The Death Spiral of Urban Transit: How to Avoid?
Peter M. White
>>Building more roads has only made traffic problems worse in these
>>areas.
>That I don't believe. If you double the capacity of the roads, and
>nothing else changes, there will be half the traffic density, on average,
>on the new system of roads.
Neverless, building new roads does not necessarily help, even if the
average traffic density decreases. What really happens is that greater road
capacity decreases the *length* of the "rush hour", not its intensity.
People strongly prefer to work roughly 9-5, simply because those are standard
business hours. It can be quite difficult to arrange your day to be 7-3,
just to avoid traffic.
BTW, it is _possible_ for more roads to make traffic objectively worse,
if you put the new capacity in the wrong places. The problem is that
more capacity may simply shuttle people more quickly into the bottlenecks
causing the flux of vehicles to actually decrease. Fixing bottlenecks
is not at all easy, especially if you can't stomach bulldozing
prosperous businesses.
--Peter
p-w...@uiuc.edu
John Palkovic
>Ooooh boy, millions of cars sitting in traffic jams. Gee, thats VERY
>"effective." In places where cars are the most effective means of
>transport, they became that because the government built the roads
>and required the provision of parking. It continues to this day. It
>is time to change the perogatives.
T. Mark Gibson:
>No, it's time to fire a bunch of misguided mass-transit planners and
>start building more roads. Remember, the food you eat is delivered by
>roadway, not by subway!
What does food delivery have to do with this issue? I have not heard
of any food shortages caused by lack of road.
Mark, have you ever been to Los Angeles or Chicago? Have you ever
found yourself sitting in your car on the Tri-State "expressway"
(major route in chicago area) in the middle of a 10 mile long mass of
automobiles? (Yes, I have, all too many times) I lived out in the west
suburbs of Chicago for 5 yrs. I have no idea how many traffic jams I
experienced, but it was way too many.
Building more roads has only made traffic problems worse in these
areas. It does not appear possible to build road capacity fast enough
to prevent traffic congestion. This is a well known problem (at least
I thought it was) in urban planning in the US. Comments, anyone?
-John
palk...@desy.de Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Relativity Engineering
"The more you drive, the less you think." -- Repo Man
Edward Hartnett
>> Mark, have you ever been to Los Angeles or Chicago? Have you ever
>> found yourself sitting in your car on the Tri-State "expressway"
>> (major route in chicago area) in the middle of a 10 mile long mass of
>> automobiles? (Yes, I have, all too many times) I lived out in the west
>> suburbs of Chicago for 5 yrs. I have no idea how many traffic jams I
>> experienced, but it was way too many.
T> Such traffic jams are caused by roads with inadequate capacity. The
T> obvious solution is to increase the capacity of the roads.
Obvious and also wrong.
LA has freeways bigger then anywhere else in the world. They asl have
one of the worst traffic situations in the world. If you were correct
there would never be a traffic jam in LA, because they have always had
the biggest freeways.
>> Building more roads has only made traffic problems worse in these
>> areas.
T> That I don't believe. If you double the capacity of the roads, and
T> nothing else changes, there will be half the traffic density, on average,
T> on the new system of roads.
Quite true!
But if you have that little traffic on the roads, more people will use
them. People using other roads will switch, if they can. People with
jobs at one end of the road will now be able to get jobs at the other
end of the road.
I'm not making this up. LA is a real example of this happening.
>> It does not appear possible to build road capacity fast enough
>> to prevent traffic congestion. This is a well known problem (at least
>> I thought it was) in urban planning in the US. Comments, anyone?
T> If things get so congested that there isn't room to build new roads in
T> densely populated urban areas, it is time for people to start lliving
T> elsewhere. Most of the problems our big cities face are related to having
T> too many people in too little space.
Nope. Very simplistic and superficial analysis. How does too little
space contribute to, for example, the deprivations of the drug war?
T> I've spend a lot of time in big (>1M pop.) cities, but I hope I never
T> have to live in the middle of one. And yes, I drive around those cities.
T> (I've done a lot of driving in Chicago, Atlanta, Houston, and Miami; less
T> in several other big cities, including London.)
T> If you think about it, there is a decreasing need for people to crowd
T> into densly populated urban areas. Now that we enjoy modern communications
T> and computer networks, more and more people can work at home...showing
T> up at the office only occasionally. That's the real solution to much
T> of the traffic problem caused by commuters--arrange things so they need
T> not commute as often if at all. I bet most people would much rather not
T> spend an hour or two commuting each day.
Now this might actually happen if people were able to save money by
staying at home. But since the gov't assumes the cost of the commute,
there is not much savings to be gained by avoiding it. If you had to
pay for that road you were driving on, that might change your attitude
a little.
--
Edward Hartnett e...@larry.gsfc.nasa.gov
(301) 286-2396 fax: (301) 286-1754
"Tut! Tut!" cried Sherlock Holmes. "You must act, man, or you are
lost. Nothing but energy can save you. This is no time for dispair."
T. Mark Gibson
>dan...@panix.com (Daniel Convissor) writes:
>>Ooooh boy, millions of cars sitting in traffic jams. Gee, thats VERY
>>"effective." In places where cars are the most effective means of
>>transport, they became that because the government built the roads
>>and required the provision of parking. It continues to this day. It
>>is time to change the perogatives.
>T. Mark Gibson:
>>No, it's time to fire a bunch of misguided mass-transit planners and
>>start building more roads. Remember, the food you eat is delivered by
>>roadway, not by subway!
>What does food delivery have to do with this issue? I have not heard
>of any food shortages caused by lack of road.
>Mark, have you ever been to Los Angeles or Chicago? Have you ever
>found yourself sitting in your car on the Tri-State "expressway"
>(major route in chicago area) in the middle of a 10 mile long mass of
>automobiles? (Yes, I have, all too many times) I lived out in the west
>suburbs of Chicago for 5 yrs. I have no idea how many traffic jams I
>experienced, but it was way too many.
Such traffic jams are caused by roads with inadequate capacity. The
obvious solution is to increase the capacity of the roads.
>Building more roads has only made traffic problems worse in these
>areas.
That I don't believe. If you double the capacity of the roads, and
nothing else changes, there will be half the traffic density, on average,
on the new system of roads.
>It does not appear possible to build road capacity fast enough
>to prevent traffic congestion. This is a well known problem (at least
>I thought it was) in urban planning in the US. Comments, anyone?
If things get so congested that there isn't room to build new roads in
densely populated urban areas, it is time for people to start lliving
elsewhere. Most of the problems our big cities face are related to having
too many people in too little space.
I've spend a lot of time in big (>1M pop.) cities, but I hope I never
have to live in the middle of one. And yes, I drive around those cities.
(I've done a lot of driving in Chicago, Atlanta, Houston, and Miami; less
in several other big cities, including London.)
If you think about it, there is a decreasing need for people to crowd
into densly populated urban areas. Now that we enjoy modern communications
and computer networks, more and more people can work at home...showing
up at the office only occasionally. That's the real solution to much
of the traffic problem caused by commuters--arrange things so they need
not commute as often if at all. I bet most people would much rather not
spend an hour or two commuting each day.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Gibson | Tyrants prefer unarmed peasants.
gib...@bmrl.med.uiuc.edu | The meek shall inherit the dearth.
1:233/16 (Politzania) | The Bill of Rights: Void Where Prohibited By Law.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These opinions and comments are mine. I speak only for me, not BMRL or UIUC.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Palsen
<A heckuva lot deleted here>
I'm forced to disagree with much of this. I don't claim to be a
professional planner(I'm only a Junior in college), but I've seen
numerous articles in which studies have been done on the theory of
building more roads. All this does is make more room for MORE traffic.
If you make a patient with a virus bigger, doesn't the virus grow as
well? The bottom line here is that more roads aren't the answer. Better
rapid transit and the encouragement of HOVs(High-Occupancy Vehicles) is
the answer, which I site the Houston area in support of. Ever listen to
a Chicago/St. Louis traffic report? They're long! Houston, on the other
hand, has an efficient system of moving people, even in rush-hour.
>If you think about it, there is a decreasing need for people to crowd
>into densly populated urban areas. Now that we enjoy modern communications
>and computer networks, more and more people can work at home...showing
>up at the office only occasionally. That's the real solution to much
>of the traffic problem caused by commuters--arrange things so they need
>not commute as often if at all. I bet most people would much rather not
>spend an hour or two commuting each day.
This sort of works, but I'm afraid not everything can be done at home,
either. Home and office need to be separated. Perhaps more offices
within walking distance of res. areas, perhaps?
--
============================================================================
= Catch ya on the flip side! = I speak only for the Brain, in an=
= Dave Palsen(dpa...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu) = effort to take over the world. =
============================================================================
Lawrence Charap
>Such traffic jams are caused by roads with inadequate capacity. The
>obvious solution is to increase the capacity of the roads.
No, what happens is that more people use the road. This is the case
*everywhere* I have ever lived. Washington's 12-lane parking lots are one
example.
>densely populated urban areas, it is time for people to start lliving
>elsewhere. Most of the problems our big cities face are related to having
>too many people in too little space.
>[...]
>If you think about it, there is a decreasing need for people to crowd
>into densly populated urban areas. Now that we enjoy modern communications
>and computer networks, more and more people can work at home...showing
>up at the office only occasionally. That's the real solution to much
>of the traffic problem caused by commuters--arrange things so they need
>not commute as often if at all. I bet most people would much rather not
>spend an hour or two commuting each day.
Too bad for the poor buggers who don't have their own computers and fax
machines. If this was an entirely automated world, there might be something
to what you're saying... but most people still cannot make use of such tech-
nology...
Well, I guess we should screw them, shouldn't we? It would be "socialism" to
think otherwise, I suppose. Except that when I can't afford a car, it ticks
me off quite a bit to hear how unjust and fascistic it is to build public
transport... especially from people who cry "welfare" in such situations, then
defend to the death the welfare-for-the-rich programs everywhere else... one
of which is indiscriminate road-building to subsidise suburban upward mobility.
Do you realize that twenty times more is spent each year on road building than
public transport? "Welfare" is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Mark Gibson | Tyrants prefer unarmed peasants.
>gib...@bmrl.med.uiuc.edu | The meek shall inherit the dearth.
>1:233/16 (Politzania) | The Bill of Rights: Void Where Prohibited By Law.
-Lawrence C.,no .sig.
--
Adrian Brandt
> obvious solution is to increase the capacity of the roads.
In most cases there is a large (maybe even huge) *latent* (unmet)
demand for vehicle trips. The only thing preventing this latent
demand from hitting the road is the congestion. The system is in
a mode of self-regulation, to an extent.
[Building more roads has only made traffic problems worse]
> That I don't believe. If you double the capacity of the roads, and
> nothing else changes, there will be half the traffic density, on
> average, on the new system of roads.
Usually there is some relief, but it's temporary. The latent demand
kicks in pretty fast and make sure that doubled road capacity does
NOT halve the traffic density. Then, you have all kinds of
trip-generating developement decisions that either get triggered in
anticipation of, or in response to, the increased road capacity.
When the road is widened, all of the sudden you find that huge
new housing tracts are sprouting up on the urban periphery, and
I've even seen where they cite the "easy commute" on the new or
widened roadway or bridge in their big newspaper advertisements
in the Real Estate section of the Sunday papers. The developer
that's been waiting to open that new office complex or that new
hotel or business park will know that the time is right to do so
when the road is widened. The time will never be better, because
anybody that's been around a while knows that additional road
capacity doesn't last very long before you have TWICE as many
cars (many of them driving into their jobs from *even* further
out because they bought into that big new affordable development
that went on the market about the same time the new lane/road was
opened) stuck in traffic generating twice as much pollution.
That's why environmentalists around here go nuts when Caltrans (the
California Dept of Transportation) justifies their road widenings
by saying that by moving traffic along faster will cut smog. In
most cases, it may lead to an initial cut in smog/traffic, but it
is soon much worse than before. The congestion alleviated by a
widening in one place is often moved a little further down the
road (or even off the road) as more cars are delivered faster to
some other spot that is now the new "tight spot". And so the cycle
continues as there are calls to "fix" just this one more interchange
or road... More and more the realization is that you can't just
build your way out of congestion anymore around here in the urban
parts of California. That's why California is going for rail and
other alternatives in an ever increasing way...
> If things get so congested that there isn't room to build new roads in
> densely populated urban areas, it is time for people to start lliving
> elsewhere. Most of the problems our big cities face are related to having
> too many people in too little space.
Yeah, just spread out thin all over! That's great. I hate big open
natural spaces. You can never find a McDonalds or a cheesy strip mall
when you need one when you're stuck out in them. Sometimes they're
even full of strange and dangerous (but endangered) wildlife. I'm with
you (and the Pope?): populate and pave it all!
--
Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
adr...@ntmtv.com
gal...@ll.mit.edu
>In article <35a71n$h...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>>
>>
>>Such traffic jams are caused by roads with inadequate capacity. The
>>obvious solution is to increase the capacity of the roads.
>>
>>>areas.
>>
>>That I don't believe. If you double the capacity of the roads, and
>>nothing else changes, there will be half the traffic density, on average,
>
>Ah, but you see, therein lies the fundamental fallacy of your argument. Look
>around you and see if you can find a place where road capacity has increased,
>and NOTHING ELSE HAS CHANGED.
>
>Increasing road capacity is a *catalyst* for change.
>
So maybe the answer to all of our traffic problems is to remove roads.
- Robert Galejs
Daniel Convissor
>>No, it's time to fire a bunch of misguided mass-transit planners and
>>start building more roads. Remember, the food you eat is delivered by
>>roadway, not by subway!
And the cost of my food is increased due to so many people driving cars
getting in the way of the delivery truck. That congestion makes trips
take longer, so the delivery company needs more drivers and vehicles to
get things done in a timely fashion, plus overtime is needed sometimes
too. Gee, driving is VERY "effective."
--
|| D A N I E L C O N V I S S O R : Some people see things as they are
|| e-mail: dan...@panix.com : and say why.
|| Transportation Consultant : I see things that never were
|| Brooklyn, New York : and say why not. -Geo. Bernard Shaw
Rick Child
quoted as writing:
> >into densly populated urban areas. Now that we enjoy modern communications
> >and computer networks, more and more people can work at home...showing
> >up at the office only occasionally. That's the real solution to much
> >of the traffic problem caused by commuters--arrange things so they need
> >not commute as often if at all. I bet most people would much rather not
> >spend an hour or two commuting each day.
structure cannot support non-commute traffic. This is readily apparent in
the San Francisco/San Jose bay area as well as numerous other locations
across the country. Public transportation, along with rational civic
planning must play a greater role. Roads won't go away, but we need other
options.
Alice L Jones
>
>
>Such traffic jams are caused by roads with inadequate capacity. The
>obvious solution is to increase the capacity of the roads.
>
>>Building more roads has only made traffic problems worse in these
>>areas.
>
>That I don't believe. If you double the capacity of the roads, and
>nothing else changes, there will be half the traffic density, on average,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ah, but you see, therein lies the fundamental fallacy of your argument. Look
around you and see if you can find a place where road capacity has increased,
and NOTHING ELSE HAS CHANGED.
Increasing road capacity is a *catalyst* for change.
When road capacity increases, developers look and say, "Why, there's a
beautiful piece of underused road leading to virtually nowhere. I can put my
development out on it and bear no infrastructure costs." Or people say, "Why,
look at that beautiful, half-empty road! I could move my family out to some
quiet little subdivision with access to that road, and still get to work in
half an hour!" It's easy to see how this process gets repeated over and over
until so many so many people have moved into quiet little subdivisions along
the road that the 1/2 hour commute becomes 45 minutes.... an hour....
When road capacity increases, Anthony Downs' "triple-convergence principle"
happens:
1) people who used to alternate routes now hop on the road because they
see that it's empty;
2) people who used to travel at other times to avoid traffic now hop
on the road during rush hour; and
3) people who used public transit or some other form of transportation now
say, "Glory be! I can use my car again!"
And pretty soon, you're back at ground zero again. Increasing road capacity
does not decrease conjestion in the long run . . . it just increases the number
of cars that can be stuck in traffic on that road in the future.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Alice Jones | CARPE CARP!
alj...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu | (seize the fish)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Randolph Fritz
John Palkovic <palk...@desy.de> wrote:
>
>Building more roads has only made traffic problems worse in these
>areas. It does not appear possible to build road capacity fast enough
>to prevent traffic congestion. This is a well known problem (at least
>I thought it was) in urban planning in the US. Comments, anyone?
>
It's an inherent problem in all cities where land values rise high
enough, I think; the other uses of the space crowd out the use for
transport. If this is a correct analysis, it explains a lot (though
of course bad planning can aggravate congestion & good planning can
ameliorate congestion). This also suggests that, in the larger
car-oriented cities, we use too much space on cars; if, let us say,
most shopping trips were made via mass transit (commute is, I think a
more difficult problem), we would get back considerable space which
might be put to other uses.
Randolph
Daniel Convissor
>So maybe the answer to all of our traffic problems is to remove roads.
Funny you mention that! It's where this whole thing started! In
response to someone asking how to end the downward spiral of transit, I
suggested removing roadway space. My mentioning that started Mark Gibson on
a uninformed/libertarian tirade and everyone else telling him how off base
he is.
Don Anderson
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
In article <35a8l0$l...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> pmwg...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>>>areas.
>
>>nothing else changes, there will be half the traffic density, on
average,
>
>average traffic density decreases. What really happens is that greater
road
>capacity decreases the *length* of the "rush hour", not its intensity.
>People strongly prefer to work roughly 9-5, simply because those are
standard
>business hours. It can be quite difficult to arrange your day to be
7-3,
>just to avoid traffic.
>
>BTW, it is _possible_ for more roads to make traffic objectively worse,
>if you put the new capacity in the wrong places. The problem is that
>more capacity may simply shuttle people more quickly into the
bottlenecks
>causing the flux of vehicles to actually decrease. Fixing bottlenecks
>is not at all easy, especially if you can't stomach bulldozing
>prosperous businesses.
>
>--Peter
>p-w...@uiuc.edu
easy communication between the ...uh...less desirable areas of town and
the previously pleasant suburbs. Urban blight generally extends just
about as far as the metro rapid transit scope. See USN&WR Aug 15, 94
page 18.
Daniel Convissor
>Don't forget the *REAL* problem with rapid transitIt provides unwanted
>easy communication between the ...uh...less desirable areas of town and
>the previously pleasant suburbs. Urban blight generally extends just
>about as far as the metro rapid transit scope. See USN&WR Aug 15, 94
>page 18.
Let me be blunt. That is the STUPIDEST thing I've EVER seen on the net.
First, it is patently false. Second, it's racist. Sure, commuter rail
links rich and poor neighborhoods, but it is not a conveyance of blight
or crime in any significant way. It's a way for people to travel between
places where they live, work, have friends/relatives, shop, etc.
Traveling on mass transit to commit crimes is pretty rare. Actually,
some of the most blighted places in NYC have no convenient mass transit
access at all.
Let me add, "US News and World Report," from which Don paraprhrases, is a
bunch of right wing radical jerks.
T. Mark Gibson
>In <1994Sep16....@ll.mit.edu> gal...@ll.mit.edu writes:
>>So maybe the answer to all of our traffic problems is to remove roads.
>Funny you mention that! It's where this whole thing started! In
>response to someone asking how to end the downward spiral of transit, I
>suggested removing roadway space. My mentioning that started Mark Gibson on
>a uninformed/libertarian tirade and everyone else telling him how off base
>he is.
Only in your drug-induced little dreams, Danny...
You are the one who is way off base and you know it, but you are to much
the coward to admit it. Your job security depends upon the continued
promotion of the mass-transit rip-off.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Gibson | Tyrants prefer unarmed peasants.
gib...@bmrl.med.uiuc.edu | The meek shall inherit the dearth.
1:233/16 (Politzania) | The Bill of Rights: Void Where Prohibited By Law.
T. Mark Gibson
>In article <35a71n$h...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> gib...@bmrl.med.uiuc.edu (T. Mark Gibson) writes:
>>Such traffic jams are caused by roads with inadequate capacity. The
>>obvious solution is to increase the capacity of the roads.
>No, what happens is that more people use the road. This is the case
>*everywhere* I have ever lived. Washington's 12-lane parking lots are one
>example.
There are a finite number of people with motor vehicles. As one increases
the capacity of the roads, the traffic density MUST decrease.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Gibson | Tyrants prefer unarmed peasants.
gib...@bmrl.med.uiuc.edu | The meek shall inherit the dearth.
1:233/16 (Politzania) | The Bill of Rights: Void Where Prohibited By Law.
Colin R. Leech
In a previous article, palk...@desy.de (John Palkovic) says:
>Building more roads has only made traffic problems worse in these
>areas. It does not appear possible to build road capacity fast enough
>to prevent traffic congestion.
Adding capacity merely encourages increased trip making.
>This is a well known problem (at least
>I thought it was) in urban planning in the US. Comments, anyone?
You've hit the nail on the head!
--
Colin R. Leech |-> Civil Engineer by training,
ag...@freenet.carleton.ca |-> Transportation Planner by choice,
h:613-224-2301 w:613-741-6440 |-> Trombonist by hobby.
My opinions are my own, not my employer's. You may consider them shareware.
Gareth Newfield
: There are a finite number of people with motor vehicles. As one increases
: the capacity of the roads, the traffic density MUST decrease.
Yes at any given moment there probably is a finite number of people with
cars, but with every new moment there are more. It is proven, obvious
and demonstrated daily that as road capacity increases so car ownership and
usage also increase, except usually at a much faster pace.
There are several reasons for the increase in car ownership, one is that
cars are more heavily subsidized than any other form of transportation, and as
monies are diverted away from other modes of transportation the car becomes
more viable or necessary from the point of view of an individual's pocket.
Personally I often need to drive to work, and the reason is simple because
companies that were formally in the city have been given grants and
subsidies to move out of the city, where transportation is difficult for the
carless. As more and more people decide to buy a car, more and more parking
and roads are built, lowering the density and creating more need to drive,
and on and on. In the last 20 years in the Chicago Metropolitan area the
population grew about 4% and yet the land used has grown nearly 50%. Much
of this rampant growth in land use is for new and wider roads. As someone
who loves the country AND the city, I find this destruction of both to be
very sad.
One may think that everyone that would or could own a car already does
own a car. This is not the case and new registrations are being issued at
many times the population growth rate.
In short I agree with you that we should not force people to pay for or
use any given form of transportation. It turns out though that the most
costly, heavily subsidized, and ineficient form of transportation to be
foisted upon us is the automobile system.
As to your assertion that we all benefit from goods carried on roads? This
is very silly, we all benefit from electrcity that companies use to make
products, and yet should we subsidize electricity? Water? The raw materials
used? No. Anyway you probably don't realize that as much freight is carried
by railroad as is carried by trucks, and that it used to be that much more
was carried by railroad at far less cost to the taxpayer and environment.
Gareth
Colin R. Leech
In a previous article, e...@larry.gsfc.nasa.gov (Edward Hartnett) says:
>>>>>> "T" == T Mark Gibson <gib...@bmrl.med.uiuc.edu> writes:
> T> Such traffic jams are caused by roads with inadequate capacity. The
> T> obvious solution is to increase the capacity of the roads.
>
>Obvious and also wrong.
>
>LA has freeways bigger then anywhere else in the world. They also have
>one of the worst traffic situations in the world. If you were correct
>there would never be a traffic jam in LA, because they have always had
>the biggest freeways.
Same goes for Houston (or was it Dallas? I always get them mixed up!).
> T> and computer networks, more and more people can work at home...
According to your "free market" analysis, they should be doing so already
in large numbers. Yet a miniscule percentage do so.
The last thing we need to do is cause even more environmental degradation
by emptying out our cities and sprawling all over the countryside in
single houses with lots of grass around each one, and then having to
drive dozens of miles into the towns to get groceries, see friends, etc.
This planet simply cannot support 6 billion people this way. Cities are a
necessary evil, so we might as well figure out how to make them work to
our advantage.
Colin R. Leech
In a previous article, gib...@bmrl.med.uiuc.edu (T. Mark Gibson) says:
>smi...@pobox.upenn.edu (Exile on Market Street) writes:
>
>>An aside: I assume you've read your Jane Jacobs. So far, I've seen
>>nothing that refutes one of her principal assertions, which is that the
>>automobile is at heart an anti-urban form of transportation. She phrased
>>this view in _The Death and Life of Great American Cities_ as a choice:
>>"the erosion of cities by cars or the attrition of cars by cities." The
>
>No, I haven't read anything by Jane Jacobs that I can recall.
>Can you give me a title that I should look for?
The answer is in the paragraph above.
>I'm not convinced that we shouldn't abandon our big cities. They seem to
>be the source of many of the worst problems we face as a society--poverty,
>crime, pollution, high prices, excessive government, etc.
The idea that density is the major contributing factor to social problems
is fallacious and has been disproven. There are a lot of other
contrbuting social ills (which we will leave to other newsgroups to discuss).
Don Anderson
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
writes:
make arguments like yours when you haven't reviewed the
evidence. The copyright holders shouldn't get their noses
too far out of joint if I quote some of the highlights:
--
*****from USN&WR Aug 15 1994, page 18:
...A new train stop tucked in the trees...would let Linthicum remain
a small town while giving its people easy access to the shops, culture,
and jobs of nearby Baltimore....But that was a year ago before inner
city troubles arrived...before light rail became known as "loot rail."
...County sheriff Robert Pepersack, says he is comfortable riding the
train only because he's "a law enforcement official with a 9-mm
pistol." ... State Senator Michael Wagner insists, "We have to
address the problems, ... We can't run from them."
******
-
Dan, you have some problems, too. You have probably been living
in New York City for so long you have no concept of what gracious
suburban living can be like. There are plenty of areas of the country
where you don't need bars on the doors and windows, and six
deadbolts, to feel safe and have your property protected.
-
Also I wonder if you make your living from rapid transit or related
enterprises and come unglued if someone dares reveal the ugly truth
about your baby.
-
If "less desirable" conjures up minorities in your mind, that's your
racism, not mine. Are you one of those thin-skinned
African-Americans by chance?
-
I subscribe to Time, Newsweek, and USN&WR and do not see any
significant un-natural distortion in USN's editorial posture, it is a
mainstream news magazine, not "right-wing radical jerks" as you
put it. Newsweek has better writers, though.
Again, go read the article!
-
Now shame on you, Dan, stop shooting the messenger. I think you
made a 30-second knee-jerk response to someone who shot down
your sacred cow. Admit it, the "loot rail" phenomenon is real.
You owe me an apology.
-
Big Don <big...@eskimo.com>
Daniel Convissor
>*****from USN&WR Aug 15 1994, page 18:
>...A new train stop tucked in the trees...would let Linthicum remain
>a small town while giving its people easy access to the shops, culture,
>and jobs of nearby Baltimore....But that was a year ago before inner
>city troubles arrived...before light rail became known as "loot rail."
>...County sheriff Robert Pepersack, says he is comfortable riding the
>train only because he's "a law enforcement official with a 9-mm
>pistol." ... State Senator Michael Wagner insists, "We have to
>address the problems, ... We can't run from them."
