Now on ScienceBlogs: Oh, no! School wi-fi is making our kids sick! (2012 edition)

ScienceBlogs Book Club: Inside the Outbreaks

Thoughts from Kansas

You will notice that it lacks definiteness; that it lacks purpose; that it lacks coherence; that it lacks a subject to talk about; that it is loose and wabbly; that it wanders around; that it loses itself early and does not find itself any more. --Mark Twain

Search

Profile

Josh at work Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at the National Center for Science Education. He is formerly a doctoral candidate at the University of Kansas, in the department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. When not battling creationists or modeling species ranges, he writes about developments in progressive politics and the sciences.

The opinions expressed here are his own, do not reflect the official position of the NCSE. Indeed, older posts may no longer reflect his own official position.

Sb/DonorsChoose Drive


Thanks!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Subscribe to TfK:

Accolades

Best of Kansas City

Good posts from history

The Birth of Intelligent Falling

A failure of Intelligent Design

Why it's called Intelligent Design Creationism

Write a letter to the editor

My photo albums.

Support TfK

Buy me things from my Amazon.com wishlist.

Buy yourself things!

Search Now:
Search Amazon.com
Add yourself to the Frappr map!
Check out our Frappr or add yourself to it!

    follow me on Twitter

    « Is the Disco. Inst. agreeing that ID is religion? | Main | The language these politicians use »

    Homeless SFers defend gay marriages

    Category: Policy and Politics
    Posted on: June 18, 2008 11:19 PM, by Josh Rosenau

    The confluence of forces that make San Francisco great:

    I don't care what people say about the crazy homeless people in SF. They all hate these bigots [protesting against newly-married couples] and started picking fights with all of them because they had nothing better to do and nothing to lose if they got arrested for assault/battery. It was awesomely amusing.
    Meanwhile on I-80, the Freeway Blogger asks passing drivers "If you think telling kids there's no Santa Claus is hard…"

    "Try telling them there's no North Pole."

    And in discussion today, it occurred to me that even a substantial increase in public transit ridership might not cut congestion that much. Which is a failing of public transit more than anything else. The Bay area would benefit from more subways, more buses, and more ways to get people from their homes to existing public transit. Because if you have to drive to the BART station, you've got a pretty major problem. If you have to drive from BART to your final destination, too, it just isn't worth it. More on that anon.

    Share on Facebook
    Share on StumbleUpon
    Share on Facebook
    Find more posts in: Politics

    TrackBacks

    TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/74437

    Comments

    1

    Josh, I lived in Hamburg, Germany (as a contractor) in 2002-2003. The public transportation system there is inexpensive, fairly efficient (rush hour can get crowded), and I imagine based on the participation, it takes a huge load off the still extensive traffic congestion.

    An effective (local) public transportation system needs a few key things to make it viable enough to really make a difference.

    1) Access to most places with less than a 5 minute walk. This means that typical subway/bus stops are less than 1/2 mile spread. Hamburg had a combination of subways (mostly) and buses.
    2) An effective way to combine different forms of commuting. For instance, all of the subways allowed for bicycles to be carried on the train. Many cities have started doing something similar with their buses. Even if they provide for a way to drive to a major hub, if it's away from major traffic, it is a reasonable alternative.

    The US is too large to ever have an effective nationwide public transport (unlike smaller countries where high speed train is a viable alternative to flying), but if we would actually invest in the infrastructure, many of the current congestion problems and pollution could potentially be dramatically reduced.

    The problem is that it's such a long term thing. It take at least a decade, more like two to three, to really build the infrastructure and see the cultural shift to make public transport an effective alternative to driving.

    Posted by: FastLane | June 19, 2008 8:35 AM

    Post a Comment

    (Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





    ScienceBlogs

    Search ScienceBlogs:

    Go to:

    Advertisement
    Follow ScienceBlogs on Twitter

    © 2006-2011 ScienceBlogs LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of ScienceBlogs LLC. All rights reserved.