From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Clinton, Gore, and the End of the Automobile Age
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 02:11:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.230804.1294@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
>In article <BruItw.9BD@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>I guess that depends on how you define "long distance".  I usually fly when
>>I want to go a "long distance" (more than about a three or four hour drive).
>
>On a private plane, no doubt.

Private in that *someone* owns the plane, yes.

Around here (Texas), at least, medium distance air transportation is readily
available and relatively inexpensive.  That may not be the case where you
live, however.  Again, a case for individuals making up their own mind about
what transportation to use and/or support...

>>if you need a car on the other end?  Hail a cab?  What a mess.  Simply driving
>>to where you want to be is much more simple, direct, convenient, and 
>>comfortable.
>
>You are projecting your rural/suburban situation on urbanites. Anyone commuting
>into Paris would take twice as long driving as they would using the Metro. The
>strike in 87 showed that the city can't function normally without public
>transportation. I happened to be visiting there and rode with a collegue to his
>lab; it took 3 hrs compared to his usual 30 min commute. 
>
>And hailing a cab and giving your destination is surely simpler, and
>at least as direct and convenient (no parking) as driving, especially
>if the city is unfamiliar.

But generally much more costly.  But it really depends on what the alternatives
are and how much those alternatives cost.

>>So what have I done beyond your nose?  I am annoyed by the folks around LA
>>who insist that I pay for a train system I hope I never have to use.  Such
>>people are overstepping my "nose boundary".  If some people want to build
>>a train and charge people to ride on it that's fine with me, but I don't want
>>to have anything to do with such a waste of money, time, and resources.
>
>In a densely populated area, everyone benefits from public
>transportation.  Witness Paris, London or NYC. Drivers would certainly
>suffer in NYC if the subway shut down. 

But if the subway were shut down, or not built to begin with, then that
money would be (or have been) available to expand the automotive transportation
system, and thus congestion and the like would be reduced to some extent
compared to the scenario you're describing above.

>Beyond the question of
>congestion, electric trains produce less polution and everyone
>benefits from that too. 

This depends on the method of power generation used to generate that
electricity.  If the anti-nuke types get their way, then the chances
that the power will be generated by coal is quite high (the power has
to be generated from *something*, and coal and nuclear seem to be the
most likely candidates for most things), as other methods, while they
may be cleaner, are currently not as cost-effective.

>Similar justification (arguable, perhaps) is
>used for diesel buses.

Very arguable, I would say, unless diesel fumes are not "pollution"...

>I'm not familiar with LA but there are cities where public transportation
>is not just safer and cleaner, but necessary, and for many purposes, simpler
>faster, more convenient, and if you like reading, more comfortable.

No doubt.  European cities in particular.

My point?  Mass-transit is not the Universal Right Answer to the transit
problem, despite what many people here seem to believe.  Mass-transit, if
done right, *can* meet the needs of many people, but the large numbers of
failed attempts at doing it right should be a clear sign that it's not an
easy problem to solve.  The few examples of mass-transit systems that *are*
good should be a clear sign that it's not an impossible problem to solve,
at least in places where the lifestyle and tastes of most people lend
themselves to such a solution.  Whether or not the lifestyle and tastes
of the people you are surrounded by lend themselves to a mass-transit
solution depends on where you live.

In some places, however, the right answer is very likely to be an expansion
of the automotive transit system that is already in place (just as in other
places, the right answer may be to expand the mass-transit system that is
already in place).  Some have argued that the more a freeway system is
expanded, the more it is used and therefore the higher the traffic.  This
may be the case, but I would point out that unless there is something unique
about the freeway system in this respect, the *same* thing will hold true
of any transit system, be it automobile-based, train-based, or what have
you.  The underlying problem is an expanding population, which is a
problem that must be addressed separately from the transit problem.


On a side note, it seems clear to me that merely widening the freeways
in a given area isn't enough.  The traffic problems are usually the
result of a large number of people trying to access or leave the same
area at the same time.  While widening the freeways will result in a
somewhat greater flow of traffic *around* these areas, it will not, of
itself, increase the flow into or out of these areas.  For that to
happen, the flow characteristics of the area itself, particularly that
of the interface between the freeway and the area, must be changed to
accomodate the larger demand.  This is a much harder problem, and one
which is very scantily addressed, at least around here.  Some work has
been done to address this, but it wasn't until recently (last couple of
years) that this work commenced.  Perhaps this is one of the reasons
so many people have seen so little in the way of results from the freeway
expansion projects of the past.



-- 
				Kevin Brown

			    kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
			    kevin@taronga.taronga.com
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics