David Shove wrote: > The people who lose with PRT are few, but they have lots of money and > power. They want us to keep to exactly the system we have, > basically -cars and freeways and boxes; continue gutting bus public > transportation; do a little with LRT, but only where malls and big > boxes will profit.
I think that we have the same basic goals, but a completely different vision. I would like to see a huge reduction in the use of automobiles, but PRT is simply not a practical solution. Like rapid-transit it has extremely limited routes, but is not as rapid. You can always move more people faster using mass-transit (and in many cases for less cost). Why individualize transit so that we can have "car-like" transpiration? America is obese, we need people to get out of their cars and WALK to-and-from LRT stations (or ride bikes). My vision for the Metro is an LRT triangle between the downtowns and the airport with connecting commuter lines (actually I think that this was the original vision for LRT). Such a system would go a long way to getting cars off freeways. Just in terms of U of M commuters it would be a great help, not to mention many of the outer suburbanites who commute to downtown. Michael Atherton Prospect Park REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
