EU wants vehicles out of cities by 2050

[Hondo]

Your beloved EU wants to whoop some serious changes on you...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8411336/EU-to-ban-cars-from-cities-by-2050.html

What a hoot! I love it! Why wait until 2050, start tomorrow.

[Rollo]

Good.

As it is the central parts of cities are pretty well choked up with traffic. Would it really kill people to walk to the centre if they really had to get there? If this worked in conjuction with city tram systems, then cities become eminently more livable.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/02/liveability_ranking
Surprise suprise, which cities actually do stack up the best? Vancouver which has trams? Melbourne which also has trams? If you get rid of the cars from the central part of the city, then the cityscape itself becomes more pleasant and usable by pedestrians.

Unless you actually want to hold up the car as some sort of miracle transport. Try sitting on I-5 in Los Angeles during the rush hour and tell me how that works out for you.

[Hondo]

Start tomorrow. I've been in rush hours all over the country. In some cities, it's rush hour all the time nowadays.

[Sonic]

As Rollo says some (even fairly modest towns) are no go areas anyway - at least if you want to actually go somewhere. But there will need to be mammoth investment in infrastructure for it to come close to working. Trams alone won't cut it. They are pretty crowded as it is, so add a few million new users and...

[bowler]

It is not "cars" it is petrol and diesel fueled vehicles.
By 2050 there will be an alternative to these fuels, so the numbers won't change, just the propulsion method

[Hondo]

Start tomorrow and have the fun of watching the governments scramble into somehow getting you to make up for their lost revenues on registrations, traffic fines, parking fines, VATs on automobiles and their parts, like tires, and motor fuel taxes. Start tomorrow and put the majority of the country's transportation system into the hands of a rail union that can strike at will and bring the cities to their knees.

As far as an alternative goes, maybe, but on the other hand, may be not. Look at guns. They still work as they did 600 years ago. A chemical compound ignites, causing a gas to form and expand which then ejects a projectile from the open end of a tube. Basic black powder is still used today.

C'mon EU, start it immediately!

It's not about emissions, it's about equalization and putting the people on the same footing, no pun intended. Just another quiet shot in the class war battle.

[Mark]

It really depends if you have a proper public transport system to replace it, and I don't mean Park & Ride buses which run every half hour.

If you go to the likes of Zurich, they have an excellent tram system which goes pretty much everywhere in the city and surroundings, so you don't really need a car, it helps that the city centre is quite compact. You can drive into the city centre, but not many people do.

[Hondo]

There you go! Rebuild all the major cities in the image of Zurich! Start tomorrow!

[MrJan]

What's the EU definition of 'City'? Back when I was in school (only 10 years ago mind) it was anything with a population over 100,000, which includes quite a lot. Also what are is the centre? I live in a City of circa 120k people and the main high street is limited to buses and pedestrians, increasing that area would largely be pointless. For example if I have to drop some keys back to an office in the City centre (not uncommon for me to do this when I'm working), it's not exactly ideal (well it's downright bloody stupid) for me to drive in from my work (about 15 miles away from town), park up and catch a bus and then catch a bus back to my car.

The problem is that these politicians spend their time in Cities with decent public transport systems, in most areas it's just not feasible. If I was in London then I reckon being car free would be fairly simple, the tube is solid and you can easily find a cab. Likewise I went on holiday to Barcelona earlier in the month and using the metro over there makes things a piece of cake. However down in the bumpkin land of Devon things are different, I work 17 miles away in a different town and catching public transport is just not a viable option, unless I want to add 4 hours to my day.

[Rollo]

Start tomorrow and have the fun of watching the governments scramble into somehow getting you to make up for their lost revenues on registrations, traffic fines, parking fines, VATs on automobiles and their parts, like tires, and motor fuel taxes. Start tomorrow and put the majority of the country's transportation system into the hands of a rail union that can strike at will and bring the cities to their knees.

We are talking about a plan which looks over 40 years here. If you were to compare London of 1861 to 1901 which is the same time frame, it went from 2,800,000 in 1861 to 6,700,000 in 1901. That is a city which more than doubled in size. London would come to a grinding halt without the Underground now.
A 40 year timeframe and plan of action is one of vision to deal with problems which could happen in the future.

I don't know which city you live in, but I would either suspect that it isn't terribly big, or that the public transport system is woefully inadequate. You have General Motors, Firestone Tires, Standard Oil, Phillips Petroleum and Mack Trucks to blame for poisoning the American public's perception of public transport.
The National City Lines conspiracy even went to the Supreme Court in United States v. National City Lines Inc. (1948)

I'd rather live in a properly planned and well thought out city thanks.

[Hondo]

Most of my life I lived in Houston, where forced public transportation had been fought for decades, and still is. But then again, were Houston a country, they would cheerfully invite you to go suck one, before they would allow themselves to get fouled up in something like the EU. So, it's not a problem, start tomorrow. There is no poisoning in American's perception of public transportation. There is only an American's fondness for travelling in their own space, on their own schedule, listening to their own music, smoking or eating if they wish, stopping if they wish, in a climate they can control without being subjected to the loud, foul arguments and cell calls of others, breathing odors they did not bring with them, and worring about a transit workers strike leaving them stranded.

Start tomorrow.

[BDunnell]

The problem is that these politicians spend their time in Cities with decent public transport systems

Or, in London, a place where the public transport system might be decent if (a) the sheer numbers of private cars didn't still cause huge delays for buses, and (b) the sheer numbers of people didn't overload the rest of the infrastructure. This all leads people to say how crap London's public transport is. Certainly it has traditionally suffered from under-investment, but nobody should underestimate how difficult it is to run mass transit systems in a city the size of London, and in one where it's simply not practical to start afresh with the infrastructure, and do so without experiencing problems.

[BDunnell]

There is no poisoning in American's perception of public transportation. There is only an American's fondness for travelling in their own space, on their own schedule, listening to their own music, smoking or eating if they wish, stopping if they wish, in a climate they can control without being subjected to the loud, foul arguments and cell calls of others, breathing odors they did not bring with them, and worring about a transit workers strike leaving them stranded.

'Stopping if they wish'? In cities, surely, you have no option?

[Hondo]

Stopping as in, at the spur of the moment deciding to try that new seafood place that's halfway home or running an errand now instead of on the weekend. You are not locked in until the next scheduled stop.

[BDunnell]

Stopping as in, at the spur of the moment deciding to try that new seafood place that's halfway home or running an errand now instead of on the weekend. You are not locked in until the next scheduled stop.

I don't feel unduly restricted in that regard using other modes of transport.

[Hondo]

Then, that's a positive for you.

[janneppi]

Stopping as in, at the spur of the moment deciding to try that new seafood place that's halfway home or running an errand now instead of on the weekend. You are not locked in until the next scheduled stop.
Tell me about it, two weeks ago I was driving home back from the shops when I noticed a restaurant I hadn't noticed before, I immediately pulled left over the left lane, shot over a kerb, through a five meter wide snow bank, onto oncomming lanes cursing how the communist other people took away my liberties as I dodged them and accelerated in to the the back yard of the shop.

Best damn Iskender Kebab this side of vantaa.
And I didn't have to take a bus.

[BDunnell]

Tell me about it, two weeks ago I was driving home back from the shops when I noticed a restaurant I hadn't noticed before, I immediately pulled left over the left lane, shot over a kerb, through a five meter wide snow bank, onto oncomming lanes cursing how the communist other people took away my liberties as I dodged them and accelerated in to the the back yard of the shop.

Best damn Iskender Kebab this side of vantaa.
And I didn't have to take a bus.

:laugh:

[anthonyvop]

I would use Public transportation if it wasn't for a few little issues.

It doesn't leave when I want to leave.
It doesn't stop when I want to stop.
It doesn't stop where I want it to stop.
It doesn't change destinations when I want to change destinations.
It doesn't allow me to have private conversations.
It doesn't allow me to decide who I share my space with.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I can imagine driving in the centre of London being a complete nightmare. I've never had any issues with the underground apart from it being crowded after a gig or football match. Maybe my opinion would change if I had to use it everyday.

Even car passionate Top Gear showed us that boats, tube, cycling and even running are faster than driving in London.

[MrMetro]

It really depends if you have a proper public transport system to replace it, and I don't mean Park & Ride buses which run every half hour.

If you go to the likes of Zurich, they have an excellent tram system which goes pretty much everywhere in the city and surroundings, so you don't really need a car, it helps that the city centre is quite compact. You can drive into the city centre, but not many people do.