>******
Sounds like right wing drivel to me.
>Dan, you have some problems, too. You have probably been living
>in New York City for so long you have no concept of what gracious
>suburban living can be like. There are plenty of areas of the country
>where you don't need bars on the doors and windows, and six
>deadbolts, to feel safe and have your property protected.
Sure, I have problems, but you haven't identified any of them. I grew up
in the suburbs and my parents still live there. I have traveled
extensively in the region's suburbs as well. That's funny, I don't feel
awkward leaving my front door open in my Brooklyn neighborhood.
>Also I wonder if you make your living from rapid transit or related
>enterprises and come unglued if someone dares reveal the ugly truth
>about your baby.
No, I don't work for a transportation provider. "Ugly truth?" Hardly.
>If "less desirable" conjures up minorities in your mind, that's your
>racism, not mine. Are you one of those thin-skinned
>African-Americans by chance?
Get real.
>Now shame on you, Dan, stop shooting the messenger. I think you
>made a 30-second knee-jerk response to someone who shot down
>your sacred cow. Admit it, the "loot rail" phenomenon is real.
>You owe me an apology.
Bullshit. That may be "real" in a few areas, but your original statement
was a generalization about transit that just doesn't work on the whole.
Even more importantly, the spin you put on your original post sounded
like city scum is going out to the burbs and robbing homes. From the
article you quoted, it seems they are talking about crime while riding
the transit system itself. In New York City, the subway is safer than
the streets. Here's some data to prove that:
Travel by transit and railroad is far safer than by motor vehicle:
47,903 Killed by motor vehicles (US, 1988)
510 Killed by railroads (US, 1988)
19 Killed by rail rapid transit (US, 1988)
35 Homicides to cab drivers (NYC, 1989)
20 Homicides on the NYC transit system (1989)
==================================
153,385 Larcenies of and from autos (NYC, 1990, first 8 months)
11,958 Larcenies on NYC transit system (1990, first 8 months)
12.8 Times more incidents in autos
x .8 Times more people using autos
-------
16.4 Times more larcenies per traveler
**************************
615 Auto related deaths (crashes only) (NYC, 1989)
220 Deaths in the NYC transit system (all means of death,
such as, homicides, suicides and heart attacks) ('89)
2.8 Times more incidents in autos
x .8 Times more people using autos
-------
3.6 Times more deaths per traveler
In calculating times more incidents per rider: 42.8% of all person trips
are taken by auto and 54.6% by transit, accounting for 97.4% of all trips
in survey of motorized modes. Comparing the auto/transit mode split
only, autos are used 43.9% and transit 56.1% (equaling 100%). Thus,
there are .8 times as many people using cars in NYC.
T. Mark Gibson
>T. Mark Gibson (gib...@bmrl.med.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>: There are a finite number of people with motor vehicles. As one increases
>: the capacity of the roads, the traffic density MUST decrease.
>Yes at any given moment there probably is a finite number of people with
>cars, but with every new moment there are more. It is proven, obvious
>and demonstrated daily that as road capacity increases so car ownership and
>usage also increase, except usually at a much faster pace.
Where's your proof? Can't find any? Hmmm?
Robert K. Lincoln
Having followed this thread for a while now, I think it time that some
grownups stepped in and raised the level of the conversation.
First - Dan Convissor made a radical suggestion (deleting roadway space) that
could have engendered some legitimate debate.
Points:
1) In many street/highway systems there are "irrational" interconnections
that could removed (see the "blocking streets combats crime) and result in an
effective increase in throughput. The reason: intersections and merge lanes
create chaotic traffic patterns when the street or highway is operating at a
low level of service and is densely packed with vehicles.
2) In some cases, converting existing lanes or medians to express bus lanes
might change the commute calculus for enough drivers to result in a net
increase.
Unfortunately, Daniel has slipped into lots of sarcastic and relatively
indefensible comments [c'mon, are you really going to posit bus and rail as
means of delivering commercial goods within the city?????]
Second - As far as the "more roads = less congestion" debate goes; the
problem *is* that travel patterns are the result of long term effects of
investment and social behavior, both of which are affected by the form and
extent of public investment in ****any*** transportation technology. We are
currently coming down off a 40 binge of investment in "interstate" highways
that generally included highspeed bypasses and beltways (the "195" or
"496" type roads) whose primary function has been making exurban land
available for urban levels of development (generally in suburban patterns).
This investment was a necessary (though perhaps not sufficient) impetus to
massive shifts in land use -- the suburbs and edge cities. Thus investment
in transportation facilities will always produce long run changes in land use
that result in greater use of the facilities.
Note also that many of these investments were programmed a long time ago.
These shifts are ****long**run****. Road building decisions made in the
early 70's may only be producing their natural effects today. Building the
same roads (or expanding them) is much more expensive that it was 25 years ago
and light years more expensive than in the early 50's, when the Interstate
projects began. We probably cannot sustain the future investment in road
capacity necessary to continue to develop exurban areas into the forms that
were created by the 50's-70's investments. [BTW, this means that the
scholarship that seeks to argue that the polycentric form of cities (i.e. edge
cities, suburbs, office nodes and malls) has a) allowed constant commute times
and b) is therefore OK social policy is a wrongheaded planning notion, because
we won't be able to replicate the conditions that allowed the adjustments that
they base their work on.
The long run problem of our massive investment in roads as a primary
transportation technology is worsened by current demographic and employment
trends. In short, the tendency to live farther out, combined with a) lower
persons per household, b) two-earner families and c) teen-agers driving [often
their own cars] and working longer distances from home, have resulted in an
explosion in trips per household and net distances driven (miles per year per
person). This is exacerbated by the increasing social distances created
between "drivers" and "mass transit users," that is, we're marginalizing
transit users socially and creating the impression that "good people don't do
that" [take mass transit]. The social stigmatization of mass transit may now
be the most important limit on its expansion and further use.
Three -- The right wing nasties on the net.
Big Don and the other "anti-transit, pro-car" comments by *Mark?* are
indicative of a "I want mine, screw you" attitude all too common among
non-professionals involved in planning issues. Sure there's crime and social
interaction problems associated with interconnecting different areas, but
they're a lot more severe today because we've been engaged in a pathological
quest to separate classes and races over the last 40 years. Just because more
poor people commit crimes doesn't justify pinning them all into the city with
each other, but what you're suggesting [Big Don] is that its OK for us to use
transportation policy to pen the criminal poor in with the law-abiding poor.
This policy is no more moral and proper than making human sacrifices to the
Gods to prevent volcano eruptions or other catastrophes.
The bottom line is that our tranportation investments policy has benefitted
the middle and upper classes for the last forty years, while not-so-benignly
neglecting the needs of the urban poor. Now, in a time of increasing costs
and decreasing tax resources to fund those investments, the middle class is
demanding that their interests in maintaining their lifestyle and social
prejudices surrounding automobile use be protected no matter what the long
term consequences to the environment, the economy or the status of the poor
-- basically by maintaining and increasing massive subsidies to the highway
system. That's poor planning on an instrumental level, and poor social policy
on a normative level.
Is rail the answer? Busways? Distributed forms like min-buses? Can
technology increase road capacity at less marginal cost than new construction?
Can pricing strategies spread traffic around by changing the economic
calculus? Do we have to change the ways we regulate land (minimum instead of
maximum densities, street and pedestrian layouts that facilitate walking and
transit use) to change behavior and social values to support less
individualistic transportation technologies? Planners have to find out, not
just take positions or whine, and it's an incredible problem because the
decisions have to be made now and every day, even though all the data isn't
available. These are real questions that require sophisticated answers, not
just Net-Posturing. Let's raise the level of the debate and make this Group a
useful forum.
Best to All,
Robert Lincoln, Assistant Professor
Michigan State University
16852rkl@msu -- Opinions expressed are mine alone.
Edward Hartnett
T> lg...@quads.uchicago.edu (Lawrence Charap) writes:
>> In article <35a71n$h...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> gib...@bmrl.med.uiuc.edu (T. Mark Gibson) writes:
>>> Such traffic jams are caused by roads with inadequate capacity. The
>>> obvious solution is to increase the capacity of the roads.
>> No, what happens is that more people use the road. This is the case
>> *everywhere* I have ever lived. Washington's 12-lane parking lots are one
>> example.
T> There are a finite number of people with motor vehicles. As one increases
T> the capacity of the roads, the traffic density MUST decrease.
If you keep saying this over and over, it still won't be true,
unfortunately. Otherwise we could still have as many cars as we did in
the '30s.
Don Anderson
<35ivna$p...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
years, 8-mile each way, even in the snow and ice, here in Western
Washington (that's the *Other* Washington for you Right-Coasters).
When traffic got bad my commute was half the time of an automobile,
pass-em-all on the shoulder and get thru intersection on the fiirst
light. Planner types need to educate employers on need for
lockers and bike safe-keeping facilities. All new bridges out here have
bike lanes. Many existing and planned recreational pathways provide
convenient and safe routes. You can crank all this into the zoning and
permitting processes if you are progressive and have vision.
-
Public organization of car pools and van pools is big time out here too.
-
Big Don <big...@eskimo.com>
... NO LOOT RAIL **
Edward Hartnett
T> gar...@metl.chi.il.us (Gareth Newfield) writes:
>> T. Mark Gibson (gib...@bmrl.med.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>>> There are a finite number of people with motor vehicles. As one increases
>>> the capacity of the roads, the traffic density MUST decrease.
>> Yes at any given moment there probably is a finite number of people with
>> cars, but with every new moment there are more. It is proven, obvious
>> and demonstrated daily that as road capacity increases so car ownership and
>> usage also increase, except usually at a much faster pace.
T> Where's your proof? Can't find any? Hmmm?
Look around. If what you said were true, then why do we need more
highways? We have enough to meet the damands of 1970, right?
Joseph Barr
didn't feel like requoting):
I think that cause and effect are being mixed up here. Just because there
happens to be uban blight along transit lines, doesn't mean that it was
caused by those transit lines. The causes of uban blight are very
complicated, and can't be summed up in the statement "It was caused by that
damn subway line". As I (and others) have said before, try reading Jane
Jacobs "The Death and Life of Great American Cities". Note that she has
"Life" second in the list, indicating that there is hope. Bad planning of a
rapid transit line, or a highway, or almost any other transportation
structure, can have a disastrous affect on the area around it. However, good
planning of any of those can have a positive effect. All over the place, a
well paced transit line can be a valuable tool for urban revitalization. But
they can also be bad. Transit lines are not the be all and end all (or even
necessarily an incredibly important element) of urban problems / solutions.
Sometimes they are important, other times unimportant. What IS important is
that we don't get caught up in sweeping generalizations as a means of avoiding
dealing with the real, more complicated problems.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Joseph E. Barr (jo...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu)
Student; Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois (708) 332-4945
GO WILDCATS!! NU: 14 Air Force: 10 (1-1-1)
Bob Janssens
>Don't forget the *REAL* problem with rapid transitIt provides unwanted
>easy communication between the ...uh...less desirable areas of town and
>the previously pleasant suburbs. Urban blight generally extends just
>about as far as the metro rapid transit scope. See USN&WR Aug 15, 94
>page 18.
You could also argue that "suburban blight" extends about as far as the
boundaries of the metro rapid transit scope. Take a metro area like
Chicago. I consider the only pleasant parts of the suburbs the downtown
areas that surround commuter rail stations. As for suburbs I would
actually like to live in, I can think of two of the top of my head,
Evanston and Oak Park. They also happen to be the only two major
suburbs served by the CTA rapid transit.
Bob
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Janssens jans...@uiuc.edu U. of Illinois Urbana, IL 61801 USA
WWW: <a href="http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/~bj4409/bob.html">home page</a>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Convissor
>Unfortunately, Daniel has slipped into lots of sarcastic and relatively
>indefensible comments [c'mon, are you really going to posit bus and rail as
>means of delivering commercial goods within the city?????]
Huh? I never said that. But I won't say that it doesn't happen, though.
In New York City, movement of small commercial items does take place by
messengers using the subways and buses.
Daniel Convissor
>>*****from USN&WR Aug 15 1994, page 18:
>>But that was a year ago before inner
>>city troubles arrived...before light rail became known as "loot rail."
I just got the Aug/Sep edition of "Moving People," which mentions this
article. They mentioned that there is no enforcement of the
Proof-Of-Payment fare system, thus people can get on for free. In NYC,
crime has been significantly reduced by cracking down on fare evasion.
T. Mark Gibson
>>>>>> "T" == T Mark Gibson <gib...@bmrl.med.uiuc.edu> writes:
> >>> Such traffic jams are caused by roads with inadequate capacity. The
> >>> obvious solution is to increase the capacity of the roads.
> >> No, what happens is that more people use the road. This is the case
> >> *everywhere* I have ever lived. Washington's 12-lane parking lots are
> >> one example.
> T> There are a finite number of people with motor vehicles. As one
> T> increases the capacity of the roads, the traffic density MUST decrease.
>If you keep saying this over and over, it still won't be true,
>unfortunately. Otherwise we could still have as many cars as we did in
>the '30s.
I'm talking about a reasonably short time frame, say ten years. The number
of people who drive isn't going to jump dramatically in ten years, but it
is certainly possible to dramatically increase the capacity of our roads in
ten years.
If we doubled the capacity of the roads over the next ten years, the number
of drivers would not double, nor would the number of miles people drive
double.
T. Mark Gibson
>>>>>> "T" == T Mark Gibson <gib...@bmrl.med.uiuc.edu> writes:
> T> gar...@metl.chi.il.us (Gareth Newfield) writes:
> >> T. Mark Gibson (gib...@bmrl.med.uiuc.edu) wrote:
> >>> There are a finite number of people with motor vehicles. As one
> >>> increases the capacity of the roads, the traffic density MUST decrease.
