Transport planning in the Insane Asylum

[19:08] Lamont-Cranston: Houston is city that has based its transportation on the car, they must spend a billion a year on new roads and road works to keep ahead of the congestion
[19:08] PrometheanStardustQC: I don't know about Houston, but I know there's no reason roads wouldn't work just fine without rail

No votes yet

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
LamontCranston's picture

Where's Wally

And if you pay close attention to what I said you'll find the reason why it doesn't work just fine.

Tigger_'s picture

A few questions

1. Given the population increase per year in Houston, how many more people are being served by that billion dollars?
2. What do cities of similar population size and growth with mixed transport solutions spend on expanding their train services?

LamontCranston's picture

Answers

http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/congestion.shtml
TL;DR: building more roads encourages more use, reductions in congestion will be temporary followed by a permanent increase. To put it more bluntly: New roads create new traffic.

Furthermore:
Public Transportation is cheaper and long lasting and efficient.
A rail vehicle will have a life expectancy of 30-40 years, a bus 10-15 years, a car...?
And the car will be moving 1 person, a bus ~50, a light-rail vehicle from a hundred to several hundred depending on the model, a train close to a thousand or more.
You wont be choked and your children retarded by the exhaust fumes of rail vehicles because they have none.
Burning fossil fuels to power an electric public transportation system is far and away a more efficient use of resources and less polluting and cleaner than burning fossil fuels for millions of daily car trips.