Quote:
Originally Posted by HuskyMan
to really cost it out, we would need to place the figures on a spread sheet. i.e. how many cars are currently on the roads, cost to insure each car, cost of road repairs, air quality issues from carbon monoxide, etc. etc.
I always like to look at who would be the winners and who would be the losers. for instance, if more people parked their car and took the train who would lose? perhaps the airlines, road building companies, auto repair shops and auto insurers might lose out. on the other hand, a train might transport more people in a cleaner and safer environment. magnets don't produce much in the way of carbon monixide and train traffic could be more easily controlled, i.e. less accidents. but, change is very difficult for most people. they might enjoy sitting in traffic gridlock or waiting to get felt up at the airport. in other words, they have grown very used to the idea of traffic jams and 2-3 hour waits to board a plane. positive change is never an easy idea to implement.
|
I hear you... I really do. But the fact is, we're spoiled with our cars, and it would take decades and a staggering amount of money to build a national rail system as comprehensive and reliable as, say, Germany's. Even then, I think folks would only use it if auto ownership costs were exponentially higher. That's just the way it is here. We're spoiled!
I don't mind taking the train from Munich to Garmisch when we visit Germany. However, if we want to head up the road for dinner, however, we need to make it an early dinner (before the buses quit running), or rent a car. It is what it is, I guess. There are certainly two sides to the coin, and valid arguments to be made for any number of positions.