NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/environm/13835

Text File | 1992-12-23 | 10.1 KB | 233 lines

Newsgroups: sci.environment
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!nsisrv!jgacker
From: [e-mail] (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:00:17 GMT
Lines: 219



This is getting so long that I'll have to truncate.

Before we get into this, Dr. Vandeman, I want you to realize that
in essence I favor your position.  However, not everyone has the
personal freedom or the inclination to make proximity to work their
top priority.  A lot goes into a choice of "where to live", including:
    1)  ability to afford a home;
    2)  size of the home for a family;
    3)  proximity to quality education;
    4)  proximity to quality health care;
    5)  safety (includes fire protection, police, crime rate);
and     6)  convenience (shopping, groceries, recreational activities, etc.).

Mike Vandeman ([e-mail]) wrote:

: -: -: threat to our environment and quality of life. We also know that
: -: -: the rich own and operate motor vehicles more than the poor.

: -: Not if you read the census reports. The poor have fewer cars
: -: available, & use them less. Isn't that obvious?

Me:
: -    IT'S NOT OBVIOUS AT ALL.  In Washington, those that can afford
: -the high price of housing in or quite near the city, or in the
: -suburbs, pay it and then take the Metro in to work.  Good -- it reduces
: -the number of cars.  However, those that can't afford the housing
: -live further out, and drive in.  There are West Virginians driving over
: -60 miles to Washington to do carpentry, roofing, etc., because they
: -can't afford to live in the suburbs.  Directly in the city, which is
: -predominantly low-income, transit use is higher, I'll admit that.  That's
: -where those misleading census numbers come in.  (Like I'm going to live
: -in downtown D.C. and wear a bulletproof vest under my suit.  Yeah, right.)
:
    {People willing to drive 60 miles to work at $0.39/mile}
: are not poor! I also doubt that there are very many people willing to
: submit to such torture.

    It's like a multi-layered onion, Mike.  The core is _very_ poor.
The next layer is _very_ rich.  The next few layers (suburbs) are
moderately wealthy.   The outlying areas (W. Va., central Maryland,
southern Va. (see below)), are less wealthy.  The majority of suburban
commuters drive 10-20 miles to work in this area.

Washingtonians commute from Frederick and Fredericksburg (30 mi. N, 45
mi. S.  New rail from Fredericksburg decreases commuter volume by
: -Roughly 10%.  What are you going to do about the other 90%, Mike?
:
: Increase their gas taxes, until they switch to transit or move near
: their work, or any number of other solutions that are better than driving
: long distances.

    Fine.  Good idea.  Carpools might even increase.  Raucous cries
for better transit and more ridership availability would increase.  I AGREE
with you.  But still, there are poor souls...

Me:
: -    Both the Tysons Corner-Reston region and the Montgomery
: -County-Rockville region are high-density suburbs.  The ONLY link between
: -the two is the legendary Beltway, which has a bridge over the inconveniently
: -located Potomac River.  In the case of Maryland to Northern Virginia
: -commuting (the higher volume), and the reverse, the Beltway is the only way.
: -How does your proposal address the thousands of people who have just this
: -route to their occupations?

Vandeman:
: Who cares? They made their bed (so as to destroy the environment). Why
: shouldn't they lie in it (or remake it)???

    Here's where you are slightly wrong.  The people living in the
suburbs aren't to blame for urban planning that went awry.  The
government which allowed urban sprawl and the developers which exploited it
are to blame.  But now we have families with (maybe) one person living
reasonably close to work or the Metro (the suburban Md. Metro is quite
good and extensive), and the other?  Usually at least one spouse is
forced to work farther from home or inconveniently.  Are you going to
help them out or burden the middle-class further?
    But increasing gas taxes might force Dad to carpool.  You still
have a good idea.

Me:
: -    Do you get it, Mike?  Hard-working middle and lower-income
: -Americans would be hit by your proposal -- not the rich.  But read on:

Vandeman:
: You are missing the point. The effect is progressive -- it would
: affect the well-to-do more than the poor. And so what? The environment
: is more important than human wealth, because the latter is impossible
: without it!

Me:    Right again.  I think you've converted me.

Me:
: -    Cheaper:  for those fortunate few for whom transit is convenient.
: -And many of those "fortunate few" are the unfortunate who live in the
: -inner cities and use the transit systems, which are primarily
: -designed for city transit only.

Vandeman:
: Where most of the poor live. get it?

Me:    This really is a good idea.  Take away more cash from the middle
class so they are closer to the level of those living in the inner
cities.

