Re: shuttle disaster
On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 03:34:47PM -0600, DvB wrote:
> Pigeon <jah.pigeon@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
> > Trouble is British cities, at least, seem to be playing catchup with
> > American ones. Everything is designed on the assumption that everyone
> > has a car and will use it for everything. New shopping centres are
> > built outside the town, so it's a long way there and you have to
> > drive. And the Government is quite happy to subsidise private
> > transport to the hilt (expenditure on roads >> revenue from road and
> > fuel tax) but moans like buggery about subsidising public transport.
> >
> <snip>
>
> I doubt that "playing catchup" is what Britain is doing relative to the
> US. A significant percentage of the US population and some legislators
> are in different stages of getting fed up with the status quo, but most
> of the US is still blissfully ignorant and consider all the problems
> caused by cars to be "part of life."
Well, I don't think there's the conscious motivation that "playing
catchup" could be taken to imply. It seems that the feelings - as you
describe above - are pretty much the same, but the problems and
political reaction to them - as you describe below - while similar,
aren't quite as bad in the UK.
> Where I live, for example, the department of transport recently
> mentioned the _possibility_ of creating a metropolitan bus system
> (there's currently only very shoddy service within the central city,
> where only people who can't possibly afford a car use it and it's only
> really practical for commuting purposes). All the quotes I read from
> transit officials sounded very apologetic that they would even consider
> such a blasphemous idea and they where, apparently, doing everything
> possible to avoid having to do this. Meanwhile, the sidewalkless roads
> are barely wide enough for two cars to pass each other, mostly with
> speedlimits in excess of 35mph (people tend to drive at least 10mph over
> the limit), and I shudder every time I even consider walking or riding a
> bike anywhere.
We seem to just about manage buses OK, urban buses anyway, but the
government - whichever party happens to be in power - regards spending
public money on the railways as equally "blasphemous", while being
unable to resist fiddling around with them. Currently we are
struggling to deal with the results of the botched scheme to
privatised the railways. The system is in dire need of major upgrading
and, privatisation notwithstanding, that will require public money.
Meanwhile, because of its labyrinthine contract structure and the
financial incentives the privatisation scheme provided in order to be
able to sell off businesses no sane company would touch with a barge
pole, the railways are actually consuming three times as much public
money as before privatisation, but it all goes into the pockets of
shareholders and lawyers, rather than paying for three times the
amount of railway.
> I can't speak for the rest of Britain, but my experience with London
> transit was quite positive. Britain might well be headed where the US
> has been, but I doubt they're there yet.
London's public transport is streets ahead of the rest of the UK -
because a quarter of the population live there, and it's been a
traffic nightmare for centuries, hence the world's first
underground railway (1863). The dense network of "Underground" lines
north of the river, and surface lines to the south, is far more
comprehensive and far more intensively worked than anything in any
other city. The same, though to a lesser degree, is true of the bus
network.
Unfortunately, the privatisation principle that has proved such an
egregious cock-up on the main railway network is now being applied to
the Underground. The Government seem to be the only people in the
country - certainly the only people in London - who deny that the
result will be an equally egregious cock-up.
>
> > The American writer Bill Bryson comments that he cannot understand the
> > British obsession with cars given that there is not a single aspect of
> > driving in Britain that has anything pleasurable about it. I must say
> > I rather agree with him.
>
>
> And what makes you think there's anything pleasurable about driving
> anywhere else? ;-)
>
> Personally, if there're other drivers within a mile of me, I won't be
> enjoying myself. I've already had two accidents since I started driving
> a little over 3 years ago. The first time, my car was parked with nobody
> in it (legally and properly parked, mind you) and, the second time, I
> was yielding to traffic when somebody ran into me from behind. I don't
> think I know anybody around here who hasn't had at least one reck in
> their car. If this doesn't make spending half your day in a car the most
> abominating experience imaginable, I'm not sure what does.
The trouble is, it doesn't put people off!
Pigeon
Reply to: