Doug Kanter wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Trains already work very nicely for New York and Boston, not to mention
virtually ALL of Europe.



Most of Europe is very densely populated relative to the land mass. Not a
lot of suburbs as we think of them. So you can run trains between the
major
population centers and mass transit in the city then works. Paris is also
cheap to travel around in their subway. A Carnet (10 tickets is about $8)
Each ticket is good for any place in the central area of paris. Change
trains just like the NY subway and as long as you do not leave the
station,
you get to travel for 1 ticket. Out local mass transit, BART, costs a
minimum of $1.50 for one station and to go about 30 miles is $5.10. Way
to
expensive, and the connecting busses take for ever to get point A to B.
Bill



We do things backwards.

Fact: When we widen or build new highways from major urban centers, we make
sprawl worse. So, we end up with cities like NY & Boston which are
surrounded by dense suburbs. In many cases, the population hasn't grown,
either. It's just relocated.

For good reason. Many people do not like living in cities.


In places like this, trains are ideal.

And for the rest?



Cost is subjective, I guess.

Bingo!


It certainly makes no sense to NOT build light
rail systems if only SOME people think it's expensive. Lots of people in big
cities feel no need to own a car.

It costs me about $12 a week to put gas in my car and drive it to work.
Factor in other costs like insurance and maintenance, and it's still
less than $20 a week. When you have to pay $10 a day ($50 per week) for
train fare, how is that anything but more expensive? What would be my
incentive to ride the train then (Assuming they would actually build one
out to where I live)?

Dave