Every too often somebody writes a letter to the editor complaining that public transit is “social engineering” and “taking our cars away”. Have they considered that building all the freeways is social engineering?
How many people lost their houses to make way for the freeways? How many neighborhoods were separated by freeways? How many farmers had their land taken by imminent domain? I know, I know! It’s eminent domain but when your land is taken it is also imminent. Aren’t these changes to city and country social engineering?
When the freeways are first built, it becomes much quicker for many people to drive than to take public transit. More people drive instead of taking the bus, the bus service becomes less frequent for those who don’t drive. So to save time, more people have to buy cars. Isn’t this social engineering?
Remember “Field of Dreams” where Robert Redford was told, “Build it and they will come.” Well, we build freeways and they come. Soon a four-lane freeway has to become a six-lane freeway. Soon the six-lane is clogged and has to become an eight-lane freeway. Where are all the people going to live as the freeways get wider and wider? Isn’t this social engineering?
For some reason those who complain about their cars “being taken away” don’t seem to realize that the more other people take public transit the more room there is for them on the freeways.
And actually, public transit should have dedicated lines or lanes right down the middle of every freeway. I remember driving out of Chicago on I-90 on a Sunday afternoon. It was stop and go in three lanes in my direction. We would move a bit and a train would catch up to us. Then we would move forward ahead of the train. This went on for fifteen minutes or so and the pattern was reversed. The train would pull ahead and we would catch up. Eventually the train was long gone and we started and stopped, started and stopped.
When I grew up in Cleveland, we walked to neighborhood stores or took the streetcar downtown. Now most neighborhood stores and downtown stores have been closed in favor of sprawling malls in the middle of nowhere. Sometimes the lots are so big that it takes twice as long to walk from one’s car as it did to walk to the corner store. Isn’t this social engineering? And it was done without a public vote!
The irony is that most social engineering is done by corporations, not governments. When a government does “social engineering” we might have an open debate about it. When a corporation does “social engineering”, it is done behind closed doors and often by deceit.
In the Twentieth Century we as a nation were socially engineered by a man many of us never heard of – Edward Bernays. A nephew of Sigmund Freud, he applied many of his uncle’s ideas to manipulation of public opinion. Supposedly he believed that “public’s democratic judgment was ‘not to be relied upon’…’so they had to be guided from above.”
He worked in the Committee on Public Information during World War I. One task was publicizing the idea that the U.S. involvement was “bringing democracy to all of Europe.” We had a repeat of this use of “democracy” in our own times. “The ill that men do lives after them…” The success of “bringing democracy” surprised Bernays, and he wondered if similar propaganda could be used in peacetime. Rather than call it propaganda, he labelled it “public relations”.
One of his first achievements was helping the tobacco industry break the taboo of women smoking in public. He staged a big event in New York City in which models lit up Lucky Strike cigarettes or “Torches of Freedom”. This promotion was not done as advertising but as news! Smoking was giving women “freedom” and “liberty”. Two more echoes in our time: “freedom” and “liberty” are smoke screens for doing what one damn well pleases without concern for the consequences for others.
Many Americans ate a light breakfast of coffee and maybe a roll or orange juice. He arranged for letters being sent to 5,000 doctors asking if they thought Americans should have a bigger breakfast. About ninety percent answered saying Americans should have bigger breakfasts. This he had published as news in papers across the country. In parallel, he had other articles published that bacon and eggs should be part of a larger breakfast.
He believed that we would have a utopia if the inner energies of individuals “could be harnessed and channeled by a corporate elite for economic benefit.” This idea seems to be alive and well with all the corporate claims that they will create jobs and that environmental protection and safety rules will only take away jobs.
He wrote a paper called “Engineering of Consent”: "Any person or organization depends ultimately on public approval, and is therefore faced with the problem of engineering the public's consent to a program or goal.” Isn’t this a description of “social engineering”?
In many ways, Bernays was value-neutral. He protected a play in 1913 that supported sex education. He promoted fluoridation of water to help the aluminum industry sell a by-product of aluminum production. He hosted the first NAACP convention in Atlanta, and there was no violence. On the other hand, he inflated the threat of communism and was instrumental in the overthrow of the elected president of Guatemala.
For lots more on Bernays see Wikipedia and “Century of Self”, a four-part BBC series. I hope these will help you be more skeptical of what anybody says for or against any idea. Or as in “All the President’s Men”, “Follow the Money”. Oh, and be skeptical of the attribution of this quote. If you do so, you might inoculate yourself against “social engineering”.
Mel considers himself a gullible skeptic.
This was also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2015-05-21 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/05/21/5311_who_is_doing_what_social_engineering
Showing posts with label public transit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public transit. Show all posts
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Cars vs. transit - apples and oranges or dollars and cents
Every so often, the newspapers publish a letter or opinion strongly against transit. The current favorite target is the Green Line between Minneapolis and St. Paul. At least the critics are writing about the costs and not about “government taking our cars away”.
I would like to turn the last phrase around and say that “government took our street cars, buses, and trains away”. “Government” did this by building bigger and faster freeways and reducing transit service. Why take a bus that runs every hour or half-hour when you can arrive at your destination in your car in fifteen minutes?
I grew up in Cleveland, Ohio and got around by foot, bicycle, street cars, and buses. I rarely bothered with a schedule because service was rather frequent. By the time I got to graduate school, most service had deteriorated to the point that I could walk to school faster than I could take two buses. In bad weather, I drove.
Those who complain about “government taking our cars away” should look at it as “making room for me”. If more people took the public transit, there would be more room for those who chose to drive.
Think about how a bus makes more space for drivers. Suppose a forty-foot bus has an average load of twenty-five passengers. Suppose a fifteen-foot car has an average load of two passengers. Assuming that all vehicles are traveling at 55mph with a safe-stopping distance between them, then a bus would need less than fifteen feet per passenger but a car would need sixty-eight feet per passenger. See, government can be efficient!
I use the load of twenty-five passengers above because that was my usual load driving a bus between Maple Grove and downtown Minneapolis. If buses were carrying forty passengers instead, which some do, then the comparison would drop to nine feet of highway per passenger. I’ll let you do the comparison for four passengers per car. However, my first figure is generous in that so many cars have a single occupant. Using that figure shows us that a single occupant uses almost ten times as much highway space per passenger as a bus carrying twenty-five passengers.
Think about the parking space needed. A forty-foot bus will need about 360 square-feet of parking space at the terminal. They would all be jammed together. A fifteen-foot car would need over 200 square-feet of parking space in a lot or garage. That is around 100 square-feet of parking space per passenger. On the other hand, if a bus made three runs, it would only need less than five square-feet of parking space per passenger.
It’s a bit of a slog to find CO2 emissions and fuel efficiency figures, but from Wikipedia I found a 2008 Toyota Prius has a rating of 46 mpg and 55-passenger buses in Santa Barbara have a rating of 6.0 mpg. Using the previous figures of two passengers in a car and twenty-five in a bus, we get 92 mpg/passenger for a Prius (worse if we use some other vehicles) and 150mpg/passenger for a bus. If the bus had forty passengers, we would get 240mpg/passenger.
In areas where traffic comes to a standstill and buses drive on the shoulder, the buses would definitely be doing better on emissions.
Every time I drive to the Cities, I marvel at all the land gobbled up by that huge interchange of 35E and 694. How much tax revenue is lost for that land? I took an easier sample. Using Hennepin County’s Property Interactive Map, I selected a few residences on Second Avenue South that were south of Lake Street. Houses on Second Avenue there overlook I-35W Gulch. The real estate taxes there are about $2,500 per year. There are about 31 blocks from Lake St. to the city limit at 62nd Street. I-35W is one block wide. The city, county, and school district taxes lost for that section of freeway are over $1.8 million. For this little article, I am not going to make the effort to calculate the taxes lost for all the freeways that scar the Twin Cities.
Sadly, the freeway is probably used more by people that don’t even live in Hennepin County, but counties to the south.
It wasn’t “government that took our buses away”, but land speculators and corporations. In the Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, railroads and land speculators encouraged people to move to the suburbs to get away from “those people” in the city. Then the car manufacturers lobbied for more roads for their vehicles. Roads were a subsidy for cars, but to pay for the roads, governments couldn’t afford street cars and buses.
Ironically, now many affluent are moving back to the cities and pushing “those people” out. First it was land speculators attracting people out from the cities, and now it is building speculators attracting people back to the cities. Pst, hey buddy, I have this nice New York City condo for you, only $25 million.
I would like to turn the last phrase around and say that “government took our street cars, buses, and trains away”. “Government” did this by building bigger and faster freeways and reducing transit service. Why take a bus that runs every hour or half-hour when you can arrive at your destination in your car in fifteen minutes?
I grew up in Cleveland, Ohio and got around by foot, bicycle, street cars, and buses. I rarely bothered with a schedule because service was rather frequent. By the time I got to graduate school, most service had deteriorated to the point that I could walk to school faster than I could take two buses. In bad weather, I drove.
Those who complain about “government taking our cars away” should look at it as “making room for me”. If more people took the public transit, there would be more room for those who chose to drive.
Think about how a bus makes more space for drivers. Suppose a forty-foot bus has an average load of twenty-five passengers. Suppose a fifteen-foot car has an average load of two passengers. Assuming that all vehicles are traveling at 55mph with a safe-stopping distance between them, then a bus would need less than fifteen feet per passenger but a car would need sixty-eight feet per passenger. See, government can be efficient!
I use the load of twenty-five passengers above because that was my usual load driving a bus between Maple Grove and downtown Minneapolis. If buses were carrying forty passengers instead, which some do, then the comparison would drop to nine feet of highway per passenger. I’ll let you do the comparison for four passengers per car. However, my first figure is generous in that so many cars have a single occupant. Using that figure shows us that a single occupant uses almost ten times as much highway space per passenger as a bus carrying twenty-five passengers.
Think about the parking space needed. A forty-foot bus will need about 360 square-feet of parking space at the terminal. They would all be jammed together. A fifteen-foot car would need over 200 square-feet of parking space in a lot or garage. That is around 100 square-feet of parking space per passenger. On the other hand, if a bus made three runs, it would only need less than five square-feet of parking space per passenger.
It’s a bit of a slog to find CO2 emissions and fuel efficiency figures, but from Wikipedia I found a 2008 Toyota Prius has a rating of 46 mpg and 55-passenger buses in Santa Barbara have a rating of 6.0 mpg. Using the previous figures of two passengers in a car and twenty-five in a bus, we get 92 mpg/passenger for a Prius (worse if we use some other vehicles) and 150mpg/passenger for a bus. If the bus had forty passengers, we would get 240mpg/passenger.
In areas where traffic comes to a standstill and buses drive on the shoulder, the buses would definitely be doing better on emissions.
Every time I drive to the Cities, I marvel at all the land gobbled up by that huge interchange of 35E and 694. How much tax revenue is lost for that land? I took an easier sample. Using Hennepin County’s Property Interactive Map, I selected a few residences on Second Avenue South that were south of Lake Street. Houses on Second Avenue there overlook I-35W Gulch. The real estate taxes there are about $2,500 per year. There are about 31 blocks from Lake St. to the city limit at 62nd Street. I-35W is one block wide. The city, county, and school district taxes lost for that section of freeway are over $1.8 million. For this little article, I am not going to make the effort to calculate the taxes lost for all the freeways that scar the Twin Cities.
Sadly, the freeway is probably used more by people that don’t even live in Hennepin County, but counties to the south.
It wasn’t “government that took our buses away”, but land speculators and corporations. In the Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, railroads and land speculators encouraged people to move to the suburbs to get away from “those people” in the city. Then the car manufacturers lobbied for more roads for their vehicles. Roads were a subsidy for cars, but to pay for the roads, governments couldn’t afford street cars and buses.
Ironically, now many affluent are moving back to the cities and pushing “those people” out. First it was land speculators attracting people out from the cities, and now it is building speculators attracting people back to the cities. Pst, hey buddy, I have this nice New York City condo for you, only $25 million.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Where, oh where did the moderates go?
For a good analysis of why we have so few moderate Republicans, see "George and Mitt Romney & the Death of Moderate GOP", David Frum, The Daily Beast, 2012-03-19.
As an interesting sidelight, how many current Republicans (or Democrats) would take a subway from the airport and a bus from the subway as George Romney did to visit his son's campaign headquarters?
As an interesting sidelight, how many current Republicans (or Democrats) would take a subway from the airport and a bus from the subway as George Romney did to visit his son's campaign headquarters?
Friday, March 16, 2012
Lack of transit options is a business tax
This entry was inspired by "Southwest light-rail is good for business", Star Tribune, 2012-03-16.
Opponents of light-rail, expanded bus service, and other non-auto transit options claim that we can't afford the taxes to build these. Some of these same people claim that businesses shouldn't be taxed.
Somehow we do have taxes to build more and more roads. Somehow we do have taxes to police and repair these roads. But what do more roads get us? More congestion. How many times do you come to a standstill at rush hour (or in large cities, on rush day)? Do you remember 10 or 20 years ago when the freeways had fewer lanes? Do you remember coming to a standstill maybe less than you do now? So more roads were built and more people used them. A sort of build it and they will come situation.
So people lose time because of traffic congestion and businesses have less ready-to-work employees. And many employees leaving early "to beat the rush".
But for those who don't want to tax businesses, do you realize the automobile culture levies a heavy tax on them? If a company has 1,000 employees at a location working a day shift, how many parking spaces will the company have to provide? What is the cost of those spaces? Who pays for those spaces? Could the land be better used for other purposes?
Look at the suburbanization of our shopping areas. Any business has to provide a certain minimum of parking. And smaller businesses have to allocate so many handicapped spaces, even when the farthest general parking space is closer to the building than the nearest handicapped space in Sprawl Mall is to the main entrance!
How come the anti-government, pro-business party isn't listening to the pro-transit businesses? Especially when that same party claims businesses can do things better than government?
Opponents of light-rail, expanded bus service, and other non-auto transit options claim that we can't afford the taxes to build these. Some of these same people claim that businesses shouldn't be taxed.
Somehow we do have taxes to build more and more roads. Somehow we do have taxes to police and repair these roads. But what do more roads get us? More congestion. How many times do you come to a standstill at rush hour (or in large cities, on rush day)? Do you remember 10 or 20 years ago when the freeways had fewer lanes? Do you remember coming to a standstill maybe less than you do now? So more roads were built and more people used them. A sort of build it and they will come situation.
So people lose time because of traffic congestion and businesses have less ready-to-work employees. And many employees leaving early "to beat the rush".
But for those who don't want to tax businesses, do you realize the automobile culture levies a heavy tax on them? If a company has 1,000 employees at a location working a day shift, how many parking spaces will the company have to provide? What is the cost of those spaces? Who pays for those spaces? Could the land be better used for other purposes?
Look at the suburbanization of our shopping areas. Any business has to provide a certain minimum of parking. And smaller businesses have to allocate so many handicapped spaces, even when the farthest general parking space is closer to the building than the nearest handicapped space in Sprawl Mall is to the main entrance!
How come the anti-government, pro-business party isn't listening to the pro-transit businesses? Especially when that same party claims businesses can do things better than government?
Monday, August 01, 2011
Do those calling for efficiency really want efficiency?
As I've said before, many who call for efficiency generally mean government agencies doing more for even less money. But then some of these same people complain about the cost of doing something more efficiently.
For example, light rail is more efficient than bus service. Except for articulated buses, buses with a single driver are limited to carrying about forty passengers. On the other hand, a light-rail car can hold sixty passengers, and at peak times more cars can be added, greatly increasing driver efficiency.
However, many who want efficiency don't want to subsidize light rail or any public transportation. They don't want to "take away" people's "freedom" to drive cars. One vehicle, one driver: is that efficient? In order to accommodate all these vehicles, their drivers expect government to build bigger, wider faster highways. Oh yes, these drivers don't want them to be toll roads; that would make them more inefficient. Of course, these roads are so convenient that more and more drivers use them eventually slowing traffic! And of course, the taxes dedicated to the roads are insufficient, and so other taxes have to pay for them. And the base for local taxes to pay for them has been reduced because houses and businesses have been removed to make way for ever wider highways. Think of how many hundreds of houses would fit in an interchange like 35E and 694 in the Twin Cities. And bulldozing houses in the cities means that houses have to be built farther out, which means more people have to drive longer distances to get anywhere, which means bigger highways have to be built, ...
Extreme anti-tax people think all roads should be privatized. Let's see, the roads will need devices to scan for paid subscriptions, and toll booths to collect from non-subscribers. Can you imagine having a toll booth every few blocks? That would certainly decrease efficiency. Of course, over time all the toll roads in an area would be run by a company that does not answer to the public, only its shareholders. To increase profits, the company would have to decrease maintenance. Since the customers have no other choice, they will have to put up with the bad roads.
Be careful what you ask for!
This was inspired by Steve Elkins' "Not every enterprise can do more with less", Star Tribune, 2011-08-01.
For example, light rail is more efficient than bus service. Except for articulated buses, buses with a single driver are limited to carrying about forty passengers. On the other hand, a light-rail car can hold sixty passengers, and at peak times more cars can be added, greatly increasing driver efficiency.
