Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:21:47 -0500 (EST) From: "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl at KeithLynch.net> To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org> Subject: [WSFA] Re: Portland Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org> "Michael Walsh" <MJW at press.jhu.edu> wrote: > There are times when I am amazed that there even is a Metro, what > with Maryland, Virginia, DC, and Congress all having some control > things. My understanding is that transit is even *worse* in most other cities, despite the more unified government. Is it true that Baltimore has just two two subway lines, and they don't even intersect? "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com> wrote: > Not everyone has much use for Metro. It's only useful for those > downtown, or those going to or from downtown. I disagree. It's useful for getting to both WSFA meeting places, even though neither is downtown, nor do I live downtown. I can get to every one of PRSFS's several meeting places by Metro, or by Metrobus. Or to pretty much any point in DC, Arlington, Alexandria, Falls Church, Fairfax County, Montgomery County, or PG County. > It's a long discussion I've seen, and been in, more than once before > (and don't want to spend a lot of time on again), I recommend against bringing up a topic unless you want to discuss it. > but "public transit" only works in areas with a high enough > population density and with well-defined start-end locations > for trips. Yes. In "civilization," in other words, which pretty much means "living in cities". I agree that transit doesn't work very well way out in the countryside. Neither do cars, for pretty much the same reason -- with a low enough population density, it's not cost effective to run paved roads to every point. There is some intermediate range where cars sort-of-work, but transit doesn't. I say "sort-of-work" because they work well for going at random times to random location, but work poorly for the application for which transit works best -- many people going to the same places at the same times. When people try to live way out in "horse country" and commute by car into DC in a reasonable amount of time, it doesn't work very well. At least not unless tens of billions of dollars are spent to tear down vast numbers of homes and businesses to build more highways and to widen existing highways. And the taxes for this aren't paid just by the people who benefit, but are imposed on everyone. > In every other situation private vehicles of one sort or another are > more efficient, cheaper and often less polluting. The rail line down the middle of I-66 carries more people, faster, more safely, in less space, with less pollution, than all the highway lanes around it put together. And its capacity can be increased almost tenfold simply by running more and longer trains. The highway's capacity can't be increased except by widening it at enormous expense, violating the 1970s compromise in which it was agreed that it would be extended through Arlington, but never widened. And the passengers can read, instead of concentrating on the road. When I do put my book down and glance out the window, I usually see traffic standing still in one or both directions. Much of the power used to run Metro is nuclear, which means there's effectively no air pollution at all. There's a small amount of solid waste, but nobody ever eats or breathes any of it unless someone is both grossly incompetent and criminally negligent. > That's not to say that we couldn't improve things there, but > cramming everyone onto busses, trains and subways as some keep > suggesting just won't solve the problem for most people so it > isn't a "solution". I agree that "cramming" isn't a good solution. There should be enough buses and trains that everyone has room to sit down. And the seats should be large enough to be comfortable for almost everyone. > Suburban Maryland and Virginia? Private (or at least individually > piloted) is the only answer that works... It works very poorly. It requires hundreds of billions (!) of dollars of infrastructure and constant maintenance. Highways, parking lots, and highway interchanges use vast amounts of valuable land. Users get neither the exercise benefit of biking nor the reading-time benefit of riding a bus or train -- their time is a complete waste. It causes "code maroon" (worse than code red) air pollution every summer, which causes serious health effects. Crashes cause tens of thousands of deaths every years -- far more than guns and knives. Not everyone is medically, financially, or temperamentally suited to be a driver. Many people are too young to legally drive. And some people like to go out drinking, and need a way to safely get home without paying sky-high taxi fares. The entry costs are high, as one has to buy a car and learn to drive. It seems to encourage criminal behavior, based on how many drivers routinely violate traffic laws. It requires vast amount of oil from the Middle East, enriching people whose greatest goal in life is to kill as many of us as possible. Since it's "a privilege, not a right," it gives government great power over people, in that they can and do deny or rescind drivers license for lots of non-driving related reasons. It has indoctrinated people with the perverse and destructive idea that everyone has government-issued picture ID, and that it's reasonable to be required to carry it when traveling. If not for a very perverse system of government taxes, zoning laws, and incentives, I expect there would have been a lot fewer cars and highways today. There would be a (privately run) bus every five to ten minutes on every major road. No road would need to have more than one lane in each direction. Taxes would be lower. People would be healthier and wealthier. There would be far less air pollution. People wouldn't be afraid to walk or bike on the public roads. Please don't get me wrong. I am not anti-car. I believe everyone who is able to safely drive, and to pay the full costs of doing do, should be allowed to do so if they want to. I just don't think people should be *forced* into it by being left with no alternatives.