NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/ba/transpor/2890

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 3.1 KB

Xref: sparky ba.transportation:2890 ca.environment:1120 talk.environment:5217
Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ca.environment,talk.environment
Path: sparky!uunet!portal!ntmtv!adrian
From: [e-mail] (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Re: Rail/MassTrans vs. Cars+IVHS
Message-ID: <1992Dec23.005636.12897@ntmtv>
Sender: news@ntmtv
Nntp-Posting-Host: zephyr
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:56:36 GMT
Lines: 49

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dean Angelico) writes:
|>
|> No discussion of the future of cars or mass transit, or even
|> how to improve on or solve transportation problems should overlook
|> the trend towards IVHS. Clearly Smart cars and highways will not be
|> a panacea, but it will inevitably factor into our society over the
|> next several decades.

I think IVHS will 1) cost a lot of money, and 2) essentially be a waste
of time because it is just pushing out (extending) the saturation point
of our existing infrastructure.  Whatever capacity improvements it will
eventually bring will only buy the ability to absorb perhaps a few years'
worth of growth in traffic (vehicle miles traveled).  I fear this will
come at great cost both in dollars and in scientific/research man-years
of effort.  All that money and creative energy will merely be invested
in order to briefly extend the useful life of the idea that we can all
merrily drive around alone to our hearts content.  Meanwhile, it will
do little or nothing to improve air quality or land use in that it will
encourage a continuation of an atmosphere where it is acceptable to live
40 or 50 or even 80 miles from work in auto-based commuter communties.

Wouldn't the massive spending that it looks like IVHS will take be better
spent on building up excellent, complete mass transit networks to serve
our most congested cities.  What will cost more?  What will bring a
better quality of life?  Hard to say, perhaps, but I'm wary of these
grandiose visions of IVHS and all that it will bring us all with great,
great intelletual and financial effort supported by our government to
keep the auto "well-fed" at the expense of any serious investment in
realistic transit alternatives.

The "driving" demand for IVHS are the congested urban areas, not the
sparsely populated country side.  This largely a program whose purpose
will be to keep the single occupancy vehicle viable in urban areas.

New, yet-unimplemented, yet-to-be-designed technology to the rescue!
Such vision is merely a way for the auto-based transportation model in
most of the US to simply evolve.  What are the measureable goals of
IVHS?  What are it's costs?  What problem is it trying to solve?  Is
IVHS the cheapest (cost-effective) solution to the problem?

Wouldn't *real* vision be a somewhat more revolutionary shift in our
thinking and priorities away from the last 50 years or so of auto-
centered planning and solutions to all our transportation needs?

--

Adrian Brandt [phone]
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv![e-mail]