Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport
I reckon that if we subsidized rail (like in Europe/Asia) to the extent that we subsidized the road network (off the fucking charts), we would have a world-class rail system with perhaps a hundred-fold increase in passenger volume.
Disingenuous Jawagord (who works in the oil industry) strikes again. You've got to be more sly about your unshakeable bias.
Or maybe we should completely abandon public transit, rail, etc. and just completely become a car-culture wasteland? Every interesting big city is one that has great transit, as that permits the densities that make interesting possible. Who the hell goes to Houston except for business? The car-dominated cities, and the parts of cities dominated by cars are automatically the least interesting places.
|
if Jawagord, if he does works in the oil industry may not want to accept that the dominance of oil is going to decline, and decline quickly due to climate change. Will we abolish cars, but there will probably be fewer gasoline powered vehciles. Rail is not the panacea for all transport needs but it can even replace or compete with air travel over short distances (of which we don't have many in Canada). We can have train service if it connects reasonably sized cities and towns with end points at major cities. At some point in time and probably sooner rather than later the major rail lines will be electrified or run on battery power or hydrogen. There is no reason why we should not take steps now to prepare for the future.
We have to get away from the idea that money spent on roads is an investment and on anything else is a subsidy. The cost of running cars and providing infrastructure for them to operate on needs to be made evident to the car driving public. And yes, I do drive, I do fly and yes I do take the train and I too worked in the oil patch for a short period of time.