Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


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?

The rest should be forced to have trains and use them. Left wing storm
troopers, trained by the Sierra Club, will hunt down violaters and make them
live in ponds with endangered frogs.

You may have stated that tongue in cheek, but there are those radical
enviro-wacko's who would favor such mandatory compliance, regardless of
the economic pitfalls and lyfestyle sacrifices it would push on people.


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)?


Gee. I guess the geographical arrangement of your neck of the woods makes
mass transport impractical. Logically, that means it's impractical and
pointless everywhere, even in places where is works like a charm right now,
or in places where the citizenry is asking for it, but their elected
officials aren't responding.

You are attempting to isolate my situation as a rare exception, when in
fact it is a very popular situation. Unless you live in a city, or a
dense suburban area, it is impractical and cost ineffective to provide
rail service. Say what you will about suburban sprawl, it is a fact of
life for many Americans.

Another one of my "hobbies" is interurban traction service (trolleys)
back in the early 1900's through the end of WW2 and into the 50's and
60's. At that time, it was a very practical and efficient method of
transportation. Roads back then were sparse and often not very well
constructed. People lived and commuted between major population centers,
which was ideal for rail service. Once the end of WW2 came about, roads
had improved, people had embraced the individuality of the automobile,
and corporate exces at companies like GM started pushing busses onto
metro areas at discount prices, in order to compete with rail service.
These factors, combined with sprawl, put the nails in the coffin of the
interurban rail service. The economic climate has not changed, so it is
still not a favorable climate for the rennaisance of interurban rail
service, except for established urban areas. Most of the old interurban
rail right-of-ways have been converted into bike paths in my area.

Dave