From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:40:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.010427.3994@Veritas.COM> joshua@Veritas.COM (Joshua Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.194051.23452@adobe.com> jciccare@adobe.com (John Ciccarelli) writes:
: Joshua Levy writes:
: 
: >...trains are such a horrible way to build a transportation grid, but 
: >the mass transit folks need them at the core of their systems.  Trains 
: >had their chance in the early 1900s and late 1800s, before the car was 
: >widely used, they have since been replaced with something better.  
: >Mass transit: the technology of the late 1800s.
: 
: This sounds suspiciously like social Darwinism in free-market clothing,
: applied to transportation.
>
>I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "social Darwinism," personally
>I believe in regulated capitalism, myself.  But in any case, trains
>vs. cars: one had a 50 year head start on the other, but that one
>is rarely used now, because the other has almost totally surplanted
>it.  Which one do you think is better?  The one which, in spite of
>huge government subsidize (16 sq. miles per mile of track) and a 50+
>year head start, is now rarly used?  Or the one which pays for itself,
>and is heavily used?

	"Pays for itself"? Are you aware of all the government money
that goes into highways??? Read Joseph Vranich's _Supertrains_, and he
points out that in this country, about 38% of road costs are paid out
of general funds, and not user fees such as gas taxes.

>Do you want to build your 21 century system out of the 20 century's
>failure, or its success?

	I guess you haven't visited Europe or Japan there, or ridden
their abundant trains. Haven't you EVER heard of the TGV? It runs at
160-180 mph, which means that a TGV can run circles around the fastest
trains on the North American continent, Amtrak's Metroliners between
NYC and Wash. DC (only 125 mph). If it had the track, of course :-)

	Even in the Bay Area, BART has been remarkably successful,
despite the big initial infestation of bugs it had had. Even some
CalTrain champions use BART as their model of heavy-rail service.

	Joshua Levy, have you ever ridden BART?

: 2) Yes, trains *are* used as the core or backbone of transit systems, 
: just as are express bus routes -- so what?   
>
>Trains are much less flexible than most other transit modes, so using
>them as a backbone makes for a "stiff" backbone, which may or may not
>be a serious problem.

	No stiffer than the average freeway. How easily can one move
one of _those_ around. And a rail route takes up a _lot_ less land.
Two tracks take up about as much space as a two-lane road. And if most
of one's service is one-way or infrequent, one can get away with only
_one_ track.

>Trains pollute a lot.  The CalTrain pollute as much as 600 cars, so
>if you are on a train with less than 600 people, you would pollute
>less by driving.

	Where did you get _that_ figure? From scaling up from a 50 hp
car to a 3000 hp F40 locomotive? Even so, the scaling is only by a
factor of 60. So as long as more than 60 people ride a CalTrain, the
locomotive will produce less exhaust than each single one of them
driving their own car. If two or three people share cars, it does get
worse for the train.

>Trains are typically slower than cars.  For example, driving in SF at
>rush hour takes as long as taking the train.  Driving at any other
>time of day is 30%-50% faster.

	CalTrain, maybe, short of a tunnel to Market St. Everybody I
know has warned against driving in SF, so it must be _awfully_
horrible. On the other hand, I can take BART into SF, and get there
pretty fast, about as fast as freeway driving. And I don't have to
park anywhere.

: To offer time-efficient 
: alternatives to auto use, we need a frequent and fairly speedy backbone 
: or grid.  Trains are here -- let's develop them into this backbone.  

>We could build this backbone out of cars -- they are here also.  They
>are faster, far more flexible, pollute less, but are politically 
>incorrect.  They are also pretty much controled by that nasty free
>market, that socialists hate so much, but which has lead to a higher
>standard of living than socialism (or any of its related economic
>systems).

	Cars pollute less? That's DEAD WRONG. They consume a lot more
energy per person than (say) a BART train does. And BART's trains run
on electricity, which shifts any environmental problems over to the
power plants. Assuming the same fractions of noxious compounds (NOx,
etc.), one finds that electric trains win very easily. I once tried to
calculate the amount of energy consumed by going by car along a route
connecting SF or Oakland with an East Bay suburb (a large fraction of
BART trips): I found that the car could compete in energy consumption
with the BART trains in normal service _if_:

	The car was a small one with a high mpg
	The car was packed with people
	There were no traffic jams anywhere

	Furthermore, BART runs on electricity, just like all other
urban heavy- and light-rail systems, and even some commuter and
intercity railroads (a lot more in Europe and Japan than over here).
Electricity can be brought in over wires from distant locales, getting
any power-plant pollution out of the way. Furthermore, there is only
one big smokestack to take care of instead of a million little ones,
if the powerplant uses fossil fuels. Alternate energy sources almost
universally produce electricity as an intermediate: nuclear, solar,
geothermal, ocean-thermal, wind, and so forth. The large majority of
cars burn gasoline, and this must be prepared from petroleum, a
sizable fraction of which must be imported from such places as Saudi
Arabia, Iraq, and Iran. Unless a serious coal or oil-shale-based
synfuels industry is developed, dependence on Mideastern oil will
continue. I'm surprised that nobody has come up with some suitable
jingoistic slogan for getting off of petroleum, like "Pull the plug on
those towel-heads"! I know it's a very bigoted slogan, but
right-wingers would love it.

: 3) By the word "something", are you implying one single mode (guess which
: one?) must provide every trip, and every *part* of every trip, in order 
: to be considered.  

>I did not imply one single mode.  We do need one integrated system, but
>it can have as many modes as people want.  But each new mode in a trip
>requires a transfer, which people don't like and which takes time.
>It also takes coordination, which government agencies (sp?) are
>generally horrible at.

	Government-beating again. You seem to trust that various road
building agencies (all that g-word) coordinate with each other, so why
not transit agencies?

: We've hardly begun to tap the possibilities of multi-mode transporation
: and combinining communications with dispatching to create a more 
: "personal" transit system.  
>
>When you say personal, you are close to the answer.  Cars, bikes and
>walking are all personal systems.  They are controled by the person
>using them.  Trains, busses, etc are not personal.  As a bike person,
>you should work with the car people, not the train/bus people, for
>this reason. (I haven't the time to fully develop this point.)

	Roads aren't personal, either, bud. And neither are gas
stations.

	Furthermore, I find a lot of rail vehicles _very_ pleasant.
Joshua Levy, have you _ever_ ridden BART? If you have, then you will
see why even some of its detractors seem admiring of it at times.

: Don't assume that elements of "1800's" technology, combined with 20th 
: and 21st century innovation, won't change the transporation landscape.
>
>I guess the next networking standard will use teletype, then.
>The next data storage standard will use punch cards, and the
>next music system will be based on the phonograph.  These are
>all late 1800s technology.

	Cars are late 1800's technology also. That's when their engine
was invented.
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov