So efficient that it costs approx. $35.00-$40.00 per ride.....a normal bus
approx. $25.00.....without a massive tax subsidy not many if any riders
would use them.....those terribly inefficient cars only cost around .40 to
.50 cents per mile
If you want to know why mass transit only has legs because of
congestion(major cities).... not price or convenience just try to live a
normal life without a car......My daughter's car recently broke down, her
normal 20 minute each way commute took 2 hrs each way...and yet her
hospital(job) is on a major road and her apartment is not far from another.
The TTC in Toronto subsidizes 39 cents (pennies) per ride. They recoup
around 81% of their costs from (about) 2 dollar fares which will take
you (if you use free transfers) anywhere in Greater Metro.
The Amsterdam and Berlin numbers are close.
Then again, none of these are operated by Haliburton.
Besides, there are LOTS of people in New York City who don't own/need
cars... and there are lots of other examples.
So where is this 40 dollar ride? DisneyWorld?
You are a 'reverse' commuter like a friend of mine who lives in The
Beaches and works in Mr. & Mrs. Sauga.
He also wouldn't consider taking the TTC. He doesn't pay for parking
at his job either.
Now, live in Scarberia and take a job on Bay street.
Apparently 74%.....and to their credit a higher ratio than most other major
cities however the capital costs (state funds etc.) to build the system, buy
vehicles etc. are not included in these numbers......Akin to ignoring ones
house or car payment when considering operating costs.
In spite of being a reasonably well run efficient system they are presently
dealing with major funding issues and presently cutting routes, deferring
maintenance , planned expansion etc....
Due to congestion.....in the city proper parking cost alone is a deal
breaker.....in a heavily populated city mass transit in some form is pretty
Ctran....Vancouver, Wa (Bus only).....My wife is on the citizen advisory
I almost spewed my coffee.
So... finish the story. Were you bought out by GM? Did they screw
you because you were five? Are you secretly using your weatlh from
that sale to buy new router accessories while depriving the American
public of one of the worlds (potentially) greatest inventions?
Knowing the state of the auto industry, I am sure your invention
(hmmmmm.... square wheels, you say... why didn't I think of that? I
think at five I was still eating dirt, not sure) would easily make it
through R&D and testing.
Just think - who needs ABS brakes when you have "Swing's Square
element of truth in the claims, it's unlikely this >miracle product, whatever
it might be, would be producible at a >competitive price or not have some other
problem or somebody >would be doing it...there are an awful lot of bright folks
And it wasn't new. I can't recall the inventor's name--Fisher kept
popping to mind, but I can find no reference--back in the '40s and
'50s about a 100 MPG carb that had been invented. resumably, GM bought
the thing and buried it.
If that had actually been the case, I figure the market around '75
would have supported GM bringing it back in a rush.
So far, the closest thing I've seen is a guy on eBay who was selling
(maybe still is) a booklet that is guaranteed to help you increase
your gas mileage by xx percent. Just for kicks, I sent off five bucks.
When I got it, it turned out to be a carb line heater, not exactly new
news, and almost dead useless in this day of EFI.
What was the last new car you saw with a carburetor?
This is the first time I ever hear of it being associated to Bill Lear
(and unless it's a different Bill Lear than the electronics and aviation
technology I don't think it is his. It doesn't sound at all like
something he would get involved in--he knew physics and engineering and
would recognize a hoax as a hoax from the git-go).
As a sidelight and back to something that has wood in it (at least the
cabinets did :) ), my uncle in Wichita had an Armstrong dealership and
did quite a lot of upper-end remodels in the 50s and 60s. He did the
tile work in the Lear's home in Wichita while I was in college. My
cousin, brother and myself would drive down on weekends from Manhattan
and work as tile mechanics while finishing the job as it was so large.
That went on most of one winter/spring before we finally finished it all...
Check out NASCAR... :) I'm not a fan by any stretch, but aren't they
still fully aspirated? I've always wondered why the stay that way, but
presume because they figure it would open up an unlimited number of
_additional_ ways to cheat--uh, get competitive advantage, I mean.
Maybe that's what they need to save a pit stop late in the race.
If any major car manufacturer had a product that could give an average car
90-100 mpg, surely it could revise it to make a car that now gets 25 mpg get 32
mpg instead. A little clever tweaking like that would put that particular
manufacturer at the top of the heap. The fact nothing like that has happened
indicates there is no such product.
The "which works on the same theory" post hasn't appeared on my
server--this is a response to that.
The car manufacturers have a vested interest in getting good gas
mileage. They pay a tax based on average fuel economy. If they had a
way to make a '76 Lincoln get 30 mpg by tacking on a gadget they would
have used that instead of going to all the trouble of redesigning
their entire product line, designing new engines, tooling up new
production lines, and all the other costly and time consuming things
they needed to do in order to avoid that tax.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.