🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep17.063757.908@xyzoom.info.com>, rob@xyzoom.info.com (Rob Lingelbach) writes:
|> In article <65971@cup.portal.com> compata@cup.portal.com (David H Close) writes:
|> 
|> >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.
|> 
|> Excuse me, but I take great exception to this.  Last year, the AQMD
|> studied the occupancy rate of private autos on Los Angeles freeways.
|> The number of people in each car came to 1.3.


I agree.  The private auto is not "mass transit".  Up around where I live
(SF Bay Area's Santa Clara County; aka Silicon Valley), the average vehicle
occupancy has *dropped* below 1.1 people!  If Mr. Close wants to argue that
the auto is mass transit, then I'd like to know what he thinks isn't mass
transit.  Buses, trains, light rail, and ferry boats can and often do carry
anywhere from 40 to 800 people each.  If anything, the automobile commuter
is the antithesis of mass transit!  Sheesh.

-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov