Posted on 06/20/2004 10:43:53 PM PDT by MadIvan
I would HOPE so!!!!
There is literally no room for roadway improvements, to say nothing of the parking situation. The issue isn't fuel efficiency, it's the actual space taken up by cars versus the train.
This is not to say that transit "utopian" types are right, just that there is a place for it.
"Cats are more fuel-efficient than trains, claims study."
Everybody knows that. For example, Angel and Fluffy are quite happy to spend the entire day napping, using hardly any energy at all. Snowball does like to prowl a little bit, though....
Actually, the type of fuel used matters a lot. All trains run on electric power today. If they were using centrally generated power (via a trolley or third rail) instead of generating their own electric power on board with diesel generators, they would be substituting coal or nuclear sourced power for petroleum, which is the more limited resource in the marketplace.
The US (and England) have very large supplies of both coal and uranium on hand, if they can find the courage to use them.
That is a PARKING issue and a road issue. For example driving in Athens is a major problem because the city layout was disigned 5000 years ago. There is next to no parking and streets that were made with animals in mind rather than automobiles.
In the USA we have a luxury of being able to design for automobiles. The problem in Europe is that until recent history they were not mandating designing with parking in mind.
What's to refute?
Under different sets of conditions, it's always possible to fabricate a scenario where one mode of transportation is more fuel efficient than another, no matter which side of the debate you're on. Heck, bicycles are more fuel efficient than either cars or trains.
The car's superiority rises dramatically when compared with trains travelling at up to 215mph.
This particular quote is just one illustration of the apples-to-oranges analysis presented in this biased article.
Does the car's "superiority" hold true if the car is ALSO traveling 215 mph???
Hmmmmmmm?
Doh! I don't think so!
That's silly.
What do you think the government's gonna do... create an armed Commuter Gestapo to forcibly herd people onto mass transit trains with cattle prods?
Baloney. Mass transit is simply about offering an alternative for people to choose from. Either because they can't afford their own personal vehicles, or they find some aspect of the mass-transit system to be more convenient.
No, there are many factors involved other than just fuel consumption. How much fuel and other raw materials did it take to make the transport in the first place? If a train requires 20 tons of steel and the equivalent number of cars required to replace the train weigh 40 tons, then you need to figure in the impact of getting all that steel. And, what about many roads required for cars, versus one train track? etc. etc.
bump
offering an alternative at the expense of people who will never use the alternitve.
Want mass transit? Pay for it all with user fees, not taxes.
No, they'll just do waht they always do - tax and regulate to get the desired behavior.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.