Car-crazy Britain driving itself to complete gridlock
andy roberts
They are noisy, smelly and dirty, and cost more and more every year. We moan
about them all the time, yet we are hopelessly addicted.
Britons love their cars more than any other Europeans, a major new EU study
shows. The number of commuters cycling and walking in this country is
declining, while the number of cars and lorries on the road has tripled in
the last 30 years.
The report, The Hour of Choice - the first major transport study by the
European Commission for a decade - says congestion costs Europe up to £85
billion a year.
Road traffic in the EU is forecast to increase by 50 per cent by 2010 and
air travel by 70 per cent. 'Europe is being asphyxiated by congestion,' the
study says. Transport chiefs will use its findings this week to urge
Ministers to do more to reduce road traffic.
In Britain that means trying to cut the need to travel, said David Begg,
chairman of the Commission for Integrated Transport - the Government's
advisory body: 'We rely far too much on the car.'
Begg blamed the increase in traffic on the growth of out-of-town shopping
and business parks in the Eighties. 'Bad policies have increased car and
truck use which makes people demand more roads, but that only leads to more
congestion. It's a bit like a heroin addict always looking for another fix.'
Stephen Joseph, director of the green lobby group Transport 2000, said: 'We
can't build our way out of congestion. This report shows that without
changes the freedom to move will become simply a choice of which traffic jam
to be stuck in.'
While road congestion grows, the study shows, the cost of alternative forms
of transport is rising sharply. Britons pay some of the world's most
expensive bus and train fares for services that are crumbling through lack
of investment.
In the last 20 years public transport fares have risen by an average of 65
per cent. Only 10 per cent of our fares are subsidised, compared with an
average of 40 per cent on the Continent.
A British source at the EC told The Observer: 'The trends are all in the
wrong direction and, basically, the report will say we cannot all go on like
this - it is choking mobility.'
Brussels wants to cut traffic and pollution with extra taxes on motorists
and hauliers. The money would help the rail and bus services.
In an attempt to ease overcrowding in the skies, the EU is to consider
forcing airlines to pay a tax on aircraft noise and greenhouse gas
emissions, which could raise air fares.
But EU sources say Brussels will avoid recommending large rises in petrol
and diesel taxes after the protests in Britain and France last autumn.
Congestion charging - forcing motorists to pay to drive into city centres -
is seen as more effective. The report will encourage other countries to
follow Britain in allowing local authorities to adopt such measures.
Environmental campaigners hope a strong endorsement at the European level
will bolster what they see as Britain's weakening resolve to push congestion
charging and other greenmeasures.
One EU source said: 'An explosion in traffic is just not feasible. You will
never get transport officials saying people cannot travel, but it will have
to be managed differently and the cost of congestion and pollution paid
for.'
The Observer
http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,470298,00.html
FU: europa.viages.transporto, europa.ecologia
Andy R
--
Europa.* a new usenet hierarchy now created
for europe wide topics without language restrictions.
C. P. Zilliacus
[alt.planning.urban,alt.planning.transport and misc.transport.road added]
>Car-crazy Britain driving itself to complete gridlock
>
>They are noisy, smelly and dirty, and cost more and more every year.
You mean the EU doesn't require emission controls on motor vehicles?
>We moan about them all the time, yet we are hopelessly addicted.
No. People make rational decisions to use private automobiles.
>Britons love their cars more than any other Europeans, a major new EU study
>shows. The number of commuters cycling and walking in this country is
>declining, while the number of cars and lorries on the road has tripled in
>the last 30 years.
Why might that be? Increased prosperity? Increased value of time?
[snipped]
>Stephen Joseph, director of the green lobby group Transport 2000, said: 'We
>can't build our way out of congestion. This report shows that without
>changes the freedom to move will become simply a choice of which traffic
>jam >to be stuck in.'
Is Mr. Joseph paying royalties to the Sierra Club for the use of the
snappy language above?
>One EU source said: 'An explosion in traffic is just not feasible. You will
>never get transport officials saying people cannot travel, but it will have
>to be managed differently and the cost of congestion and pollution paid
>for.'
No, those sort of policies went away in Eastern Europe when the
Soviet Empire went out of business.
John
___>^..^<___
"C. P. Zilliacus" <c...@OS2BBS.COM@mail.toward.com> wrote in message
news:NwiA6.203$DW1....@iad-read.news.verio.net...
> In <l743dt49or4jc66tt...@4ax.com>, andy roberts
<andy.r...@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
>
> [alt.planning.urban,alt.planning.transport and misc.transport.road added]
>
> >Car-crazy Britain driving itself to complete gridlock
> >
> >They are noisy, smelly and dirty, and cost more and more every year.
>
> You mean the EU doesn't require emission controls on motor vehicles?
>
> >We moan about them all the time, yet we are hopelessly addicted.
>
> No. People make rational decisions to use private automobiles.
Not always. The history of the automobile is repleat with irrationalities.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "C. P. Zilliacus" <c...@OS2BBS.COM@mail.toward.com> wrote:
> > andy roberts <andy.r...@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
> >
> > >Car-crazy Britain driving itself to complete gridlock
> > >
> > >They are noisy, smelly and dirty, and cost more and more every year.
> >
> > You mean the EU doesn't require emission controls on motor vehicles?
> >
> > >We moan about them all the time, yet we are hopelessly addicted.
> >
> > No. People make rational decisions to use private automobiles.
>
> Not always. The history of the automobile is repleat with irrationalities.
