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: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:21:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.154812.8059@pbhye.PacBell.COM>,mjvande@PacBell.COM (Mike Vandeman) writes... 

Well, first of all what he doesn't say is to whom he is replying.  
Some of this looks like mine.  Material that is not one's own should be 
properly attributed.

>        [dialogue involving someone else's comments]
> 
>--I'm not falling for that chicken-&-egg stuff. 
>-
>-... 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.

> 
>EVERYONE has a choice. I choose to live near transit. So could you.
> 

This isn't a "you" or "me" issue about individual choices.  This is an 
issue about society as a whole.

Well, first of all, everyone does not have a choice where to work.  
People take the jobs they can get, where they are.  Because of the way 
our metropolitan areas have evolved, many of these jobs are not near 
mass transit.

Secondly, there isn't a choice for everybody to live near transit.  
Because of the way housing is distributed, a significant fraction of 
the housing is not near mass transit.  So that one person may choose 
to live near mass transit, but some significant fraction of the 
population is not going to be able to.  (As an aside, the housing 
close to mass transit here tends to be more expensive.  The less 
expensive housing is farther from town and mass transit.  So the less
affluent are penalized.)  The only way to provide this choice, as was 
discussed before.... 

>-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.
> 
>But they have the resources to move to where transit is viable.
> 

See above.  There is a certain irony here in that Dr. Vandeman and his 
libertarian critics both assume considerable free choice in personal 
decisions, a choice that is frequently severely economically 
constrained.

>-... 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. 

> 
>So your answer is that it's impossible to fix? I doubt it.
> 

The answer is to get involved in the development process, to elect 
public officials -- or to BE elected public officials -- who will 
stand up to the developers and protect the integrity of the 
development plan, rather than accepting developer-driven development 
and trying to impose mass transit on a pattern for which it is not 
suited.

>--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.
> 
>So what? Taxes, once begun, are rarely eliminated.
> 

And they'll be used for roads or garages to reduce the cost of
parking.  Not exactly the idea. Besides, if the tax is sufficiently 
opposed it will.  Consider the luxury tax on boats, and the British 
poll tax.  

>--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.
> 
>But you forget that driving time is WASTED time. Transit time is USEFUL
>time, hence more valuable.

It depends what you need time for.  If you need the time to read, 
fine.  But you can't do shopping, run household errands, or pick up 
the kids from day care while you are sitting on mass transit.

				just my views,
				BMS