From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Priorities
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:58:20 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Aug26.212520.6801@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.162758.20912@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug26.015725.5123@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c60a-zg@volga.Berkeley.EDU (Martin Guerrero-LabA) writes:
>>>
>>>>Perhaps part of our domestic agenda could have included making the US 
>>>>Instead of getting away from oil, 
>>>>however, GB earmarked the majority of the transportation budget for 
>>>>building and improving roads and highways.  
>>>
>>>I have no complaint with what GB did.
>>
>>But, if you agree that the US should become less dependent on foreign oil,
>>how can you possibly agree with GB on this point?  Public transportation is
>>much more energy-efficient and yet Bush was diverting money from public
>>transportation to build more roads for more cars.  What you are saying
>>simply doesn't make sense.
>>
>
>Can you provide information saying he "diverted" the money "from" public
>transportation to build "more roads for more cars?"

I heard the details on the McNeal-Lehrer Report.  The bill which Bush was
proposing was mainly intended to build more interstates with provision for
more local roads as well.  To offset the cost of building more roads, funding
was to be cut for public transportation systems.
>
>Nothing is wrong with keeping our roadways in tip top shape, safer, and
>perhaps making traffic flow better.  

The bill was primarily intended to build more roads, not to maintain existing 
roads.


Fuel can be saved by having cars move
>more quickly.  I believe the optimal speed for the best fuel consumption
>is about 55 mph.  

On most US interstates, this is easily obtainable.  Optimal speed to fuel-
efficiency varies with the model but the range is a bit less than 55 mph.


> Also, with less traffic jams, yo may get less pollution.

With less traffic, you also get less pollution.

>Also, roads don't necessarily have to be in cities.  There are many smaller
>areas around the country where public transportation is NOT the way to go.
>Farmers still may have to get from one place to another via car or truck. 
>In many places, public transportation is less efficient.

True.  But there is plenty of reason to expand public transportation bewteen
major cities.  Bush has opposed funding for the magnetrain which was conceived
in the US and developed, very successfully, in Japan.  It costs 1 cent per
passenger mile to run (cf. 20c ppm for private cars) and can run at an average
speed of 300-500 km/hr.  It is also non-polluting.
>
>It is, however, probably more efficient in big cities.  But the problem 
>is, local government often puts huge roadblocks in terms of public 
>transportation.  We have a BART system here (Bay Area Rapid Transit, rail)
>which wants to expand and go places.  But the problem is, places like
>Marin County and San Mateo County resist the idea of the train going
>through their county.  I would Love to have it go to those places.  But
>it isn't.  Public transportation to those places would probably take me
>from 45 minutes to 2 hours.  At this moment, better roadways helps a lot.
>
>
Local governments may put up road-blocks at times.  However, this is hardly
a reason to withdraw public transportation as an option. 

Peter Lauren.