Not at all.
The history of the anti-automobile activism is replete with
irrationalities.
--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com
John
___>^..^<___
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3AD24F5D...@mediaone.net...
> "John" <jk...@anon.net> wrote:
> >
> > "C. P. Zilliacus" <c...@OS2BBS.COM@mail.toward.com> wrote:
> > > andy roberts <andy.r...@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
> > >
> > > >Car-crazy Britain driving itself to complete gridlock
> > > >
> > > >They are noisy, smelly and dirty, and cost more and more every year.
> > >
> > > You mean the EU doesn't require emission controls on motor vehicles?
> > >
> > > >We moan about them all the time, yet we are hopelessly addicted.
> > >
> > > No. People make rational decisions to use private automobiles.
> >
> > Not always. The history of the automobile is repleat with
irrationalities.
>
> Not at all.
Not at all? Like pink cadillacs, being buried in your car, how many people
will fit in a volkswagen, morris mini, cars with two front ends, and a
million other such irrationalities?
Robert Cote
> > > Not always. The history of the automobile is repleat with
> > > irrationalities.
> >
> > Not at all.
>
Great, you agree with Scott. At least it looks as if you agree
because I -dishonestly- snipped so much context that your words are
distorted. If you snip too much you too can make yourself or others
look like this. Why not go back and look at what Mr. Kozel actually
said rather than misquote just the preface without the actual
content. I just did it to you and look at the results.
John
___>^..^<___
"Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:NotA6.2297$y32.3...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
What's the matter, Bobby, short dick?
Scott M. Kozel
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > "John" <jk...@anon.net> wrote:
> > > "C. P. Zilliacus" <c...@OS2BBS.COM@mail.toward.com> wrote:
> > > > andy roberts <andy.r...@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
> > > >
> > > > >Car-crazy Britain driving itself to complete gridlock
> > > > >
> > > > >They are noisy, smelly and dirty, and cost more and more every year.
> > > >
> > > > You mean the EU doesn't require emission controls on motor vehicles?
> > > >
> > > > >We moan about them all the time, yet we are hopelessly addicted.
> > > >
> > > > No. People make rational decisions to use private automobiles.
> > >
> > > Not always. The history of the automobile is repleat with irrationalities.
> >
> > Not at all.
>
> Not at all? Like pink cadillacs, being buried in your car, how many people
> will fit in a volkswagen, morris mini, cars with two front ends,
That's right. Focus on the bottom 1%. Strawman.
> and a million other such irrationalities?
That sums up the anti-auto activists.
Robert Cote
"John" <jk...@anon.net> wrote:
No, it was an opportunity for the discerning respondent to reconsider
their past behavior. You have gone in three short exchanges from a
fresh voice to marginalized, obnoxious troll in at least two new
newsgroups. My name is still Robert Cote every bit as much as yours
is Leroy Baxter. My email is tech...@gte.net every bit as much as
yours id (is, heehee my mistake) <lba...@masonbruce.com> despite
variously posting as John/Cuidegian/LB/Allison/et al. You got caught
snipping to distort. Your response only serves to confirm the
suspicions of readers who notice that you lack the skills to address
the issues although it is likely those poor readers will now be forced
to endure my past quotes to you couched in language low enough for you
to comprehend. Despite those quotes it would take more than that to
approach the clumsy and obvious attempt at provocation of your "short
dick" comment. Scratch two more forums Leroy. My apologies to both
europa.viages.transporto and europa.ecologia for being unable to
control the alt.planning.* village idiot and the disruption he has
caused.
John
--
___>^..^<___
"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3AD26151...@mediaone.net...
> "John" <jk...@anon.net> wrote:
> >
> > "Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > > "John" <jk...@anon.net> wrote:
> > > > "C. P. Zilliacus" <c...@OS2BBS.COM@mail.toward.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > No. People make rational decisions to use private automobiles.
> > > >
> > > > Not always. The history of the automobile is repleat with
irrationalities.
> > >
> > > Not at all.
> >
> > Not at all? Like pink cadillacs, being buried in your car, how many
people
> > will fit in a volkswagen, morris mini, cars with two front ends,
>
> That's right. Focus on the bottom 1%. Strawman.
Looks like a lot more than 1% to me.
>
> > and a million other such irrationalities?
>
> That sums up the anti-auto activists.
>
And that's your strawman.
John
___>^..^<___
"Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:s9uA6.1586$xH2.3...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> In article <tstA6.33487$ZT1.1...@e420r-sjo3.usenetserver.com>,
> "John" <jk...@anon.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
> > news:NotA6.2297$y32.3...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> > > "John" <jk...@anon.net> wrote:
> > > >"Scott M. Kozel" <koz...@mediaone.net> wrote
> > > > > "John" <jk...@anon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > Not always. The history of the automobile is repleat with
> > > > > > irrationalities.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not at all.
> > > >
> > > > Not at all...
> > >
> > > Great, you agree with Scott. At least it looks as if you agree
> > > because I -dishonestly- snipped so much context that your words are
> > > distorted. If you snip too much you too can make yourself or others
> > > look like this. Why not go back and look at what Mr. Kozel actually
> > > said rather than misquote just the preface without the actual
> > > content. I just did it to you and look at the results.
> >
> > What's the matter, Bobby, short dick?
>
> No, it was an opportunity for the discerning respondent to reconsider
> their past behavior.
Now if we could just get you to reconsider your behavior - past or current.
>You have gone in three short exchanges from a
> fresh voice to marginalized, obnoxious troll in at least two new
> newsgroups.
So, you crossposted everywhere - perhaps this should also be crossposted to
alt.troll?
>My name is still Robert Cote every bit as much as yours
> is Leroy Baxter. My email is tech...@gte.net every bit as much as
> yours id (is, heehee my mistake) <lba...@masonbruce.com> despite
> variously posting as John/Cuidegian/LB/Allison/et al.
Yep, sure. Whatever.
>You got caught
> snipping to distort.
Let's see - YOU did the snipping and now you "caught" me?
>Your response only serves to confirm the
> suspicions of readers who notice that you lack the skills to address
> the issues although it is likely those poor readers will now be forced
> to endure my past quotes to you couched in language low enough for you
> to comprehend.
Your preferred road.
Quoth the Robert: "Idiot. I said it twice idiot. Idiot"
>Despite those quotes it would take more than that to
> approach the clumsy and obvious attempt at provocation of your "short
> dick" comment. Scratch two more forums Leroy. My apologies to both
> europa.viages.transporto and europa.ecologia for being unable to
> control the alt.planning.* village idiot and the disruption he has
> caused.
Translation: Robert loves to pollute.
Quoth the Robert: "Then what is the problem you lying sack?"
John
___>^..^<___
"Mark Gibson" <gib...@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
news:9atrbf$7tf$2...@wildfire.prairienet.org...
> In alt.planning.urban LeRoy Baxter, the dickless wonder <jk...@anon.net>
wrote:
> You are in no position to comment...
>
>
And yours is not only short - it's limp too.
riaanp
offers transport (even for individuals) whereto and when they want. Public
transport only works when there is a common need amongst a number of people
living in the same geographic area.
"John" <jk...@anon.net> wrote in message
news:%6sA6.33453$ZT1.1...@e420r-sjo3.usenetserver.com...
Robert Cote
"riaanp" <ria...@freemail.absa.co.za> wrote:
> "Leroy Baxter" <lba...@masonbruce.com> wrote in message
> > -- ___>^..^<___
> >
> > "C. P. Zilliacus" <c...@OS2BBS.COM@mail.toward.com> wrote in
> > message news:NwiA6.203$DW1....@iad-read.news.verio.net...
> > > In <l743dt49or4jc66tt...@4ax.com>, andy roberts
> > <andy.r...@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
> > >
> > > [alt.planning.urban,alt.planning.transport and
> > > misc.transport.road added]
> > >
> > > >Car-crazy Britain driving itself to complete gridlock
> > > >
> > > >They are noisy, smelly and dirty, and cost more and more every
> > > >year.
> > >
> > > You mean the EU doesn't require emission controls on motor
> > > vehicles?
> > >
> > > >We moan about them all the time, yet we are hopelessly
> > > >addicted.
> > >
> > > No. People make rational decisions to use private automobiles.
> >
> > Not always. The history of the automobile is repleat with
> > irrationalities.
> The private car is not a sustainable transport mode,
You'd have to suggest an enumerable methodology of comparison before
your assertion is accepted as even a premise. By what measure is POV
transportation less sustaunable than any other form?
> but is a mode that offers transport (even for individuals) whereto
> and when they want. Public transport only works when there is a
> common need amongst a number of people living in the same
> geographic area.
Private airlines provide transit yet they seem unencumbered by this
requirement. Hmmmm.
andy roberts
>The private car is not a sustainable transport mode, but is a mode that
>offers transport (even for individuals) whereto and when they want. Public
>transport only works when there is a common need amongst a number of people
>living in the same geographic area.
I agree with that.
The problem seems to me that once people decided that they "need" a car for
certain purposes they get used to it and then use it for every possible
journey and even make lots of additional journeys.
John
___>^..^<___
"Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:B1pB6.4060$M_5.4...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> In article <3ad62...@batman.vip-za.com>,
> "riaanp" <ria...@freemail.absa.co.za> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > No. People make rational decisions to use private automobiles.
> > >
> > > Not always. The history of the automobile is repleat with
> > > irrationalities.
>
> > The private car is not a sustainable transport mode,
>
> You'd have to suggest an enumerable methodology of comparison before
> your assertion is accepted as even a premise. By what measure is POV
> transportation less sustaunable than any other form?
The amount of fuel and infrastructure used.
> > but is a mode that offers transport (even for individuals) whereto
> > and when they want. Public transport only works when there is a
> > common need amongst a number of people living in the same
> > geographic area.
>
> Private airlines provide transit yet they seem unencumbered by this
> requirement. Hmmmm.
Private airlines operate exactly on this requirement - plus, they are
inherently multi-modal (not counting walking as a mode) - to use a plane,
you must first use some other form of transportation (unlike an auto).
John David Galt
> The private car is not a sustainable transport mode,
Sure it is. And we (drivers) have paid for it, and have the right to keep it
forever.
Robert Cote
No, we drivers have paid for it, continue to pay for it, and have the
moral superiority with which to demand that we continue to keep it
until such time as we become so selfish that we resemble transit
users.
John
___>^..^<___
"Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:AmMB6.2259$Yi2.5...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
You're already more selfish than transit users. And auto/road/oil companies
only see you as another cent in their revenue streams.
Robert Cote
"John" <jk...@anon.net> wrote:
> --
> ___>^..^<___
>
> "Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:AmMB6.2259$Yi2.5...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> > In article <3AD78FD8...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>,
> > John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
> >
> > > riaanp wrote:
> > >
> > > > The private car is not a sustainable transport mode,
> > >
> > > Sure it is. And we (drivers) have paid for it, and have the right
> > > to keep it forever.
> >
> > No, we drivers have paid for it, continue to pay for it, and have the
> > moral superiority with which to demand that we continue to keep it
> > until such time as we become so selfish that we resemble transit
> > users.
>
> You're already more selfish than transit users.
I seriously doubt that. Even in Europe where fares are much higher
their proportion of directly user funded total costs are nowhere near
100%. Here in the US the selfishness is even worse.
> And auto/road/oil companies
> only see you as another cent in their revenue streams.
Still peddling conspiracy theories, just to a new audience I see.
Sad. Your lack of respect for the general audience and complete
disregard for convention is noted everytime you post. Note the header
that confuses so many newsreaders. Note also the admission that your
claims are so embarrassing that you lack the pride to sign your works.
Robert Cote
Mark Gibson <gib...@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote:
> Thank the deities that be that I will never be in a position where I
> have to give up my car and become a pathetic transit luser...
>
> Cars are to freedom as mass transit is to slavery.
The world still remembers the last time people were forced on the
cattle cars.
Thisngs are different this time, just ask an number of transit
advocates that ...
Nevermind. Sad.
Gecko
I think transit users are the less selfish - they're willing
to put up with slow, non-direct, overcrowded, and usually
uncomfortable transportation. I've never been able to be so
selfless. I guess I'm just addicted to that fast, direct,
private, comfortable mode of tranportation called the
automobile.
gecko
John David Galt
>>> The private car is not a sustainable transport mode,
>> Sure it is. And we (drivers) have paid for it, and have the right
>> to keep it forever.
> No, we drivers have paid for it, continue to pay for it, and have the
> moral superiority with which to demand that we continue to keep it
> until such time as we become so selfish that we resemble transit
> users.
Nothing wrong with being selfish if you don't demand that other people
subsidize your purchases. THAT's the only thing wrong with transit users.
Robert Cote
I respectfully disagree. There's a lot more wrong with transit
funding in the US than simple handouts. Transit users not only demand
and receive subsidiy but that subsidy money can be traced to POV users
that are mislead into believing their use taxes are going towards
their costs and impacts. Additionally, the footprint of dedicated
rows in places where transit is most prevelant are sometimes woefully
underused as a public resource. In addition those places with transit
are given an undeserved competetive advantage in business operting
costs. Sure there are also instances where a region runs roads
infrastructure out to a site but not anywhere near on the order of
transit subsidies.
Jack May
> > You'd have to suggest an enumerable methodology of comparison before
> > your assertion is accepted as even a premise. By what measure is POV
> > transportation less sustaunable than any other form?
>
> The amount of fuel and infrastructure used.
The US Department of Transportation figures says that bus, light rail, and
heavy rail burn more fuel on average per passenger mile than do automobiles.
Not a surprise since most public transit runs big heavy vehicles which must
start and stop often to let passengers on and off. The big vehicle are
typically very lightly loaded which really decreases fuel economy
The Portland light rail carries a peak of 1000 people per hour for one lane
of rail. Portland's light rail is generally considered to be much better
than most others. One lane of freeway carries a peak of 2400 people per
hour. For light rail to carry as much traffic as a typical eight lane
freeway, over 19 tracks of light rail would have to be build.
In general, transit takes a lot more resources and fuel than freeways.
With smart road technology starting to come into use and much more efficient
vehicles, transit will look like an environmental disaster.
hungryc...@the.swamp
P. Zilliacus) wrote:
>In <l743dt49or4jc66tt...@4ax.com>, andy roberts <andy.r...@zetnet.co.uk> writes:
>
>[alt.planning.urban,alt.planning.transport and misc.transport.road added]
>
>>Car-crazy Britain driving itself to complete gridlock
>>
>>They are noisy, smelly and dirty, and cost more and more every year.
>
>You mean the EU doesn't require emission controls on motor vehicles?
Erm, are you saying our cars are especially quiet and fragrant?
>
>>We moan about them all the time, yet we are hopelessly addicted.
>
>No. People make rational decisions to use private automobiles.
>
>>Britons love their cars more than any other Europeans, a major new EU study
>>shows. The number of commuters cycling and walking in this country is
>>declining, while the number of cars and lorries on the road has tripled in
>>the last 30 years.
>
>Why might that be? Increased prosperity? Increased value of time?
>
Back in the 1980s, the Thatcher government made a conscious decision
to favor roads over rail. As rail travel became more unreliable and
roads were expanded, traffic increased. It is becoming difficult to
expand the roads further, as Britain is a rather densely populated
place (compared to the US, anyway).
>
>[snipped]
>
>>Stephen Joseph, director of the green lobby group Transport 2000, said: 'We
>>can't build our way out of congestion. This report shows that without
>>changes the freedom to move will become simply a choice of which traffic
>>jam >to be stuck in.'
>
>Is Mr. Joseph paying royalties to the Sierra Club for the use of the
>snappy language above?
>
>>One EU source said: 'An explosion in traffic is just not feasible. You will
>>never get transport officials saying people cannot travel, but it will have
>>to be managed differently and the cost of congestion and pollution paid
>>for.'
>
>No, those sort of policies went away in Eastern Europe when the
>Soviet Empire went out of business.
