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

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

Expand Messages
  • prometeus57
    ... Buses suffer more jerk (acceleration per second) than trolleys so they have a rougher ride. I m not sure that accounts for all of it because the Paris
    Message 1 of 40 , Apr 4, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In carfree_cities@y..., Tom Tromey <tromey@c...> wrote:
      > Also, there is some (unknown, at least to me) psychological element:
      > people like trains and ride them, but dislike buses and avoid them.

      Buses suffer more jerk (acceleration per second) than trolleys so
      they have a rougher ride. I'm not sure that accounts for all of it
      because the Paris metro still has a couple of lines that use rubber.
      But maybe that doesn't count since a subway car always follows a
      track, even if it uses rubber tires. Then there's the fact that
      trolleys (or at least the metro) don't get stuck in traffic.
    • 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
      • 0 Attachment
        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.