Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy
Okay. I got in trouble from some posters because I felt like you were being an ass with your answer. I am honestly confused by your posting about LOGIC. Are you saying that the word is being used incorrectly or are you saying that the his/my logic does not make sense.
|
No worries. To be honest, I'm kind of confused myself. I think the word tripping us both up is "logic," and since it was used by him when referring to some unknown scenario, and then by you applying it to another scenario, I think I misinterpreted you somewhere.
Anyway, to retrace a bit, what I think puckluck may have meant, perhaps without realizing it at the time, was "paying $8 (actually $8.50) is not something I would be willing to pay for what I envision myself using it for based on the typical places I go at the times of day that I do so and the alternatives I have available to me."
What he said sounded like a general statement that would apply to the full range of scenarios (including competing for parking in downtown), and yes he also used the word logic when speaking of a costing scheme that is very complex to analyze. To speak about the logic of the situation would involve taking into account a range of peoples' situations, balancing the costs of various alternatives, incremental costs of providing certain services vs. the costs of not providing them, supply/demand impacts of various pricing models, etc, etc.
Putting the word "logic" aside, even the word he used in a later post, "unreasonable," followed by no reasoning or analysis of why, doesn't exactly cut it either. The service costs what it costs, with those costs being split between taxpayers, and two forms of payment by users (Park N' Ride and fares). Any discussion of reasonableness stems from the split. Depending on your philosophy, you could argue that users paying any less than 100% is unreasonable, and conversely anything more than 0% is unreasonable, with infinite balancing act possibilities in between.
Anyway, to make a long story short, I wasn't taking issue with his use of the word "logic" perse, but more about the complete absurdity of simply stating "$X doesn't seem logical" with nothing following it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy
I already did a scenerio where it would cost $8.50 a day for transit. I compared that to finding a spot to park for $10 a day. Where before the best parking I could find was $16 a day.
So I will add it up.
Taking transit at $8.50 a day is a logical solution when parking alone costs $16.
But then taking transit at $8.50 a day is not logical when parking alone costs me $10.
I know I am not adding in the cost of driving my vehicle to work. But that is a white wash with the added convenience of having my vehicle.
So to me the it is logical to take transit if I am reducing my costs by $7.50 a day. But it does not make sense if I am only reducing my costs by $1.50.
So with the no fee parking at the transit station the daily cost is now $5.50. So the difference is now $4.50. Which is pretty close. I could get a book of tickets so then that makes it $5.00 for transit. So a net of $5 difference. Pretty darn close to being the magic amount of saving.
So now the decision is about what is happening that day. Weather, my schedule etc...
|
Sure. Transit may not be the best alternative, for the particular situation you've laid out, and the balancing and rationalizing of things you've done for yourself (overall convenience weighing saved time, walking from your parking spot to your office, etc.). Myriad such situations and similar balancing of alternatives exist for every individual. To apply the particular circumstances to the general is where mistakes can be made. Not that you have done so, but puckluck came off as if he were.