Me:
: -    For a lot of commuters, the hours-long waits in slow-moving
: -traffic have them already asking for better transit.  It IS their
: -problem.  But even plans not yet completed (outlying Metro stations,
: -especially one near me!) don't address the whole problem.

Vandeman:
: They made their bed. Choose to live near work & transit, as I did, &
: you have no problem.

    It's clear that you have an admirable lifestyle.  Mind answering
a few questions for our files?
    1)  What is the frequency of rainfall in your region?
    2)  Snowfall frequency?
    3)  What are your job requirements?  Does it require formal business
attire (suit, tie, polished leather shoes), in general?  Do you
have a large amount of paperwork, as in the legal profession?
    4)  Do you have flex-time?
    5)  Are you single or partnered?  (Married or non-marital partner
affiliation)
    6)  If you are not single, what is your partner's occupation?
Are they close to work & transit as well?
    7)  Are there children in your household?  Do they have any
non-school related or school-based activities?
    8)  Do you have any leisure activities or social groups?
(Church, Lions Club, racquetball, etc.).  Are these facilities located
close to work & transit as well?
    9)  How close are you located to medical facilities, especially
pre-natal and pediatric care for children?
    10)  What percentage of your income goes for transit?  (Mine: 6.5%
of gross yearly income).
    11)  What is the percentage of your daily awake time (nominally
16 hours) that you spend in transit to and from work?  (Mine:  4.7%).

    I'm still not trying to say you're idea is bad, since I'm in favor
of it.  But all of the above criteria are relevant to considerations of
where someone chooses to live and work.  Are we reaching a level of
understanding here yet?

Me:

: -carpool to work.   I stand by the statement that simple taxing of car
: -usage will further add to the burden on the poor and middle classes,
: -and be only a minor inconvenience to the rich.

Vandeman:
: You have no other alternative? I don't believe that. Why don't you
: live near transit or your job?

Me:  A highly personal question.  I'm only 17 miles from my job, which
in this area is considered damn good.  I'm going to get married soon,
so I choose my community for a lot of lifestyle reasons, similar to those
stated above.  FYI, my fiancee does not plan to commute as far as I do and
has job skills which should find nearby employment.  I'm not so lucky.  But
in communities nearer work, she'd have less of a chance of finding
employment!
    Regarding transit, not one rail or train route goes near where I work
(near being 2 miles).  But to get to the route that comes within 2 miles,
I'd have to drive 15 miles!  Kind of defeats the purpose.

In the case described below, I'd go to the station, take the train,
get off the train, wait for the bus, ride the bus, exit at work, take the
evening bus, back to the train, back to the station, back home.  $6.00
train, $2.50 bus per day.  (Excluding gasoline or muscle power.)
And maybe get to read the newspaper or a book.  Lucky me.

Me again:
: -    In my personal case, if I attempted to use mass transit,
: -my direct commuting cost would double and I would lose an hour a day getting
: -to and from pick-up points.  And still have to drive 5 miles one-way to the
: -nearest train station.

Vandeman:
: Why? If cost is important, bicycle to the station. Transit is cheaper than
: driving, if you are honest. And it SAVES time, because transit time can
: be used as you wish.

Me:    Can't write reports on my word-processor when I'm on the bus, and
I certainly can't lug the PC on my bike.  (Tele-commuting might improve
matters, though.)

Me:
: -also a very good suburb-to-core commuting system.  I think transit
: -can work -- but realize, taxing car use doesn't inconvenience
: -Donny Trump, Bill Gates, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Madonna (examples
: -of people who probably have lots of cash).  They don't commute!
: -They may have 10 cars in the garage - Arnie's got a HUMVEE that gets
: -1/4 mile to the gallon!  Like he cares?  Taxing car use will hit
: -the lower and middle-classes -- get it?

Vandeman:
: My purpose is not to inconvenience Madonna, but to get the money
: to improve transit. Get it?

Me:   Getting the money is a noble goal, and so is improving mass
transit.  I hope this dialogue, on some level, will indicate two
things:  one, why the Clinton/Gore administration is likely considering
a gas tax, and 2)  why it's going to inconvenience a lot more of the
middle class.  Something will get sacrificed -- families will give up
getting their children in the best public schools, there will be less
personal time at home, leisure and social activities will be
reduced.  It'll hurt.

: -    It may seem a simple answer, but to make it work you've got
: -to understand it.
:
: I do.

    Yeah, but I don't think you grasp it.  Still, all in all, it's
a good idea.  I liked it when Perot proposed it.

    Jim Acker
    [e-mail]