<font face="tahoma,sans-serif"><br></font><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Lightner, Jeff <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jlightner@water.com">jlightner@water.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">The problem with "reducing traffic" for those who can't telecommute is<br>
that it usually means "mass transit" which almost never gets you from<br>
start to finish. When I lived in Houston and was dirt poor my job was<br>
6 miles from home. To get there via bus I'd have had to walk a mile,<br>
wait for a bus, go at the snail's pace the bus goes due to multiple<br>
stops, get off the bus and walk 1/2 mile to my job. This says nothing<br>
about all the crazies you have to be exposed to at the stops and on the<br>
bus.<br>
<br>
I opted to just walk the 6 miles each way. It saved me both time and<br>
money and was better for my health (physical and mental).<br>
<br>
The "less traffic" solution is what Environmental nuts keep trying to<br>
force by opposing any road expansion. They think that it will force<br>
people to give up the comfort of their cars to avoid the commute time.<br>
Instead they've caused an increase in pollution by forcing everyone to<br>
sit idling in their cars for an hour or more rather than drive them for<br>
20 minutes.<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>Well, I would be hard pressed to find a good argument for MORE traffic. But I think technological solutions are on the way:<br><br>1. networked traffic management based on GPS<br>2. an increasing array of "auto-pilot" features in cars.<br>
3. and not least: cars that pollute less<br>