🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <SLAGLE.92Jun4004429@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com> slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com writes:
>It rests on the fact that mass transit systems, in most
>of the area where I live, are a solution to the form of a problem
>that no longer exists.  

All this talk about how "cars are the best solution now that the
central city is gone" implies that development patterns on the land are
not variable, that they are fixed and will not change.  It's important
to remember that CARS CAME FIRST, that current development patterns are
a direct result of the existence and widespread use of the automobile.
It's not surprising, then, that automobiles have become the only
reasonable way of getting around.

There is nothing in mass transit that requires a major city center.
All mass transit requires is sufficient density so that enough people
live or work within walking distance of the mass transit stops to make
it worthwhile.  Actually, mass transit would work better if there were
a long string of mixed-use communities along the mass transit line --
that way there wouldn't be a "reverse commute" and the vehicles
traveling backwards wouldn't be half-empty.

This is again another example where looking at transportation in
isolation is not adequate.  You have to look at the entire system of
development.

 =Aaron=
-- 
Aaron R. Priven, aaronrp@ucscb.ucsc.edu or fuzzface@cats.ucsc.edu
No special status for Redding.  Either in or out of California.