For those of us who really like motor vehicles and often own several, I found this article extremely interesting. When looking at the recent hurricane and examining why so many people were stuck and left behind, rather than blaming a lot of different people or government agencies, you can look at one simple fact: Most of the people that had their own vehicles simply left, those that didn’t were helpless. Next time you hear one of those anti car public transit types spouting off, you might mention this.
Doug Staab says
This post seems to be too general in scope. I’m all about transportation, whether it be personal or public, on the ground, in the air, under the sea, ….on 2 wheels is the coolest in my opinion followed by trains & planes.
What if this country had its cities linked by an effective “higher” speed rail system ? I’m not suggesting there is a high speed route from LA to Chicago, but we certainly can connect regions of this country….
Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, D.C. can be linked together.
Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, S.F. & LA together…
Charlotte, Atlanta, New Orleans, Houston, Dallas, St. Louis, KC together…
Detroit, Chicago, Denver together.
Think about the time it takes to fly to a city that could be driven to in 3-5 hours. I can drive from Seattle to Portland in about 2.5 – 3 hours. With checking into the airport, bag claim, etc. this is about the same timeframe as driving. But in a train, I can walk to the bar car & enjoy the view along the way! If the new rail system did it right, they would make their trains into “ferries” for cars too (quick & efficient loading & unloading)
wouldn’t this make the airlines work more efficiently for the longer trips? Would this mass transit have helped evacuate the delta? or would have people stayed anyway even if the trains were free to evacuate?
kneeslider says
I think a lot of the public transportation ideas proposed over the years have been excellent but public transportation is always a compromise. Where does it go, when does it go there, how do we pay for it? An often reported story some time ago concerning BART in San Francisco was that for the cost of the system, that actually served very few residents, they could have bought a car for everyone in the county. Beyond costs, private transportation runs on your schedule and goes where you want. There is also the individual safety of locking your car doors instead of sharing a train with who knows who.
Public transit has many pluses and minuses but in New Orleans, they had public transit and street cars in place, not to mention the infamous parking lot full of buses which never moved. Several studies of potential disasters in New Orleans estimated that 100,000 people would have to be moved because they couldn’t get out themselves due to lack of a vehicle. Knowing that in advance didn’t help. One quick thinking 18 year old simply took one bus and loaded it up with people, drove them out of New Orleans and found himself in trouble for doing so. Pretty nifty. With private vehicles you solve your transportation problem. Public transit has a use and purpose but emergencies are not where it shines.
None of this deals with those who chose to stay, but many didn’t choose, they were stuck.
Doug Staab says
I guess we need to consider our sources more and more. The last time I rode the BART it was filling up quickly at 5:00 – 6:00 am, so I know it serves more than “a very few residents” even in relative terms.
Assuming everyone was given a car with the money saved on not building the BART system, I’m sure the theoretical empty train would go screaming by the stopped traffic jam of all the people driving their cars.
Regarding New Orleans, since people without private transportation did not get out doesn’t mean mass transit would not have had an effective means out of the area. There were probably errors from the residents & authorities. Hindsight will reveal numerous solutions to put in place for the next time…one of which could be to actually load buses and/or trains at a pre-defined evacuation route location.
100,000 people ? Assume 4 of those people get in a “private” car. This would add 25,000 additional cars on the evacuation highways. That increase would likely have compounded the evacuation.
Adam Rice says
Are you saying the people left behind were anti-car (which must be a moral failing) and therefore got what they deserved? I hope not. It seems much likelier that they were just poor.
We’ve seen natural disasters where people try to drive away in private vehicles, and get jammed up for hours or more because everyone else is trying to do the same thing. An efficient public-transit system would avoid that kind of problem.
kneeslider says
When I get a comment like that, I have to re-read what I said to find out how it could be interpreted that way. Got what they deserved? Whoa! I think you’re looking for something and you’re determined to find it, no matter what you actually see.
Anti car a moral failing? No, simply a personal view with its own set of consequences.
I absolutely agree, the people without cars in this instance were most likely poor, never in doubt. It’s why previous studies said huge numbers would need to be rescued in the event of a disaster of this sort. It’s why the local gov’t stumbling all over itself and not sure what to do was so incredible. I think many incompetent people in many positions are one crisis away from being found out.
We have a public mass transit system in this country, it’s called the car. That’s what the masses actually use. When I think mass transit (in the usually accepted sense) in an emergency, think airport on Thanksgiving holiday, times 10,000. Public mass transit doesn’t avoid jams and in crisis it becomes worse. Individuals taking things into their own hands and leaving can work wonders. A great example is the huge exodus from New York on 9/11 when people simply walked out by the tens of thousands.
Private vehicles work well but even in this instance, people have to have the presence of mind to actually leave and the sooner the better. And waiting around to be taken out can be the most dangerous decision of all.
bliss says
There have been several studies that prove that most low-income families don’t own cars because they can afford them (not a hard thing to believe). So most of the people that were left behind would have benefited if public transportation (buses) were used to move people out of the city.
Public transportation saves lives in other ways:
Auto emissions account for over half of the air pollution in our cities
(http://www.epa.state.oh.us/opp/consumer/carp2.html)
Air pollution claims at least 50,000 U.S. lives per year.
(http://www.cancer.ordg/docroot/nws/content/nws_1_1x_air_pollution_linked_to_deaths_from_lung_cancer.asp Journal of the American Medical Association, 03/06/2002)
A person commuting by rail causes only one-fourth the smog-causing nitrous oxide of a solo car commuter. A bus commuter cause sonly two-thirds of this type of air pollution. (American Public Transit Association, 1999 Transit Fact Book, p. 111)
During the Atlanta Summer Olympics in 1996, the city closed its downtown area to car traffic, added buses and trains, and promoted carpooling and telecommuting. Altlanta’s iner-city children on Medicaid showe a 42% decrease in asthma-related emergency room visits. (http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r010221.htm, Michael Friedman, MD, Journal of he American Medical Assoication, 02/21/2001)
In 2000, over 41,000 Americans dies in motor vehicle fatalities.
(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/chart2.htm)
Motor-vehicle-related injuries lead all causes for deaths among persons aged 1-24 years.
(http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4818a1.htm)
There are about as many deaths resulting from car accidents as from breast cancer in the United Stats each year. Fewer die from suicide, fire arms, leukemia, AIDS, poisoning or drugs.
(http://www.census.gov/prod/2001/statab/sec02.pdf)
Per passenger mile, riding a bus is 17 times safer than riding in a car.
(http://www.apta.com/research/stats/safety/natsafe.cfm, citing the National Safety Council’s Injury Facts)
bliss says
There have been several studies that prove that most low-income families don’t own cars because they can afford them (not a hard thing to believe). So most of the people that were left behind would have benefited if public transportation (buses) were used to move people out of the city.
kneeslider says
Interesting book on the passenger train point of view. In a perfect world with omniscient people, all sorts of public projects would work great. Unfortunately, we have to work with the world and people we’ve got.