🚀 go-pugleaf

I previously wrote,
" IMHO, LA had the best mass-transit system, ever, in the mid-60s (the
" freeways).  Its been downhill ever since Jerry Brown changed priorities.

mludwig@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Michael Scott Ludwig) then commented,
" Roads/freeways/etc. cannot be considered mass transit by any stretch of the
" imagination because it's just as easy for a single-occupant vehicle (not a
" mass of people) to use them as it is for a bus or other multi-passenger
" vehicle (a mass of people) to use them.

I used "mass-transit" to mean a transit system which was designed to move
large masses of people.  I think the freeway system better fit that
definition than any other system around.  Buses, vans, and family autos
travel on freeways, carrying "a mass of people" each, and still more masses
collectively.  While some buses, especially in LA, are nearly empty.

				----

brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) wrote,
" Along these same lines, I think that the quickest and cheapest ways of 
" lowering traffic loads would be to eliminate all rent control (which creates 
" housing shortages which prevents people from living where they could walk 
" to work) and eliminate most zoning restrictions which essentially do the
" same thing.

To which jack@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Jack Kobzeff) responded,
" Excuse me, am I the only one who can't see how this would help at all???
" The Rent Control and Zoning issues would probably (in my opinion) have the
" opposite effect, by allowing higher population densities. I also don't see
" how this change would allow any large number of people to move closer to
" work.

Using Jack's own statement, a relaxation of rent control and zoning would
probably allow higher population densities.  It would do so by permitting
property owners to develop their property while getting a fair return.  And
that, in turn, would allow more people to live close to their jobs because
there would be more housing available there.

				----

dhosek@hmcvax.claremont.edu provided a common non-sequitur,
" Getting people out of there [sic] cars is more than a point of
" political correctness: At current usage rates, known oil reserves
" will last us maybe 100 years or so. This includes oil reserves in
" protected areas.

It has *always* been true that known oil reserves would run out at some
time in the future.  At nearly all times this century, that deadline has
been sooner than it is now.  In fact, known reserves have expanded faster
than usage, even when exploration has been artificially restricted.  The
trend is for the deadline to be moving further into the future, not closer
to the present.

At a different level though, this comment is irrelevant.  100 years ago,
no one expected the current level of technology and its impact on transpor-
tation, etc.  How can anyone, competent enough to use Usenet, seriously
expect that technology will stagnate for the next 100 years, so that the
problems faced 100 years from now will be exactly those we face today,
except that the oil will have been exhausted?

				----

rob@xyzoom.info.com (Rob Lingelbach) offered more nonsense,
" I believe "if you build it, they will come": build another freeway,
" and the traffic will fill it.  To capacity.  And we don't need more
" traffic.

We don't build freeways so that they remain unused.  Of course, they get
used!  But there is a natural limit:  one person can only drive one car
at a time (for the forseeable future, anyway).  If a sufficient freeway
system existed at some time, then the only way to exceed its capacity
is for the population to increase.  Which it does, naturally and through
migration.  Unless Rob has some way to control population (size or location),
he's wasting his time expecting that traffic won't *need* to increase along
with the population.  In other words, "[don't] build another freeway, and
the traffic will fill [some other road]".

Can you imagine the telephone situation in LA if the phone companies said,
"add more numbers and people will use them", then refused to split the
area codes?  You can't eliminate a need by restricting supply - the demand
just goes elsewhere, less efficiently.

				----

marks@pro-palmtree.socal.com (Mark Schaeffer) provided a nice summary of
some of the freeway history.  He missed one of the most colorful episodes,
the Santa Monica Freeway-Pacific Coast Highway extension.  Note that I-10
now dumps onto PCH, which isn't a world-class highway.  The proposal was to
extend I-10 about a mile into Santa Monica Bay, then turn north and meet up
with PCH beyond the Malibu/Pallisades rock slide area, using a combination
of causeways and artificial islands.  Several folks thought they could make
a tidy profit from the marinas and other developments along the route.

Mark also provided an accurate description of what happened to the Beverly
Hills freeway.  My feeling was, and is, that the State should have either
ignored the city's objections or accepted them, but the freeway should
have been built, underground if necessary.  Don't waste money, but don't
let high cost deter us either; needed freeways don't get cheaper by delay.

				----

Pardon the length of this article.  There's so much to say...

 Dave Close - Compata - Stockton, California - +1 209 467 8255 ("209-install")
  dave@compata.attmail.com | compata@mcimail.com | dhclose@alumni.caltech.edu