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

Re: [carfree_cities] Re: An Argument for Fee-based Roads (long)

Expand Messages
  • Tom Tromey
    ... A few months ago the book The Elephant in the Bedroom was mentioned on this list. I recommend it as an economically- and even mildly libertarian- (how s
    Message 1 of 40 , Apr 2, 2002
      >>>>> ">" == smithjeff11 <smithjeff11@...> writes:

      >> What a great new point of view! It's so easy to view these
      >> transportation issues strictly from a socialogical perspective, but
      >> so refreshing to look at it from pure economics.

      A few months ago the book "The Elephant in the Bedroom" was mentioned
      on this list. I recommend it as an economically- and even mildly
      libertarian- (how's that for a reversal?) oriented book on autos and
      sprawl.

      >> - Why would anyone think that a bus is a better city investment
      >> than a Trolley? Aside from the fact that the Trolleys' advantages
      >> are less tangible (greener and cleaner, and less pedestrian fear of
      >> getting hit, etc.), there is always the point that the Buses
      >> transportation infrastructure is FREE(except that it isn't, of
      >> course!).

      The standard argument is that buses can be re-routed as demand
      changes.

      The rebuttal to this, as I understand it, is that fixed systems
      inspire long-term confidence; people move towards trolley stops. Or
      to put it another way, the fact that buses can be re-routed means
      there is little confidence that the route you need will be around
      tomorrow.

      Also, there is some (unknown, at least to me) psychological element:
      people like trains and ride them, but dislike buses and avoid them.

      Tom
    • J.H. Crawford
      ... I m with you up to this point. ... We ve had more than enough experience with elevated transport systems to decide right now never to build another one of
      Message 40 of 40 , Apr 8, 2002
        Louis-Luc said:

        >It's relative...
        >Knowing there is an environment spoiled with cars, and
        >an underground city filled with life (Montreal Underground Network), I
        >prefer the subway way over the
        >bus, because you can ride it and walk through the underground city for hours
        >(or repetedly for days), without knowing cars even exist.
        >
        >However, in a city with no car, or where car drivers yield to human-powered
        >traffic both in theory and 100% in practice, then streetcars or buses become
        >much more attractive, because you don't have the stress of walking through
        >car traffic when you ride them and walk in the city.

        I'm with you up to this point.

        >The ideal is a monorail:
        >- it runs in the air (over street level) NONONONONONO!!!!!
        >- it frees the street for human uses true
        >- when you ride it, you see outdoors, true, but not at eye-level
        >but I think it's more vulnerable to the weather than a metro. probably so

        We've had more than enough experience with elevated transport systems to
        decide right now never to build another one of the damn things. It's
        true that newer technology is better in this respect than older stuff,
        but it will never be acceptable. (Well, ok, some breakthrough in materials
        that allowed the construction of spider-web thin supports for the tracks
        (or whatever) might change the picture somewhat, but it still is not
        the right way to do it. If you need above-ground transport, trams are
        the way to go. If there's too much traffic from the trams to be acceptable,
        then you HAVE to build a metro, no matter what the cost. If there's that
        much traffic, the cost is not unreasonable (per rider).)



        -- ### --

        J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
        mailbox@... Carfree.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.