NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/environm/13829

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 5.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!sdd.hp.com!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!pacbell.com!pbhye!mjvande
From: [e-mail] (Mike Vandeman)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Dec 92 15:48:12 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mike Vandeman)
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA
Lines: 93

---: Re: A Simple Way to Save the Economy, and the Planet, Too!
---:
---: Gentlemen:
---:
---:      Believe it or not, there is a simple way to save our economy,
---: restore social equity, and save the planet, with one act!
---:             ...
--             ...
---    It is currently cheaper (in most urban areas) to commute
---via car than to use other means, and furthermore, most areas are

Not true. It's $.39/ mile by car, according to my latest source.

---underdeveloped with regard to mass transit.  Suburb-to-suburb mass
---transit is woefully undeveloped, and due to the growth of the
---suburban business district and the decay of the central city business
---core (read "Edge City"), suburb-to-suburb commuting is at least on
---the same level as suburb-to-core.  Until this inequities are addressed,
---simple taxing of car usage will only further add to the burden on the
---poor- and middle-classes.

Not so. they mostly use transit, or at least live where it is possible.

--I'm not falling for that chicken-&-egg stuff.
-
-    But you have to determine cause and effect.  Treating the
-effect without addressing the cause will not be an effective or
-politically viable solution.  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.

-    To encourage mass transit, one cannot simply impose rules on
-the existing traffic patterns.  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.

-    Sticking to the plans requires involvement.  Once you have a
-plan, for example, 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.

--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.

--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.