COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	Criticisms of swopsi report "Balanced Transportation Planning for
C00009 ENDMK
C⊗;
Criticisms of swopsi report "Balanced Transportation Planning for
Suburban and Academic Communities"
edited by Christopher H. Lovelock

1. Contention that automobile use ought to be reduced is unsupported
and mistaken.

2. Belief in car pools mistaken.  There are good reasons why people don't
use them, and these reasons are not mentioned.

3. The idea that increased publicity will make much difference is mistaken.
Isn't there relevant experience elsewhere?

4. The goal of 50% reduction in cars on campus is mistaken.  Moreover,
the recommendation is fudged by saying that necessary studies be
taken.  Surely they don't believe that studies will reduce car use.

5. There is a strong authoritarian bias reflected in statements such as
	"We believe that employers, retailers, schools and other major
traffic generating institutions in a community have a social responsibility
to help remold values and habits so that a more balanced split emerges."

6. There is no positive cast to the work at all - nothing to make life
better - only proposals to impose restrictions.  It is an example of the
bureaucratic ethic.  "Life would be better if only we could forbid
wrong things."

7. The idea that $100,000 per year subsidy to automotive transportation
is a large amount is phoney.


Rival ideas and counter proposals

1. The increased use of automobiles at Stanford has been a good thing,
because it has increased the personal freedom of many people.

2. The use of cars by students should increase - particularly among women,
because it promotes independence which they often lack.

3. Stanford should consider a giant parking scheme to make every part of
the campus accessible.

4. The publicity proposed in the article for non-automotive transportation
should be tried and the results measured carefully.  The idea that car pools
and public transportation are little used is probably definitely refutable.

5. The proposals in the report for abandoning the Willow Expressway, etc.
are only mildly mischievous, because the peninsula really isn't badly off
for freeways although more would be good.

6. The issue of increased population for the bay area is complex.  With
present birth trends, national population won't increase much or fast,
but the climate in the Bay Area is really excellent.  I can't imagine
what population level would make me prefer the Middle West assuming
that modern technology is used to adapt to the increased population.
Therefore, I can easily imagine the California coast acquiring a population
of 50,000,000 to 100,000,000 - say equal to that of Japan - before there
would be substantial reverse migration.  

	Perhaps this could be prevented only by a system of residence permits
as in the Soviet Union, but without the marriage loophole that the Soviet
Union allows.  This would be a very nasty development.

7. Hitchhiking should be encouraged.  It has the advantages of car pooling
without the disadvantages.  Respectability certificates for hitchhikers and
drivers should be provided along the lines proposed by the 5th district
assemblyman.

8. The conclusions of the report seem to be dictated by the prejudices of the
groups whose approval was sought rather than by the studies made.  E.g. it was
a compromise between a desire for the approval of left liberals and that of
the establishment and the residentialists of Palo Alto.

9. I imagine that the reaction to the report from official is one of vague
dissent.  They believe its proposals to be unworkable, but don't have counter-goals
to suggest, because they are mostly liberals too.  Therefore, they probably
give some lip service but draw back from implementing anything.  This must
be very frustrating for Lovelock and friends.


Queries for Lovelock 328-6942

1. Do you know the car ownership distribution by class and sex?

2. There is a hair raising tale of leaving East Palo Alto at 6am in order
to get to a Stanford Industrial Park job by public transportation.  How much
of this is known to actually occur?

3. Did the course consider the effect of hitchhiking?

4. What was the reaction of the Stanford administration?

5. Is there continuing work in this area at Stanford?