🚀 go-pugleaf

Mike Donovan wrote:
>      Will mass transit ever become the dominant form of transportation in
> the US?

Ever is a long time...

In the next 50 years, no.  Not unless there is a drastic change, such as
available fossil fuel supplies shrinking more quickly than expected, or
global warming accelerating to a catastrophic rate.

In article <TBXe6.394$uH6.231669@news.uswest.net>,
Mike Donovan <mdonovan@airswitch.net> wrote:
>     Will mass transit ever become the dominant form of transportation in
>the US?

    No.

                  ____
    david parsons \bi/  Unless walking is outlawed and space aliens eat all
                   \/                                               the oil.

Mike Donovan <mdonovan@airswitch.net> writes:
> Will mass transit ever become the dominant form of transportation in
> the US?

It depends what you mean by "mass transit".  Since moving people in a
group is inherently less convenient for those people than moving them
individually, it seems logical to expect that advancing technology and
improvements in the standard of living will lead to a lower, not higher,
level of mass transportation.

There is, however, the potential for transportation systems whose
infrastructure is more similar to today's mass transit than to today's
personally owned vehicle, but which deliver much more convenient
transportation for the individual.  It's hard to predict the success of
such systems.

Personally, I'd bet on smart cars and smart roads.  A few
microprocessors would enormously increase the capacity and speed of our
existing roads.  The technology isn't there yet, and deploying it will
be hard, but it's hard for me to believe that it won't happen.

                                        David desJardins

In article <3A7C5352.DB688172@quiotix.com>, Jeffrey Siegal
<jbs@quiotix.com> wrote:

> Mike Donovan wrote:
> >      Will mass transit ever become the dominant form of transportation in
> > the US?
> 
> Ever is a long time...
> 
> In the next 50 years, no.  Not unless there is a drastic change, such as
> available fossil fuel supplies shrinking more quickly than expected, or
> global warming accelerating to a catastrophic rate.

NO, because most of the US is open space, where it is impractical to build
a network of mass transit. Mass transit is simply limited in its ability
to take you everywhere you want to go. When will the railheads get it?

in article 3A7C5352.DB688172@quiotix.com, Jeffrey Siegal  wrote:

> In the next 50 years, no.  Not unless there is a drastic change, such as
> available fossil fuel supplies shrinking more quickly than expected, or
> global warming accelerating to a catastrophic rate.

Transit doesn't use fossil fuel or contribute to "global warming"? When I
see empty VTA busses cruising around, it will be comforting to know that the
gunk from those diesel engines is benign after all.

Power generated for BART doesn't have environmental impact, I guess.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS

in article orfairbairn-0302011548020001@ip12.ft-myers8.fl.pub-ip.psi.net,
Orval Fairbairn  wrote:

> NO, because most of the US is open space, where it is impractical to build
> a network of mass transit. Mass transit is simply limited in its ability
> to take you everywhere you want to go. When will the railheads get it?

People who live in urban areas tend to forget that a significant amount of
this nation's population does not live in major cities, jammed up one
against the other. For that matter, most of California is open space. Urban
transit only works, surprisingly enough, in urban areas.

And then, there is the cost. Does anyone have figures on what BART costs per
passenger mile?

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS

John Higdon wrote:
> in article 3A7C5352.DB688172@quiotix.com, Jeffrey Siegal  wrote:
> 
> > In the next 50 years, no.  Not unless there is a drastic change, such as
> > available fossil fuel supplies shrinking more quickly than expected, or
> > global warming accelerating to a catastrophic rate.
> 
> Transit doesn't use fossil fuel or contribute to "global warming"? When I
> see empty VTA busses cruising around, it will be comforting to know that the
> gunk from those diesel engines is benign after all.
> 
> Power generated for BART doesn't have environmental impact, I guess.

I never made either claim. 

Mass transit *can* greatly reduce fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas
emission.  That's not to say that it does, today, in all cases.  But in
the future, if these issues become much greater concerns than they are
now, then it is possible that society will be restructured around
predominant use of mass transit.

John Higdon wrote:
> People who live in urban areas tend to forget that a significant amount of
> this nation's population does not live in major cities, jammed up one
> against the other. For that matter, most of California is open space. Urban
> transit only works, surprisingly enough, in urban areas.

My point, in the other part of this thread, was that drastic changes in
the availability of energy or the capacity of the environment to accept
greenhouse gas emissions might result, by necessity, in people jamming
up in the cities.  Not necessarily pleasant, but more pleasant than
running out of energy altogether, or turning the Earth into another
Venus.

in article 3A7CBA78.A085335A@quiotix.com, Jeffrey Siegal  wrote:

> Mass transit *can* greatly reduce fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas
> emission.  That's not to say that it does, today, in all cases.  But in
> the future, if these issues become much greater concerns than they are
> now, then it is possible that society will be restructured around
> predominant use of mass transit.

