[WS:] My definition is narrow? You got to be kidding. I understand quite well when speed is of essence and when it is not. People travel for many reasons and in some circumstances speed is of essence while in other it is not - with qualifications, of course. There are many circumstances when saving an hour or two of the travel time is not that important - and studies of leisure time uses demonstrate this. It is mostly in business travel and only of a certain kind that travel speed at any cost is essential. But if I travel for conference, pleasure, or family reasons you would have it quite difficult to provide *rational* argument for shortening my trip a little bit at the cost of considerable inconvenience and price. There are also many *non-rational* reasons why people decide to use a certain mode of transportation - familiarity and custom, and aping peers being among chief of them. Finally, people's preferences are not carved in stone but they change as a result of many factors ranging from a change in price structure and opportunity cost to public awareness campaign. That is the purpose of marketing, which is a multi-billion dollar industry. What is good for selling cars, electronic gizmos or food supplements should be good for promoting socially and environmentally responsible modes of transportation, no?
On the subject of commenting about each other's argument styles - what I dislike about yours is your apparent inability or unwillingness to think outside the box of the mainstream political discourse. It comes across as arrogant and condescending and dismissive of other people's points of view, especially those who try to think outside that box. For example, your comment: "Usually, it's because humanity and the environment don't have lobbyists :~/"
I think it is a given that most people on this list are smart enough not only to understand this, but also to think outside the box of the dominant political discourse. So when someone talks about broadly defined social benefits, the chances are that he or she does so to question the dominant political discourse rather than out of ignorance of the realities of the US politics. In this context, your wisecrack comes as quite disrespectful of your interlocutors, and you tend to do it quite a bit. Now, if you think that you can persuade other people by disrespecting them - maybe it works in your world, but please rest assured that it does not in mine. So if the purpose of your responses to my postings is to change my opinion, this is definitely not the way to go.
Have a nice day.
Wojtek
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:
> Wojtek writes:
>
>> Jordan: "HSR will never beat flying (except for a very few, special
>> situations, none of which are at work in the CA/HSR scenario), and
>> really shouldn't try."
>>
>> [WS:] It depends how you look at this.
>
>
> No, it doesn't. Just because you -- and others like you -- might favor a
> slower time on a train doesn't mean that the purpose and role of HSR is in
> alignment with your point of view.
>
> There will be ancillary benefits, but the point is that it is not designed
> to replace short-haul flying in CA and it won't. Like I said, there are
> places where it can/does replace flying, but California will not be one of
> them. Paris-Lyon is all but gone now from the flight timetables; but is the
> exception rather than the rule. And it certainly won't happen in
> California.
>
> I would agree with you if you said "It depends on how you define all the
> important words in your statement; if I can redefine them to fit my narrow
> point of view, then you are wrong."
>
> ...
>
>
>> To illustrate, bus trip from DC to NYC takes about 5 hours and
>> costs $35 round trip, and it is very popular despite the fact
>> that both Amtrak and airlines offer faster but also more expensive
>> alternatives.
>
>
> The bus has a less than 10% market share of that market; airlines dominate
> with about 55%.
>
> Your factoid is intersting, but not at all germane.
>
> /jordan
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk