I do find the light rail in Baltimore a great way to get to/from the airport and around town on a day trip for either a ball game or lunch at the Inner Harbor.
Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 9:54 PM Subject: Re: Public Transit (was Speed Cameras) > I did say 1950 right, before the infamous GM/ESSO rape of street railway > systems. When in Detroit the wait for a street car at 2 am was 15-20 minutes, > and durning rush hour was a 3-5 minutes. Saying that the existing slow, > inconvenient, run down system will not be used by anyone who has a choice is > stating the obvious. Make it cheaper, more convenient, and more comfortable than > driving and the only reason to use private transport in the city is to show how > wealthy you are. > > As it is no one is going to use public transportion if they don't have to except > a few weirdos who are trying to prove something. People are not going to move > into the slums if they have a choice either. > > Of course it is not worth talking about because the powers that be are never > going to do anything more than maybe a showpiece which will ignor the part about > "cheaper, more convenient, and more comfortable" and thus prove that it won't work. > > -- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > How before we get all nostalgic for the old days... > > > > I was writing a thesis modeling public transportation in the late '60's. > > No matter what I did, I couldn't get the modeled demand for public transit up. > > Then, the rude facts intruded. > > > > In Chicago and most major cities in the USA, the only patrons of public > > transit were the very poor. Those too poor to own a car! Oh, some 100,000 > > suburbanites took the AM trains into the central business district, but the bus and > > the 'el were dead. > > > > Being a poor college student who's Sunbeam Alpine didn't like the cold > > weather, I also used public transit from time to time. You could (and can) still > > make it from one side of Chicago to the other in 1.5 hours but it's the > > transportation system of last resort. A car is always faster by 2X to 4X and much > > more convenient. The people I rode with on my off hour rides were those without > > the income to own a car. > > > > The most hilarious memory I have of transit in the '70's was watching a Dutch > > matron pedal up to a shop in her mink coat. The friends we were visiting in > > the Netherlands pointed out that car ownership was not all that wide spread > > and that many Dutch didn't know how to drive, much less own a car. > > > > You need a population density of 5,000 people per square mile to support even > > a 'light' rail system. We don't build cities in the US like that anymore. > > People choose less density and more square footage for their home plots. The > > car is the great invention that enables this. > > > > Regards, Bob S. > > > > > > > > > > Mike Wilson writes: > > > >>>graywolf wrote: > >>>In 1950 almost any decent sized city had a great public transport system, > > > > now > > > >>>only a handful do. > > > > > >>That would be cities in the USA, right? You could go and live in Russia > >>or many central European countries, who all have excellent public > >>transport systems. When they are not cheesing off their ethnic > >>minorities. Switzerland has a superb integrated tranport system. > >> > >>I, on the other hand, cannot get from one end of England to the other in > >>less than 12 hours at the moment. > > > > > > > > -- > graywolf > http://graywolfphoto.com > > "You might as well accept people as they are, > you are not going to be able to change them anyway." > > >