True.

Leeds, a city not far from where I live, was meant to have a tram system a couple of years ago, until Alistair Darling stopped the funding for it. It is doubtful that the propsed replacment trolleybus scheme will ever get the greenlight.

I wish the government would just realise that a good public transport system requires a large amount of investment, it is not something you can do cheaply.

[BDunnell]

True.

Leeds, a city not far from where I live, was meant to have a tram system a couple of years ago, until Alistair Darling stopped the funding for it. It is doubtful that the propsed replacment trolleybus scheme will ever get the greenlight.

I wish the government would just realise that a good public transport system requires a large amount of investment, it is not something you can do cheaply.

And proper network planning by a central agency, rather than a fragmented set of arrangements run by private companies.

[MrMetro]

And proper network planning by a central agency, rather than a fragmented set of arrangements run by private companies.

Indeed, I never understood why British Rail was privatised like it was. I think I'm correct in saying that it was broken down into 100 individual company's. The result: a complicated mess of a rail network.

[MrMetro]

I can imagine driving in the centre of London being a complete nightmare. I've never had any issues with the underground apart from it being crowded after a gig or football match. Maybe my opinion would change if I had to use it everyday.

Even car passionate Top Gear showed us that boats, tube, cycling and even running are faster than driving in London.

When I go to London, I always use the Tube to get around. I personally think its a great form of public transportation.

[BDunnell]

Indeed, I never understood why British Rail was privatised like it was. I think I'm correct in saying that it was broken down into 100 individual company's. The result: a complicated mess of a rail network.

Well, it was privatised in the first place because of John Major's misplaced nostalgia for the inter-war years. Then the cock-up of the manner of privatisation can be put down to many different factors, and individuals with no idea of how to run a railway.

[ioan]

There you go! Rebuild all the major cities in the image of Zurich! Start tomorrow!

Now that would be great, however I am sure you have no effin clue what that means!

[ioan]

I would use Public transportation if it wasn't for a few little issues.

It doesn't leave when I want to leave.
It doesn't stop when I want to stop.
It doesn't stop where I want it to stop.
It doesn't change destinations when I want to change destinations.
It doesn't allow me to have private conversations.
It doesn't allow me to decide who I share my space with.

I guess you finally discovered why it is called public transportation.

[Rollo]

Stopping as in, at the spur of the moment deciding to try that new seafood place that's halfway home or running an errand now instead of on the weekend. You are not locked in until the next scheduled stop.

If you were in Melbourne and you saw that seafood place, you'd ring the bell and the tram would stop at the next stop. In a built up area you might have to walk 400 yards.

[anthonyvop]

I guess you finally discovered why it is called public transportation.

That is the main problem with "Public" transportation.....The "public" part.

[anthonyvop]

Even car passionate Top Gear showed us that boats, tube, cycling and even running are faster than driving in London.

You do realize that all those "races" on Top Gear are scripted and staged right?

[Rollo]

That is the main problem with "Public" transportation.....The "public" part.

How so? Please explain why.

[BDunnell]

That is the main problem with "Public" transportation.....The "public" part.

Never mind. I'm sure you could clear out a London bus or a Spanish tram pretty quick by brandishing one of your weapons.

[anthonyvop]

How so? Please explain why.

They are scripted and shot according to plan. I had the opportunity to watch them film a Segment when they were in the US.

BTW....Ever notice how when they break down there always seems to be a film crew set up and waiting at the exact spot or if they are racing they have a camera truck in front of them filming?

[anthonyvop]

Never mind. I'm sure you could clear out a London bus or a Spanish tram pretty quick by brandishing one of your weapons.
In London I usually take a taxi and in Spain a driver is usually provided for me unless I want to head out to the country. Then I just rent a car.

[Rollo]

If you follow this thread with quotes inside:


That is the main problem with "Public" transportation.....The "public" part.

How so? Please explain why.

They are scripted and shot according to plan. I had the opportunity to watch them film a Segment when they were in the US.
BTW....Ever notice how when they break down there always seems to be a film crew set up and waiting at the exact spot or if they are racing they have a camera truck in front of them filming?

Mr Vop's problem with Public Transport is that they are "scripted and shot according to plan." I'm sure that's not what he meant and accidentally hit the "replay with quote" button on the wrong thing, but it is amusing.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

You do realize that all those "races" on Top Gear are scripted and staged right?

Yes, but I'm arguing that one wasn't so I can prove my point.

[MrJan]

How so? Please explain why.

Mr Vop isn't allowed near the general public, they make him angry and you wouldn't like him when he's angry.

[Mark]

Leeds, a city not far from where I live, was meant to have a tram system a couple of years ago, until Alistair Darling stopped the funding for it. It is doubtful that the propsed replacment trolleybus scheme will ever get the greenlight.

I wish the government would just realise that a good public transport system requires a large amount of investment, it is not something you can do cheaply.

There are of course places which do have tram systems such as Sheffield and Nottingham - plus Manchester but I don't have much experience of that.

But they are often token gestures limited to two different routes, so mostly they don't go where you want them to go. Whereas the likes of Zurich (again, sorry) has 14 different tram routes going through the city centre and then off the suburbs, and then about the same again with trolley buses and ordinary buses on top of that, plus the suburban heavy rail routes too. It's that kind of density that you need, but it's also exceedingly expensive to install and maintain, but if you are going to do it, then do it properly!

Currently the only place in the UK which has a decent public transport network is London.

[BDunnell]

There are of course places which do have tram systems such as Sheffield and Nottingham - plus Manchester but I don't have much experience of that.

But they are often token gestures limited to two different routes, so mostly they don't go where you want them to go. Whereas the likes of Zurich (again, sorry) has 14 different tram routes going through the city centre and then off the suburbs, and then about the same again with trolley buses and ordinary buses on top of that, plus the suburban heavy rail routes too. It's that kind of density that you need, but it's also exceedingly expensive to install and maintain, but if you are going to do it, then do it properly!

Currently the only place in the UK which has a decent public transport network is London.

The Supertram network in Sheffield is useless — or, at least, I found it to be when I was a student there. It runs well enough, and is probably the best means of getting to the Meadowhall shopping centre, but other than that it didn't go anywhere I wanted to go. But I'm sure others find it far more practical for their needs.

[gadjo_dilo]

I would use Public transportation if it wasn't for a few little issues.

It doesn't leave when I want to leave.
It doesn't stop when I want to stop.
It doesn't stop where I want it to stop.
It doesn't change destinations when I want to change destinations.
It doesn't allow me to have private conversations.
It doesn't allow me to decide who I share my space with.

OK, your own car would help you avoid these inconveniences but in a place like Bucharest you'll face another big issue: the lack of parking places. Your desire to stop in a certain place whenever you want is almost imposible because there's no place to leave your car.

Personally I haven't a car and I don't want or need one ( BTW what am I doing on motorsport forums? :laugh: ).
However I'm against banning them. There are persons who are old or have locomotion problems and it's hard for them to walk to the public stations.

[schmenke]

...
By 2050 there will be an alternative to these fuels...

No.

[schmenke]

As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, eliminating the passenger vehicle as the primary means of transportation to move masses of people at the same time to the same place only makes sense.

In all urban areas traffic congestion is a problem due to people using their vehicles during rush hour, travelling to more-or-less the same area, i.e. downtown or the central business district. Invariably each car, capable of accommodating up to 4 people, contain only the driver. This makes the passenger vehicle as the most inefficient “mass people mover”.

Yes, a mass-transit system is expensive to build and maintain, but it is offset by the reduction in construction of new and upgraded road systems to accommodate vehicles that use them only a couple of hours a day, 5 days per week.

When I was working downtown I was taking the bus to work. Did it save me time during my commute vs. driving? No, not really, but I would rather share a bus with ~40 other people and have someone else drive rather than sitting in my car going nowhere in gridlock traffic, not to mention the savings in the cost of downtown parking ( :eek: ).

I read a recent estimate where if we could reduce the number of cars on the roads during rush hours in urban areas by half, the world’s energy problems would be solved.

Would I give up my car altogether? No, of course not, with a family of 4 that would be totally impractical, but it certainly is not my first choice for commuting downtown.

[Bob Riebe]

As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, eliminating the passenger vehicle as the primary means of transportation to move masses of people at the same time to the same place only makes sense.

In all urban areas traffic congestion is a problem due to people using their vehicles during rush hour, travelling to more-or-less the same area, i.e. downtown or the central business district. Invariably each car, capable of accommodating up to 4 people, contain only the driver. This makes the passenger vehicle as the most inefficient “mass people mover”.

Yes, a mass-transit system is expensive to build and maintain, but it is offset by the reduction in construction of new and upgraded road systems to accommodate vehicles that use them only a couple of hours a day, 5 days per week.

When I was working downtown I was taking the bus to work. Did it save me time during my commute vs. driving? No, not really, but I would rather share a bus with ~40 other people and have someone else drive rather than sitting in my car going nowhere in gridlock traffic, not to mention the savings in the cost of downtown parking ( :eek: ).

I read a recent estimate where if we could reduce the number of cars on the roads during rush hours in urban areas by half, the world’s energy problems would be solved.

Would I give up my car altogether? No, of course not, with a family of 4 that would be totally impractical, but it certainly is not my first choice for commuting downtown.
Some Minn. cities have tried variations of this no-car idea, including cities of less than fifty thousand people.

It has either failed miserably or as in Minneapolis, the car free "mall" now has busses and taxis driving on it.

It always sounds wonderful to those who do not have to actually use it.

[Mark]

It always sounds wonderful to those who do not have to actually use it.

Which is exactly the point, the people who dream up these things are usually not the ones who have to put up with it, day in, day out.

That said I'm in favour of sensible pedestrianisation, i.e. you don't ban cars from the whole city centre, but from certain key streets. The main shopping street in Newcastle used to have double-decker buses nose to tail down it, until it was pedestrianised about 20 years ago, you couldn't imagine it any other way now, and that was what used to be the mighty A1 !

[raybak]

Here in Canberra, the capital of Australia. We are supposed to be getting a light rail system just before Hell freezes over. If anyone know's Canberra it is a very spread out city with a population of about 400k. The light rail system seems to be a good idea and I do back it. But it seems too many people are against it including the Greens who have the balance of power in our government. Our public transport system is a mess at the moment with only buses, the government buses, they have about 400 of them are struggling to keep up, a few private companies are running buses as well but are limited to where they can go. One of my customers has over 120 buses and services the area's outside the ACT but can only do run's to the Airport and no other areas in Canberra.

Seems we need to get our governments to understand the deficiencies in public transport and work on solutions for growing populations, not for current populations.

Ray

[Rollo]

Here in Canberra, the capital of Australia. We are supposed to be getting a light rail system just before Hell freezes over. If anyone know's Canberra it is a very spread out city with a population of about 400k. The light rail system seems to be a good idea and I do back it. But it seems too many people are against it including the Greens who have the balance of power in our government.


Canberra is a curious thing. When I used to work for the courts, I'd spend a bit of time particularly inside the hexagon on the side of ANU, and it was strange to see something which is supposed to be the national capital, completely dead by about half past 5.
Bill Bryson in his book Down Under illustrates the point quite well.

When you think about it, Canberra was specifically designed with the car in mind and was one of only a few cities in the world with that end. I'm still sure that if it was a city of about 2 million people, the place would be choked up with traffic though.

[raybak]

Canberra is choked with traffic for about half an hour in the morning and another half an hour in the evening. The rest of the time it's pretty good. One major thing happening is a lot of new traffic lights replacing round abouts.

Ray

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well as someone who lives in a city with 150000 and Who didn't have his own car at his disposal, I know a little about walking, and borrowing rides, and taking the bus.

Quite frankly, it sucks. Yes, if I had to do it every day, I would find a way, but I found the bus system around here ok, not great. The price was ok when you figure in what a car costs BUT, for all that, as Tony pointed out, you are on its schedule and with the people you meet when you are on there. That is ok I guess.....but not really. It didn't run as often as I needed it late at night, and it doesn't even work to where I work now, so I ended up in the end buying another car.

This idea that the EC works because in Europe, they have a society that came to cars for everyone more or less in the post war years and the cities have never been car friendly downtown. The cities, even smaller ones such as Lausanne (a city simliar to my home town in Oshawa in size yet it has a RT line!) have developed transit. Of course, in countries with high population densities, this will work. It has to.

