NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/environm/13886

Text File | 1992-12-25 | 5.8 KB | 125 lines

Newsgroups: sci.environment
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!nsisrv!nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov!bschlesinger
From: [e-mail] (Barry Schlesinger)
Subject: Re: Save the Planet and the Economy at the Same time!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 19:03:00 GMT
Lines: 111

Again my previous article is not credited. >> is mine.

In article <[e-mail]>
[name deleted until credit is given to others]

>>As was pointed out in the responses from my fellow DC area citizen,
>>James Acker, the Bay area is above average in this regard.  Transit
>>access is not as universally available elsewhere.  Consider Los
>>Angeles.  Also, being near a transit line does not mean that such
transit is convenient for where you want to go.

>
>I used transit & bicycled to work in LA. It can be done, IF YOU CARE.
>

Not by everyone.  Not if the office or factory housing the only job
one can get far away from affordable housing, and neither is on a
transit line, or if the transit lines they are on connect by slow or
circuitous routes.  The way areas have developed, there simply isn't
enough housing accessible to work by mass transit in many areas of the
country, a point that has not been addressed.  Some people may be able
to arrange their lives to run by mass transit.  But not everybody.

>>transit can be reasonably used for all trips.  A number of the
>>respondents have illustrated trips for which mass transit is nominally
>>available but not a practical alternative.  From my limited experience
>>in the Bay area, it appears that transit lines follow a greater
>>fraction of typical trips thatn they do here.
>
>So rent a car for those rare trips. Still cheaper.
>

As in previous answers, not responding to the point.  The trips
illustrated were daily commutes.  In many suburbs and small cities,
trips requiring automobiles, or extremely inconvenient by automobile
are common, not rare.

>>There appears to be a contradiction in approach here.  Dr. Vandeman is
>>approaching the problem of poor development by choosing to live near
>>transit, (a choice which, as has been pointed out by a number of
>>correspondents, is not available to all) rather than by political
>>action.  On the other hand, he approaches the problem of transit
>>methods through political action rather than personal choice of
>>transit methods.
>
>Whatever works.
>

Let's talk about what works.  Most of the responses here have been of
the "you'll have to do it my way, and live like me".  Most have been
oblivious to the way most people live, and to the values and most
people have, to the point of intolerance.  The goal here is to
influence public policy.  Answers such as these at public forums will
only alienate the public,

Other responses have responded to the letter of what was discussed and
not to the substance.  Now, that may may be useful debating trick.
But try that in a public forum, and it won't convince the public to
whom the legislators and other government officials.

The kind of attitude reflected in these answers will be perceived by
the public as uncaring, and will not elicit favorable opinions of
those producing them.

>
>>Directing any development into corridors where mass-transit access can
>>be arranged is an essential step in the process of developing a
>>well-used mass transit system with public support.
>
>Of course. But one can STILL avoid car ownership, if one tries...

In some areas of the country, rural areas, outer suburbia,  there is
no other way around.  And you can't just say live somewhere else.  We
need some of the people out there, the farmers, the ranchers, the
people who run the stores where the farmers and ranchers get what they
need to run the farm and the ranch and take care of the family.

The kind of lifestyle you suggest would be seen as highly limited by
most people.  I lived in Williams Bay, Wisconsin without a car for a
year.  It was a mile round-trip down a steep hill to the grocery
store, a very limited one.  The nearest supermarket was three miles of
rural road up and down hills away.  There was no drug store in town.
As one of a small number of graduate students in a town of primarily
families, there was nothing to do.  There was, for a time, no
restaurant in town.  The nearest gathering places were roadhouses two
to four miles away.
    In poorly served metropolitan areas like Los Angeles, trips to
any event out of one's neighborhood by mass transit would be major
operations.  People would have less of the area at their practical
access and would regard life quality as noticeably poorer.  Unless an
area is well served by mass transit, like Manhattan, asking people to
give up automobiles is a guaranteed non-starter.

>>This answer misses the point.  The question is _time_.  The original
>>response was to the suggestion that time spent riding mass transit
>>could be used productively, whereas time spent driving could not be.
>>The point, which this answer fails to address, is that for many
>>people, the few things that can be done on mass transit are not those
>>for which time is needed.
>
>I didn't miss the point. I SAVE time by not owning a car. Ivan Illich
>explained that long ago. I avoid the time it takes to work to pay for a
>car....

The only way this tradeoff would be effective is if working hours
could be reduced at the beginning and end of the day so  they could go
into commuting.  But most people don't have that option.  Jobs are 40
hours a week.


                BMS