> >> Yes at any given moment there probably is a finite number of people with
> >> cars, but with every new moment there are more. It is proven, obvious
> >> and demonstrated daily that as road capacity increases so car ownership and
> >> usage also increase, except usually at a much faster pace.
> T> Where's your proof? Can't find any? Hmmm?
>Look around. If what you said were true, then why do we need more
>highways? We have enough to meet the damands of 1970, right?
Is the population of all urban areas the same as it was in the 70s? No?
Ron Newman
>*****from USN&WR Aug 15 1994, page 18:
>...A new train stop tucked in the trees...would let Linthicum remain
>a small town while giving its people easy access to the shops, culture,
>and jobs of nearby Baltimore....But that was a year ago before inner
>city troubles arrived...before light rail became known as "loot rail."
>...County sheriff Robert Pepersack, says he is comfortable riding the
>train only because he's "a law enforcement official with a 9-mm
>pistol." ... State Senator Michael Wagner insists, "We have to
>address the problems, ... We can't run from them."
OK, I read the US News article. When 1300 people, out of a total
population of 7500, sign a petition to close the town's light-rail stop,
there's a problem that needs to be addressed--even if it's only a
perception problem.
The article says that after the light-rail opened, "bikes started
disappearing from porches, lawn equipment from sheds." Can you take a
bicycle on Baltimore light-rail, or are the theives coming to
Linthicum on the train and leaving on stolen bicycles? And wouldn't
someone look pretty suspicious lugging a lawnmower through suburban
streets and boarding a train with it? You probably wouldn't buy a
stereo system or a TV and bring it home on the streetcar; I doubt
many criminals would try to transport one that way either.
I also agree with Dan Convisser that fare enforcement is in order
here. The Baltimore MTA ought to deploy enough inspectors to check
the tickets of *everyone* entering or leaving the train at this stop for
a few weeks.
>I subscribe to Time, Newsweek, and USN&WR and do not see any
>significant un-natural distortion in USN's editorial posture, it is a
>mainstream news magazine, not "right-wing radical jerks" as you
>put it. Newsweek has better writers, though.
>Again, go read the article!
I concur that US News is a mainstream magazine, a little
more conservative than Time and Newsweek, but by no means part of the
right-wing fringe. And yes, people should try to read this article
before commenting on it.
>Admit it, the "loot rail" phenomenon is real.
It sounds real....but why doesn't it happen here in Boston? I live
one block from the Davis Square Red Line station in Somerville, Mass.,
and it hasn't brought the crime problems of Roxbury and Dorchester to
Somerville.
The MBTA Green Line's "D" branch snakes its way through the expensive
suburbs of Brookline and Newton, and it doesn't seem to have brought
violent crime there either. Sure, it costs $2 in exact change to come
back from Newton, but I can't believe that's really a deterrent to
criminals.
And if any MBTA line was going to be a vector for crime, surely it
would be the "High-Speed Trolley" that connects Dorchester's Ashmont
Red Line station with Mattapan Square, by way of expensive suburban
Milton. But again, it doesn't happen here.
--
Ron Newman rne...@athena.mit.edu
Don Anderson
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
transportation, just *a lot* of it. Another good technique, if you are
into botched urban planning, is to rezone and permit building of a huge
number of apartment units in a previously low-density suburb. Then wait
a few years for an economic down-cycle so the vacancy rate increases
forcing the apt operator to go Section 8. Oh yes, also build a huge new
"social services" complex ( or whatever the PC terminology is these days
for welfare office) and you have an instant iinner city, oops, make that
"mid city." Build the complex right in the middle of all these
apartments. Do this, and you have Kent, Wa, USA, the high-density
housing capitol, and botched urban planning capitol, of the Great
Northwest!
-
Big Don <big...@eskimo.com>
*** NO LOOT RAIL ***
Orc
>>[his usual rant]
>If "less desirable" conjures up minorities in your mind, that's your
>racism, not mine. Are you one of those thin-skinned
>African-Americans by chance?
Speaking of racism, perhaps you could have chosen a better
insult for this particular paragraph.
>Admit it, the "loot rail" phenomenon is real.
Proof? I keep hearing this from transit foes, but have not yet
seen anything supporting or contradicting it. (Though I'll admit
that the idea of somebody robbing a house, then trotting out to the
bus-stop and waiting for a bus [with a bagful of good silver and
china] is more hilarious then threatening.)
When I had my house robbed, the five-finger discounters parked a
car in the alley and shovelled all of my possessions into it. And
this with an elevated station all of one block away. Apparently
nobody bothered to tell them that modern criminals always take the
train.
____
david parsons \bi/ perhaps they didn't listen to the anti-transit folks.
\/
Joseph Barr
><CwDD8...@eskimo.com> <35kp1q$c...@news.acns.nwu.edu>
>I don't claim that *all* urban blight is caused by public
>transportation, just *a lot* of it. Another good technique, if you are
>into botched urban planning, is to rezone and permit building of a huge
>number of apartment units in a previously low-density suburb. Then wait
>a few years for an economic down-cycle so the vacancy rate increases
>forcing the apt operator to go Section 8. Oh yes, also build a huge new
>"social services" complex ( or whatever the PC terminology is these days
>for welfare office) and you have an instant iinner city, oops, make that
>"mid city." Build the complex right in the middle of all these
>apartments. Do this, and you have Kent, Wa, USA, the high-density
>housing capitol, and botched urban planning capitol, of the Great
>Northwest!
>-
>Big Don <big...@eskimo.com>
> *** NO LOOT RAIL ***
Well, I claim that NO urban blight is caused by rapid transit. If you have
that low an opinion of transit users, then don't forget that you are insulting
a lot of people. Also, see the previous explanations of why crime by transit
is sort of a silly idea. Also, highways cause much more urban blight than any
transit infrastructure. It is usually the physical infrastructure, not the
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Colin R. Leech
In a previous article, alj...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Alice L Jones) says:
>Increasing road capacity is a *catalyst* for change. [...]
>When road capacity increases, Anthony Downs' "triple-convergence principle"
>happens:
> 1) people who used to alternate routes now hop on the road because they
> see that it's empty;
> 2) people who used to travel at other times to avoid traffic now hop
> on the road during rush hour; and
> 3) people who used public transit or some other form of transportation now
> say, "Glory be! I can use my car again!"
4) New trips that were too difficult previously are now made
5) New developments of urban sprawl farther and farther out (described in
your previous paragraph which I deleted)
Patricia Thompson
: >In article <35a71n$h...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>
: >gib...@bmrl.med.uiuc.edu (T. Mark Gibson) writes:
: >>Such traffic jams are caused by roads with inadequate capacity. The
: >>obvious solution is to increase the capacity of the roads.
: >No, what happens is that more people use the road. This is the case
: >*everywhere* I have ever lived. Washington's 12-lane parking lots are one
: >example.
: There are a finite number of people with motor vehicles. As one increases
: the capacity of the roads, the traffic density MUST decrease.
Logically correct, but observably not true. When I lived in Southern
California, about 100 meters North of the San Bernardino Freeway, we
prayed for the opening of the Pomona Freeway, running parallel to the San
Bernardino Freeway, about 4 miles South, for some relief in commuter
traffic. The first day the Pomona Freeway opened, we got some relief. A
week after the Pomona Freeway opened, the traffic on *both* the San
Bernardino Freeway and the Pomona Freeway was worse than before the
Pomona Freeway opened. The consensus was that freeways secretly breed
cars under the on-ramps (sort of like the Queen Alien in the movie
'Aliens', only nastier):-)
--
Gene Thompson patr...@comtch.iea.com
Spokane,WA
T. Mark Gibson
Heheheheh!!!
OK, I oversimplified. There are two possible explanations of the effect
you described: (1) people see that nice new road and decide to drive more,
and (2) people abandon whatever roads they used to use and take the nice
new one. Note that the first explanation involves an actual increase in
road usage, while the second one describes a shift in road usage.
Personally, I don't think that (1) is much of a factor, but you won't have
any difficulty convincing me that (2) is.
Edward Hartnett
T> e...@larry.gsfc.nasa.gov (Edward Hartnett) writes:
>>>>>>> "T" == T Mark Gibson <gib...@bmrl.med.uiuc.edu> writes:
>> >>> Such traffic jams are caused by roads with inadequate capacity. The
>> >>> obvious solution is to increase the capacity of the roads.
>> >> No, what happens is that more people use the road. This is the case
>> >> *everywhere* I have ever lived. Washington's 12-lane parking lots are
>> >> one example.
T> There are a finite number of people with motor vehicles. As one
T> increases the capacity of the roads, the traffic density MUST decrease.
>> If you keep saying this over and over, it still won't be true,
>> unfortunately. Otherwise we could still have as many cars as we did in
>> the '30s.
T> I'm talking about a reasonably short time frame, say ten years. The number
T> of people who drive isn't going to jump dramatically in ten years, but it
T> is certainly possible to dramatically increase the capacity of our roads in
T> ten years.
T> If we doubled the capacity of the roads over the next ten years, the number
T> of drivers would not double, nor would the number of miles people drive
T> double.
Oh, you should have made it clear that you were engaging in a
discussion that had no relationship to the real world of roads and
cars, then I never would have bothered replying.
If I could wave my magic wand and double the size of the beltway this
afternoon, people would get home a lot faster!
Please, Mark, if you want to have a reasonable discussion, be
reasonable. Firstly, in what city could one possible double the road
capacity in anything like ten years? To double the road capacity in
D.C., even supposing they had the space (they don't) and the money
(they don't) would still take more then ten years, even if the doubled
the size of their roads department.
Furthermore I doubt ten years is short enough for this hypothetical
double-the-roads/halve-the-trafic plan. Probably within five years or
less more people would be driving on those roads. The beltway around
D.C. did not take anything like ten years to start getting congested.
Edward Hartnett
T> e...@larry.gsfc.nasa.gov (Edward Hartnett) writes:
>>>>>>> "T" == T Mark Gibson <gib...@bmrl.med.uiuc.edu> writes:
T> gar...@metl.chi.il.us (Gareth Newfield) writes:
>> >> T. Mark Gibson (gib...@bmrl.med.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>> >>> There are a finite number of people with motor vehicles. As one
>> >>> increases the capacity of the roads, the traffic density MUST decrease.
>> >> Yes at any given moment there probably is a finite number of people with
>> >> cars, but with every new moment there are more. It is proven, obvious
>> >> and demonstrated daily that as road capacity increases so car ownership and
>> >> usage also increase, except usually at a much faster pace.
T> Where's your proof? Can't find any? Hmmm?
>> Look around. If what you said were true, then why do we need more
>> highways? We have enough to meet the damands of 1970, right?
T> Is the population of all urban areas the same as it was in the 70s? No?
So what are you saying Mark?
I am saying that increasing road capacity will not help the traffic
problem. You are saying it will, or at least that's what you were
saying.
Now what is your point? If by proof you are demanding a city that
nothing has changed in, except the road capacity, for 20 years, then I
guess you never will see any proof.
Oh, sorry, you seem to be demanding that *all* urban areas stay
completely static before you will condecend to examine them. Well, all
I can say is, you probably can learn more about transit issues by
studying real examples than you can by thinking up new theories while
you drive around in your car. But maybe that's just my old-fashioned
attitude.
Don Anderson
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
writes:
>>In <CwDD8...@eskimo.com> big...@eskimo.com (Don Anderson) writes:
>
>>>*****from USN&WR Aug 15 1994, page 18:
>>>city troubles arrived...before light rail became known as "loot
rail."
>
>article. They mentioned that there is no enforcement of the
>Proof-Of-Payment fare system, thus people can get on for free. In NYC,
>crime has been significantly reduced by cracking down on fare evasion.
>|| D A N I E L C O N V I S S O R : Some people see things as they
are
>|| e-mail: dan...@panix.com : and say why.
>|| Transportation Consultant : I see things that never were
>|| Brooklyn, New York : and say why not. -Geo.
Bernard Shaw
On Sept 19, 1994, the Associated Press (no doubt another "radical
right-wing bunch of jerks," eh Dan?) released a story about a Trumbull,
CT shopping mall which is trying to stop transit service from
Brideport,CT (a nearby, apparently inner-city kind of place, which holds
the CT record for number of murders last year). The mall thinks teens
from Bridgeport who arrive at the mall via transit are causing excessive
trouble. The Bridgeport Transit system is protesting (racism) since
many of the problem kids are Black.
-
I suppose the Bridgeport system also has no Proof-of-Fare process
either !!????
-
Big Don <big...@eskimo.com>
*** NO LOOT RAIL ****
Rolf Mantel
Mark> There are a finite number of people with motor vehicles. As
Mark> one increases the capacity of the roads, the traffic density
Mark> MUST decrease.
On a global picture: yes. But there is no reason why the traffic
should decrease locally, and the global traffic density is very low to
start with.
Also, extra roads might mean that some more people buy cars, thus
reducing the effect in global terms as well.
Rolf
--
Rolf Mantel, * ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk @ ) _ _
Dept. of Mathematics, * r...@maths.warwick.ac.uk /\ * | |_| |
University of Warwick, * _`\ `_(== | |
Coventry CV4 7AL, England * ________________________(_)/_(_)______ | |
Exile on Market Street
Mark Gibson) wrote:
> Heheheheh!!!
>
> OK, I oversimplified. There are two possible explanations of the effect
> you described: (1) people see that nice new road and decide to drive more,
> and (2) people abandon whatever roads they used to use and take the nice
> new one. Note that the first explanation involves an actual increase in
> road usage, while the second one describes a shift in road usage.