What about that vast number of people who don't live in urban areas? You
know, small numbers of people who need to travel large distances to diverse
destinations.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS

in article 3A7CBB45.4C5D9644@quiotix.com, Jeffrey Siegal  wrote:

> My point, in the other part of this thread, was that drastic changes in
> the availability of energy or the capacity of the environment to accept
> greenhouse gas emissions might result, by necessity, in people jamming
> up in the cities.  Not necessarily pleasant, but more pleasant than
> running out of energy altogether, or turning the Earth into another
> Venus.

Interesting concept for apocalyptic sci-fi, but hardly something to fret
about happening anytime soon. Besides, if it comes to that, we're through
before we start. Our cities could never, under any circumstances,
accommodate all those additional people who don't live in them now.

You're still talking like city boy.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS

No, for all the reasons everyone else mentioned below.  And take this into
consideration as well:  While I agree that fossil fuels will either
eventually run out or become too expensive to use on the same scale we use
now, technology will come up with better, less limited and cleaner fuels.
Thankfully we should see cars that run on cleaner gas, hybrids, and even
electrical or solar energy in the next 20-40 years.

This will remove the air pollution argument against cars.  Urban sprawl
arguments may remain but I don't think we will ever be able to stop people
from wanting to live in low density areas.  Most likely we will see an
increase in commuter rail systems that do effectively transport people from
suburb to suburb but LRT will be shown to be a failure in all but the most
dense of areas.  Transit will be given its chance to go it alone over the
next 10-20 years but even then it will show its inability to solve the
problem as BART is beginning to show now.  Californians will learn that
strategic and massive investments in all forms of transportation where they
best make sense is the only answer.  We will continue to see a combination
of low and high density developments--the ratio will depend on the free
market (people's choice of where they want to live).  It may not be popular
but I think fairly low density will win.   Even so, in 50 years from now,
California will continue to have massive amounts of open space left.  I
would favor preserving large tracts of land as permanent open space--which
would still allow for development in other areas.   Rational and pragmatic
compromises will show that everyone can win--California is a huge place.

I see political ideas and movements running in cycles.  California will
re-invest in its freeway system some day once people realize that its
neglect was one of the biggest mistakes ever made--just like we are seeing
the effects of neglecting our power plant infrastructure now.
Transportation will continue to be an increasingly important topic in
California.   Aesthetically pleasing freeways, parkways, and efficient
commuter rail systems will become a bigger part of the picture.

Don
--
Discussion group for Transportation Features, Problems, Solutions for the
Western States and Provinces of Canada, the US, and Mexico.
Subscribe at PacMountain_Transport-subscribe@egroups.com .
"Mike Donovan" <mdonovan@airswitch.net> wrote in message
news:TBXe6.394$uH6.231669@news.uswest.net...
>      Will mass transit ever become the dominant form of transportation in
> the US?
>
>
>

Don Hagstrom wrote:

We will continue to see a combination
> of low and high density developments--the ratio will depend on the free
> market (people's choice of where they want to live).

Please explain how the free market is allowed to freely operate in
low-density suburbs where zoning does not permit high-density development.
To me, that is anything but a free market.

Scott Mace

"Don Hagstrom" <don002@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5I5f6.300$lC2.55637@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> This will remove the air pollution argument against cars.  Urban sprawl
> arguments may remain but I don't think we will ever be able to stop people
> from wanting to live in low density areas.

I question the notion that people always want to live in low density area.
Even through it has been a trend for the past 50 years in the United States,
in other parts of the world, it was the reverse. People in other countries
abandoning low density rural areas to move to the cities. And why would
cities be formed ever if cities are so undesirable? No one puts a gun to
other people to make them move to cities.

There are somethings that the cities provide that rural areas and the
suburbs can't.

>  Most likely we will see an
> increase in commuter rail systems that do effectively transport people
from
> suburb to suburb but LRT will be shown to be a failure in all but the most
> dense of areas.

In urban areas, there would be an increase used of mass transit. In auto
oriented suburbs, they may become more pedestrian and bicycles oriented.

Freeways is a common link between the urban areas, suburbs, and rural area,
when in the past there were different tiers of transportation infastructure
in those areas. Freeways as it is now in the long run is not sustainable, as
there are capacity and equality issue. The challenge in the future is how we
can create a new common link between urban, suburbs, and rural area that has
higher capacity, more equality, more safe.

in article 95ituh$5ac$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net, Andy Chow  wrote:

> In urban areas, there would be an increase used of mass transit. In auto
> oriented suburbs, they may become more pedestrian and bicycles oriented.

Some of us may have the stamina to walk several miles from one place to
another, but very few of us have the time.

The Bad News: The automobile will not be eliminated in the foreseeable
future. You cannot recreate the entire nation in a carefully-planned
socially-engineered urban model.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS

John Higdon <no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com> writes:
>in article 3A7CBA78.A085335A@quiotix.com, Jeffrey Siegal  wrote:
>> Mass transit *can* greatly reduce fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas
>> emission.  That's not to say that it does, today, in all cases.  But in
>> the future, if these issues become much greater concerns than they are
>> now, then it is possible that society will be restructured around
>> predominant use of mass transit.
>
>What about that vast number of people who don't live in urban areas? You
>know, small numbers of people who need to travel large distances to diverse
>destinations.

That's a good point.  Let me expand on it since it may not be obvious to
people who don't get out of the Bay Area much.  (Or LA for that matter,
since I see this thread has gotten cross-posted to la.transportation
somewhere along the way.)

Not even every urban area is large enough to support any more transit than
buses.  For example, a relative from Reno saw all the light rail construction
going on near where I live in San Jose and wondered why they can't also do
that in Reno.  As it turns out we found on the City of Reno's web site that
they've been asked that question before.  They simply don't have enough
population density needed to successfully support light rail, and cited
several numbers to show why.  (Reno's 1999 Census estimate was 320,000.
Reno boasts a title of "the biggest little city in the world.")

At least under current traditional operating methods, buses aren't going to
get a much more significant portion of riders from the population than it
already does.  (Current experiments in Bus Rapid Transit need more time to
show results in the US on improving the reputation of buses.)  Rails attract
a greater number under current methods but still small compared to cars even
in major urban areas.

And things can get a lot more rural than Reno.  Look at any area of the
Central Valley outside the cities.  Make transportation matters more difficult
by looking into the Sierras or the Cascades.  Any mountain village not on an
interstate freeway probably doesn't even have Greyhound service.

I lived for a few years in a rural mountain village in far-northern California
along I-5 where the larger number on the city limit signs was the elevation,
not the population.  Attending the junior college up there required a 10-mile
drive over a (snowy in Winter) mountain pass to a similar-sized small town.
I know that we sometimes had to go for a drive for some larger shopping trips
when we needed or wanted something that wasn't for sale in town.  In that
region the economies of mid-sized cities like Chico, Redding and Medford
(Oregon) partly serve shoppers who drive in from rural areas in the region.
(And all three of those cities are smaller than Reno, with 1999 Census
estimates for Redding at 165,000, Medford/Ashland at 175,000 and
Chico/Paradise at 195,000.) In all of them, the only non-car modes of
transportation are buses (city and/or county), Amtrak, Greyhound, General
Aviation and commuter airlines.

Oh yeah, and bicycles too.  You can use them in any size city or village. :-)

Let me throw another monkey wrench in the mix.  What about vacations and
hiking/camping/backpacking trips?  Or what if you have to haul something
heavy for hundreds of miles.  Those are examples from my own travels.  This
isn't to shoot down the thought but rather to get the original poster
thinking about other uses for transportation than just moving yourself.

So the idea of transit replacing cars is just an idea for the densest urban
areas right now... The Bay Area, Los Angeles, San Diego, maybe Sacramento.
Even the mid-sized cities aren't in any position to be re-fitted in the next
few decades with major transit projects.  And forget about the mountain
villages.  It would take major improvements in transit systems technology
to even begin to whittle away at the requirement for rural area residents
to have a car.  And they visit or commute to cities regularly.

Even to hypothetically consider it, you'd have to develop new transit
technologies which drastically reduce the cost per mile and cost per
passenger-mile while improving convenience, capacity and coverage areas.
And when you had that, you'd have to embark on a decades-long construction
campaign bigger than the Interstate highway system, since it doesn't serve
every rural area either.  So we aren't anywhere near that.

If the person who posted the original question is interested in pursuing
topics in advanced transportation research, there are a few web sites
where people are considering them...

   Jerry Schneider's "Innovative Transportation Technologies" site
   http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/

   Advanced Transit Association
   http://advancedtransit.org/

In article <G8826G.57G@thunder.sbay.org>,
    Ian Kluft <ikluft@thunder.sbay.org> wrote:

>>What about that vast number of people who don't live in urban areas? 

>That's a good point. 

Not really.  By census bureau definitinos, the vast majority of Americans, 
not to mention Californians, live in metropolitan areas:   

California........................... 33,145,121     (1999 est.)
  Metropolitan....................... 32,051,151       96.7% 
  Metropolitan Inside Central City... 12,836,230       38.7% 
  Metropolitan Outside Central City.. 19,214,921       58.0% 
  Nonmetropolitan....................  1,093,970        3.3%  

(That list is perhaps a bit misleading, in that the whole of big
counties like San Bernardino and LA get classed as metropolitan, but not 
terribly so, since the bulk of the population of those counties lives in 
the more densely populated parts.)

>Not even every urban area is large enough to support any more transit than
>buses.  

You're assuming that population patterns are static, when in fact, they 
respond to the transportation infrastructure that's provided.   
-- 
--------------------
Eric Holeman      eholatenteractcom          Chicago Illinois USA

John Higdon wrote:
> > My point, in the other part of this thread, was that drastic changes in
> > the availability of energy or the capacity of the environment to accept
> > greenhouse gas emissions might result, by necessity, in people jamming
> > up in the cities.  Not necessarily pleasant, but more pleasant than
> > running out of energy altogether, or turning the Earth into another
> > Venus.
> 
> Interesting concept for apocalyptic sci-fi, but hardly something to fret
> about happening anytime soon.

No, it isn't.  My comment specifically said 50 years.  I don't see any
chance of it happening in the next 25 years.

> Besides, if it comes to that, we're through
> before we start. Our cities could never, under any circumstances,
> accommodate all those additional people who don't live in them now.

But new cities, or expanded cities, could.  If car transportation
becomes non-viable, then large parts of suburbia revert to farmland and
people will concentrate where they can get around without cars.  Again,
not happening any time soon.

Ian Kluft wrote:
> Not even every urban area is large enough to support any more transit than
> buses.

This assumes that population distribution doesn't chanage so that this
statement is no longer accurate.  50 years is a long time.  100 years
even longer.

Imagine, hypothetically, that energy costs increase to the equivalent of
$100/gallon gasoline.  In that instance, people are going to relocate to
highly energy-efficient urban centers, largely in temperate regions,
resulting in much greater population density there, and much lower
elsewhere.

John Higdon wrote:
> What about that vast number of people who don't live in urban areas? You
> know, small numbers of people who need to travel large distances to diverse
> destinations.

They move.

Scott Mace wrote:
> 
> Jeffrey Siegal wrote:
> 
> > Just eliminating zoning will not eliminate, or likely even reduce, the
> > role of the automobile.  In particular, the entire city of Houston has
> > never had zoning, and there is no shortage of automobile use there.
> > People, generally, like cars.
> 
> It's true that reducing or eliminating zoning would not solve the problem.
> As to whether this area would choose to merely bulldoze the sides of
> freeways and make them wider, instead of building up and building transit,
> recent voter history (i.e. Alameda County, BART to San Jose) suggests the
> latter rather than the former would occur.

The voters have chosen to have zoning.  So by that reasoning, the area
would be just as it is.

Jeffrey Siegal wrote:

> The voters have chosen to have zoning.  So by that reasoning, the area
> would be just as it is.

Which voters? The ones that happen to live there? Or the voters who work
there, clean the toilets there, provide the day care there, keep the lights
on there, guard the streets there, put out the fires there, teach the
children there?

Scott Mace

Scott Mace wrote: 
> > The voters have chosen to have zoning.  So by that reasoning, the area
> > would be just as it is.
> 
> Which voters?

The same people who would vote for anything.

> The ones that happen to live there? Or the voters who work
> there, clean the toilets there, provide the day care there, keep the lights
> on there, guard the streets there, put out the fires there, teach the
> children there?

Since when do people who work anywhere (but don't live there) get to
vote there?

What is it about zoning that you call a failed experiment? Land use
controls (which exist in various forms at every level, from federal to
local), or just the locally controlled ones?

In article <G88LE8.HEG@thunder.sbay.org>,
    Ian Kluft <ikluft@thunder.sbay.org> wrote:

>>You're assuming that population patterns are static, when in fact, they 
>>respond to the transportation infrastructure that's provided.   

>That's wildly optimistic.  It applies in large urban areas but not in
>small ones, and definitely not in rural areas.

It applies anywhere you build any transportation infrastructure.  It's
certainly observable in the Bay Area, where BART and the freeways have
helped facilitate population growth and decentralization on a scale
previously unimaginable.  But it's also observable in most of the nation's
smaller urban areas, where highway construction has brought a similar
decentralization.  And in most rural areas, their habitability is
dependent on transportation access.

>Sometimes you don't have enough population, whether viewed as potential
>ridership or as a tax base, to even begin to make serious transportation
>infrastructure.  

I can't think of a populated place that doesn't have some transportation 
infrastructure, so I'm curious about what places you're thinking of.  

>If examples are needed, the one I was talking about in the text you quoted
>was Reno. 

As most folks who've been there have observed, Reno certainly has 
transportation infrastructure.   

> See what the officials in Reno said when asked about the
>feasibility of light rail transit in that area.  (summary: it was a
>non-starter.)

Actually, the document you referenced made note of the need for planning 
for the possibility of some sort of rail:  "However, our region can 
support improved bus service and operations along certain transit 
corridors/lines and work towards future rail service within key corridors 
(Virginia Street, East 4th Street, Prater Way). This includes the 
reservation of right-of-way to preserve the possibility of all transit 
options."   


-- 
--------------------
Eric Holeman      eholatenteractcom          Chicago Illinois USA

in article 3A7D4B1E.3C22FBB8@quiotix.com, Jeffrey Siegal  wrote:

> No, it isn't.  My comment specifically said 50 years.  I don't see any
> chance of it happening in the next 25 years.

Why is everything fifty years away? Do you have any idea what my teachers
were telling us would be happening in fifty years...fifty years ago? Do you
have any idea how much of it turned out to be laughable nonsense?

Predict away!

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS

in article 3A7D4C2B.53CDE22B@quiotix.com, Jeffrey Siegal  wrote:

> Imagine, hypothetically, that energy costs increase to the equivalent of
> $100/gallon gasoline.

Then my hourly rate will be around $5000. Or I'll be six feet under. Either
way, it isn't a matter for much concern.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS

in article 3A7D4C74.134CAE5B@quiotix.com, Jeffrey Siegal  wrote:

> John Higdon wrote:
>> What about that vast number of people who don't live in urban areas? You
>> know, small numbers of people who need to travel large distances to diverse
>> destinations.
> 
> They move.

