Yoshie writes:
>You can't have W. European-style mass transport without W. European social
>geography & temporality of work, residence, & consumption, though. Short
>of socialism, it seems impossible to stop suburban & exurban sprawl in the
>USA. As long as people live in one place, work at another place, and shop
>& have fun in yet other places, all inconveniently spread apart, and do so
>at all kinds of hour; further, as long as workplaces are wildly scattered
>about, it appears futile to ask them to abandon cars and get on the
>bus. The problem, in other words, is not susceptible to tinkering here
>and there.
Living in greater Los Angeles (or in terms of environmental quality,
"lesser LA"), I am quite aware that Yoshie has an important insight. Here,
it's absolutely true that "people live in one place, work at another place,
and shop & have fun in yet other places, all inconveniently spread apart,
and do so at all kinds of hour; further, as long as workplaces are wildly
scattered about, it appears futile to ask them to abandon cars and get on
the bus." Thus, we have more traffic congestion than almost anyplace else
in the US (or perhaps _the_ worst congestion, but I don't have the stats)
and if it weren't for the EPA, the pollution would be really really bad,
much worse than presently. (It's little-known, but by official standards,
pollution in LA has generally been falling. It's not the market at work,
though.) Of course, much or all of the US urban areas are becoming more and
more like LA, so our experience is relevant outside of the City of Angels.
In LA, we don't only have to worry about urban sprawl, but also the fact
that the folks who are charge of public transportation are fully capable of
wasting billions on a public train system that gives their cronies
construction contracts while draining funds away from the busses, screwing
the working poor (as usual). (Thus, we have a very active and effective
Bus-Rider's Union. See http://www.igc.org/lctr/. As they say in Hollywood,
the Bus Riders' Union is a "player.")
I wouldn't say that rational public transit needs socialism, since W.
Europe attained its system under the influence of labor movements and
social-democratic parties. However, since the social-democratic compromises
were the result of the popular struggle for socialism, socialism is clearly
relevant. (Of course, we should remember that New York city didn't attain
its social geography and its abundance of public transport due to an effort
to attain socialism.)
Further, the US social geography is changing. Here in LA, they can't build
any new freeways (except maybe to finish one), because of the resistance of
the homeowners and businesses displaced by such construction -- and also
because most people seem to have figured out that freeways are a dead-end
in the effort to deal with congestion and pollution. (Almost everyone
regrets the scrapping of the old public rail system.) The rise in
congestion is encouraging not only car-pooling and greater interest in
public transport, but seems to be having an effect on where people live.
Though there are still people who want to live in Riverside and commute to
the city (quite a long distance), apartment buildings in LA are getting
taller and more concentrated. LA is slowly lurching toward Manhattan-style
living. I know that people are taking traffic congestion into account in a
lot of their decisions these days. That has an effect. (BTW, car-pooling,
bus lanes on the freeways, etc. are also encouraged by the government.) If
gas prices were higher, it would encourage the trend. And the trend needs
to be encouraged.
Ken Hanly writes: >If there really is an emergency and people are convinced
of that I don't see why rationing would not work. While I agree that public
transportation should be supported, as long as the rich don't use it they
will use their influence and power to sabotage attempts to subsidize a
system they do not use. <
It seems to me that a political movement is needed to counteract the
baleful influence of the rich either to attain gas rationing or greater
public transportation (and to make sure it's done right). I think it's
better if we use our political resources to push for the latter.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Los Angeles, the city of your future: the city of smog, traffic jams at 2
a.m., unfinished, incoherent, and very expensive subway systems,
earthquakes, modern slavery, wildfires, mudslides & sinkholes, civil
disturbances (a.k.a. riots or rebellions), chaotic schools, OJ, the
Menendi, and Heidi Fleiss (daughter of our nephew's pediatrician).