>
> Personally, I don't think that (1) is much of a factor, but you won't have
> any difficulty convincing me that (2) is.
Been following Colin Leech's posts on the subject, Mark?
Since I am not employed in the profession, I do not have the studies at
hand or the citations, nor am I inclined right now to go wading through
the stacks in our Engineering School library in search of them. But the
gist is that new road capacity has had the -- yes, logically perverse, but
nonetheless quantifiable -- effect of generating new trips by car not
previously taken, even above and beyond the population increase during the
construction period and/or growth in auto registrations.
At least this is true for high-grade arterials and expressways. Maybe if
we mandated that all new roads be local.... :-)
-Sandy F. Smith, Jr.----...@mac.dev.upenn.edu, smi...@pobox.upenn.edu-
"Exile on Market Street" in the Penn Office of News and Public Affairs
Suite 1B South, 3624 Market St, Philadelphia, PA 19104-2615 / 215-898-8721
(Opinions mine, NOT Penn's. If they want 'em, they gotta pay for 'em.)
"It just goes to show you the flexibility of the human organism that
people who would willingly sit in the mud and chant 'no rain' periodically
between badly amplified rock groups could suddenly turn out to be the ones
to run the U.S. economy."
-------------------The late Frank Zappa, on the first "Woodstock Nation"--
John Eaton
: >Don't forget the *REAL* problem with rapid transitIt provides unwanted
: >easy communication between the ...uh...less desirable areas of town and
: >the previously pleasant suburbs. Urban blight generally extends just
: >about as far as the metro rapid transit scope. See USN&WR Aug 15, 94
: >page 18.
: Let me be blunt. That is the STUPIDEST thing I've EVER seen on the net.
: First, it is patently false. Second, it's racist. Sure, commuter rail
: links rich and poor neighborhoods, but it is not a conveyance of blight
: or crime in any significant way. It's a way for people to travel between
: places where they live, work, have friends/relatives, shop, etc.
: Traveling on mass transit to commit crimes is pretty rare. Actually,
: some of the most blighted places in NYC have no convenient mass transit
: access at all.
Thats why they are some of the most blighted places in NYC. Most cities in
Europe have fairly decent transit systems that will get you around in the
city. They also do not have the same level of problems with ghettos as we
do in this country. The reason is that you can live in a bad neighborhood
in Europe and still be able to work anywhere in the city.
Most systems in this country are designed to get people in and out of the
city center. Going between neighborhoods is not always that efficient.
If you find a job with weird hours in a distant neighborhood then you may
find that you cannot get there on mass transist. Thats what makes a ghetto
because the residents can't get to the jobs.
John Eaton
!hp-vcd!johne
Colin R. Leech
In a previous article, big...@eskimo.com (Don Anderson) says:
>Don't forget the *REAL* problem with rapid transitIt provides unwanted
>easy communication between the ...uh...less desirable areas of town and
>the previously pleasant suburbs.
Horsecookies. You think that roads don't provide access between the
different sections of town as well??
Exile on Market Street
(Ron Newman) wrote:
> In article <CwDD8...@eskimo.com>, Don Anderson <big...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> >Admit it, the "loot rail" phenomenon is real.
>
> It sounds real....but why doesn't it happen here in Boston?
Or in Los Angeles, or San Diego, or here in the Philly suburbs, or St.
Louis, or in Portland (just down a ways from where Big Don lives), or....
Now I have not read the article, either, but when I combine Ron's
additional information with Daniel's info about non-enforcement of the POP
system, what I conclude is that:
--The "crime wave" is of the highly opportunistic variety -- light objects
that are easily transportable (or in the case of bikes, transport
themselves -- my hunch, Ron, is that if this is indeed related to the LRT,
they take the train out and the bike back), and that
--it occurs because the thieves can travel without cost or penalty of any
kind. Mere enforcement of the honor system would probably put a serious
dent in it.
With David Parsons' related comment on the parent thread fresh in mind,
may I suggest that we not build new highways from city to suburb, either,
because criminals can drive?
Remember, transportation is the means, not the end. If someone desires a
certain end, they will use (ahem) "any means necessary" to achieve it.
Lawrence Charap
>
>The bottom line is that our tranportation investments policy has benefitted
>the middle and upper classes for the last forty years, while not-so-benignly
>neglecting the needs of the urban poor.
Thank you very much for hitting the nail on the head. Undoubtedly the most
intelligent post I've ever read on the net. As such, expect to be mercilessly
bashed.
>Robert Lincoln, Assistant Professor
>Michigan State University
>16852rkl@msu -- Opinions expressed are mine alone.
-Lawrence Charap
--
Orc
>MORE LOOT RAIL SYNDROME:
>On Sept 19, 1994, the Associated Press (no doubt another "radical
>right-wing bunch of jerks," eh Dan?) released a story about a Trumbull,
>CT shopping mall which is trying to stop transit service from
>Brideport,CT (a nearby, apparently inner-city kind of place, which holds
>the CT record for number of murders last year). The mall thinks teens
>from Bridgeport who arrive at the mall via transit are causing excessive
>trouble.
"Excessive trouble"? Please, do tell, what exactly does
"excessive trouble" mean?
The large urban centers in the East and Midwest have had rail
service connecting the suburbs to the center city for somewhat over
a hundred years now. From my experience riding these rail lines,
I've not noticed any collapse into inner-city anarchy happening
around any of the (prosperous) suburbs served by rail.
Since you've not yet bothered to produce any figures showing that
rail lines are magnets for the well-bred criminal, please excuse me
if I don't believe what you're saying. And, while I'm at it, your
catchy little "loot rail" slogan is offensive, and is an insult to
those of us who use rapid transit to get around.
Back up your thesis, please.
____
david parsons \bi/ And don't forget Europe. A hotbed of criminals,
\/ no doubt.
Colin R. Leech
>In a previous article, John Palkovic <palk...@desy.de> wrote:
>>Building more roads has only made traffic problems worse in these
>>areas. It does not appear possible to build road capacity fast enough
>>to prevent traffic congestion. This is a well known problem (at least
>>I thought it was) in urban planning in the US. Comments, anyone?
Yes, well known except by the car promotors.
In a previous article, rand...@netcom.com (Randolph Fritz) says:
> (though of course bad planning can aggravate congestion & good planning can
>ameliorate congestion).
Absolutely.
> This also suggests that, in the larger
>car-oriented cities, we use too much space on cars;
Right again.
> if, let us say,
>most shopping trips were made via mass transit (commute is, I think a
>more difficult problem), we would get back considerable space which
>might be put to other uses.
Close but backwards. Commuting is the easiest trip to attract to transit,
because it is regular. Passengers only have to learn the route and timing
once or twice, for the most part. Discretionary trips like shopping are
harder because people want to travel infrequently to different places, and
so must make an extra effort to learn the system each time.
However, your point about reducing the sea of asphalt in parking lots is
well taken.
Randolph Fritz
T. Mark Gibson <gib...@bmrl.med.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>There are a finite number of people with motor vehicles. As one increases
>the capacity of the roads, the traffic density MUST decrease.
>
?
If roads go from congested to uncongested, people use their cars more
because driving is more pleasant. Also, of course, new development
takes advantage of the new capacity. It's a complex system: the
response to road changes depends on other elements. Historically,
however, congestion in a car-oriented city goes to a "maximum
tolerable level" and stays there; more roads are simply more used.
Randolph
Peter M. White
>
>Lots of inner city hoods don't own cars. I'm amazed at the comments I
>keep getting from folks who won't read the article. That's not too
>smart. Also read my followup post to Dan C,a couple days back about the
>AP item where a Trumbull, CT shopping mall is trying to get bus service from
>the Bridgeport inner city stopped. PUBLIC TRANSIT ALLOWS INNER CITY ILK
>TO GET WHERE THEY OTHERWISE COULDN'T. It's documented. It's real.
>Believe it.
Of course public transit allows inner city ilk to get where they
otherwise couldn't. That is exactly one of the things it is designed
for. We want everyone to be able to look for jobs across the entire
city and be productive citizens. Do you think it would be an improvement
to fence people into their neighborhood? Force people in decaying
neighborhoods to only get jobs in the decaying local business climate?
Or should we concentrate on creating ghettos for those who don't
have a pink slip like Real Citizens?
--Peter
p-w...@uiuc.edu
cu...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
> -
> Look, I ride the buses myself on occasion. I have no problems with
> transit riders who use the service for legitimate purposes. A couple of
> other folks made comments that implied I had iinsulted all transit
> riders. NOT! Methinks you don't all read very carefully. My problem is
> with the transit service that is so good, the bad guys can zip into and
> out of your area easily at midnit & 2AM, for example. Transit service
> during morning/evening commute periods, especially express service, is
> great.
> -
Yeah, this is a common scenario: Some hoods bus out to the 'burbs, commit a few
murders and rapes, steal some TVs and stereos, then hang out at the bus stop for
the 1:15 AM local to downtown, stolen goods and bloodied weapons in hand.
Get real.
Curt Wohleber / cu...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Communications Specialist / Univerity of Pittsburgh / (412) 624-4790
Exile on Market Street
Thompson) wrote:
> A note of explanation to posters on this thread, hopefully cooling the
> flames. Big Don's signature includes the location of Kent, WA, which
> would give a clue to anyone who lives in Washington as to what the heat
> is about.
[a tale of two Washingtons, one bucolic, one apparently Californicated]
Thanks for the info, Gene, and my profuse apologies to Big Don for
assuming that he never rode mass transit.
There is no denying that bad people can, and do, use mass transit in order
to "get to work." And in a place that is apparently as isolated and
tranquil as Linthicum, Maryland, any petty crime can be unsettling and a
stabbing at the train station downright frightening (hell, it'd be
frightening if it happened at 13th and Market, too). Nonetheless, I agree
with the dissenting member of the Linthicum-Shipley Improvement
Association mentioned in the _U.S. News_ article. The answer to the
problem is not to cut off access and thus punish the good along with the
bad. It is to improve security (viz. LA Blue Line) to make sure the
troublemakers at least think twice before setting out.
One other point that nobody has mentioned thus far: one reason for the
crime wave in Linthicum is that word has spread that the town is an "easy
mark". There are steps people can take to make themselves less of an easy
mark. Now I know that a lot of people leave the city precisely because
they don't want to go through the hassle of taking these steps, but let's
face it: we can run, and run, and run some more, and eventually the
problem will catch up with us one way or another. Solving it, or even
mitigating it, is now going to take a lot of time, or money, or both --
most likely both. We kid ourselves to think otherwise.
-Sandy F. Smith, Jr.----...@mac.dev.upenn.edu, smi...@pobox.upenn.edu-
"Exile on Market Street" in the Penn Office of News and Public Affairs
Suite 1B South, 3624 Market St, Philadelphia, PA 19104-2615 / 215-898-8721
(Opinions mine, NOT Penn's. If they want 'em, they gotta pay for 'em.)
"You are not caught in the traffic jam. You ARE the traffic jam."
------------original author unknown; quoted by Colin R. Leech on m.t.u-t--
Loren Petrich
[On Baltimore "Loot Rail"...]
It must be said that that is a fear expressed out here in
Livermore, since a new BART station is under construction in
Dublin/Pleasanton, about 2/3 of the way from the existing line in
Hayward. Someone at work actually once confessed to a desire to move to
some out-of-the-way place, because of you-know-what.
>I just got the Aug/Sep edition of "Moving People," which mentions this
>article. They mentioned that there is no enforcement of the
>Proof-Of-Payment fare system, thus people can get on for free. In NYC,
>crime has been significantly reduced by cracking down on fare evasion.
I've ridden the San Jose and Sacramento LRT's, and LA's Red and
Blue Lines, and I've had my ticket checked only once or twice (I recall
that happening on the SJ system, and I'm not sure about the Sac'to one;
the LA one was only once) -- and I confess I feel slighted when my ticket
isn't checked. Actually, on the Sac'to system, I once saw from inside
someone being escorted out of the LRV by some transit staffers -- could
this have been enforcement?
--
Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
pet...@netcom.com Happiness is a fast Macintosh
l...@s1.gov And a fast train
Randolph Fritz
Robert K. Lincoln <1685...@msu.edu> wrote:
[lots of good stuff, deleted to save space]
Thank you very much for this sensible, well-thought-out posting!
He goes on to write:
>
>Is rail the answer? Busways? Distributed forms like min-buses? Can
>technology increase road capacity at less marginal cost than new
>construction? Can pricing strategies spread traffic around by
>changing the economic calculus? Do we have to change the ways we
>regulate land (minimum instead of maximum densities, street and
>pedestrian layouts that facilitate walking and transit use) to change
>behavior and social values to support less individualistic
>transportation technologies? Planners have to find out, not just
>take positions or whine, and it's an incredible problem because the
>decisions have to be made now and every day, even though all the data
>isn't available. These are real questions that require sophisticated
>answers, not just Net-Posturing. Let's raise the level of the debate
>and make this Group a useful forum.
>
I think, in general terms, answers are known, though perhaps not so
widely as they might be. The problems seem to me primarily political
and perhaps ethical. The political problems seem very difficult;
while solutions seem possible, it seems to me we are mostly too scared
to put them into practice; indeed much of the pro-car rhetoric I have
seen here seems to me largely an expression of fear and perhaps, also,
some of the anti-car rhetoric is based in a desire to control which
seems to me ultimately equally fear-based. I think, ultimately,
solutions to these problems depend on the reduction of the fear level,
which, hmmm, perhaps city planning has something to speak to after
all. Resurrecting the middle-class neighborhood, as has been proposed
elsewhere in this thread--I think--certainly seems like a good place
to start.
Randolph Fritz
rand...@netcom.com
Randolph Fritz
>> if, let us say,
>>most shopping trips were made via mass transit (commute is, I think a
>>more difficult problem), we would get back considerable space which
>>might be put to other uses.
In article <CwGp6...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
Colin R. Leech <ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> replies:
>
>Close but backwards. Commuting is the easiest trip to attract to transit,
>because it is regular. Passengers only have to learn the route and timing
>once or twice, for the most part. Discretionary trips like shopping are
>harder because people want to travel infrequently to different places, and
>so must make an extra effort to learn the system each time.
>
Thanks for responding.
Mmmmm. We may be living in different sorts of places; I'm in Silicon
Valley. Also, not being a transit professional, I think am
approaching the problem differently. I figure that if people have to
study a transit system to use it, they mostly won't and this is as
true for a morning commute as a trip to the mall. In computing,
mass-market software must be designed to be useable without a manual,
and I think that is a useful analogy. Instead, there has to a kind of
immediate comprehensibility; schedules have to be set and services
designed so that the transit is there when it's expected.
The problem I see with commute in Silicon Valley is that it's
primarily door-to-door; it's exactly the job at which cars are best
and mass transit worst. Most business here is small business, and
there is no single downtown, though one can view the major freeways as
similar to giant strip malls. The only way I can see commutes going
to mass transit here would be if (1) the transit ran frequently at all
hours and (2) employers were strongly encouraged to provide pickup
services from transit stations. On the other hand, trolleys built
along major Silicon Valley strips, interconnecting major malls, would
I think see quite a bit of use, provided that there is good access to
the trolleys from people's residences, and again provided that
businesses are encouraged to offer good delivery serivces. Come to
think of it, integration of stations into major malls would probably
be quite a pull for both shopping and transit, provided the mall
owners could be sold on it.
Randolph
Marc Dufour
:
: Excessive trouble (quote from AP article) "The idea of banning the buses
: came after one teen shot another in the leg last year at a store
: entrance just yards from the bus stop."
Hmm. There are far more people who have been shot on or nearby
highways. I guess the solution is to close all those highways.
Marc "guns don't kill people, people do, yeah, right!" Dufour
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"You do not get caught in a traffic jam. You ARE the traffic jam."
(Colin R. Leech)
Exile on Market Street
Fritz) wrote:
> [...] The only way I can see commutes going
> to mass transit here would be if (1) the transit ran frequently at all
> hours and (2) employers were strongly encouraged to provide pickup
> services from transit stations. On the other hand, trolleys built
> along major Silicon Valley strips, interconnecting major malls, would
> I think see quite a bit of use, provided that there is good access to
> the trolleys from people's residences, and again provided that
> businesses are encouraged to offer good delivery serivces. Come to
> think of it, integration of stations into major malls would probably
> be quite a pull for both shopping and transit, provided the mall
> owners could be sold on it.
You may have already seen elsewhere an item that that mall in the
Bridgeport suburb of Trumbull reversed its request to have bus service
eliminated, for a number of reasons, all of which have been stated by one
poster or another on this thread.
As for your point about the need for frequent rapid transit to attract
riders, the _Philadelphia Inquirer_ had a very good article in the
"Review & Opinion" section yesterday on PATCO and the environment in which
it operates. I had hoped to post this piece today (see the "Routing:
Brulington, NJ<->Philadelphia, PA" thread), but it seems the News Office's
Sunday _Inquirer_ is missing that section, so I will have to bring mine in
and post tomorrow.
-Sandy F. Smith, Jr.----...@mac.dev.upenn.edu, smi...@pobox.upenn.edu-
"Exile on Market Street" in the Penn Office of News and Public Affairs
Suite 1B South, 3624 Market St, Philadelphia, PA 19104-2615 / 215-898-8721
(Opinions mine, NOT Penn's. If they want 'em, they gotta pay for 'em.)
This .sig quote is closed for track work. Substitute bus service is
available upstairs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
elf-hat
>In article <CwFn4...@eskimo.com>, Don Anderson <big...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>MORE LOOT RAIL SYNDROME:
>>On Sept 19, 1994, the Associated Press (no doubt another "radical
>>right-wing bunch of jerks," eh Dan?) released a story about a Trumbull,
>>CT shopping mall which is trying to stop transit service from
>>Brideport,CT (a nearby, apparently inner-city kind of place, which holds
>>the CT record for number of murders last year). The mall thinks teens
>>from Bridgeport who arrive at the mall via transit are causing excessive
>>trouble.
> The large urban centers in the East and Midwest have had rail
>service connecting the suburbs to the center city for somewhat over
>a hundred years now. From my experience riding these rail lines,
>I've not noticed any collapse into inner-city anarchy happening
>around any of the (prosperous) suburbs served by rail.
A-yup. As a 17-year on-and-off resident of the Bridgeport area, I hope I can
shed some light on this. As another poster noted, Bridgeport's public transit
is bus-only. It has a train station on the Amtrak/Metro-North New
York-New-Haven-Boston branch, which has zero bearing on the mall in question.
The Trumbull Shopping Park sits about 50 feet from northern border of
Bridgeport; its phone service is Bridgeport. It is, however, not at all close
to Bridgeport's poor and troubled areas--that is, the fully urban ones.
Bridgeport had its heart literally ripped out during the 1950's, when not one
but two major highways and about a dozen cloverleafs were slammed down in the
very center of the city, including both residential areas and half of
downtown. The countless overpasses, ramps and pilings make it absolutely
un-navigable by foot.
Bridgeport had a lousy mall from the 1960's; its sole anchor store is and was
a Sears, and since it, like much of downtown, has long been owned by one of
Bridgeport's colorful touched-by-the-mob families, it was long neglected. It
has always had a high vacancy rate, and the quality of stores there has gone
from bad to worse.
The downtown is absolutely dead. The biggest retail businesses are the sub
shops and pizzerias that serve the lunchtime crowds from the bank headquarters
nearby. Bridgeport has seen all but two of its movie theaters (one of them a
bargain house) leave in recent years. Most of its waterfront parkland has
become gang territory.
So it's not surprising that kids go to the mall after school, and some of
them are gang mmbers. But I've seen plenty of probable gang members arrive in
cars, and a look at the mall bus stop usually turns up more senior citizens
and young mothers with kids in tow than teens. Or maybe they all take buses
to the mall and steal cars to get home?
Yeah.
Payton Chung
>In article <CwFn4...@eskimo.com>, Don Anderson <big...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>>MORE LOOT RAIL SYNDROME:
>
>>On Sept 19, 1994, the Associated Press (no doubt another "radical
>>right-wing bunch of jerks," eh Dan?) released a story about a Trumbull,
Wrong. For a while, Frank Daniels #X of the local News & Observer headed
up the AP. The paper is regularly blasted by thousands all across Eastern
North Carolina and the rest of the world for being "communist", "pro-faggot",
"baby-killing", "anti-Consitution" (b/c of its no-gun stance),
"sacriligeous" (even though the Daniels family [which owns the paper] are
devout Methodists), etc. (N&O can be found at gopher merlin.nando.net or
http://merlin.nando.net.) I guess it's a bit leftist :) [But of course,
it's judged by people {NCians} whose political spectrums are so skewed that
their left is a New Yorker's center-right, so...]
>>CT shopping mall which is trying to stop transit service from
>>Brideport,CT (a nearby, apparently inner-city kind of place, which holds
>>the CT record for number of murders last year). The mall thinks teens
>>from Bridgeport who arrive at the mall via transit are causing excessive
>>trouble.
>
The idiots. A mall in Miami recently *banned* *all* teenagers from their
premises w/o parental supervision. What's your point?
(I had to write an essay about teens & malls last year; I got a 4 of 4. Of
course, that was compared to all *North Carolina* students, so....)
>if I don't believe what you're saying. And, while I'm at it, your
>catchy little "loot rail" slogan is offensive, and is an insult to
>those of us who use rapid transit to get around.
>
Two random notes: my newsreader is sending out odd little messages right
now, so forgive any major mistakes (like the entire thread being quoted
or something like that); the entire system has been screwy today....
Second, sorry that I'm late but I've had a few projects in the past week.
And I agree that bigdon should drop his "LOOOOOOOOOT RAAIIIILLL" slogan
which is sprinkled all over his posts. Shut the f*** up. I have never
once seen a crime committed with LRT, but have seen and heard and heard
of numerous accounts of stupidity with cars.
LocalStory or two: seems that the automobile is the criminal's weapon of
choice here in suburban Cary, NC which has !*NO*! transit of any type
forgiving the poor little minibus that treks through town every rush hour
and the twice-daily Amtrak trains, only one of which stops here. (A
caller to the Cary News shared bigdon's fears that a rail station would
become a criminal hub. Bwah ha ha.)
The median home sale price in Cary is up to $220,000. However, local
teenagers like to use their cars to vandalize things: once, an illegal
contest existed at a local HS that offered a free case of beer to the
team of students who could destroy the most Xmas decorations (methinks
this was in 1991). So the students got in their *pickup trucks* (not
"LOOT RAIL" cars) and swiped the extravagant decorations right off of the
lawns of $500,000 homes at night, seriously upsetting their owners (the
decorations!). Later on, another group of HS students (unfortunately, the
age group to which I belong) decided to go mailbox bashing in the same
neighborhood (with the purchase of a house there, one receives free of
charge a $2000 iron mailbox). So they got into another pickup (not LOOT
RAIL), loaded a pallet of stolen bricks from a house under construction
inside, and tossed the bricks onto mailboxes, squirrels, lampposts, and
whatever else caught their fancy (a lot when one is as drunk as these
kids were). None of the students involved in these crimes was from
inner-city Raleigh; they were all suburbanites from right here in Cary
who went to church and faithfully spent their parents' six-figure
salaries on clothes from the Limited.
So you say that LOOT RAIL is necessary for crime, eh? Then why is Kravco,
developer of the King of Prussia malls near Philadelphia, planning for
some form of fixed-route *mass transportation* to whiz by their Neiman-
Marcus, Nordstrom, Bloomingdales, and Lord & Taylor someday? And why is
Boston's only Neiman-Marcus across the street from a subway stop? Hm?
> ____
> david parsons \bi/ And don't forget Europe. A hotbed of criminals,
> \/ no doubt.
Especially when one compares their murder rates and social policies to
ours. If the sig screws up, blame the Unity people, not me.
--
Payton Chung * ch...@unity.ncsu.edu * All opinions mine except below
"How can there be peace [in God's house] when drunkards, drug dealers,
communists, atheists, New Age worshipers of Satan, secular humanists,
oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins,
adulterers, and homosexuals are on top?" -Pat Robertson, idiot at large
Exile on Market Street
Chung) wrote:
> So you say that LOOT RAIL is necessary for crime, eh? Then why is Kravco,
> developer of the King of Prussia malls near Philadelphia, planning for
> some form of fixed-route *mass transportation* to whiz by their Neiman-
> Marcus, Nordstrom, Bloomingdales, and Lord & Taylor someday? And why is
> Boston's only Neiman-Marcus across the street from a subway stop? Hm?
The answer to the last question is: 'Cause that's where the money is.
From both in-towners and visitors.
However, Kravco isn't holding its breath on rail service to the King of
Prussia malls, and neither should you. SEPTA had explored the possibility
of operating rail service on an existing frieght bypass that, at its
closest, is about 3/4 mile from the K of P malls, and determined that it
would cost too much to build and run and carry too few passengers (because
the line generally avoids the major office and retail centers in the area)
to make sense, at least in the near term. OTOH, Kravco loves the seven
bus routes that converge on the mall already and would probably happily
entertain any other ideas SEPTA had to increase service there.
Don Anderson
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
received a great deal of E-mail, I attempted to respond to all
of it but I know I missed a few that were inadvertantly
deleted. To the best of my knowledge, I did read all of it. It
was clear from many of the responses, that the writer had
neither read all of the previous posts nor the cited AP and
USN&WR articles. This summary is to provide clarification
and respond to a few of the most commonly expressed
comments.
-
First of all, the term LOOT RAIL is not my creation, the folks
in Linthicum, MD coined the term. Anyone who feels the
term is racist, or otherwise not PC, can take it up with them. Again, I
*did not* invent the term. I do, obviously, feel it is appropriate, in
many cases at least. Particularly, where
moderately distanced suburbs (say 8-10 miles or more) are
serviced to inner-city areas at all hours. And I extend the
term conceptually to include all forms of public transit that
otherwise meet these criteria. When two unrelated incidents make the
national news, it's worth a discussion.
-
There were many comments on the description given in the
USN&WR article of bicycles and lawnmowers disappearing,
and how could the thieves carry these items
inconspicuously on the transit? Obviously, they can't, and
if LOOT RAIL thieves did take these items, then they must
have gotten rid of them some other way.
-
HOWEVER, cash, credit cards, diamond rings, other jewelry,
hand guns, and car stereos, any valuable that will fit in a
pocket or small bag, can be readily taken in a burglary.
LOOT RAIL readily supports such criminal commerce. And, of course,
criminals frequently carry weapons, and if
the wrong things happen in a burglary, you, or a family
member could end up dead or seriously injured. I would just
as soon avoid the risk LOOT RAIL represents.
-
Inner city ilk view the suburbs as fertile territory. When
John Dillinger was asked why he robbed banks, he replied,
"Because that's where the money is!" IMHO the
convenience provided by public transit has to be balanced
against the additional threat to served communities the transit
represents. Providing 24-hr/day every-15-min service
is ridiculous. Express buses to downtown during
morning/evening is a good compromise. Anyone without
their own wheels, and/or who doesn't have friends/relatives
to handle their odd-hour or emergency transportation needs,
better move into town, again IMHO. Also, don't expect the
taxpayer and rush-hour riders to fund a 95% empty system
running all night for the few who work odd hours.
-
And poor inner city job hunters don't need access to
bedroom communities to "become productive ", thank you.
-
With regard to the police dealing with the problems, they
are, in may cases, too overlaoded with more serious
problems than burglaries. Example from my scanner a few
nights ago: An officer was questioning a man walking down
the street at 2AM with a VCR under his arm. He had to let
the guy go because the dispatcher ordered him to a "Man-
with-gun shots-fired situation." Police are great, but there
aren't enough of them. The jails are overcrowded and they just turn
these little guys loose in a couple hours with a
court date which few of them show up for. I have heard on
my scanner, subjects being run through the computer with
as many as 30 FTA's (failure to appear). Consequently, you have streets
full of hoods who can play LOOT RAIL if it
exists. You don't begin to know the crime environment in
your area, unless you have a scanner, since most of it goes
totally unreported. I *KNOW* what's going on in my area.
-
Some writers expressed disbelief that there was any truth at
all to the LOOT RAIL suggestion. All the data to do some studies should
be readily available. Wouldn't be surprised if there is money in some
obscure corner of the just-passed
Crime Bill to fund these for you big-bucks consultants that
inhabit this group. Find a suburb that just received all-
hours transit service from an inner city a few years ago and
compare the before and after crime stats. It could be
shocking.
-
Again I suspect most of thecommenters make their living off
of public transit, one way or another, and thus cannot be expected to
take an unbiased view of negative comments. To those: If your
awareness of the damage you could be
doing has been raised a bit, I'm happy.
-
I'm also outta here!
-
Big Don <big...@eskimo.com>
Kent, WA (Where a new JAIL is viewed
as "City Re-vitalization" )
Exile on Market Street
Don Robinson responded to multiple posts and defended his position with
aplomb, even if he also seems to have a tilt of his own that other
evidence to the contrary cannot change. Fair enough. More than a few
people prefer to err on the side of caution.
But I couldn't let this little phrase pass unremarked:
> -
> And poor inner city job hunters don't need access to
> bedroom communities to "become productive ", thank you.
> -
It's not the "bedroom communities" they need access to, it's the job
centers in the suburbs. And the way many cities are laid out, the way to
get there from the city is through the "bedroom."
And let's agree that access alone will not turn a non-worker into a
worker. But again I ask: is it really fair to restrict an inner-city
resident who is looking for work commensurate with his/her skills --
remember, many of these new suburban jobs are in the very sort of light
manufacturing that once sustained acres of blue-collar city districts --
to those jobs immdeiately around him/her, or in the center city?
At present in our society, the person with the car has full access to
whatever opportunities *for good or for evil* that are out there. Those
same opportunities should be available to the person without a car.
One more point: I willingly accept the risk associated with living in a
better-off in-city neighborhood that is a stone's throw away from a large
public housing project. I also realize that most of us do whatever we can
to minimize risk. I simply do not believe that erecting barriers (and
eliminating transit is a form of this) will in the long run eliminate that
risk, or rather, that it carries other risks that in the long run may be
far worse for our society as a whole.
byshenk gregory
>Thanks for all the reponses to my posts on LOOT RAIL.
I didn't responde previously, but I'll take a shot now...
>I do, obviously, feel it is appropriate, in
>many cases at least. Particularly, where
>moderately distanced suburbs (say 8-10 miles or more) are
>serviced to inner-city areas at all hours. And I extend the
>term conceptually to include all forms of public transit that
>otherwise meet these criteria.
So basically you think that the "inner-city" should be
isolated from the rest of the local metro area?
>When two unrelated incidents make the
>national news, it's worth a discussion.
Certainly it's worth discussion, but some of the discussion
might be about what exactly the "incidents" are>
>There were many comments on the description given in the
>USN&WR article of bicycles and lawnmowers disappearing,
>and how could the thieves carry these items
>inconspicuously on the transit? Obviously, they can't, and
>if LOOT RAIL thieves did take these items, then they must
>have gotten rid of them some other way.
Which means that no connection can be demonstrated between
these "incidents" and public transit.
>HOWEVER, cash, credit cards, diamond rings, other jewelry,
>hand guns, and car stereos, any valuable that will fit in a
>pocket or small bag, can be readily taken in a burglary.
> LOOT RAIL readily supports such criminal commerce. And, of course,
>criminals frequently carry weapons, and if
>the wrong things happen in a burglary, you, or a family
>member could end up dead or seriously injured. I would just
>as soon avoid the risk LOOT RAIL represents.
Certainly such things _can_ be taken. The question is:
_are_ they being taken? Certainly the attempt to avoid
risk is reasonable, but one must ask what the risk truly
is and whether it has anything to do with public transit.
>Inner city ilk view the suburbs as fertile territory. When
>John Dillinger was asked why he robbed banks, he replied,
>"Because that's where the money is!" IMHO the
>convenience provided by public transit has to be balanced
>against the additional threat to served communities the transit
>represents.
Not necessarily an unreasonable position, provided that
some "additional threat" has been demonstrated. I don't
see that it has.
>Providing 24-hr/day every-15-min service
>is ridiculous. Express buses to downtown during
>morning/evening is a good compromise. Anyone without
>their own wheels, and/or who doesn't have friends/relatives
>to handle their odd-hour or emergency transportation needs,
>better move into town, again IMHO. Also, don't expect the
>taxpayer and rush-hour riders to fund a 95% empty system
>running all night for the few who work odd hours.
The comment about "Express buses to downtown" seems to
demonstrate an ignorance of the development patterns of
most metropolitan areas. If all the jobs were downtown
and lasted from nine to five, this transit pattern might
make sense. Unfortunately, such is not the case.
I don't think anyone favors running a 95% empty system.
>And poor inner city job hunters don't need access to
>bedroom communities to "become productive ", thank you.
They need access to jobs, and a great deal (most?) of
the new jobs are being created in and around the
"bedroom communities", not in the inner city.
>[a number of well-taken but irrelevant comments deleted]
>Consequently, you have streets
>full of hoods who can play LOOT RAIL if it
>exists.
And they also _can_ take long walks off short piers if
they exist. Is there any evidence that "loot rail" is
a real problem? What has been presented so far seems
to be an objection that "they" are able to come into
"our" neighborhood, and we don't like it. (Accompanied
by reports of crime that cannot be sensibly attributed
to public transit.)
>Find a suburb that just received all-
>hours transit service from an inner city a few years ago and
>compare the before and after crime stats. It could be
>shocking.
It could be. But then again, it could not be.
I might also point out that the study as described is
invalid, as it would not provide evidence even of a
correlation (let alone a causal relationship) between the
crime stats and the public transit service.
>Again I suspect most of thecommenters make their living off
>of public transit, one way or another, and thus cannot be expected to
>take an unbiased view of negative comments.
I have never been (nor do I ever expect to be) employed
by a public transit agency, though I do use public transit
to get work.
>To those: If your
>awareness of the damage you could be
>doing has been raised a bit, I'm happy.
My guess is that most involved in public transit are well
aware of all sorts of things that public transit "could be
doing." Biased anecdotes are not particularly good evidence
of what it _is_ doing.
--
Half the time I'm not sure I'm
gregory byshenk responsible for my opinions; the
gbys...@uiuc.edu university certainly has nothing
to do with them.
Steven Thornton
> -
> First of all, the term LOOT RAIL is not my creation, the folks
> in Linthicum, MD coined the term. Anyone who feels the
> term is racist, or otherwise not PC, can take it up with them. Again, I
"The term NIGGER is not my creation, the folks who practiced slavery
coined the term. Anyone who feels the term is racist, or otherwise not
PC, can take it up with them."
Your use of language ("inner city ilk") does reveal your prejudices,
regardless of your disclaimers. That's ME you're talking about, and I
don't rob suburbanites, nor does anyone I know. I resent your
characterizations. Opposition to stereotype and prejudice is not a PC
shibboleth, it's common decency. Thankfully you do not represent the
majority of Seattle-area residents or Eskimo North subscribers.
There is no evidence in the USN&WR article or anywhere except the
poisoned minds of bigots that rail or any other kind of mass transit
contributes to crime. There is evidence that small pockets of
unrepentant racists believe it does, without reason.
> Inner city ilk view the suburbs as fertile territory. When
I am not "ilk". I do view the Seattle suburbs as fertile territory for
poisonous ideas that grow out of prejudice, ignorance, and
frustration. Living in Kent would drive any normal person mad. I wish
you would take your madness elsewhere.
> John Dillinger was asked why he robbed banks, he replied,
> "Because that's where the money is!" IMHO the
John Dillinger was not innercity ilk, he did not ride mass transit, he
did not prey on suburban bedrooms, and did not make the statement you
quote. I believe it is attributed to Willie Sutton.
--
Steve Thornton | ste...@eskimo.com | http://www.eskimo.com/~stevet/
Michael A Berman
I may have missed part of this earlier in the thread, but here are my
thoughts on transit and crime:
When was the last time you saw a person riding a bus, subway,
etc., CARRYING A STOLEN TELEVISION SET? Given the high incidence of auto
ownership even among the poor, people who want to rob houses in suburbs
are not likely to do it on transit. Crime is prevented by providing
people with access to good jobs, not by isolating them in particular
areas.
Just my $.02.
Michael Berman
Center for Transportation and the Environment
Usual Disclaimers
Donald Neal
>
>In his seminal work, "Image of the City," Kevin Lynch postulated the concept
>of "legibility," that is, the ability of a city to create a clear and
>accessible mental map in a user/perceiver/traveller. The building blocks of
>legilibility are paths, nodes, edges, districts and landmarks. The more that
>these blocks work together and effectively, the clearer the mental map that is
>created (or the more easily a clear map is created).
[....]
>Turning to transit -- rail and trolly systems create a differentiated presence
>where they run in that the rails are always there, different from the streets
>and (especially if elevated) noticable and they clearly go somewhere. Bus
>routes, on the other hand, are distinguished only by little signs, sometimes
>benches and shelters, but nothing tells you "where" the system will take you.
>Even up close, almost every rail stop has a system map -- almost no bus stop
>I've ever seen clearly distinguishes the routes, timing, etc.
>
>So -- I believe that rail/trolley systems may attract casual riders more
>easily because its easier to "see" yourself getting where you're going than on
>a bus. On the other hand, busses do tend to get more places, so
>transit-dependent users get used to the routes.
>
>What I'm suggesting is that the design and presentation of the transit system
>may have a significant effect on ridership, and particularly on getting those
>people who are not financially dependant on transit to choose it over SOVs. I
>also think that we'd get more riders and greater support if transit were
>designed into areas the way that roads are (the way that they used to be) so
>that the transit routes defined edges or paths into the various districts and
>thus became part of the "mental map" of the area. Unfortunately, I don't know
>of any research that's been done on perception of place and the design of the
>transit system.
>
I find this very interesting. I wonder whether the extreme case of this
is London Underground, whose route map is a tourist icon sold even on
postcards.
But I suspect that the image of the transit system is only part of
the issue. There is also the relationship between that image and the
image people have of the city as a whole. It's common for a shop, say,
in London to include in its advertising directions to get to the shop
from the nearest Underground station, as well as instructions in how
to get there by road. In this country [NZ], I have never seen an advert
describing the route to a business from its nearest station.
The self-reinforcing perception that road is the only significant form
of urban transport is hard to combat.
- Donald Neal
Exile on Market Street
> In his seminal work, "Image of the City," Kevin Lynch postulated the concept
> of "legibility," that is, the ability of a city to create a clear and
> accessible mental map in a user/perceiver/traveller.[....]
> Turning to transit -- rail and trolly systems create a differentiated
presence
> where they run in that the rails are always there, different from the streets
> and (especially if elevated) noticable and they clearly go somewhere. Bus
> routes, on the other hand, are distinguished only by little signs, sometimes
> benches and shelters, but nothing tells you "where" the system will take
you.
> Even up close, almost every rail stop has a system map -- almost no bus stop
> I've ever seen clearly distinguishes the routes, timing, etc.
This may be one of the secrets of the Ottawa Transitway's success, and
perhaps that of the Pittsburgh busways as well (although I get the
impression that the Pittsburgh facilities are not used as tools for
shaping land use in the way Ottawa's are). It is possible to "see" the
transit facility in a way you wouldn't were you just waiting at a shelter
(however elaborate) on an ordinary street.
Of course, taking this a step further, the presence of a wire and two
tracks in the middle of a street should allow the traveler to "see" what
will take him somewhere more easily. But visibility has to be balanced
against other factors here, almost all of which work against the streetcar
running in mixed traffic.
I should note here that Philadelphia has recently installed bus shelters
on two downtown streets (Chestnut eastbound and Walnut westbound) that
include maps of the central area showing the Regional Rail routes, rapid
transit, and the major bus routes that SEPTA has designated as "visitor"
routes (21, 42, 76) -- but curiously omitting the surface-car subway that
serves the same area. These maps also depict points of interest and have
interesting graphics on their reverse side (the maps/graphics are
installed where the advertising would otherwise be on these shelters). I
do not know whether this info has increased casual use of these routes
within Center City and the eastern part of West Philadelphia.
> What I'm suggesting is that the design and presentation of the transit system
> may have a significant effect on ridership, and particularly on getting those
> people who are not financially dependant on transit to choose it over
SOVs. I
> also think that we'd get more riders and greater support if transit were
> designed into areas the way that roads are (the way that they used to be) so
> that the transit routes defined edges or paths into the various districts and
> thus became part of the "mental map" of the area. Unfortunately, I
don't know
> of any research that's been done on perception of place and the design of the
> transit system.
>
> So -- I've put this out for discussion -- what do you all think???