I see. We will have a nation where NO ONE lives anywhere but in an urban
people-kennel. Thousands and thousands of square miles without either a
person or structure (things have to be moved as well as people by
transportation methods, you know) in sight. There be automated devices to
replace and remove each person to and from his cell. At night will there be
wires connected to recover electrical energy, Matrix-style.

Good stuff...but most of it has already hit the screen.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS

in article G88LE8.HEG@thunder.sbay.org, Ian Kluft  wrote:

> That's wildly optimistic.  It applies in large urban areas but not in
> small ones, and definitely not in rural areas.

Most people I know, like my business partner, who live in rural areas would
DIE before even considering moving to anything approaching "city size".

> Sometimes you don't have enough population, whether viewed as potential
> ridership or as a tax base, to even begin to make serious transportation
> infrastructure.  The density of the city really does matter.

Even San Jose doesn't really warrant a rail system. The one it has is mostly
useless, except to a very narrow group of people. The cost per
passenger-mile is horrendous.

> The point is that when you propose a rule or change for a lot of other
> people, try to determine how it will affect all of them, not just people
> similar to yourself.

I have found city dwellers (probably due to their concentration) to be the
most parochial when it comes to "the way things ought to be". I have no
problem with city people who enjoy their high density...as long as they
don't insist on imposing their preferences on everyone else.

BTW, the whole issue of "energy efficiency" is nothing more than a
convenient imperative to add righteousness to the "everyone must live in
cities" evangelism.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS

in article 95jrea$vs9$1@slb7.atl.mindspring.net, Scott Mace  wrote:

> Zoning is consider by folks like yourself as careful planning, social
> engineering. It has gotten us NIMBY opposition to any infrastructure
> improvements (freeways, transit, power plants, transmission lines),
> gridlocked highways, vanishingly affordable housing and now the threat of
> failure of our electric and natural gas supply. It is a failed experiment in
> social engineering.

Thank gawd we have SOME tools at our disposal to keep the "we know what's
best for everyone" folks like yourself at bay. You can take your social
engineering and drop it in the nearest high-tech toilet.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS

in article 95k2a8$n9l$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net, Scott Mace  wrote:

> Which voters? The ones that happen to live there?

The ones that live here. We pay the taxes; we get to vote.

> Or the voters who work
> there, clean the toilets there, provide the day care there, keep the lights
> on there, guard the streets there, put out the fires there, teach the
> children there?

Work somewhere else if you don't like it. Try working where you live. I do.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS

John Higdon wrote:
> > Imagine, hypothetically, that energy costs increase to the equivalent of
> > $100/gallon gasoline.
> 
> Then my hourly rate will be around $5000.

It will?  Why do you think that your hourly rate is tied directly to the
price of energy? (For most of the past 20 years, energy prices were
dropping rapidly, yet I'll assume that your hourly rate was not.)  Let
me put it another way:  Imagine, hypothetically that energy costs
increase to the equivalent of $100/gallon gasoline, *in
inflation-adjusted dollars*.

In other words, your hourly rate will be enough to buy just about the
same quantity of most things, except that you'll be able to afford more
of things with lower energy content and less of things with a higher
energy content.  In such a situation, consumption patters will shift so
as to use much less energy.  This is really no different from anything
else, like, say, land.  In places where land is more expensive, people
use less of it.

John Higdon wrote:
> >> What about that vast number of people who don't live in urban areas? You
> >> know, small numbers of people who need to travel large distances to diverse
> >> destinations.
> >
> > They move.
> 
> I see. We will have a nation where NO ONE lives anywhere but in an urban
> people-kennel. Thousands and thousands of square miles without either a
> person or structure (things have to be moved as well as people by
> transportation methods, you know) in sight.

Not necessarily no people, just less people.  There would still likely
be farmland, and farmers.  Just not sprawling residential communitites.

> There be automated devices to
> replace and remove each person to and from his cell. At night will there be
> wires connected to recover electrical energy, Matrix-style.

Good laugh.

Seriously, this is really nothing new.  During the industrial
revolution, massive populations migrated from the farms to the factories
(cities).  The advent of automobiles allowed some spreading of the
population to areas surrounding the cities (suburbs).  Changes in
technology causes shifts in population densities.  If energy becomes
more expensive, polulations will shift yet again.

Jeffrey Siegal wrote:

> Since when do people who work anywhere (but don't live there) get to
> vote there?

It depends on what your definition of "there" is.

> What is it about zoning that you call a failed experiment? Land use
> controls (which exist in various forms at every level, from federal to
> local), or just the locally controlled ones?

Go ahead and believe zoning's a successful concept, while the roads reach
gridlock, transit fails to take their place, formerly middle-class housing
becomes unaffordable to all but the very rich, and the lights and natural
gas fail...

Scott Mace

"John Higdon" <no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com> wrote in message
news:B6A24134.32B2B%no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com...

> Some of us may have the stamina to walk several miles from one place to
> another, but very few of us have the time.

So why not trying to bring those services that people need closer so they
don't have to transport so far?

> The Bad News: The automobile will not be eliminated in the foreseeable
> future. You cannot recreate the entire nation in a carefully-planned
> socially-engineered urban model.

First of all, automobile is a form of social-enginerring. In fact, some can
say that people social engineer all the time. It is nothing scary about it,
so don't try to make it scary.

I don't expect automobiles to go away, because so many people have vested
interest in automobile than transit, from the mechanics to the TV media that
got their advertising dollars from auto ads. In Santa Clara County, I expect
most will still drive in the next 30 years; I have a strong doubt whether
the Gonzales tax will last for 30 years before some kind of proposition to
replace (not renewal) the tax so as to get just some funding to automobiles
before 2036. Also, Gonzales tax was sold purely on public perception, and
not on usefulness. There would be lots of empty train on the Gonzales'
subway everyday. Why would even transit advocates oppose to Gonzales' tax?

Scott Mace wrote:
> > What is it about zoning that you call a failed experiment? Land use
> > controls (which exist in various forms at every level, from federal to
> > local), or just the locally controlled ones?
> 
> Go ahead and believe zoning's a successful concept, while [the 
> world goes to hell]

I didn't say that zoning was a successful concept.  I asked a question
(in two parts), which you didn't answer.

John Higdon <no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com> writes:
>in article 3A7D4B1E.3C22FBB8@quiotix.com, Jeffrey Siegal  wrote:
>> No, it isn't.  My comment specifically said 50 years.  I don't see any
>> chance of it happening in the next 25 years.
>
>Why is everything fifty years away? Do you have any idea what my teachers
>were telling us would be happening in fifty years...fifty years ago? Do you
>have any idea how much of it turned out to be laughable nonsense?
>
>Predict away!

Oh, this could be fun...

To quote an IBM commercial from last year, "It's the year 2000.  I was
promised flying cars.  Where are the flying cars?!"  If you want to fly
today, you still have to get a pilot license.  A drivers license just
won't cut it.

According to the 1950's futurism (an academic version of it since I wasn't
around yet to hear this in person), a major mode of transportation in the
Year 2000 should have been civilian rockets taking us to space.

I dunno.  I participate in projects to build amateur rockets as a hobby.
We have to drive out to the Nevada desert with wads of federal permits to
attempt a launch.  While we can get them up where the instrument packages
send down video of the curvature of the Earth, they're not quite getting
to space yet.  And they're definitely not carrying people.

(When one group from Sacramento was ready to go for a space launch in late
2000, an FAA bureaucrat arbitrarily denied the permit.  CNN put on their
brand of pressure to straighten that out.  So they'll try again this Spring
or Summer.)

In the 1950's no one was picturing the computer would dominate our society.
No one pictured a global network connecting all those computers available
to all of the public.  For that matter, not very many people were picturing
such a network in 1990, even those of us who were on the Internet at the
time.  We knew the exponential growth of the Internet would require the
general public's participation in order to sustain its growth but most of
us thought that growth might end for lack of applicability to the public.

And this wasn't for lack of predictions about the Year 2000.  It was sort of
a magent for predictions.  According to 1970's predictions, the world would
have run out of oil by 2000.  And lots of other calamities too.  But 2000
was a relatively slow news year - a 36-day impasse in the US presidential
election was the only thing that saved 2000 from being basically devoid of
major historical events.

So, with the 1950's picture of 2000 being so far off, I won't hazard a
guess of where things will be in 2050.  Things we see as increasing trends
today could fizzle, or suddenly take off at an exponential rate.  But it's
a near certainty that 2050 will be dominated by technologies that have
not yet been invented today, much like 2000 was compared with 1950's
visions of the future.

Jeffrey Siegal said:

> > Go ahead and believe zoning's a successful concept, while [the
> > world goes to hell]
>
> I didn't say that zoning was a successful concept.  I asked a question
> (in two parts), which you didn't answer.

One person's national land-use control is another one's local control, so I
don't make a distinction between the two.

Scott Mace

Ian Kluft wrote:
> 
[...]
> That's a good point.  Let me expand on it since it may not be obvious to
> people who don't get out of the Bay Area much.  (Or LA for that matter,
> since I see this thread has gotten cross-posted to la.transportation
> somewhere along the way.)
> 
> Not even every urban area is large enough to support any more transit than
> buses.  For example, a relative from Reno saw all the light rail construction
> going on near where I live in San Jose and wondered why they can't also do
> that in Reno.  As it turns out we found on the City of Reno's web site that
> they've been asked that question before.  They simply don't have enough
> population density needed to successfully support light rail, [...]

Neither daes San Jose.

The difference is that Santa Clara County has money to burn (almost literally.)

in article 3A7DA12F.FC0C1A7A@quiotix.com, Jeffrey Siegal  wrote:

> Not necessarily no people, just less people.  There would still likely
> be farmland, and farmers.  Just not sprawling residential communitites.

How do you farm without vehicles and farm machinery? Do you take light rail
from one end of your ranch to another? Oh, I forgot...you ride a horse. Much
cleaner than a truck!

> Seriously, this is really nothing new.  During the industrial
> revolution, massive populations migrated from the farms to the factories
> (cities).  The advent of automobiles allowed some spreading of the
> population to areas surrounding the cities (suburbs).

Automobiles also supply freedom of movement that really annoys the "social
engineers" among us. People should all live in identical cells, have
identical possessions, make exactly the same money from jobs...whatever they
are, and all work for the good of the whole.

A lot of people have been trying to turn human beings into ants, but so far,
thankfully, none have succeeded.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS

in article G894oC.oyu@thunder.sbay.org, Ian Kluft  wrote:

> And this wasn't for lack of predictions about the Year 2000.  It was sort of
> a magent for predictions.  According to 1970's predictions, the world would
> have run out of oil by 2000.  And lots of other calamities too.

Of course, in the forties and fifties, we were going to be out of oil by the
seventies. The shortage we ended up with in the seventies turned out to be
politically-induced rather than a matter of actual supply problems.

> So, with the 1950's picture of 2000 being so far off, I won't hazard a
> guess of where things will be in 2050.

I very well remember 1950's image of 2000. It was no more prophetic than
random chance. All of our energy was going to come from fusion and solar.
Telephones would all be "videophones". Microprocessors were unknown and they
were not even foreseen. The future was in large, complicated mechanical
devices.

> Things we see as increasing trends
> today could fizzle, or suddenly take off at an exponential rate.  But it's
> a near certainty that 2050 will be dominated by technologies that have
> not yet been invented today, much like 2000 was compared with 1950's
> visions of the future.

My observation reveals that the invention or discovery of one key technology
changes the entire course of technological development. Without knowing
about future existence and significance of the microprocessor,
prognosticators were unable to foresee the direction our development
actually took.

That could easily happen again. One pivotal breakthrough in the next few
years, and our entire technological course could make a radical emphasis
shift. Knowing that, I'm not even going to hazard any guesses. In ten years,
it could be a whole new ballgame.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS

John Higdon wrote:
> > Not necessarily no people, just less people.  There would still likely
> > be farmland, and farmers.  Just not sprawling residential communitites.
> 
> How do you farm without vehicles and farm machinery?

Who said you do?

> A lot of people have been trying to turn human beings into ants, but so far,
> thankfully, none have succeeded.

Not me.

On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 11:32:05 -0800, "Scott Mace" <smace@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

>Go ahead and believe zoning's a successful concept, while the roads reach
>gridlock, transit fails to take their place, formerly middle-class housing
>becomes unaffordable to all but the very rich, and the lights and natural
>gas fail...

Of course, if roads ever did reach total gridlock, then the
possibility of increased support for transit would follow.

The real problem is, the masses are likely to wait until the last
second, when it will be too late to put up the infrastructure fast
enough ...

==========================================================================================
Kymberleigh Richards
Public Affairs Director, Southern California Transit Advocates  <http://socata.lerctr.org>
Senior Metro Passenger Advisor, Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Associate Member, California Transit Association
Webmaster, Valley Transit Insider <http://home.pacbell.net/krichrds/>
==========================================================================================

On Sun, 04 Feb 2001 10:26:03 -0800, John Higdon
<no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com> wrote:

>Work somewhere else if you don't like it. Try working where you live. I do.

Does living two miles from work and commuting via a single MTA bus
line count?

==========================================================================================
Kymberleigh Richards
Public Affairs Director, Southern California Transit Advocates  <http://socata.lerctr.org>
Senior Metro Passenger Advisor, Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Associate Member, California Transit Association
Webmaster, Valley Transit Insider <http://home.pacbell.net/krichrds/>
==========================================================================================

David Kaye wrote:
> Ah, this is even *more* the "American Dream" than owning a car.  It is
> somehow considered a "right" to own a home, and in many communities
> renters are actually looked down on as being shady.  Some people won't
> even buy a home in an area with a large number of renters because they
> believe that renters are poor neighbors.

I used to have renters on both sides of me, I'm an owner.  And, now I have
renters on just one side and the other side was just bought for 500G.  
Gawd.  Seems that the houses and duplexes in this 
area are slowly moving from rentals to owners. That, and I've seen
a large number of units occupied by grandmothers and aunts of owners
around here.  

Actually, all of the people living next door, renters and owners have been pretty
good.   That is mostly they leave me alone -- or we have friendly conversations.
And, we let each other do what we want with the property.  I used to
be lousy about my yard, when I was young and foolish, and hunched over the
terminal 70 hours a week -- but now, I'm middle-aged and wiser, and still
hunched over the terminal 70 hours a week.  But, at least I hire a gardener!

We got some hassle from an apartment across over a church from me, and next 
door to the rental triplex next door.  Apparently they were ragging on the 
guys in the triplex for running their washing machine at night -- which
seemed pretty silly.  I think they figured them for an easy mark, since
they were new in the country.  And, someone over at this big apartment building 
also came and bugged me about running my 'electric weedeater' -- trying 
to feed me some amateur attorney bs about how they were illegal. 

