I saw this poster the other day, and I think it backs up your “invest in public transport” theory:
http://randomdude.com/images/car-bus-bike.jpg

Philip

Having researched intensively the Tesla for a luxury green magazine whose subscribers are all millionaires, it’s clear that the Roadster is a plaything for the rich who want to feel they’re doing their bit for the environment. And what average family looks at a $60,000 car and says, “Nice, we’ll take it.”?

Perhaps if Tesla had the gumption to make an affordable green car for all as opposed to go for a more fickle market, they wouldn’t be in the dire straits they’re in. Of course, that’s if they’re actually in ANY dire straits – I wouldn’t b surprised if they’re jumping on the greedy auto manufacturer bandwagon.

Though I suppose they’ll look better flying in on an eco-friendly jet than the Big Three did… ;-)

And Jason Calacanis? Say no more… ;-)

Great work on the disclosures point – frankly it saddens me that people don’t feel the value of disclosing their conflicts AND that editorial level people don’t feel the need to have their contributors (be they permanent or guest) to do so.

I do take issue with your point on the bailout money. Aside from how I’d like my tax dollars to be spent in the bailout, you say that if they go under then the loan is a gift. Well, that is true with any investment – if the company goes under and can’t liquidate then the investment becomes a gift. Yes, it’s *my* investment/gift but then realistically how am I as a taxpayer going to see ANY return on ANY of the businesses receiving a bailout?

The price of the Tesla cars are a controversial one, but equally I don’t blame them for the price point at this current iteration of the evolution of the technology. Frankly, it’s only playboys who can afford to spend $110k on a car AND know that it is first generation, buggy technology (they’ve still not got the gearbox sorted out on the Teslas) and it only does 250 miles range.

You have to start somewhere and if they’re going to put something in the market better to aim it at people to whome $110k is toy money. And for the second iteration of car that is true for the $60k sedan. Jason is wrong that $80k sallaried person would be the market, however, as they can’t afford to be beta testing buggy technology either.

Those who know me will know I’m a big car nut. I don’t like the shape of the tesla and would rather buy a $60 Lotus Elise or Exige (it’s older brothers – Teslas are partly made by Lotus and share similar components) and put $20k towards carbon offset.

I’m also a big public transport user, being a brit and all and will happily take public transport where I can here in SF – despite the fact that it is often dirty, smelly, and sometimes dodgy.

But despite how much money the US government puts into public transport, many US cities are not feasible to have ramped up public transport. LA is a great example of this. It just won’t work because of the size of the place. Rail – which has merits over the car – needs to be integrated into town planning and obviously that hasn’t happened for many US cities and is hard to retrofit.

There is no easy solution to America’s transportation issues but I think the work Tesla are doing should be congratulated rather than panned. I don’t think Jason is their best spokesman, but I guess Cluetrain dictates you need actual customers to do the conversational marketing for you and most eco-peeps are not going to be customers thus they get Jason’s baggage ($80k/year salary person can buy a $60k car, etc).

However, one thing the photo doesn’t show you (and something all advocates of public transportation ignore) is the fact that all people are not going from and to the same point A and point B. Which means that, although public transport is great for major routes (arteries?), it still leaves the bits at the ends (capillaries?) for people to fend for themselves. Only in enormously centrally planned cities like Singapore (where they are tearing whole sections down one by one and rebuilding them around a hub-and-spoke transportation architecture) can public transport really reach all of the population. In the US in particular, where there is a massive sparsely populated suburban area, covering the entire population is impossible.

In the picture, what you don’t see is that, whereas the illustration is true on routes shared by many people, only one car is required for the last mile of one person’s journey (e.g. from the highway to their suburban home), but the whole bus is still required to take that one person that last mile, requiring far more fuel and road space than the car at that point. Bikes, of course, still have the edge over both the other two… :-)

Governments should focus on the arteries but accept that, in the US in particular, people are very much going to have to continue to provide their own transportation for many routes and large chunks of other routes. See the European countries (notably the UK, where I’m from) for examples of how even when you have a massive government commitment to spending on public transportation (and significant disincentives to driving like high taxes/tolls etc.) you still have a very significant need for private transportation.

Transit will never be perfect but can be improved xxxxxxx% over where it is now. We also need to change our culture.