Did anybody besides me see this on aol news? (I hope the link works. :? ) http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/business/article.adp?id=20050813125209990004&ncid=NWS00010000000001
I didn't have a driver's license until I was over 30, or a car for several years after that, thus I'm very confident in saying that public transit is an extremely suboptimal alternative everywhere except dense urban cores, which represent a tiny fraction of the US by area and a significant minority by population. Cars are not "sickening", they're a rational, convenient, affordable, and time-saving way to get from point a to point b. I save hundreds of hours of time every year, have many more choices of where to live and far more freedom, and go dancing much more often and to a far larger variety of places than I could before having a car. People who want to take away my travel options to feed their political biases, or install punitive taxes for the benefit of the urban minority, are not people I can respect.
Wow. I don't think I want to touch the tax topic. No sir. Not me. 8) I was thinking about this topic, as well, jon. The best conclusion I could come up with is that Americans' fates were sealed back in the fifties when Truman (I think :? ) opted to invest so much in the interstate highway system. The choice was made then, IMO. An investment was made in developing a transportation infrastructure. It just happened to be car-based and petroleum dependant. *shrug* Oh well. :?
Amen. If I lived in a major metropolitan area I wouldn't have a car, but where I am it is a necessity to enjoy life. I use my bicycle and the public buses whever I evaluate that my life energy is better spent doing so and so any use of my car I attribute to the crappy public transportation system.
Same here. I grew up in Philadelphia, which has a moderate (not stellar, but not bad) public transportation system. I didn't learn to drive until I moved 70 miles away to Allentown, a fairly large town with abysmal public transport. I mean abysmal. At that point, I had no logical choice other than to get a license and a car... or to depend on someone else's license and car. Getting around by bus just didn't work. *shrug*
Eisenhower, but yeah. Of course the original purpose hasn't come about yet, thankfully. Even seeing a military convoy on the highways is very rare unless you live near a major base.
Truman. Eisenhower. Eh. I mostly slept through the second half of twelfth grade American History class, much to the consternation of Mr. R, my teacher. What can I say? *shrug* :wink: :lol:
Yeah. I remember the first time I went to Spain. The gas prices there were about the same per litre as we were paying per gallon (3.78 litres,) at the time. Yikes! I wonder what gas prices are in Spain, these days. :?
lol, sorry, i had to be super-precise. I know. But if it don't have to be THAT exact, it would be 3.79 litres... don't take me serious - it's late luh
Actually, depending on the number of significant digits you choose, I've seen it called everything from 3.8 to 3.7854118. Eh. *Shrug* Bottom line. Gas costs too much, IMO. :wink: :lol:
sorry, wrong again. If you'd take 3 significant figures it would be 3.79, if you'd take 4 it would be 3.785. so no matter how oyu put it, - gas costs to much luh
well, given that it's a supply-demand market, there really isn't much we can do...not to mention we have limited fossil fuel...
Ike had not that long previously fought a war in which the Autobahn played an important role (for both sides, in the end)... this was in marked contrast to an disasterous cost-to-cost road convoy experiment he was involved in with the US army in 1919.
Yeah. The decision makes plenty of sense, in a historical context. 8) It just had some long-reaching implications that may not have been foreseeable, at the time.
true, but given that the presidential term is only 4 years, it's tough to ask the government to think about long term plans that expands beyond 4 years.
