I respectfully disagree on both counts. I live near LA (nearer Long Beach,
actually), and from what I see, people have embraced decent mass transit
quite well. In fact, there was an article in the LA paper a year or so ago,
about how Metrolink (our new 'light rail' system) needed more money because
the ridership was so much higher than projected ! (Subsidy funds are fixed,
not per-rider.)
And, if we had mass transit like what I rode in the Netherlands, I think
many, if not most, commuters would use it. Local electric trams, with lines
and stops spaced so you never have to walk more than a few blocks (probably
closer than the nearest parking space !) in urban and suburban areas, plus
high speed trains for longer distance travel. For almost any common origin
and destination, you can get there faster by mass transit than by driving a
car ! No parking hassles, no tickets to worry about, no fuel to buy ... and
my wife talked for years afterwards about how safe and clean they were.
Unfortunately, I don't see any practical way to duplicate the Dutch system
here. Maybe when fuel is $10/gallon ...
Randall
Ed Quinn wrote :
>
> The feeling in Los Angeles is
> " If they put in mass transit, then I can drive my car to work cause less
> people will be on the road"
> Ed
>
Phil Ethier wrote :
>
> Nope. Mass transit has a negligible effect in getting automobiles off the
> road.
> If you want to get cars off the road, you need to give folks an
> alternative
> that has many of the advantages of cars: Security, convenience, speed.
> Mass
> transit can't do that.
/// triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe triumphs
///
|