| >> |
02/07/10(Sun)17:24 No.152151>>152147
But if I can't
take the train because there's no service between the cities I want to
travel? Not to mention that the vast majorities of cities over 2
million, assuming that starting at that population they should have
commuter rail, don't. The commuter thing was quite well done by car
companies between the 30's and 50's, they disposed of the once
omnipresent streetcars, and left those cities with no rail
infrastructure, and if you don't rebuild it, people will keep using
their cars. You can't expect people to leave behind their cars and use
ridiculously inferior public transportation system just to show their
support for public transit, it doesn't work in the US and it doesn't
work anywhere else, you have to offer them a real alternative to their
cars, the state has to take the first step in that case and give a
transport infrastructure suited to people's needs, and a half-hourly bus
service does NOT suit anyone's needs.
The same goes for rail, you
can't expect people to take a train that could theoretically be more
practical than a plane (say LA-SF) if that train ends up taking twice as
long because of poor infrastructure. And we all know that the aviation
industry, already fallen on hard times for a few years, will keep trying
to prevent the government from giving people a real alternative, that's
a fact. Yes, people vote with their dollar, but they only vote for a
worth candidate. If Amtrak were always on time, and the government would
try to modernize all potentially profitable lines (shorter ones between
major cities that is), then people might actually start taking the
train to avoid the hassle of flying. But as long as flying still saves
you hours of travel time, and might even be cheaper as well, people
won't take the train, even if they would like to be able to (without
wasting time and money). |
