<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE>@page Section1 {size: 21.0cm 842.0pt; margin: 2.0cm 76.55pt 2.0cm 3.0cm; }
P.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
LI.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
FONT-SIZE: 12pt; MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Times New Roman"
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline
}
SPAN.EmailStyle17 {
FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: black; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; LETTER-SPACING: 0pt; TEXT-DECORATION: none
}
DIV.Section1 {
page: Section1
}
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US vLink=purple link=blue bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Eric,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To me, the problem with "intelligent highway
systems" is that environmentalists and community activists don't even talk about
it, positivel or negatively. Why? Because -- to provide you a
possible way to express your Cartesian divide-and-confuse principle -- its
proponents can't tell the trips for the kilometres. They confuse _go_ with
_get_.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>ITS tries to get more vehicle-kms-travelled per
lane of roadway -- primarily by squeezing out most of the space between
vehicles. That space is required now so that each driver can have time to
react to the behaviour of the driver ahead, given the reaction time of the
standard human, and the average sensory sampling we use. [Such a gap, BTW, is
inadequate unless the vehicle ahead stops under its own power, rather than by
contact with a falling bridge section (as we had in Montreal a few days ago) or
hitting another vehicle, as is common in areas with serious fog or snow
squalls.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It ignores the fact that some trips are more
important than others; that trips are often far longer than is necessary; that
much of the cargo being carried is unnecessary or is consists mostly of
packaging (sized for the length of its travel and the number of modes engaged,
and containing lots of printing to help merchanize it); that railroads -- which
carry far more per VKT than road vehicles -- sit underutilized; that roads
carrying vehicles closer together might have to be built to a higher standard to
handle road stress; that roads so heavily occuped by carrying motor vehicles are
less useful or available for other functions (social, commerce,
sight-seeing,etc.); and that relying on technology to replace human capabilities
might prove to be less safe (how will the the system respond to "unintelligent"
pedestrians and wildlife?). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Worse, if there is a "transportation problem", it
is not limited to overcoming congestion. It relates to the energy crisis
("peak oil" and related militarism), inequitable access to transportation,
traffic on streets that are to provide access for all and for a broad range of
activities, health (obesity, trauma, respiratory problems, road stress), urban
sprawl (related to both the space for vehicles' use and their storage between
uses), and of course climate change. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>My reference to kms and trips is a challenge to the
academic community to go back to basics. Focus on trips ("get") rather
than the distances travelled by each vehicle ("go"). Their focus should
not be on getting as much movement as possible out of each lane-km, or out of
each vehicle, but in finding how _little_ movement is necessary for people to
live a decent life. They should also look at how much of that travel needs
to occur at the same time. Then, how many vehicles of whatever types are
optimally suited to that amount of travel? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Also: Is just-in-time delivery producing the
benefits that exceed its? How many people occupying a car by themselves
could be well served by a _seat_ in a shared vehicle? How many people in
this minimum-optimal city could complete their travels in a shared car, saving
the need to provide 6-8 parking spaces for a personal car? Has the loss of
inter-model shipping (train to truck to boat, etc.) been a boon for travel
efficiency, or should it be resurrected?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The idea that big money and intellectual elites are
chasing after a pig-in-a-poke here, reminds me of the big money and suburban
concurrence that come together to get light rail projects off the ground, even
while the parts of cities that have a natural dependence on transit suffer with
poor service and high fares. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Chris Bradshaw</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ottawa</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>