So, my experience so far has been that people  down here in the houses 
have been pretty sane, renters and owners.  But, I don't know -- something 
about being cramped in those big buildings with teensy little apartments
drivers people nuts, it seems.  I think they have some section 8 over 
there, maybe that's what's going on.  I imagine the skills they learn 
working the welfare state are applied mercilessly to the neighbors.

in article 95l6j9$98k$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net, Andy Chow  wrote:

> First of all, automobile is a form of social-enginerring. In fact, some can
> say that people social engineer all the time. It is nothing scary about it,
> so don't try to make it scary.

The only thing that scares me is people who think they know what is best for
other people.

> I don't expect automobiles to go away, because so many people have vested
> interest in automobile than transit, from the mechanics to the TV media that
> got their advertising dollars from auto ads.

I know. It isn't that the automobile provides freedom and convenience, it is
simply a Madison Avenue plot.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS

in article 3a7e18a6.5830465@news.pacbell.net, Kymberleigh Richards  wrote:

> On Sun, 04 Feb 2001 10:26:03 -0800, John Higdon
> <no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com> wrote:
> 
>> Work somewhere else if you don't like it. Try working where you live. I do.
> 
> Does living two miles from work and commuting via a single MTA bus
> line count?

If where you work and where you live is in the same voting jurisdiction,
then you would be able to have a say in the area in which you work, no?

The method of transportation is irrelevant.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS

in article 95ntq7$3u23n$7@rn.area.com, David Kaye  wrote:

> John Higdon wrote the quoted material below:
> 
> " Some of us may have the stamina to walk several miles from one place to
> " another, but very few of us have the time.
> 
> Or, perhaps few people *make* the time.  Some of us make time to enjoy our
> lives, rather than feeling rushed to go from one thing to the next.

And some of us ENJOY going quickly from one thing to the next. I think it
only fair that if those of us who enjoy a quicker pace must accommodate
those who think they have to "go slow" to enjoy their lives...well, you get
the picture.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS

On Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:35:53 -0800, John Higdon
<no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com> wrote:

>in article 3a7e18a6.5830465@news.pacbell.net, Kymberleigh Richards  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 04 Feb 2001 10:26:03 -0800, John Higdon
>> <no-spam@RadioMonopoly.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Work somewhere else if you don't like it. Try working where you live. I do.
>> 
>> Does living two miles from work and commuting via a single MTA bus
>> line count?
>
>If where you work and where you live is in the same voting jurisdiction,
>then you would be able to have a say in the area in which you work, no?

I live and work in the same city (Los Angeles) and the same community
(Van Nuys), so to great degree, the answer to your question is yes.
The only difference is that my home and work location are in different
City Council districts.

>The method of transportation is irrelevant.

Not to me.  :)

==========================================================================================
Kymberleigh Richards
Public Affairs Director, Southern California Transit Advocates  <http://socata.lerctr.org>
Senior Metro Passenger Advisor, Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Associate Member, California Transit Association
Webmaster, Valley Transit Insider <http://home.pacbell.net/krichrds/>
==========================================================================================

in article 95pu6c$4bqrl$3@rn.area.com, David Kaye  wrote:

> This means that some people's behaviors must be changed in
> order to accommodate the common good.

Why must it always be my behavior to accommodate others?

> For example, we frown on (and in some communities even arrest) people who
> urinate against buildings.  It is natural for animals and humans to
> urinate on walls, trees, etc., but it's something we socially engineer
> people to not do in cities and towns.  In rural areas nobody cares.

Ok, deal. I'll stop urinating on buildings if the bicyclists will stop
insisting that I must ride a bicycle or be condemned to hell.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS

Andy Chow wrote the quoted material below:

" I question the notion that people always want to live in low density area.

Ah, this is even *more* the "American Dream" than owning a car.  It is
somehow considered a "right" to own a home, and in many communities
renters are actually looked down on as being shady.  Some people won't
even buy a home in an area with a large number of renters because they
believe that renters are poor neighbors.

All that said, people will go to great lengths (and we're talking the
length from SF to Manteca) to be able to buy a home with a front and back
yard, 3 bedrooms, and a garage.  They'd rather spend 4 hours on the road
each day commuting than buy in a high density area.

Well, SF does still have a buying boom going on, but overall, it's a drop
in the bucket compared with the number of detached family homes being
bought in the suburbs and beyond.



-- 
(C) 2001                       Albert Einstein liked to do jigsaw puzzles 
David Kaye                                                                
                                                                          

In article <3A7D4C2B.53CDE22B@quiotix.com>, Jeffrey Siegal
<jbs@quiotix.com> wrote:

> Ian Kluft wrote:
> > Not even every urban area is large enough to support any more transit than
> > buses.
> 
> This assumes that population distribution doesn't chanage so that this
> statement is no longer accurate.  50 years is a long time.  100 years
> even longer.
> 
> Imagine, hypothetically, that energy costs increase to the equivalent of
> $100/gallon gasoline.  In that instance, people are going to relocate to
> highly energy-efficient urban centers, largely in temperate regions,
> resulting in much greater population density there, and much lower
> elsewhere.

And then they will starve there because nobody will be able (or available)
to afford to grow and sell food, nor will there be any way to get it to
market.