11994[CF] Re: Rail vs. Buses
- Mar 1, 2005Americans often assume that we are priveleged with our UK rail
networks. This depressing article in today's Times ''Fear grows for
rail services as axe hangs over local stations'' gives a truer
perspective i'm afraid.
--- In CarFree@yahoogroups.com, Jym Dyer <jym@e...> wrote:
> >> The best transit systems in the world use an integrated
> >> rail/bus system.
> =v= Also a little sweeping, I'm afraid. Rail where appropriate
> plus bus where appropriate makes sense (obviously), but rail
> plus bus isn't always applied that way.
> =v= A classic example is San Francisco, a city built around
> streetcars and cablecars. If you look at old maps, you'll see
> rail on nearly every street. What San Francisco has today,
> though, is a lot of buses where rail is more appropriate. In
> particular, buses that spew copious amounts of carcinogenic
> diesel soot to get up steep hills.
> > No wonder only the poorest of the poor rode that bus line.
> =v= This is the thing underlying the "transit apartheid"
> thread. So often the buses (and their carcinogenic exhaust)
> get deployed in the neighborhoods of poor and/or minority
> communities, while the richer and whiter are more likely to
> get rail.
> =v= Your experience points to another problem, because the
> bus you were on was stuck in car traffic. Rail often comes
> with a dedicated right of way and can avoid this situation.
> (There are exceptions, San Francisco being one of them.)
> There are also busways with a dedicated right of way, but
> the hyped "flexible" nature of a bus often means it spends
> crucial parts of its trip mixed in with and stuck in car
- << Previous post in topic