> -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Tiller [mailto:mtiller at ntlworld.com] > Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 11:57 AM > To: 'Shawn Burns'; dragaera at dragaera.info > Subject: RE: Petrol Prices > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Shawn Burns [mailto:s1burns at ucsd.edu] > > Sent: 21 March 2005 19:46 > > To: dragaera at dragaera.info > > Subject: RE: Petrol Prices > > > > > > > It is the attitude of "pay for it yourself" that still informs > > American politics; subsidized mass public transportation is > just never > > entertained very seriously. > > > > So, when gas prices are as high as they are, while we still haven't > > changed how important cars are for everyday travel, it > doesn't matter > > how much more expensive gas is in other places. Cars > themselves aren't > > as important there, so the impact of gas price increases > will never be > > as significant. > > > > Cheers indeed, > > > > Shawn > > Shawn, > > The current Labor (read Democrat equivalent) pushed up petrol > prices to try and force people to use public transport. > Unfortunately, the previous government had partially > privatised the rail network with disastrous results.... So > that the infrastructure doesn't really exist. Of course > labor governments have all been Tax & Spend. I'm originally > from Oz, so I know about driving long distances, 95 octane is > about $AU 1.00 per litre at the moment. At current exchange > rates, that's about $US 3 per US Gallon. > > "subsidized mass public transportation is just never > entertained very seriously" > > New York Metro? > > Cheers > > Mark > I should have stated more carefully "nationally subsidized", since many individual cities sponsor their own public transit. But many don't have anything on the scale of New York. San Diego has a short-route trolley service. Los Angeles has finally built a partial underground. The San Francisco Bay area has a larger network, since major population centers are so close together and there are few options for driving into the center of those areas. But when I was in England last year I was struck by the popularity of the rails, something that I just don't see here. They seemed, to me, to go everywhere and made my travel around the country fairly convenient. In the US we have no interest in using trains as even a secondary means of transportation, much less a primary one, so the "infrastructure" seemed significant to me. But it could very well be reduced >from some even higher level that I never saw, so to someone else it might seem like it is decaying; or the pressure for public transit might be so great that it seems like there isn't enough infrastructure. But to someone who lives in a place without what might even be a minimal infrastructure level for England, it was impressive. Maybe England is changing into an automobile culture, and so will feel the impact of high gas prices in the same way the US does; but it sure didn't feel that way when I was there. I can't imagine that a place with as much public transportation available can really be as impacted by high gas prices as the automobile culture of the US. Of course, I'm generalizing from one example here, but everybody generalizes from one example. At least I do. And my comment about 350 miles every week wasn't about traveling long distances so much as a statement about how frequently I drive; I think we drive so frequently because we have no other options, not because the distances are necessarily longer than other places. My trips are only about 50 miles around, which isn't very long, but it is regular. Some people make longer regular trips; some shorter. But most make regular trips. It is a culture of suburbs, where few if any people actually travel to the city center, where public transit is most common. Cheers, Shawn