Transportation policy in the EU has been fairly consistent in its lack
of enthusiasm for encouraging auto use. Britain under Thatcher was a
bit of an exception, as they often are when it comes to EU matters. It
would appear that they are now falling into line with the rest of the
EU now, at least as it relates to auto usage.
John
___>^..^<___
"Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:8MMB6.2437$Yi2.5...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> In article <9yMB6.66954$ZT1.3...@e420r-sjo3.usenetserver.com>,
> "John" <jk...@anon.net> wrote:
>
> > And auto/road/oil companies
> > only see you as another cent in their revenue streams.
>
> Still peddling conspiracy theories, just to a new audience I see.
> Sad.
No conspiracy - just the statement of fact that the auto, oil and road
companies are out to make a buck and have no interest in your welfare.
>Your lack of respect for the general audience and complete
> disregard for convention is noted everytime you post. Note the header
> that confuses so many newsreaders.
Doesn't confuse Microsoft newsreaders - they're the Borg, you will be
assimilated.
> Note also the admission that your
> claims are so embarrassing that you lack the pride to sign your works.
As opposed to Roberts lies that he takes the high road.
John
--
___>^..^<___
"Jack May" <jack...@trwsvl.com> wrote in message
news:zj8C6.2751$v9.4...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
>
> "John" <jk...@anon.net> wrote in message
> news:vRrB6.53849$Vk1.3...@e420r-sjo2.usenetserver.com...
> > > You'd have to suggest an enumerable methodology of comparison before
> > > your assertion is accepted as even a premise. By what measure is POV
> > > transportation less sustaunable than any other form?
> >
> > The amount of fuel and infrastructure used.
>
> The US Department of Transportation figures says that bus, light rail, and
> heavy rail burn more fuel on average per passenger mile than do
automobiles.
No they don't.
> Not a surprise since most public transit runs big heavy vehicles which
must
> start and stop often to let passengers on and off. The big vehicle are
> typically very lightly loaded which really decreases fuel economy
You're attempting to compare apples and oranges.
> The Portland light rail carries a peak of 1000 people per hour for one
lane
> of rail.
You're wrong. Portland MAX carries 70,000 per day, for 22 hours per day -
that's an AVERAGE of more than 3000 per hour. Peak usage is much greater -
at peak, the trains carry more than 500, run every 6 minutes and are packed.
> Portland's light rail is generally considered to be much better
> than most others. One lane of freeway carries a peak of 2400 people per
> hour. For light rail to carry as much traffic as a typical eight lane
> freeway, over 19 tracks of light rail would have to be build.
Two tracks of MAX carry 70,000 - at 2400 per hour, the freeway would havt to
be at peak for 29 hours per day.
> In general, transit takes a lot more resources and fuel than freeways.
> With smart road technology starting to come into use and much more
efficient
> vehicles, transit will look like an environmental disaster.
What's really coming down the road is the bill for the road repairs.
John
___>^..^<___
"Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:ebSB6.4408$Yi2.9...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> In article <3AD7E8CD...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>,
> John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>
> > Robert Cote wrote:
> > > John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
> > >> riaanp wrote:
> >
> > >>> The private car is not a sustainable transport mode,
> >
> > >> Sure it is. And we (drivers) have paid for it, and have the right
> > >> to keep it forever.
> >
> > > No, we drivers have paid for it, continue to pay for it, and have the
> > > moral superiority with which to demand that we continue to keep it
> > > until such time as we become so selfish that we resemble transit
> > > users.
> >
> > Nothing wrong with being selfish if you don't demand that other people
> > subsidize your purchases. THAT's the only thing wrong with transit
users.
>
> I respectfully disagree. There's a lot more wrong with transit
> funding in the US than simple handouts. Transit users not only demand
> and receive subsidiy but that subsidy money can be traced to POV users
> that are mislead into believing their use taxes are going towards
> their costs and impacts.
Portland, like many other places, is now talking about a new property tax
just for keeping behind on road maintenance.
John
___>^..^<___
"Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:x6PB6.3436$Yi2.7...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
This qualifies for Godwins Law - you should know better, Bobby.
>
> Nevermind. Sad.
Robert Cote
"John" <jk...@anon.net> wrote:
> --
> ___>^..^<___
>
> "Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
> > Mark Gibson <gib...@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote:
> > > Robert Cote <tech...@gte.net> wrote:
> > > > John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
> > > > > riaanp wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The private car is not a sustainable transport mode,
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure it is. And we (drivers) have paid for it, and have the right
> > > > > to keep it forever.
> > >
> > > >No, we drivers have paid for it, continue to pay for it, and have the
> > > >moral superiority with which to demand that we continue to keep it
> > > >until such time as we become so selfish that we resemble transit
> > > >users.
> > >
> > > Thank the deities that be that I will never be in a position where I
> > > have to give up my car and become a pathetic transit luser...
> > >
> > > Cars are to freedom as mass transit is to slavery.
> >
> > The world still remembers the last time people were forced on the
> > cattle cars.
>
> This qualifies for Godwins Law - you should know better, Bobby.
Godwins Law, oh yeah right. One of the usenet conventions. You know
usenet conventions Leroy. Don't snip without indication, you did that
with this last message. Don't use confusing header delimiters, you do
that too. Hmmm, seems like a new form of internet cafeteria religon
you are practicing.
The issue was the sustainability of POV transportation. As usual the
vague inflammatory claim of POV unsustainability is unsupported. We
hear this all the time. Sprawl is "bad" until the naysayers are
cornered into admitting that no definition exists. Now we have
"sustainable" as the latest buzzword. Any attempt to define
sustainable will not be able to single out POVs.
greg byshenk
Leaving aside issues of whether auto usage is "sustainable", as we don't
have any clear definition of what that is supposed to be [certainly in
the very long term, petroleum-fueled transport is not "sustainable", but
a) automobiles need not run on petroleum-based fuel, and b) though
petroleum reserves will eventually be exhausted, it won't happen this
year, or this decade, and probably not this century]... .
> The US Department of Transportation figures says that bus, light rail, and
> heavy rail burn more fuel on average per passenger mile than do automobiles.
> Not a surprise since most public transit runs big heavy vehicles which must
> start and stop often to let passengers on and off. The big vehicle are
It is also a case where "averages" aren't all that useful, as they
are comparing wildly different sets of numbers. For example, the
average family of four in the average auto tootling down the open
highway on holiday is achieving relatively high passenger-mile per
gallon figures. But when dad or mom gets into that same car to make
his or her regular solo trip to work the next week, passenger-mile per
gallon figures plummet (not surprisingly). Of course, it is precisely
this latter use of the car which is "comparative" to public transit
use, since only it (and not the holiday drive) are in a similar
environment to that of transit use.
That is, when looking at overall averages, you are comparing apples
and oranges, by comparing auto figures that include auto usage at
its _most_ efficient (and where transit doesn't run -- indeed, some
comparisons of this type explicitly _exclude_ long-distance bus and
rail from the equation) with transit only in the least efficient
environment -- which will no doubt skew the figures.
An analogy: if one compared the "average" fuel efficiency of an
8-liter Dodge truck that rolled downhill for 20 miles, then motored
for one mile, with a Neon that just motored for one mile, one would
probably find that the truck had a higher average fuel efficiency.
Which may be interesting in a way, but not terribly useful in a
comparison of the two vehicles.
> The Portland light rail carries a peak of 1000 people per hour for one lane
> of rail. Portland's light rail is generally considered to be much better
> than most others. One lane of freeway carries a peak of 2400 people per
> hour. For light rail to carry as much traffic as a typical eight lane
> freeway, over 19 tracks of light rail would have to be build.
First, I'm curious as to the source of your figures. From what I
can see, there are ten trains per hour in some hours of MAX
operation, and (from what I have read) there at that many trains
running because of demand. If each train holds more than 100
people (which I think is the case), then this would at least suggest
that there are more than 1000 people per hour being carried by MAX.
(Of course, this is based on inference rather than actual data, so
I could be wrong.)
Second, your conclusion is mistaken. While 2400 people per hour is
the capacity of one lane of freeway (roughly), the current actual
usage of MAX is not the capacity of one track of the MAX system.
As demonstrated by the fact that trains can be added without adding
additional tracks.
--
greg byshenk - gbys...@byshenk.net - Leiden, NL
hate spam? <http://www.cauce.org>
<http://www.byshenk.net/ive.been.spammed.html>
Robert Cote
gbys...@byshenk.net (greg byshenk) wrote:
> Jack May <jack...@trwsvl.com> wrote:
>
> Leaving aside issues of whether auto usage is "sustainable", as we don't
> have any clear definition of what that is supposed to be [certainly in
> the very long term, petroleum-fueled transport is not "sustainable", but
> a) automobiles need not run on petroleum-based fuel, and b) though
> petroleum reserves will eventually be exhausted, it won't happen this
> year, or this decade, and probably not this century]... .
Seems to me that you not only left aside the issue of sustainability
but you proved that no matter what definition is concocted, POV
transportation will not be considered unsustainable. Good job.
> > The US Department of Transportation figures says that bus, light rail, and
> > heavy rail burn more fuel on average per passenger mile than do automobiles.
> > Not a surprise since most public transit runs big heavy vehicles which must
> > start and stop often to let passengers on and off. The big vehicle are
> > typically very lightly loaded which really decreases fuel economy.
>
> It is also a case where "averages" aren't all that useful, as they
> are comparing wildly different sets of numbers. For example, the
> average family of four in the average auto tootling down the open
> highway on holiday is achieving relatively high passenger-mile per
> gallon figures. But when dad or mom gets into that same car to make
> his or her regular solo trip to work the next week, passenger-mile per
> gallon figures plummet (not surprisingly). Of course, it is precisely
> this latter use of the car which is "comparative" to public transit
> use, since only it (and not the holiday drive) are in a similar
> environment to that of transit use.
The same case should be made in reverse. Transit is self selecting
for those very trips it performs best. You are comparing a very
incomplete transportation solution, transit to a nearly complete
transit solution, POVs. [Insert obligitory concession of non
absolutism, acknowledge the usual exceptions, travel to Hawaii
etc....].
You've just made the case of how grossly inefficient transit would be
if it tried to expand services to cover a larger share of travel.
If there were routes out there with greater efficiency than the
routes being run now, then we would have already dropped existing
route in favor of the more efficient routes. By definition, any
expansion in the system would be in areas already deemed more
marginal than the existing service area. Transit doesn't care about
POVs at all. Transit certainly does care about the most efficient way
to reduce congestion. Routes are selected
for highest ridership regardless of its affect/effect on POV travel.
> That is, when looking at overall averages, you are comparing apples
> and oranges, by comparing auto figures that include auto usage at
> its _most_ efficient (and where transit doesn't run -- indeed, some
> comparisons of this type explicitly _exclude_ long-distance bus and
> rail from the equation) with transit only in the least efficient
> environment -- which will no doubt skew the figures.
