ask the state for a permission to ride transit - all I need to show a valid ticket. To drive a car I need a permission from the state, a permission from an insurance company and to give "implied consent" to waive my 4th amendement right. That is to say, my property (car and its contents) can be impounded without a due process, and I can be subjected to a physical examination without a due process. No such "implied consent" for examination of my body exists if I board a bus, a train, or a plane.
Finally, the issue of mobility. Public transit gives me mobility even if I am not in a position to operate a vehicle (e.g. because I am a minor, do not have permission, or I am physically or emotioally impaired). My mobility by car is taken away under any of these circumstances. Furthermore, cars are more prone to traffic congestion than public transit, and that limits mobility of those who are capable of driving.
In short, cars cost more, they are less efficient, and they limit freedom and mobility. Why is this mode of transportation pushed even in countries that can least afford it (like India?)
Wojtek
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs