Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 01:00:27 -0500
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Portland
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

At 06:21 PM 3/12/05 -0500, Keith F. Lynch wrote:

>"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.

It isn't useful for me to get to either meeting place.  I'd have to drive 8
miles to the nearest Metro station (or walk a mile to the nearest bus stop,
and spend up to an hour or so on the bus getting to the Metro station after
paying whatever the bus costs), find a parking place (not hard in the
evenings, but almost impossible weekdays), wait up to 30 minutes for a
train to show up (more likely wait is 10 mins though), then take the train
all the way downtown, possibly switch trains (with another wait), and ride
all the way back out to the meeting location, where I'd have a longish walk
or another bus ride.  We've now turned a 30 minute, 15-20 mile drive into a
1.5-3 hour 28+ mile trip.  What would cost me a gallon plus a little of gas
($2.19 as of last week) would cost me about half a gallon of gas (or bus
fare) plus a couple of dollars in Metro fare (not sure what the cost is
these days for a trip like I'd need, but it's at least a couple of bucks,
and probably up to twice that, right?), plus another bus fare.  That's not
what I'd call "useful".  Even if you add in the allowable IRS deduction for
car wear and tear ($0.34/mile isn't it?) it's still cheaper to drive, and
takes far less time.

>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.

How do you get to Swain's Lock?  That came up for a Mensa event I ran a
couple of years ago.  Swain's Lock is where the canoe rentals are, and
someone wanted to know the nearest Metro station.  I think it worked out to
be Grosvenor, or maybe Bethesda...but that still left the person a dozen
miles short of the destination.  I don't know that there is a bus that will
get them there.  One does run down Falls to River, but that's at least 2 or
3 miles short of Swain's Lock, which is out River from there, and there's
no sidewalk and a 45 mph speed limit (they had kids...).  If you need to be
in Poolesville, forget it!

How do you get to Sugarloaf to go hiking?  Start your hike in Gaithersburg
or Germantown?  I've never seen a bus up that way and I've been up there a
lot recently (for hikes or for motorcycle rides).

Sometimes I think that people who rely on public transit have a view of the
world very much like that New Yorker cover that showed a "map" of the USA...

Most of the places I go I can't get to on public transit at all.  I hate
cities, and cities are where that works best.  I spend my time outside of
them, where it doesn't work at all well, or at all.

>> 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.

I didn't bring it up.  Feel free to discuss away.  I'll watch after this.
I don't have more to say about it anyway.

>> 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.

Then we agree, except for the "civilization" thing.  Forcing everyone to
live in cities isn't an option.  The people who don't live in them do so by
choice.  It fits their psychology and economic needs better that way.  Take
away the choice and your city population will start to drop suddenly and
violently.  Some people are better suited for cities.  Let them live in them.

>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.

Cars don't need paved roads of the sort you probably mean.  My dad lives
two miles from the paved road for instance, and has no trouble getting his
cars (including a Datsun 280Z) in and out of there using the gravel path
they call a road (which is paid for and maintained by the residents who
live along it...no state or county maintenance at all).  Some people do
without the gravel...they just clear the trees and large boulders out of
the way (if necessary) and use vehicles capable of handling what's left
(those jacked up trucks with the huge mud tires for instance).  In Alaska
there are homes that are only reachable by plane or walking (or in winter,
snowmobile), but that's a bit extreme.

As far as "every point" goes, in rural areas there are generally paved
roads connecting towns or other major features (like dams, mines, etc.),
and people live along them.  Side roads are generally not paved until they
develop enough traffic to warrant it...or the state gets some federal money
they have to use up or give back.  The rural traffic consists at least in
part of trucks loaded with food to keep city people from eating each other
to survive...we can do away with that if you like.

>There is some
>intermediate range where cars sort-of-work, but transit doesn't.

Cars work over more area than public transit does, and there's a large
overlap where cars work as well as public transit.  Some cars, like my SUV,
will work in more places than other cars (such as my dad's 280Z).  The
areas where public transit is actually preferable to cars are very limited,
and mostly confined to the downtown sections of large cities.

Getting between such cities is another matter...airlines are, in a way,
"public transit", and tend to be the best method when the distance is at
least 250 miles.  Closer than that, cars win again in all ways (cost,
convenience, trip time, pollution, preservation of rights, and by some
calculations, safety).

>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.

Highways benefit just about everyone (city stores would be empty without
them and the economy would collapse).  Public transit (also paid for mostly
by taxes...all that I've heard of are heavily subsidized both for
construction and for operations) benefits only those who use it.

>> 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.

All the time?  Or just at the peak of rush "hour"?  At rush "hour" I can
believe that.  At 11pm?  I really doubt it.  I know that the busses around
here are less efficient than cars most of the time...I've seen them with as
few as 2 or 3 passengers even early in the evening, and empty later, still
cruising around burning gas just-in-case, while unused cars are parked
burning nothing.

Someone calculated that if you look at the total cost of BART (I still wish
they'd named it "'Frisco Area Rapid Transit"), in terms of money, energy,
materials consumed, pollution generated by construction and operations,
etc., and compared it to an alternate plan, consisting of dividing the
existing highway lanes in half and handing out 6 million low pollution
commuter cars to fit in them, free of charge, the 6 million little cars
idea cost less in all ways initially and over time.

>Much of the power used to run Metro is nuclear, which means there's
>effectively no air pollution at all.

Where did you hear that?  Metro has its own nuke plant somewhere??  I
though they got power from the local utilities, same as everyone else?  If
so, it is not even majority nuclear (PEPCO tells me the breakdown every
year or so...I can dig around and see if I kept it, but the majority of the
power here comes from coal.)

>> 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.

You keep ignoring my point that "everyone" can't make use of any
conceivable public transit system no matter how many seats it has or how
often it runs.  Not even "most people" could.  For the minority that live,
work and play in places where it can work, fine...they can use it.  For the
rest of us, it just isn't a practical option and never will be.

>> Suburban Maryland and Virginia?  Private (or at least individually
>> piloted) is the only answer that works...
>
>It works very poorly.

As compared to what?  Subways and busses are ruled out as impractical out
where the population density is low, so what are you comparing to that is
better than our current solution?

>riding a bus or train -- their time is a complete waste.

They do spend more of it at the end points though.  You read for the 2
hours it takes to get somewhere on public transit...I drive for 30 minutes
and read or do other things when I get there with the extra hour and a half.

>deaths every years -- far more than guns and knives.  Not everyone
>is medically, financially, or temperamentally suited to be a driver.

And not everyone is temperamentally suited to live in high density areas.
Make me live in D.C. and I'll be climbing a tower within 6 months to reduce
the local population to a tolerable level...or some other seriously
anti-social activity.

>Many people are too young to legally drive.

So?  I lived in an area with no public transit (other than school busses)
when I was that young...I survived just fine...just like most people do
outside of big cities.

>And some people like
>to go out drinking, and need a way to safely get home without paying
>sky-high taxi fares.

Have a non-drinking friend or S.O. drive them?  Stay out until they are
sober again?  Call a local service organization that provides free rides to
drunks?

>The entry costs are high, as one has to buy a car and learn to drive.

I managed that when I was 17, working at McDonnalds.  Granted, I was living
at home at the time so I had no other major expenses, and I didn't get a
very fancy car ('67 VW Bug), but I managed it.  So did my brother (used
LTD) a couple of years later.  I've since owned several cars, both used and
new.  Even in "poor" parts of town you see lots of cars, so apparently this
isn't insurmountable even without a high income, same as for me back when.

>It seems to encourage criminal behavior, based on how many drivers
>routinely violate traffic laws.

Same is true of the tax laws, anti-jaywalking laws, litter laws, and public
transit (I'm sure you've heard the various scams for cheating Metro?).  I
doubt we're going to get rid of those things either.

>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.

We have enough oil here, and we can make more if we want to.  It's just
cheaper to buy it from the Middle East for now.  There are folks working on
alternative plans though...like hydrogen fuel cells, which are almost ready
for prime time.  Don't confuse "private transportation" with "private
transportation as we do it today".  There's nothing sacred about fossil
fuel powered cars...they are just the cheapest option we have at the
moment, so that's what people use.

>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.

If it was a right it wouldn't make any difference.  Carrying a gun is a
right, but that's been rescinded for no reason at all, and against all
common sense, in many places (Maryland and D.C. for instance).

>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.

In a society where you can't know everyone personally, but where there is
need to be able to individually identify people at times, some form of
identification is going to be mandatory in many instances.  It will have to
be issued by some entity that everyone trusts to be neutral and consistent.
 Or at least trusts to issue valid ID anyway (the government is a bit shaky
there...but who else is there?)

>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.

And no public transit...

Zoning laws have done a lot to create a need for cars though.  You can't
live where you work in most areas these days...you *have* to commute, and
the zoning laws make that true.  It is possible to set things up so you can
walk to most places you need to get to regularly...that's the way it was in
Scotland where i lived when I was a kid.  We'd walk to school, to the local
stores in the village, we could walk everywhere in the larger nearby town
(and take a bus to get there if we didn't have time for the 2-3 mile walk).
 Most people lived very near their work, as there were no zoning laws.

>There would be a (privately run) bus every five to
>ten minutes on every major road.

Unless you are back downtown in the high density regions again, that's
going to rapidly make cars look cheap and non-polluting...

>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.

Most of today's people wouldn't exist in the much smaller and lower powered
economy...everyone would have a pony, and need it...things would move
slower and the average life expectancy would be lower...

We used to have pretty much what you are describing, and we gave it up at
the first opportunity.  Why was that?

>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.

If you can live in a city, you don't need one if your city has good public
transport...and that will work in a city.  Outside of high density areas
there is no good alternative to individually operated vehicles.  The
economics and physics just don't work for public transit once the
population density drops low enough.  Cars, or something pretty much like
them, win hands down.

-- Mike B.

--

"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can
 bribe the people with their own money."

    -- Alexis de Tocqueville