Re: A different trans****tation threada (Re: Aside from THE ROLLING

On May 4, 10:54=A0am, jdnic...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (James Nicoll) wrote:
> In article <slrng1rlf8.98e....@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>
> David DeLaney <d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >James Nicoll <jdnic...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0In those setting that have city-sized or larger
construc=
tions,
> >>how are people getting around inside. A lot of the examples that come
> >>to mind have some sort of centralized, possibly public funded transit
> >>like a monorail (B5, for example) but there have to be places that
> >>are not conveniently served by that system. I could see bicycles being
> >>very popular in structures like an Island Three.
>
> >Diaspar had the moving ways, of course.
>
> >Dave "driving modern-day engineers slowly insane" DeLaney
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Come to think of it, there are lots of ways to break a
> mass trans****tation system, both public and private. Has
> anyone tried to get a story out of what happens if e.g. someone
> decides that since the system has historically never failed,
> the maintainance budget is too high?
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I once saw an ugly, ugly flamewar over trans****tation
> in a hypothetical moon colony. As I recall it, it came down to
> whether private vehicles above the level of bikes would be
> allowed and the pro-car faction saw the possibility that they
> wouldn't be allowed to own cars as the worst kind of oppressive
> State intervention.

How about allowed but completely privately funded?

What gets me is that people aren't born behind the wheel of a car.  We
are first and foremost pedestrians.  We are the walking ape.

Yet the "cars are the be all and end all of human existance" people
have turned that completely upside down.

I like my car, but it's not an extension of me.