Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

7527PRT anti-transit Disinformation

Expand Messages
  • Steve Geller
    Jul 17, 2004
      PRT should not be rejected out-of-hand. It could be a good idea
      on a college campus or for serving an office park / light industrial area.

      But generally, public transit works best in bulk. It thrives amid dense
      development, and is most efficient when it moves many people; large vehicles
      like buses are the way to do that.

      I'm more convinced than ever that the success of public transit anywhere
      is limited by two things: density (of riders/destinations) and the
      availability of parking. Vast acreages of parking can only encourage
      use of private cars. If any locality wants to cut congestion, the decision
      must be made to cut back parking while providing public transportation.

      I think a PRT could be a "feeder" to buses and lite rail, in areas
      where there's a lot of coming and going, but not in big crowds.

      As I travel around the area with newly sensitized eyes, I can see that
      >what hindered the development of sustainable transit in this area was
      >the rapidity and efficiency of the freeway building program. Because
      >the area acquired so many freeways so quickly, there are now a number
      >of "island" neighborhoods that are or could be terrific walkable
      >neighborhoods, but they are utterly inaccessible without a car.

      This is deliberate car-first public policy. The "islands" should be
      connected by PRT, buses, rail or whatever is most appropriate.
      And parking space within an island should be limited to
      delivery vehicles.

      One of my favorite "Roadkill Bill" cartoons shows RKB amazed at
      a main street with no cars, and people getting about by foot,
      trains and trolleys. He's at Disney World, where pre-car America
      is exhibited as a nostalgic historical curiosity.
    • Show all 17 messages in this topic