[CF] Re: Rail vs. Buses
- Americans 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