...
The same case should be made in reverse. The fact that transit is so
inefficient that it leaves the most inefficient trips to POVs is what
unfairly skews the data in favor of transit. The BTS data is
available to all so that you are correct, it is possible to
specifically exclude certain data BUT not without being upfront about
it. http://www.bts.gov/ntda/nts/NTS99/ch4index.html
(Check out table 4-11 where passenger autos have the highest average
gas mileage in history.)
It should also be noted that the NTD shows that the claimed population
of the nations transit agencies covers more than 85% of the entire
population and the FHWA data indicates that by far most of the POV
travel occurs in those same urban areas so it is reasonable to compare
ALL transit to ALL POV travel.
I'm sure now that you've got several thousand pages of data to digest
there will be some new complaints. Let me anticipate one. SUVs. I'd
be willing to bet that the poor and falling "SUV" numbers will be a
source of claims about declining performance. There isn't a SUV
category, it is more accurately called: Other 2-Axle 4-Tire Vehicle.
Nearly all vehicles in this category are light trucks, which include
vans, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles. This means
commercial vehicles as well. Before trotting out any "apples and
oranges" comparisons about POV versus transit someone will have to
subtract out the commercially operated vehicle data.
greg byshenk
> gbys...@byshenk.net (greg byshenk) wrote:
> > Jack May <jack...@trwsvl.com> wrote:
> > Leaving aside issues of whether auto usage is "sustainable", as we don't
> > have any clear definition of what that is supposed to be [certainly in
> > the very long term, petroleum-fueled transport is not "sustainable", but
> > a) automobiles need not run on petroleum-based fuel, and b) though
> > petroleum reserves will eventually be exhausted, it won't happen this
> > year, or this decade, and probably not this century]... .
> Seems to me that you not only left aside the issue of sustainability
> but you proved that no matter what definition is concocted, POV
> transportation will not be considered unsustainable. Good job.
That's _plainly_ wrong -- if one can concoct any definition one wants,
then one can easily concoct one that will cover POVs. The issue is
rather that whether autos are determined to be sustainable will depend
on how one defines "autos" and "sustainable". Because I don't expect
any general agreement on such, the exercise doesn't strike me as
terribly productive.
[Discussing definitions _is_ useful when it results in common
understanding of the terms at hand; merely disagreeing about
definitions without that goal is largely pointless.]
> > > The US Department of Transportation figures says that bus, light rail, and
> > > heavy rail burn more fuel on average per passenger mile than do automobiles.
> > > Not a surprise since most public transit runs big heavy vehicles which must
> > > start and stop often to let passengers on and off. The big vehicle are
> > > typically very lightly loaded which really decreases fuel economy.
> > It is also a case where "averages" aren't all that useful, as they
> > are comparing wildly different sets of numbers. For example, the
> > average family of four in the average auto tootling down the open
> > highway on holiday is achieving relatively high passenger-mile per
> > gallon figures. But when dad or mom gets into that same car to make
> > his or her regular solo trip to work the next week, passenger-mile per
> > gallon figures plummet (not surprisingly). Of course, it is precisely
> > this latter use of the car which is "comparative" to public transit
> > use, since only it (and not the holiday drive) are in a similar
> > environment to that of transit use.
> The same case should be made in reverse. Transit is self selecting
> for those very trips it performs best. You are comparing a very
> incomplete transportation solution, transit to a nearly complete
> transit solution, POVs. [Insert obligitory concession of non
> absolutism, acknowledge the usual exceptions, travel to Hawaii
> etc....].
I'm not quite sure what the point is here, as you already recognize
that POVs aren't "complete" either. Given that there is no means of
transport that is "complete", why should one consider "complete"ness
an issue? If "complete"ness is to be the measure, then the conclusion
would seem to be that everyone ought to be driving WWII surplus "Ducks",
or perhaps tanks, as they are more "complete". Doesn't it make more
sense to use the appropriate means of transport for a given purpose?
The picture of someone getting into his car and driving to the end
of the driveway to check his mail is considered a joke -- because
despite its degree of "complete"ness as a transporation solution,
that is generally considered a silly thing for which to use a car.
Yes, public transportation is not a solution to every transportation
need. Neither are automobiles. In some cases, a car is the best
option; in others it is a bus, or a train, or a boat, or a bike... .
Is your argument that, because autos are superior in certain cases
that we should reject alternatives -- even in those cases where the
alternative is superior? I don't think that's the case, but if not,
then I don't see the point you're trying to make.
> You've just made the case of how grossly inefficient transit would be
> if it tried to expand services to cover a larger share of travel.
No, I haven't. First, I haven't "made" any "case" at all. Second,
what may be _suggested_ by what I've written is that either a) some
possible uses of transit would be quite inefficient; or b) the
attempt to provide every possible journey via public transit would
be grossly inefficient.
> If there were routes out there with greater efficiency than the
> routes being run now, then we would have already dropped existing
> route in favor of the more efficient routes. By definition, any
> expansion in the system would be in areas already deemed more
> marginal than the existing service area. Transit doesn't care about
> POVs at all. Transit certainly does care about the most efficient way
> to reduce congestion. Routes are selected
> for highest ridership regardless of its affect/effect on POV travel.
