1 Mar 2005 19:16
Re: Rail vs. Buses
Americans often assume that we are priveleged with our UK rail networks. This depressing article in today's Times ''Fear grows for rail services as axe hangs over local stations'' gives a truer perspective i'm afraid. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1505665,00.html Bill --- In CarFree@..., Jym Dyer <jym <at> e...> wrote: > >> The best transit systems in the world use an integrated > >> rail/bus system. > > =v= Also a little sweeping, I'm afraid. Rail where appropriate > plus bus where appropriate makes sense (obviously), but rail > plus bus isn't always applied that way. > > =v= A classic example is San Francisco, a city built around > streetcars and cablecars. If you look at old maps, you'll see > rail on nearly every street. What San Francisco has today, > though, is a lot of buses where rail is more appropriate. In > particular, buses that spew copious amounts of carcinogenic > diesel soot to get up steep hills. > > > No wonder only the poorest of the poor rode that bus line. > > =v= This is the thing underlying the "transit apartheid" > thread. So often the buses (and their carcinogenic exhaust) > get deployed in the neighborhoods of poor and/or minority > communities, while the richer and whiter are more likely to > get rail. >(Continue reading)
''fair'' parking charges would be prohibitive parking charges.
Is my dislike of ''park and ride'' unreasonable?
Bill
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Take a look at donorschoose.org, an excellent charitable web site for
anyone who cares about public education!
RSS Feed