I thought I addressed your "frivolous" criterion directly.
1) It may be "frivolous" if the routing is only made based on the needs of the commuters, and has no input from the people who live on those routes. In an extreme case, if a bus goes down a narrow street in order to save one able-bodied person one block of walking, then that part is definitely frivolous even with the overall savings. Without that local input, neither you nor I have an idea of which parts are frivolous and which are not. And that local input has not occurred.
2) You made assumptions which might not be true. If the net effect of adding buses did not reduce car traffic at all, then your presumed advantages don't exist, and hence the effort is "frivolous."
3) If the goal is to reduce commute time and get cars off the streets, then long-distance bus traffic is not the solution. Improved access to nearby housing is the solution. Instead, long-term busing is a frivolous waste of money which should instead go towards zoning changes. But that involves getting into long-term local politics, which business people don't like doing. Instead, they would rather spend money on a technical solution which is achievable in the short-term, even if it doesn't really help your stated goals.
None of these are a correct usage of frivolous. You are describing imperious, self-defeating, and short-sighted behaviors respectively, none of which are really the same.
frivolous - "1a : of little weight or importance; 1b: having no sound basis (as in fact or law) <a frivolous lawsuit>" from Merriam-Webster.
#1: an argument based on the overall goal - reduced car traffic and enhanced used of commute time - is of little weight or importance for those who are locally disadvantaged and when there is an equitable alternative which better balances the different factors.
These people who were left out of the decision making process might also regard the companies as being imperious.
#2: an argument based on the overall goal is of little weight or importance if the premise - that it reduces care traffic and makes more effective use of commute time - is incorrect. (BTW, the NYT reports that one survey of tech workers says that 50% would not move to SF if there wasn't a private bus system, so the benefit of a bus is not simply determined as to count how many cars would be needed instead.)
These people who regard the argument in favor of the buses as being frivolous might also regard the the private bus services as being self-defeating.
#3: the argument is also of little weight or importance to those who see believe the larger underlying problem is that subsidized free parking and other zoning restrictions prevent the free market from operating efficiently. Put medium density housing in Mt. View and there will be no effectively no commute time nor need for cars nor buses.
These people who regard the argument as being frivolous might also believe that it's a short-sighted behavior.
In conclusion, I certainly did use the term "frivolous" correctly.
Now you've switched topics. I said there are reasonable arguments for saying that the thesis - that private buses reduce the number of cars and make more effective use of commuting time - is frivolous.
Now you want me to make a specific judgment about a generic use of your car? Why the topic switch?
My view is that my taxes should not help fund a personal garage for you to store your car. If it's kept on the street then you should pay market rate for it, and the city shouldn't subsidize the cost for everyone with a car.
So, are you paying the real costs for the parking? Then no, it's not frivolous no matter how you want to use it.
Are you driving because you don't feel like walking two blocks every day and would rather drive that distance instead, and you want the city to guarantee that you have free parking on both ends of the trip? Then yes, it's a frivolous reason.
I was using that as an illustrative example, and indeed, it has revealed the crux of our disagreement: You think "frivolous" means one thing, and the dictionary and I think it means another.
How am I using it incorrectly? I even quoted the dictionary meaning I was using.
There are other definitions as well. Do you mean one of them?
If you want everyone to have a 99% chance of finding free parking, because you like driving better than walking, then why can't I say that you're making a frivolous argument?
I agree wholeheartedly with your third point. I'd also add that SF iS perceived as sexier and more exciting than the South Bay. Drive along El Camino for any stretch in MV, SV or SC and your perception of the area as a suburban wasteland would be confirmed. Not to say there aren't nice areas in the South Bay, but you have to look for them (and they are expensive).
