From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.engr.civil,alt.activism,alt.planning.urban,rec.railroad
Subject: Re: Transit association responds to highway advocates
Date: 19 Nov 92 23:31:37 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Nov19.071954.21422@r-node.gts.org> ndallen@r-node.gts.org (Nigel Allen) writes:
>Here is a press release from the American Public Transit Association.

>   In its latest report, The Road Information Program repeats its
>wrong-headed idea of mobility: more roads for more cars.

	One can, of course, call it self-interest. On both sides.

>   It is important to recall the recent warning from
>environmentalists at the World Resources Institute who said, "The
>quest for personal mobility may now be interfering with the good
>life instead of contributing to it.  (The) explosive growth in
>driving is a major factor in growing traffic jams, more accidents,
>fuel waste, environmental damage, increasing oil imports and other
>major problems that are taking a heavy toll on the nation."

	I certainly agree. Al Gore has been much ridiculed for his
criticism of the car. But there is an important grain of truth.
Although the car offers great control over one's choice of
destination, there are many troublesome things associated with it. The
expense of buying and maintaining one, having one's attention absorbed
by driving it, and so forth.

	And how many drivers stuck in traffic jams wish that they
didn't have all that competition?

>   As President-elect Clinton and a new Congress plan their
>programs to revive the economy, we should keep in mind the findings
>of Bates College Economist David Alan Aschauer whose 1991 study
>concluded, "Within the broad category of transportation spending
>the evidence indicates that public transit spending carries more
>potential to stimulate economic growth than does highway spending."

	Did these people present any detailed numbers?

	Given the expense of owning a car, it should not be surprising
that public transit is typically a lot cheaper. So if one can avoid
owning one, one has saved a heck of a lot of money right off. Even
driving only infrequently can save money. It is truly unfortunate that
the cruddy local transit that is all too common makes cars virtually
necessary.

	And one other thing. Can anyone read while driving a car? I've
gotten a Hades of a lot of reading done on BART trains. I can read
even when riding a bus.

>   We hope this report does not lead to an escalation of the
>highways versus transit rhetoric and prompt further discussion of
>issues such as hidden subsidies for auto use and safety on the
>highway.  Rather, all modes of surface transportation ought to be
>working together at this critical time in Washington to ensure that
>all of our unmet needs are addressed through full funding of ISTEA
>and a national program to rebuild America's infrastructure.

	I know I myself must seem anti-car, but I've been unable to
afford one, for starters. And I appreciate anything that makes life
easier for car-less and car-avoiding people.

	In _Supertrains_, which advocates high-speed trains like the
French TGV, Joseph Vranich points out that Bush is an oil man, and
would be pro-car by professional inclination. One problem I have with
Clinton and Gore is, though they say the right things, their
backgrounds might make them too pro-car. They come from thinly
populated, mostly rural states, where the main mode of travel appears
to be the pickup truck ;-) In areas like that, it is hard to run
high-quality public transit, so cars -- and pickup trucks -- are often
the only game in town. They might not have directly experienced urban
areas, where traffic jams are common and public-transit systems are
much more efficient, while growing up. If they had gone to
universities in big cities, however, as Clinton had certainly done,
they might have gotten a lot of urban-transit experience.