NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/ba/transpor/2877

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 5.4 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!apple!veritas!joshua
From: [e-mail] (Joshua Levy)
Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Dec 92 01:04:27 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: VERITAS Software
Lines: 110

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (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?

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

>1) ...  It has progressed
>as far as it has only because the substantial external costs have
>been ignored or institutionalized until now.

I know this is part of the mass transit dogma, but you igore the
massive external costs of mass transit: my time!  You also ignore
the socialist aspect of it, assuming that the governement can
run a transportation system as well as private people.  This is
a particularly stupid assumption as we witness the end of socialism,
but one which is required of mass transit advocates.

>As we begin to account
>for these "hidden" costs -- an essential "market" step in moving the
>world economy toward sustainability -- the real costs of driving will
>be more apparent, and "better" will take on a new meaning.

I'm all in favor of this process, and if it leads to mass transit,
so be it.  In fact, I suspect it will lead to better pollution control
for cars, which is a good thing IMHO.  As well as better control
systems for cars.

>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.

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.

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.

>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).

>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.

>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.)

>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.

>And telling us how it can't be done -- start suggesting ways to do it.

That is easy, but politcally incorrect:
1. Remove all subsidies from all transporation systems.
2. Increase taxes on fuel, but only enough to pay for the polution
   they actually cause.  Do this for all forms of transporation.
3. Change zoning laws so less transportation is needed.
4. Encourage people to work from home.
5. Encourage people to work more hours per day, but fewer days.

Joshua Levy  ([e-mail])