First (as I think I've pointed out once before), this argument --
even potentially -- only holds in an unchanging world (which, I
think it is safe to say, is not the one in which we live). Second,
I think you're typing too fast (or not proofreading), as I think I've
seen you post previously that "transit" (schedulers? planners?) isn't
concerned with reducing congestion. Third, to say that routing is
chosen for ridership "regardless of its affect/effect on POV travel"
strikes me as a bit odd. Given that there is (for a given day, or
week, or whatever) some more or less constant number of journeys to
be made (because most people will be travelling in order to get
somewhere, and the number of those driving or riding transit just
to ride around for no purpose will be small), increased use of
public transit would seem naturally to imply decreased use of POVs
(other things being equal, which is of course a term of art, as they
never really are).
> > That is, when looking at overall averages, you are comparing apples
> > and oranges, by comparing auto figures that include auto usage at
> > its _most_ efficient (and where transit doesn't run -- indeed, some
> > comparisons of this type explicitly _exclude_ long-distance bus and
> > rail from the equation) with transit only in the least efficient
> > environment -- which will no doubt skew the figures.
> ...
> The same case should be made in reverse. The fact that transit is so
> inefficient that it leaves the most inefficient trips to POVs is what
> unfairly skews the data in favor of transit. The BTS data is
> available to all so that you are correct, it is possible to
> specifically exclude certain data BUT not without being upfront about
> it. http://www.bts.gov/ntda/nts/NTS99/ch4index.html
> (Check out table 4-11 where passenger autos have the highest average
> gas mileage in history.)
I'm not sure what you mean, here. The only distinction between types
of trips that has been made so far is that between long-distance,
constant-speed trips (eg: family of four on holiday) and short(er)-
distance, stop-and-go trips (eg: mom/dad on the morning commute).
And in this case, the most efficient (in terms of basic physics)
trips are those left to the auto. So you must be referring to
something else, but it isn't clear what.
In addition, while there is a lot of interesting data available from
the BTS, I don't see anything immediately relevant to this issue;
ie: _type_ of travel. Perhaps I've just missed it?
> It should also be noted that the NTD shows that the claimed population
> of the nations transit agencies covers more than 85% of the entire
> population and the FHWA data indicates that by far most of the POV
> travel occurs in those same urban areas so it is reasonable to compare
> ALL transit to ALL POV travel.
I can't comment meaningfully without some reference to the data
you mention.
> I'm sure now that you've got several thousand pages of data to digest
> there will be some new complaints. Let me anticipate one. SUVs. I'd
> be willing to bet that the poor and falling "SUV" numbers will be a
> source of claims about declining performance. There isn't a SUV
> category, it is more accurately called: Other 2-Axle 4-Tire Vehicle.
> Nearly all vehicles in this category are light trucks, which include
> vans, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles. This means
> commercial vehicles as well. Before trotting out any "apples and
> oranges" comparisons about POV versus transit someone will have to
> subtract out the commercially operated vehicle data.
Actually, given that my time is somewhat limited, references to the
_relevant_ data (rather than blanket references to "several thousand
pages") would be helpful. If I have to wade through thousands of
pages, a response will probably be a long time in coming.
John
___>^..^<___
"Robert Cote" <tech...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:biDC6.529$SP5.1...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> In article <slrn9dlsji.1...@shell-2.enteract.com>,
> gbys...@byshenk.net (greg byshenk) wrote:
>
> > That is, when looking at overall averages, you are comparing apples
> > and oranges, by comparing auto figures that include auto usage at
> > its _most_ efficient (and where transit doesn't run -- indeed, some
> > comparisons of this type explicitly _exclude_ long-distance bus and
> > rail from the equation) with transit only in the least efficient
> > environment -- which will no doubt skew the figures.
> ...
>
> The same case should be made in reverse. The fact that transit is so
> inefficient that it leaves the most inefficient trips to POVs is what
> unfairly skews the data in favor of transit.
Autos get better mileage and have greater occupancy on the road than in the
city - transit "leaves" the most *efficient* trips to POVs.
>The BTS data is
> available to all so that you are correct, it is possible to
> specifically exclude certain data BUT not without being upfront about
> it. http://www.bts.gov/ntda/nts/NTS99/ch4index.html
> (Check out table 4-11 where passenger autos have the highest average
> gas mileage in history.)
Same old tricks, Robert - the 'passenger autos' catagory doesn't include
SUVs.
> It should also be noted that the NTD shows that the claimed population
> of the nations transit agencies covers more than 85% of the entire
> population and the FHWA data indicates that by far most of the POV
> travel occurs in those same urban areas
Where does it say that?
>so it is reasonable to compare
> ALL transit to ALL POV travel.
No, but you'll try anyway. If you want a real comparison, do it in the same
corridor. For instance - in Portland, tens of thousands of autos use I-205
every day - but no transit buses use it.
> I'm sure now that you've got several thousand pages of data to digest
> there will be some new complaints. Let me anticipate one. SUVs. I'd
You've been shot down on this one before - you're a slow learner.
> be willing to bet that the poor and falling "SUV" numbers will be a
> source of claims about declining performance. There isn't a SUV
> category, it is more accurately called: Other 2-Axle 4-Tire Vehicle.
> Nearly all vehicles in this category are light trucks, which include
> vans, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles. This means
> commercial vehicles as well. Before trotting out any "apples and
> oranges" comparisons about POV versus transit someone will have to
> subtract out the commercially operated vehicle data.
Bottom line is you're trying to make comparisons with invalid statistics -
and you know they're invalid.