From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Feb 11 2003 - 17:06:56 MST
Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
>...
>Damien,
> I can assume you are entirely correct insofar as you go. But assume
>that the implications of what Mike and I are saying is true also.
> Basically assume that the mass transit doesn't move folks as fast as
>an auto even in rush hour traffic. That is what Mike and I found. In
>...Ron h.
>
This depends on several variables. It's frequently true. But it sure
isn't always true. It's also frequently true that mass transit is a lot
faster...if the roads are sufficiently packed.
However, there are other costs. Mass transit doesn't take you from any
old starting position, and it doesn't deliver you to any old
destination. If you are starting from a optimal place, and ending in an
optimal place, then it can be faster even in conditions of only moderate
traffic. If the traffic is really bad, then it can be faster even if
you need to walk a few blocks, or transfer to a bus, at one end of the
route. And if it's horrendous, then it can be 10 times as fast. This
is largely dependant on how well the streets, parking, etc. match the
number of cars that it is intended to put on them. But this is
basically fixed when any city is originally designed. True, there are
usually retro-fits that can double or tripple the original design limit
(at a cost in esthetics and convenience and $$). But then you hit a
wall, unless you decide to, e.g., double-deck your roads (and not just
the freeways), and put up skyscrapers just for parking.
So he may be quite right for where he's looking. I don't know the
area. And I certainly wouldn't call mass transit cheap. But when
density reaches certain levels, it becomes necessary. (It may still be
more expensive than cars [perhaps], but beyond a certain level cars just
won't work.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 11 2003 - 17:09:13 MST