Subject:
|
Re: Public transportation (was Re: Age limitations)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Jul 2000 20:09:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
331 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Mass transit will have little hope of being effective until the real
> costs of transportation are directly allocated. Even then, it will still
> have a struggle since people are willing to shell out a lot of money
> even now for personal transportation (look at the cost of cars and their
> fuel and maintenance).
This is certainly true--a related problem with mass transit involves the
current impossibility of on-demand convenience; if I want to pick up a few
groceries, I can hop in a car and be there and back in twenty-five minutes. If
I'd try to take the bus, however, it's half an hour until the bus is due at
the nearest stop six blocks away, and then it follows a convoluted route to
the same grocery store. After shopping, I'd have to wait possibly another
half hour until the return bus shows up, following a similiarly convoluted
route back to the stop six blocks from my home, and then I get to lug my
groceries down the street. My shopping time has expanded from 25 minutes to
potentially several hours. I'm not saying these problems wouldn't be
partially overcome by an improved transit system, but they certainly won't
equal the convenience of having one's own transportation, even considering the
cost of gas, insurance, upkeep, etc.
I think the Internet faces a similar dilemma; until it is more convenient
and approximately as quick to order something online as to drive to the store
and pick it up, Internet commerce will not replace brick-and-mortar
establishments, though they obviously will have (and have had) an impact.
Even such information commodities as books and software can, in most urban
areas, be acquired for nearly the same cost as from online sources, and
certainly much quicker than even overnight shipment. I don't believe that
widespread downloading of E-books will become a competitive market force for
some time, since people will unquestionably pirate any such books and destroy
the profitability.
> The cities which have reasonably effective mass transit systems have an
> advantage no other city can attain. Significant portions of the mass
> transit in those cities was developed before the car was a common mode
> of transport.
Parts of Pittsburgh suffer from high crime, squalor, and crowded living
conditions specifically because developers tried to build residences while
keeping in mind the anticipated boom of mass transit. Instead, cars attained
popularity, and the inadequate roads were forced to accomodate zillions of
vehicles. The idea was sound, but the execution failed because it didn't
anticipate the attractiveness of convenience (among other reasons).
> I also wonder if the costs were properly apportioned whether we would
> use busses and rail over air travel more?
I once rode a Greyhound for 44 hours straight (allowing for layovers), and
that'll do me just fine for the rest of my life! Aside from the conditions--
which, I grant, would improve in a truly competitive environment--the bus
still lacks the to-your-door convenience of a car. Until that changes, people
are going to be reluctant to give up their vehicles.
For long-distance travel, though, I think you're right that a high-speed
rail system would be a very competitive alternative, provided that the rail
served as many locations with approximately the same convenience.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
12 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
