Jack May wrote:
> "Martin Edwards" wrote in message
> news:d0bqa2$nj$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
>>Jack May wrote:
>
>
>>Smoke (so to speak) and mirrors. Including mathematical expressions in
>>an argument does not make it true. If that was the nth time, maybe it's
>>enough.
>
>
> Pollution sensor for the EPA do not measure if pollution comes from a train
> or a car. Your lungs don't know if pollution comes from cars or trains.
> All that matters is the total amount of pollution.
>
> Cars have the characteristic that their pollution levels are low for steady
> driving but go up very rapidly in stop and go driving. This characteristic
> is in the software put out by the Federal Government used to estimate
> pollution levels for transportation.
>
> It is common knowledge among most people that know about cars that
> congestion causes high pollution. Maybe hybrids will help in the future,
> but that is to be determined.
>
> Certainly there is limited funds available for transportation which means if
> you spend more on trains there is less money for roads. We are constantly
> seeing in the newspaper that some major bottle neck is causing high levels
> of congestion that can be fixed for far less money than is being spent on
> some little used light rail.
>
> Its not a mathematical trick or some smoke and mirrors. System thinking is
> so common that the EPA concedes in all court trials that the effect of
> increased congestion leading to increased pollution.
>
> To have anything near to a rational solution, you must think on a system
> level. Thinking of just a part by part level leads to absurd conclusions
> which leads to higher pollution levels.
>
>
Just so. Fixing a bottleneck just moves it elsewhere. Carry on and you
just spend unspecified amounts on bottlenecks until the system breaks
down. Why did LA bring back local rail when it had almost died out?
--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause. -Chico Marx
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955 |