We can't fix the wide open spaces, but we *can* do something about
suburban sprawl.
The transportation situations in the USA and Europe are the way they
are today because of choices made by *people*. Where and how to live,
work and vacation/recreate, what sort of house and car to buy, what
politicians to elect, etc. etc.
This means we're
going to be dependent on personal, self-driven vehicles for a long time to
come.
And the time to start changing that is now. Doesn't mean we have to
give up our cars, just that we can develop and implement alternatives.
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.
Most transit systems in the USA struggle to continue operations. A lot
of that is due to factors like precarious funding.
Remember, they had a headstart on
their transit systems, dating back to the pre-war era.
You have to be kidding!
The USA had extensive mass transit long before WW1. Much of it was
*removed* and *destroyed* after WW2 in the USA. In EU, much of it was
*destroyed* in WW2 and rebuilt afterwards.
It's all about choices.
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 USA used to be like that, in many places. I grew up in suburban
Philadelphia, and most families had only one car. And we kids did not
*need* auto transportation to do everything a kid usually does.
School, sports, church, running errands for Mom and Dad, visiting
friends, the library, etc. - none of that required auto transport.
Most of it didn't even require a bike.
And for some pocket change, we could go almost anywhere in the city or
surrounding suburbs.
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.
Only if we insist on driving inefficient cars as much as we do now.
Our economy depends on cheap, abundant energy,
available at present-day market rates (or lower) basically in perpetuity.
That can and must be changed. It makes us too vulnerable. It's a
national security issue.
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.
That's pure bull****, Larry. Pure unadulterated bull****. There's no
other word for it.
It's not about liberals or conservatives, Republicans or Democrats.
It's about sound engineering and planning for the future.
How much "freedom" is there in being at the economic mercy of foreign
governments deciding to reduce the production of oil, or jack up its
price artificially, as was done twice in the 1970s?
How much "treason" is there in saying that the USA should be as
self-reliant as possible so that we don't have to do business with
(and line the pockets of) anyone who doesn't support our principles of
freedom?
How "wacko" is it to realize that clean air and water aren't luxuries
but necessities - and that they cost less than the health problems
resulting from pollution?
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.
Of course!
I'm *not* saying we must give up our cars. Just reduce our dependence
on them, and increase their efficiency. It *can* be done, if we choose
to do it.
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.
Not true at all.
The key is *efficiency*.
Consider this:
Half a century ago, the New York Central's 20th Century Limited ran a
consistent 16 hour schedule from New York to Chicago. That's 961 miles
in 960 minutes, including engine change at Harmon, at least ten
station stops, bridges, curves, grades, etc. On jointed rail and
wooden ties with steam and first-generation diesel locomotives. 16
hours downtown to downtown, and the service was dependable and
comfortable.
That sort of travel was largely replaced by air travel, which only
takes about a two-hour flight. However, it takes at least an hour to
get to and from the airport, and with security you need to be at the
airport two hours before flight time, so the *real* travel time is
more like six hours, downtown to downtown.
The French TGV trains run at close to 200 mph in revenue service. (You
don't want to know how fast they have gone in tests). That sort of
technology could cut the NYC-Chicago time down to about six hours if
station stops were limited - and it's safer, pollutes less, and is
much more efficient than air travel or private autos. And it's less
affected by weather. Imagine the country linked by such a highspeed
system, with local transit to complete the journey.
And that's just one example of existing technology. Don't you think
Americans could improve on that?
The only problem is making the *choice* to do it.
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.
Threaded Mode