I recall that one of the reasons that the MBTA chose a triangular design
for subway station entrances in the late 1960's was that such a design
would allow the pedestrian to "see" the subway more distinctly than a
simple set of stairs in the middle of the sidewalk would. It appears that
some other considerations must have also entered their decision-making
process later, though, because very few of the remodeled MBTA stations
(Copley outbound, Prudential outbound, and a couple of entrances to Park
Street on the east side of Tremont) and (I believe) none of the new ones
(Red Line extension and New England Medical Center) actually use this
design. Was it cost? The visual "weight" of the structure (most of the
ones I recall seeing had sides completely faced in brick)?
Comparing these with the entrances to the two stations on the Broad Street
Subway's southern extension, it seems to me that the simple
glass-and-polished-granite pavilions on the BSS send just as clear a
visual signal, although I will grant that they take up more space on the
surface.
Of course, there might be other messages that the builders wished to
send. Washington, DC's escalator openings -- especially the northern
entrance to Dupont Circle station -- convey a sense of monumentality that
is wholly in character with the city the Metro serves.
But are any of these really improvements on the domed pavilions that
graced the entrances of the original IRT line, one of which has been
reconstructed at Astor Square northbound?
Andy Nourse
> It's common for a shop, say,
>in London to include in its advertising directions to get to the shop
>from the nearest Underground station, as well as instructions in how
>to get there by road.
That's also common in those parts of the San Francisco Bay Area that are
close to BART stations.
BART also has a plentiful supply of good-quality maps in every station,
free for the taking, which show how to connect between BART and many
of the local transit systems.
Robert K. Lincoln
Randolph Fritz and Colin Leech recently got into this dialogue:
>I (randolph) wrote:
>>> if, let us say,
>>>most shopping trips were made via mass transit (commute is, I think a
>>>more difficult problem), we would get back considerable space which
>>>might be put to other uses.
>Colin R. Leech <ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> replies:
>>
>>Close but backwards. Commuting is the easiest trip to attract to transit,
>>because it is regular. Passengers only have to learn the route and timing
>>once or twice, for the most part. Discretionary trips like shopping are
>>harder because people want to travel infrequently to different places, and
>>so must make an extra effort to learn the system each time.
>>
This lead to
>Mmmmm. We may be living in different sorts of places; I'm in Silicon
>Valley. Also, not being a transit professional, I think am
>approaching the problem differently. I figure that if people have to
>study a transit system to use it, they mostly won't and this is as
>true for a morning commute as a trip to the mall. In computing,
>mass-market software must be designed to be useable without a manual,
>and I think that is a useful analogy. Instead, there has to a kind of
>immediate comprehensibility; schedules have to be set and services
>designed so that the transit is there when it's expected.
>The problem I see with commute in Silicon Valley is that it's
>primarily door-to-door; it's exactly the job at which cars are best
>and mass transit worst. Most business here is small business, and
>there is no single downtown, though one can view the major freeways as
>similar to giant strip malls. The only way I can see commutes going
>to mass transit here would be if (1) the transit ran frequently at all
>hours and (2) employers were strongly encouraged to provide pickup
>services from transit stations. On the other hand, trolleys built
>along major Silicon Valley strips, interconnecting major malls, would
>I think see quite a bit of use, provided that there is good access to
>the trolleys from people's residences, and again provided that
>businesses are encouraged to offer good delivery serivces. Come to
>think of it, integration of stations into major malls would probably
>be quite a pull for both shopping and transit, provided the mall
>owners could be sold on it.
Some thoughts that maybe should generate a thread on the following:
Legibility, transit systems and mass transit ridership
In his seminal work, "Image of the City," Kevin Lynch postulated the concept
of "legibility," that is, the ability of a city to create a clear and
accessible mental map in a user/perceiver/traveller. The building blocks of
legilibility are paths, nodes, edges, districts and landmarks. The more that
these blocks work together and effectively, the clearer the mental map that is
created (or the more easily a clear map is created).
Roads and streets by themselves don't create great maps because they distort
scale depending on the rest of the landscape --if the scenery is monotonous,
the trip may seem long, but the map may under-represent the physical distance
because "distance" is affected by the number of discrete
areas/districts/landmarks experienced during the trip. Therefore, its the
buildings/landscaping, etc. that make a road a path and help create a mental
map.
Turning to transit -- rail and trolly systems create a differentiated presence
where they run in that the rails are always there, different from the streets
and (especially if elevated) noticable and they clearly go somewhere. Bus
routes, on the other hand, are distinguished only by little signs, sometimes
benches and shelters, but nothing tells you "where" the system will take you.
Even up close, almost every rail stop has a system map -- almost no bus stop
I've ever seen clearly distinguishes the routes, timing, etc.
So -- I believe that rail/trolley systems may attract casual riders more
easily because its easier to "see" yourself getting where you're going than on
a bus. On the other hand, busses do tend to get more places, so
transit-dependent users get used to the routes.
What I'm suggesting is that the design and presentation of the transit system
may have a significant effect on ridership, and particularly on getting those
people who are not financially dependant on transit to choose it over SOVs. I
also think that we'd get more riders and greater support if transit were
designed into areas the way that roads are (the way that they used to be) so
that the transit routes defined edges or paths into the various districts and
thus became part of the "mental map" of the area. Unfortunately, I don't know
of any research that's been done on perception of place and the design of the
transit system.
So -- I've put this out for discussion -- what do you all think???
Robert Lincoln, Assistant Professor
Patricia Thompson
: Some thoughts that maybe should generate a thread on the following:
: Legibility, transit systems and mass transit ridership
: In his seminal work, "Image of the City," Kevin Lynch postulated
: the concept
: of "legibility," that is, the ability of a city to create a clear and
: accessible mental map in a user/perceiver/traveller. The building
: blocks of
: legilibility are paths, nodes, edges, districts and landmarks.
: The more that
: these blocks work together and effectively, the clearer the
: mental map that is
: created (or the more easily a clear map is created).
(excellent description of concept regretfully deleted for space reasons)
I've never read 'Image of the City', but clearly I should have. Your
exposition of the concept of 'legibility' explains very clearly the
difference in feeling I have in taking a bus vs. taking rail. I have
ridden both busses and trains for many years and found that acquiring a
system map for a bus system helps greatly in using it, not just for
information but for confidence that I know where I'm going and what I
have to do.....
Practical applications of the concept of 'legibility' should be right up
at the top of any urban transport manager's list of things to do. This is
definitely something we can use locally. Thanks for the insight! :-)
--
Gene Thompson patr...@comtch.iea.com
Spokane,WA
Sebastian Lisken
it is well known that travelling by car noticeably reduces
familiarity with the area you're travelling in - even if it's
the area of your everyday trip to work - as compared with the
experience you make by walking, riding a bike or using transit.
Surely there are references for this, though I can't give any
off-hand other than folklore and personal experience. Rail or
tram lines make better "landmarks" than roads, but I wonder
whether this effect would still be as strong if there as many
lines as there should be. Think of a city where every other
not-to-small road also has some tram line running on it, how
hypothetical that may be (examples anyone?), and you might end
up not knowing where the lines go, you will also get more
forks and branches that will complicate things further. Still,
actually taking the tram is surely a better way to get to know
the place than going by car, name and appearance of stations
will give an experience as well as the people you're
travelling with. As for buses, I agree they are less
attractive and not as conspicous as railbound transit, not
necessarily because of lack of information - though transit
marketing does have to be significantly improved - but also
they don't seem to "stand out" from car traffic as much as
trams and railways.
Sebastian Lisken
Colin R. Leech
In a previous article, big...@eskimo.com (Don Anderson) says:
>And, of course,
>criminals frequently carry weapons, and if
>the wrong things happen in a burglary, you, or a family
>member could end up dead or seriously injured. I would just
>as soon avoid the risk LOOT RAIL represents.
Better stay off the highways, then. There have been a number of people
murdered there. Since the transit rider doesn't have a lot of direct control
over his journey, it is not a convenient way for thieves to get away. Too
easy for the police to corner him in the bus or train with no place to run.
> Express buses to downtown during
>morning/evening is a good compromise. Anyone without
>their own wheels, and/or who doesn't have friends/relatives
>to handle their odd-hour or emergency transportation needs,
>better move into town, again IMHO.
This is the worst racist, bigoted, NIMBY attitude I have ever seen here.
"Build a huge wall around my suburb to keep out the evil city people!"
This has nothing to do with transit.
>I'm also outta here!
Just as well. Might as well go join those Libertarians trolling for flames
in some other newsgroup.
Randolph Fritz
: Turning to transit -- rail and trolly systems create a
: differentiated presence where they run in that the rails are always
: there, different from the streets and (especially if elevated)
: noticable and they clearly go somewhere. Bus routes, on the other
: hand, are distinguished only by little signs, sometimes benches and
: shelters, but nothing tells you "where" the system will take you.
: Even up close, almost every rail stop has a system map -- almost no
: bus stop I've ever seen clearly distinguishes the routes, timing,
: etc.
: So -- I believe that rail/trolley systems may attract casual riders
: more easily because its easier to "see" yourself getting where
: you're going than on a bus. On the other hand, busses do tend to
: get more places, so transit-dependent users get used to the routes.
: What I'm suggesting is that the design and presentation of the
: transit system may have a significant effect on ridership, and
: particularly on getting those people who are not financially
: dependant on transit to choose it over SOVs. I also think that we'd
: get more riders and greater support if transit were designed into
: areas the way that roads are (the way that they used to be) so that
: the transit routes defined edges or paths into the various districts
: and thus became part of the "mental map" of the area.
: Unfortunately, I don't know of any research that's been done on
: perception of place and the design of the transit system.
I think you're right! A train system defines a kind of 'transit
place' within a city; a bus system doesn't seem to do it. On top of
this, there's the difference in the character of the travel
experience. Buses are generally slow and, of course, they have that
well-known bumpy ride. Trains generally provide a smoother and
apparently faster experience. Riding the trolley is sometimes
recreation; I don't know any place where riding the buses is.
Randolph
Jeremy Higdon
Randolph Fritz <rand...@netcom.com> wrote:
>I think you're right! A train system defines a kind of 'transit
>place' within a city; a bus system doesn't seem to do it. On top of
>this, there's the difference in the character of the travel
>experience. Buses are generally slow and, of course, they have that
>well-known bumpy ride. Trains generally provide a smoother and
>apparently faster experience. Riding the trolley is sometimes
>recreation; I don't know any place where riding the buses is.
>
>Randolph
A bus system can define a transit place just as well as a train
system, though the concept of 'transit place' is a bit nebulous.
Buses can go as fast as light rail. Not as fast as commuter rail
or high speed trains. The slow speed is due to being in mixed
traffic. Rail in mixed traffic is even slower, which is one good
reason why there is very little left.
There are plenty of places where people ride buses for recreation.
Have you not heard of charter vacations on buses? They are quite
popular. Seattle Metro Employees Historic Vehicle Association
runs sightseeing trips on old Seattle transit buses once a month
during the summer. They generally need two vehicles to meet the
demand.
jeremy
Kathleen Ann Smith
: This also suggests that, in the larger
: car-oriented cities, we use too much space on cars; if, let us say,
: most shopping trips were made via mass transit (commute is, I think a
: more difficult problem),
????? It's easier to get people to use transit for home-based work trips
than for shopping. The mode-split has always been higher for HBW than
shopping. Try taking the case of Coke and 16-pack of toilet paper wyou
bought at Costco on the subway.
: we would get back considerable space which
: might be put to other uses.
Brad Beck 1sm...@uclink2.berkeley.edu
the bec in smibec
Randolph Fritz
>: This also suggests that, in the larger
>: car-oriented cities, we use too much space on cars; if, let us say,
>: most shopping trips were made via mass transit (commute is, I think a
>: more difficult problem),
>
And Brad Beck responds
>????? It's easier to get people to use transit for home-based work trips
>than for shopping. The mode-split has always been higher for HBW than
>shopping. Try taking the case of Coke and 16-pack of toilet paper wyou
>bought at Costco on the subway.
>
So, of course, you have it delivered. The delivery vehicles could be
short-range and electric-powered; since they're working out from a
central location, more than one delivery could be made on a run.
It might also help if public transit had some cargo capability; I
wonder why I've never seen that tried.
Randolph
Kenneth A Bowers
>>????? It's easier to get people to use transit for home-based work trips
>>than for shopping. The mode-split has always been higher for HBW than
>>shopping. Try taking the case of Coke and 16-pack of toilet paper wyou
>>bought at Costco on the subway.
I think this is true. Of course no one expects people who possess
automobiles to voluntarily haul a week's worth of groceries on the train.
The purpose of well planned transportation networks and neighborhoods is
to reserve automobile trips for purposes to which the car is well suited.
Our problems in cities like Raleigh stem from a layout that makes it
virtually impossible to buy even so much as a toothbrush without a car
trip, sometimes of one of many miles. This is overkill.
If routine necessities were available within reasonable walking or biking
distances of home and work, not only would access be improved for the
elderly, the carless, and the under 16 crowd, but the need for many car
trips would be eliminated. I am lucky to live in the only neighborhood in
town with a corner grocery - its existence saves me from the need to on
the average of three car trips a week. (Actually , I do some of my
shopping by bike, but that's another story). If I still make weekend
trips to the supermarket to stock up on large quantities of food, the
savings in the number of car trips is still significant.
In larger cities with greater densities and larger traffic problems, rail
or bus based shopping seems much more attractive, especially since people
in larger cities seem to be more inclined to make smaller and more
frequent purchases. Overall, though, the best transportation solutions
are those that lessen the need for so much transportation.
Ken Bowers
Ken_B...@NCSU.edu
ps This is a first posting for me, so I hope it isn't completely messed up.