I would take exception with your analysis:
>The problem with all this is as follows. Dan has quoted figures to me
>that say (if I recall a verbal conversation correctly) that about
>one-third of the people of this city are exclusive drivers, one-third
>fit the above category of being part-time MUNI riders and part-time
>drivers, and about one-third (including yours truly) don't drive at
>all. If these figures are even approximately accurate, we cannot do
>anything -- even maintain the status quo -- without offending a
>significant part of the city's population.
The art of getting anything done in a non-authorian manner is avoiding
setting up an analysis like you have here. I don't argue with Dan's
figures, they are certainly in the ball park. But just because people can
be divided in three groups doesn't mean that you have to set them against
each other.
One of the _very_ helpful parts of transit politics is that people who
don't use transit are often very supportive in the hope that *someone* else
will take the bus and leave the road clearer for them. It is not logical
for everyone to believe this and at the same time have transit succeed, but
that does not mean that these people's support can not be accepted. They
might change their mind once the bus is actually there. So we should
emphasize the fact that they support transit. Worry about how to sell them
on using it later.
We need to keep our eye on the big picture. It is not even whether the
glass is half empty or half full, it is who is thirsty and where the
pitcher might be.