From: bschlesinger@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Barry Schlesinger)
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:06:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.005642.16130@pbhye.PacBell.COM>, mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes...
>-: Re: A Simple Way to Save the Economy, and the Planet, Too!
>-: 
>-: Gentlemen:
>-: 
>-:      Believe it or not, there is a simple way to save our economy,
>-: restore social equity, and save the planet, with one act!
>-: 			...
> 			...
>-	It is currently cheaper (in most urban areas) to commute
>-via car than to use other means, and furthermore, most areas are
>-underdeveloped with regard to mass transit.  Suburb-to-suburb mass
>-transit is woefully undeveloped, and due to the growth of the
>-suburban business district and the decay of the central city business
>-core (read "Edge City"), suburb-to-suburb commuting is at least on
>-the same level as suburb-to-core.  Until this inequities are addressed,
>-simple taxing of car usage will only further add to the burden on the
>-poor- and middle-classes.
> 
>I'm not falling for that chicken-&-egg stuff. 

	But you have to determine cause and effect.  Treating the 
effect without addressing the cause will not be an effective or 
politically viable solution.  What has happened in many areas has been 
development without thought to transportation.  When most workplaces
were centrally located, so that many people were making parallel trips
to work, mass transit lines could be set up that would serve many
people.  But now, businesses have been scattered in the suburbs, so
often there are many routes to work, each serving a small number of 
people.  In such a case one cannot define mass transit routes that 
will attract significant ridership.  And it is unfair to penalize 
people who have no practical choice but to drive.

	To encourage mass transit, one cannot simply impose rules on 
the existing traffic patterns.  It is necessary to start at the time 
new development is being planned.  An area plan must be developed in 
concert with a transportation plan, ensuring that when the commercial 
and residential development is complete, significant commuting 
will occur along a limited number of routes, which can be used for 
mass transit lines.  Then, when mass transit is readily available, one 
can discourage use of cars by such steps as restricting parking in the 
commercial areas and making it expensive.  Such measures also target 
those who actually have a reasonable mass transit alternative, 
without targeting the suburb-to-suburb commuters who have no choice.

	Sticking to the plans requires involvement.  Once you have a
plan, for example, many developers will follow the practice of buying
land that (usually for good reasons) has been zoned low-density and
getting it rezoned commercial, because the price is usually much
lower than that for land designated commercial in the original plan. 
They use political clout to get these rezonings through.  The result 
of this practice is a scattering of office parks and a diffuse flow
traffic pattern that makes it impossible to design a mass transit
network to serve a significant number of people effectively.  Once the
area is developed, it's too late to close the garage door. 

>Making it more expensive 
>to drive will cause some ex-drivers to begin asking for better 
>transit etc. 

No, they'll just throw the people who raised the rates out of office 
at the next election.  So mass transit won't have been improved and 
the pro-car people will be back.

>Now, they ignore it because it's "not their problem". 
>It is cheaper to use transit than to drive.$.39/mile, according to 
>the latest from the IRS (or the EPA?). 
>

Two things here.  We have to be careful about averages.  For suburb to 
city commutes, mass transit will certainly be less expensive, 
particularly if parking in the city is costly.  For suburb to suburb 
commutes, where parking is free and mass transit routes circuitous, 
the comparison tilts differently; it is closer.  Average the two 
together and mass transit comes out ahead.  The second point is the 
value of time.  For many suburb to suburb commutes, the time by mass 
transit can easily be double that of automobile commuting, even after 
the delays from congestion are taken into account.

				just my views
				BMS
Xref: sparky sci.environment:13928 sci.energy:6460