However, many who want efficiency don't want to subsidize light rail or any public transportation. They don't want to "take away" people's "freedom" to drive cars. One vehicle, one driver: is that efficient? In order to accommodate all these vehicles, their drivers expect government to build bigger, wider faster highways. Oh yes, these drivers don't want them to be toll roads; that would make them more inefficient. Of course, these roads are so convenient that more and more drivers use them eventually slowing traffic! And of course, the taxes dedicated to the roads are insufficient, and so other taxes have to pay for them. And the base for local taxes to pay for them has been reduced because houses and businesses have been removed to make way for ever wider highways. Think of how many hundreds of houses would fit in an interchange like 35E and 694 in the Twin Cities. And bulldozing houses in the cities means that houses have to be built farther out, which means more people have to drive longer distances to get anywhere, which means bigger highways have to be built, ...
Extreme anti-tax people think all roads should be privatized. Let's see, the roads will need devices to scan for paid subscriptions, and toll booths to collect from non-subscribers. Can you imagine having a toll booth every few blocks? That would certainly decrease efficiency. Of course, over time all the toll roads in an area would be run by a company that does not answer to the public, only its shareholders. To increase profits, the company would have to decrease maintenance. Since the customers have no other choice, they will have to put up with the bad roads.
Be careful what you ask for!
This was inspired by Steve Elkins' "Not every enterprise can do more with less", Star Tribune, 2011-08-01.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Investment or tax
Clive Thompson argues that we should have more public transit to reduce the incidents of texting while driving: "Clive Thompson to Texters: Park the Car, Take the Bus". He decries the fact that in the U.S. we are so car-dependent that we increase the number of textures driving; in other countries young people don't even consider getting a car as soon as they are eligible because public transit is so convenient.
Can't you just hear the "no-taxers" screaming about the cost of better public transit? Of course, most of them drive on tax-supported roads. They never stop to think that more public transit might reduce their travel time. Of course, fewer cars on the road also means fewer accidents, which are a cost in themselves. Fewer texters on the road means even fewer accidents. And fewer accidents means fewer court cases, which means less taxes to pay for courts. And fewer accidents means more money in all of our pockets to spend elsewhere.
Many cities even find that it pays to have free bus service: Bozeman MT, Steamboat Springs CO, and Park City UT. Park City really wins the prize with every 10-minute service on its mainline from early in the morning until late at night. Park City parking is very limited; I wonder how much acreage and dollars would have been used if there had been no free bus service.
Can't you just hear the "no-taxers" screaming about the cost of better public transit? Of course, most of them drive on tax-supported roads. They never stop to think that more public transit might reduce their travel time. Of course, fewer cars on the road also means fewer accidents, which are a cost in themselves. Fewer texters on the road means even fewer accidents. And fewer accidents means fewer court cases, which means less taxes to pay for courts. And fewer accidents means more money in all of our pockets to spend elsewhere.
Many cities even find that it pays to have free bus service: Bozeman MT, Steamboat Springs CO, and Park City UT. Park City really wins the prize with every 10-minute service on its mainline from early in the morning until late at night. Park City parking is very limited; I wonder how much acreage and dollars would have been used if there had been no free bus service.
Friday, September 04, 2009
The new buzzword: "efficiency"
Today's Star Tribune had yet another op-ed piece calling for government efficiency. See "MnDOT must work smarter for savings". This time it was for MnDOT to be more efficient in keeping our roads in good shape. Oh, yes, it was by a member of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce.
Whenever, I see calls for efficiencies in government, I read calls for doing more with less money.
If people want efficiency in transportation, they should be calling for more public transit and more trains. After all, it is more efficient to have one driver transporting 30 to 50 people than 30 drivers transporting 30 people and to have one engineer transporting 100 to 400 people between cities than 100 drivers transporting 100 people.
What these modes don't provide is convenience, which is one measure of effectiveness. Since we choose convenience as an important part of our transportation infra-structure, we should be willing to consider all the costs of such convenience.
One of the costs is that the convenience entices more and more people to drive, so much so, that more collective travel withers. As more and more people drive, we need more lanes and roads. "Build it and they will come." As we need more lanes and roads, we need more money. As we need more money, we need more taxes. Oops! No new taxes. If no new taxes, shall we have no new lanes and no new roads?
Whenever, I see calls for efficiencies in government, I read calls for doing more with less money.
If people want efficiency in transportation, they should be calling for more public transit and more trains. After all, it is more efficient to have one driver transporting 30 to 50 people than 30 drivers transporting 30 people and to have one engineer transporting 100 to 400 people between cities than 100 drivers transporting 100 people.
What these modes don't provide is convenience, which is one measure of effectiveness. Since we choose convenience as an important part of our transportation infra-structure, we should be willing to consider all the costs of such convenience.
One of the costs is that the convenience entices more and more people to drive, so much so, that more collective travel withers. As more and more people drive, we need more lanes and roads. "Build it and they will come." As we need more lanes and roads, we need more money. As we need more money, we need more taxes. Oops! No new taxes. If no new taxes, shall we have no new lanes and no new roads?
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Twin Cities to be replaced by one monster freeway
We were in the Twin Cities this weekend to visit our daughter and son and their families. We were almost overwhelmed by the amount of highway construction under way or completed.
The completed I-694/I-35E interchange must occupy the equivalent of a quarter-township. The standard township is 36 square miles. The various up and over bridges, ramps, and the multi-multi-lane highways must be at least three miles across. And guess what, the traffic was often going at slower than the posted speed.
The Crosstown interchange of I-35W and Hwy. 62 is under a massive amount of construction. The resulting land use may be twice the design of the 60s.
There were assorted projects along I-494, mostly of interchanges being redesigned.
I just kept thinking of all the tax base that was taken out for more and more cars. The bigger and faster the highways; the more people will drive them. The more people drive the highways; the sooner that even bigger and faster highways will have to be built. Before we know it, the Twin Cities may just be one massive highway.
Now maybe the corporate headquarters and the shopping centers and major and mega malls lining these highways will more than make up the tax base of the houses and small shops that were demolished. But what happens when one of these big properties has to be taken to make an ever bigger highway?
But the people who work in these headquarters and shop in these malls will have to live somewhere. But the somewhere will be increasingly farther out. More people farther out will mean more and bigger highways farther out.
What if instead of highways we had built a network of train tracks? The number of people who could be transported per acre of land would far greater than the mobile parking lots some of these highways become. It is much easier to add cars to a train or increase the number of trains than add more lanes.
I keep thinking of the line from "Where Have All The Flowers Gone?" - "When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?"
The completed I-694/I-35E interchange must occupy the equivalent of a quarter-township. The standard township is 36 square miles. The various up and over bridges, ramps, and the multi-multi-lane highways must be at least three miles across. And guess what, the traffic was often going at slower than the posted speed.
The Crosstown interchange of I-35W and Hwy. 62 is under a massive amount of construction. The resulting land use may be twice the design of the 60s.
There were assorted projects along I-494, mostly of interchanges being redesigned.
I just kept thinking of all the tax base that was taken out for more and more cars. The bigger and faster the highways; the more people will drive them. The more people drive the highways; the sooner that even bigger and faster highways will have to be built. Before we know it, the Twin Cities may just be one massive highway.
Now maybe the corporate headquarters and the shopping centers and major and mega malls lining these highways will more than make up the tax base of the houses and small shops that were demolished. But what happens when one of these big properties has to be taken to make an ever bigger highway?
But the people who work in these headquarters and shop in these malls will have to live somewhere. But the somewhere will be increasingly farther out. More people farther out will mean more and bigger highways farther out.
What if instead of highways we had built a network of train tracks? The number of people who could be transported per acre of land would far greater than the mobile parking lots some of these highways become. It is much easier to add cars to a train or increase the number of trains than add more lanes.
I keep thinking of the line from "Where Have All The Flowers Gone?" - "When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?"
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Newspapers going the way of buses?
Once upon a time, the U.S. had excellent streetcar and bus service. In many cities one rarely had to wait more than 10 minutes for a streetcar or bus. And then more people got cars. The car was more convenient and flexible. Fewer people took public transit. As few people took public transit, the service was cut back. As service was cut back, fewer people took public transit. As...
Once upon a time, the U.S. had many excellent regional and local newspapers. And then came television and the internet. The one encapsulated the news into soundbites for the lazy of mind and the other provided a treasure trove for the inquisitive of mind. Either way, fewer people subscribed to newspapers. As fewer people subscribed the newspapers cut back on services. As the newspapers cut back on services, fewer people subscribed. As...
Once upon a time, the U.S. had many excellent regional and local newspapers. And then came television and the internet. The one encapsulated the news into soundbites for the lazy of mind and the other provided a treasure trove for the inquisitive of mind. Either way, fewer people subscribed to newspapers. As fewer people subscribed the newspapers cut back on services. As the newspapers cut back on services, fewer people subscribed. As...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)