NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/ba/transpor/2898

Text File | 1992-12-23 | 7.1 KB | 153 lines

Newsgroups: ba.transportation
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!csus.edu!netcom.com!netcomsv!butch!LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM!J056600
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cars as "something better"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 08:39:16 PST
Lines: 142

In <[e-mail]>, Mike Vandeman writes:

>-year head start, is now rarly used?  Or the one which pays for itself,
>-and is heavily used?

>If you still think cars "pay for themselves", you haven't been listening.

It has been stated by an anti-car advocate here that the auto is 38% subsi-
dized.  Using mass transit terminology, that means the equivalent of a 62%
"farebox recovery."  So yes, they *don't* pay for themselves.  But how many
mass transit systems--especially in a low-density area--come even *close* to
a 62% farebox recovery?  The "cars don't pay for themselves" argument is a
horribly hypocritical statement for mass transit advocates to make.

>-Do you want to build your 21 century system out of the 20 century's
>-failure, or its success?

>As sustainable transportation, cars are a failure.

I think you need the future tense here:  cars *will be* a failure if they
don't adapt to the limits of natural resources.  With the qualifications I just
stated, I will conditionally agree to your statement.

Cars *will* be a failure as "sustainable transportation" if we insist that
cars always use fossil fuels or other limited, non-renewable energy source.
I don't think that's debatable, though nobody really has a clue how much is
left.  I will agree that we should start developing renewable energy sources
for the auto, but that *in principle*, the auto has a very important role in
our transportation.  If we could make it burn cleaner and use renewable energy
sources, would you still demand the abolition of the auto?

We *do* need to find ways to make cars pollute less and use renewable energy
sources.  I won't debate that.  But it must be a transition.  We need to start
the transition ASAP, but that doesn't mean junking all cars.  Sorry.

>--1) ...  It has progressed
>--as far as it has only because the substantial external costs have
>--been ignored or institutionalized until now.
>-
>-I know this is part of the mass transit dogma, but you igore the
>-massive external costs of mass transit: my time!  You also ignore

>I don't. Cars waste more time, because they cause drivers to waste
>their time. On transit, 100% of the time is useful time for me.
                                                         ~~~ ~~
*For me*.  That's the key.  People have different needs, and what is 100%
useful to you may be a total waste to other people.  The world can't be
defined by one person's needs and desires--no matter how much you'd like to
think so.

>--As we begin to account
>--for these "hidden" costs -- an essential "market" step in moving the
>--world economy toward sustainability -- the real costs of driving will
>--be more apparent, and "better" will take on a new meaning.
>-
>-I'm all in favor of this process, and if it leads to mass transit,
>-so be it.  In fact, I suspect it will lead to better pollution control
>-for cars, which is a good thing IMHO.  As well as better control

>Transit still comes out far ahead of the auto. And more important, by
>2020 we won't have affordable fuel for more than a few cars.

You *may* be right, but you made a definitive statement--so prove it.  There
have been doomsayers as early as the 1960s telling us that we'd be out of oil
by the 1980s, and they used the OPEC-induced "energy crises" as proof.  Well,
they were wrong then, and they may be wrong about the future, too.

>-Trains pollute a lot.  The CalTrain pollute as much as 600 cars, so
>-if you are on a train with less than 600 people, you would pollute
>-less by driving.

The above statement is only true if ALL of the (less than 600) people took
their cars and the CalTrain run was cancelled.  Otherwise, we may have a Cal-
Train with 200 people and 300 cars.  That's not less pollution.

>So electrify it.

And make those who use it pay all the costs of it if we also insist on consis-
tently applying the Vandemanian principle of "ending the subsidy."  Will you
pay $10 per ride with the 60%-90% subsidy removed?  Remember that the auto
has been said to be "only" (relative to mass transit, ONLY is the right word)
38% subsidized.  I'll pay an extra 50c in gas taxes; will you pay $10 for a
round trip on BART?  Let's be consistent here.

>-Trains are typically slower than cars.  For example, driving in SF at
>-rush hour takes as long as taking the train.  Driving at any other
>-time of day is 30%-50% faster.

>As I said before, this is a fallacy. Train use maximizes my available
>and useful time.

And as I said before, it maximizes YOUR useful time.  It might not maximize
someone else's useful time.  If it works for you, go for it.  But don't cram
your desires down the throats of the rest of us.  Do you have to transfer
at all?

It usually takes me 25-40 minutes (depending on traffic conditions) to make
the trip from the 101/Blossom Hill area in South San Jose to Lockheed by car.
I can and do sometimes use mass transit.  Here are my options and the time
associated with them for the morning commute.  (disclaimer:  it can, on
occasion, take upwards of an hour to drive, but it's rare.)

* Drive to Snell light rail station and take bus #122 all the way--50 to 70
minutes.  The metering light at 101/Capitol contributes 5 to 10 minutes of
that time.  The soon-to-be-completed carpool lane down all of 101 will help
shave perhaps 5 to 10 minutes off of this.

* Walk to Cottle light rail station.  Take LRT from Cottle to the end of the
line at Old Ironsides.  Transfer to bus #20 (or the Lockheed light rail shut-
tle, whichever arrives first) which takes me to my building.  Total time:
70 to 75 minutes.

* Walk/drive to Blossom Hill CalTrain station.  Board the 41 and get off at
Sunnyvale, and take either the Lockheed shuttle or bus 54, whichever arrives
first.  Total time (on average):  1 hour, 10 minutes.

Note that the rail options take longer than the bus option which takes longer
than the auto option.  Is rail transit faster?  Only when no transfers are
involved.  And how useful is transfer time?  It's hard to make useful time of
transfers by reading or sleeping.

I do, however, always use rail transit on Fridays before long weekends.

The important thing here is that ALL of my options are useful to me at various
times.  That flexibility--with cars, buses and trains--is crucial to a top-
notch transportation system.

>--To offer time-efficient
>--alternatives to auto use, we need a frequent and fairly speedy backbone
>--or grid.  Trains are here -- let's develop them into this backbone.
>-
>-We could build this backbone out of cars -- they are here also.  They
>-are faster, far more flexible, pollute less, but are politically

>You are living in a fantasy world.

Dr. Vandeman, *you* are living in a fantasy world if you expect that all of it
should conform to what *you* feel is the right thing to do.


Tim Irvin
****************************************************************************