Re: [carfree_cities] Re: An Argument for Fee-based Roads (long)
>>>>> ">" == smithjeff11 <smithjeff11@...> writes:A few months ago the book "The Elephant in the Bedroom" was mentioned
>> 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.
on this list. I recommend it as an economically- and even mildly
libertarian- (how's that for a reversal?) oriented book on autos and
>> - Why would anyone think that a bus is a better city investmentThe standard argument is that buses can be re-routed as demand
>> 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
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
Also, there is some (unknown, at least to me) psychological element:
people like trains and ride them, but dislike buses and avoid them.
- Louis-Luc said:
>It's relative...I'm with you up to this point.
>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.
>The ideal is a monorail:We've had more than enough experience with elevated transport systems to
>- 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
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