JJ wrote in
:

Larry Roll K3LT wrote:


Jim:

Most EU countries are much better suited for mass transit (meaning
light rail systems) than is the U.S. as a whole. Sure, they're good
in big cities, but the USA has too many wide open spaces and too much
suburban sprawl -- making long commutes necessary for the majority of
the workforce. This means we're going to be dependent on personal,
self-driven vehicles for a long time to come. Moreover, I don't think
that adapting our public transit systems to be as accessible and
accommodating to the majority of commuters as those in the EU would
cost far more than they are spending. Remember, they had a headstart
on their transit systems, dating back to the pre-war era. They also
have a higher level of cultural acceptence of mass transit -- many EU
families have never owned an automobile, simply because there was no
need (not to mention the prohibitive cost).

The long distances which must be travelled by most Americans to get to
work and go about their daily duties would make EU-style gasoline
prices impossible for the average person to afford. Our economy
depends on cheap, abundant energy, available at present-day market
rates (or lower) basically in perpetuity. The liberal, socialist
Democrats think we need to change that and have EU-type energy prices,
but they hate this country anyway, and want us to be subjugated to the
EU. These treasonous wackos won't be happy until we revert to a
totally agrarian society. They are the enemies of the freedom that
America stands for, and must be treated as such.

Europe will always be different from the U.S., and considering their
geopolitical realities, it is just the way it should be. However,
since most of the EU nations would fit inside a couple of our states,
America must be different. We must consume a larger share of the
world's energy simply because we have a lot further to go in order to
make our own individual social and economic contributions. I agree
that mass transit should be exploited to the greatest extent possible,
but it will never replace the need for individual, personal mobility
-- meaning the private automobile, in all of it's forms.

73 de Larry, K3LT

The U.S. does need to develope better mass transit in large
metropolitian areas. When I lived in the Dallas/Ft. Worth, Texas area,
the two cities were always complaining about the heavy commute traffic
and how they were not using the available mass transit system. The
would encourage people to car pool or use what mass transit was
available, all the while they were expanding the freeway system to
accomodate more vehicles. If you want people to use mass transit you
have to 1) build a good mass transit system, and 2) don't build massive
freeway systems that make it easier for people to drive their vehicles
to work than ride
mass transit.



I think you should build the freeways, but mass transit should be
developped much more as well. I used to commute 23 miles each way into
London by train. I am now 27 miles by road from downtown Washington DC,
but I am 15 miles from the nearest station!!

As long as I have to drive half way there to get to the station I'm going
to drive all the way there. A system where the trains only run about 15
miles out from the middle of downtown is basically hopelessly crippled by
European standards, and doesn't really count as 'available' to most
people.

When most of the commuters live way, way beyond the end of the line it can
never live up to it's potential. Sure, we are more spread out in America,
but all that should mean is that I may have to drive across town to the
station. It should never mean that I have to drive to another town 15
miles away to catch a commuter train, but that's how it is now, and
needless to say, I don't do it.