NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/environm/5267

Text File | 1992-12-29 | 5.4 KB | 127 lines

Newsgroups: talk.environment
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!torn!newshost.uwo.ca!news
From: [e-mail] (Mike Thornton)
Subject: Re: Rail/MassTrans vs. Cars+IVHS
Organization: University of Western Ontario
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 03:14:03 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: next2god.heart.rri.uwo.ca
Lines: 114

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John
Ciccarelli) writes:
> 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.
>
> Adrian Brandt responds:
> >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.
> >....
> >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?
>
> I think those manufacturers who would profit from IVHS would like us
> to believe there's a "trend", but I think that's stretching the truth.
>
> I too see IVHS as an attempt to keep the single-occupant auto at the
> center of urban transportation.  It's yet another example of
> extrapolating the status quo, like the "Future 120 MPH Highways" I used
> to read about in Popular Science when I was a kid in the 60's.
>
> Instead, I'd like to see the ingenuity that is going into IVHS
redirected
> toward creating an intelligently-dispatched demand-driven door-to-door
> shuttle system that, in conjunction with bus and rail transit, could
> allow me to replace a car for many local and moderate-distance trips.
> Kind of "Dial-A-Ride" with smarts.
>
> I'd like to be able to call for a ride no matter where I am within the
> served area, using a handheld device, and have this device tell me where
> to meet the ride, how long until it appears, how long it will take me to
> get to my desired destination, and how much it will cost.  If a
scheduled
> transit route is nearby and would make a good connection, the system
> should direct me to it or have the shuttle take me to it, with no
> "waiting on the corner for a ride".  And when I board, it should
> automatically debit my account and issue any connecting tickets or
> transfers I'll need.
>
> "Intelligent highways" are a dead end.  Let's make "intelligent
> transportation" available instead.
>
> /John
>
> --
> John Ciccarelli           Adobe Systems,  1585 Charleston |    _~C
__C
> [e-mail]  Mountain View CA USA 94039-7900 |  ='\<,
='\<,
> uunet!adobe!jciccare      415/962-6677,  fax:[phone] | (&)/(\)
(&)/(\)
> === "If you live within 7 miles of your job, why drive?" === BIKE TO
WORK ==
Dear John
Planners have attempted to approach environmental and congestion
problems, through the development of rapid rail systems, for  quite some
time. Although your ideas are interesting  I believe that  the problem
must
be approached differently. City evolution has been through more economic
and
technical advancements than by planners. In any planning situation what is
important is whether the plan has the potential to be implemented. As we
all know the
political process hinders the planning process greatly.  Let's suppose
that  we
decide to do away with the automobile. Society has been so greatly
influenced by
the automobile that it would take centuries (or again major technical
advancements
--which caused the environmental problems we are enjoying today) for use
to
decline towards other means or methods, especially public transportation.
The B.A.R.T. system in San Fran.  was a major public transportation flop,
and even
with ample public rail transportation systems in cities such as Toronto,
New York and so forth, the use of automobiles is continuing to increase.
Furthermore, even if public
transportation networks existed how would planners handle the
transportation of goods
that all of us enjoy, such as produce or next generation computers.
    I am in total agreement that individuals with the opportunity to
take more natural
means of transportation, such as biking to work, should do so. Yet, we
must  be realistic
as to what may be achieved and especially attained. If society is to be
improved
we must consider the economic and technological impacts more so than
anything else.
The large majority of land developers are concerned more with attaining
the
largest floor area ratio's for ample profit ,than considering  other
environmental
impacts that may evolve from the development. This attitude throughout
society
is what planners must contend with , and it is this attitude that must
change before
planners can have a more profound and influential impact on society.
Perhaps
incrementally, we have taken one step towards greater concern for society
(environment, urban areas, more efficient transportation systems, greater
consumer/
industrial waste reduction) yet we have several thousands to go.

    Jayson Flick
    School of Urban and Regional Planning
    Queen's University
    Kinston, Ontario
    Canada.