From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Subject: Re: Clinton, Gore, and the End of the Automobile Age
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:33:50 GMT

In article <Bs13Bu.tJ@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.230804.1294@ccu.umanitoba.ca> ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
>>In a densely populated area, everyone benefits from public
>>transportation.  
>
>Do you think that your conclusion that something would be "better" for me
>give you any right to cram it down my throat?  What about the costs?  
>What about the inconvenience?  What about MY rights?  If having trains in LA
>would improve the air quality by 50% and I would have to stop driving my
>car in return, I would keep the car and the dirty air.  Who are you to tell me
>I am wrong?

I had no intention of coming across so personal. I have no right to
cram anything down your throat! I am noone to tell you that you are
wrong. As i said, I don't know the first thing about LA. What's more,
I drive to work everyday too.  I simply thought you were generalizing
a little. Although you have made it clear that you think mass transit
is wrong for LA, I wanted to point out that it's not the only city on
the planet and that for some cities transit is essential, even for
drivers, and therefore deserving of subsidies. I do happen to think
that a democratically elected government has a right to tax its
electors and use the money to subsidize programs to improve the
quality of air; at least as much right as drivers have of polluting a
transit (electric) user's air. (This is a general statement; I'm not
suggesting transit should be subsidized in LA.)

>
>>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.
>
>More convenient?  Absolutely not.  How can you shop for groceries and take 
>home more than you can carry at once?  How can you travel at odd hours of
>the night?  (And do women dare travel at night where they have to be out
>of their car between destinations?)  What if where you are going is far from
>a station?  What if you live far from a station?  I can think of nothing 
>more inconvenient that is currently being imposed on the public by
>eco-busybodies than public transportation.  (We already have "mass 
>transportation"...mass transportation via individual automobiles as opposed
>to government-controlled train and bus systems.

For going to the beach, visiting relatives on Sunday, taking kids to
baseball games after school .... and dozens of other purposes
(including going to work for many of us), and especially in N.
American cities like mine, cars are indispensible. That's why I have
two, and would like a minivan. But if it takes 30 min to get to work by
subway, and 60 min to drive through congested traffic, and if parking
is difficult, then for that purpose public transit is more convenient.
Check back; I did qualify that statement. It's actually possible for a 
city to have both methods of transportation available: trains to
transport the people to work for whom it is convenient, and, stay
with me now, roads for those people for whom cars are more convenient
or for travelling at odd hours or for women at night or for grocery
shopping.... It is permissible to own both a car and a transit pass.

Xref: sparky sci.environment:9672 sci.energy:3466 sci.physics:11251