In North America? Australia? Well, governments try, but transit just isn't always that efficient in anything but the larger centers. If I lived in a place like New York, yes I could use transit. IF I lived in Toronto, 40 minutes away, I would take the subway if I could although it has been a fight to get more built. The previous mayor, who hated cars was in love with Streetcars or Trams. The problem was/is, the streetcar right ways completely made traffic FAR worse by taking away lanes and parking, putting hundred's of small businesses out of business while the lines were put in. Talk about kicking the tax base in the rear, which is why the Mayor who dreamed this crap up didn't run again, because he knew his Transit City vision was going to get his rear kicked.

IF you live in a built up area, or are willing to subsidize and plan out elaborate systems that cost a lot money, then I am all for it, but in the America's or in Australia, only the largest cities will have anything behind a bus line system.

Schmenke's point is taken, it makes sense as a society, but as someone who lived that "sensible" lifestyle in the last year, I am willing to have the car at my beck and call. No other form of transport has liberated people to do what they wanted to do when they want it as much as the car.

As for the EU, they are not banning all cars, just ones burning fossil fuels. I also heard they will be banning trucks/lorries as well. Gee, how will shops keep stock on the shelves. I keep waiting for a reefer truck full of meat goes to a supermarket without burning fossil fuels. Electric vehicles will have to be the answer, or hydrogen. EIther way, demand for electricity will sky rocket, and since Europe seems to be sticking their heads in the sand on how they will produce all this juice, it will be fun watching a lot of people realize those nasty Nukes they don't want to talk about or deal with will in the end will be the only solution.

Ah yes, I love knee jerk political decisions biting people in the @ss! Merkel doesn't want nukes, and wont have cars, but something will have to give.

[Rollo]

In North America? Australia? Well, governments try, but transit just isn't always that efficient in anything but the larger centers. If I lived in a place like New York, yes I could use transit. IF I lived in Toronto, 40 minutes away, I would take the subway if I could although it has been a fight to get more built. The previous mayor, who hated cars was in love with Streetcars or Trams. The problem was/is, the streetcar right ways completely made traffic FAR worse by taking away lanes and parking, putting hundred's of small businesses out of business while the lines were put in. Talk about kicking the tax base in the rear, which is why the Mayor who dreamed this crap up didn't run again, because he knew his Transit City vision was going to get his rear kicked.

IF you live in a built up area, or are willing to subsidize and plan out elaborate systems that cost a lot money, then I am all for it, but in the America's or in Australia, only the largest cities will have anything behind a bus line system.

What you're talking about is largely an economies of scale issue; and yes there is a certain point at which a mass transit system really only starts to make sense. I would suggest that that size is about the range of one million people and above.
In Europe there are 65 cities of over one million people (and possible 66 if Thessaloniki is above a million now), but I wonder how many or those have a decent mass transit system. In Australia there are only 5.

The centre of a lot of small cities probably should be exclusively pedestrians only. The centre of a small town is what used to be its high street. That function curiously is increasingly being taken over by big strip malls, which have all the shops arranged in area which are exclusively pedestrians only.

One of the whole points of installing railways and tramways of to remove cars from the road. An 8 car suburban train in Sydney holds typically 850 people. At the rate of 4 trains an hour during peak times, that's about 3000 cars an hour which never show up on the roads. Roughly 25% of all people in Sydney travel on the trains in a day, or one million cars per day which you don't have to build roads for, that's why it starts to make sense for cities of more than one million people.

[Bob Riebe]

On a politically related item, in the U.S., Obama has rattled on about high speed rail. If he had pin-pointed a limited spectrum, fine, but he uses his shot gun approach on targets hundreds of yards out of range.

If, and it was part of the target, Chicago to Minneapolis-St. Paul had been part of condensed fully attentioned idea, it would have been great.

That corridor was served by multiple rail-roads with one hundred plus mile an hour service eighty years ago.

[Roamy]

Good.

As it is the central parts of cities are pretty well choked up with traffic. Would it really kill people to walk to the centre if they really had to get there? If this worked in conjuction with city tram systems, then cities become eminently more livable.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/02/liveability_ranking
Surprise suprise, which cities actually do stack up the best? Vancouver which has trams? Melbourne which also has trams? If you get rid of the cars from the central part of the city, then the cityscape itself becomes more pleasant and usable by pedestrians.

Unless you actually want to hold up the car as some sort of miracle transport. Try sitting on I-5 in Los Angeles during the rush hour and tell me how that works out for you.

A couple of things

We unfortunately have had no forethought in building cities and employment centers. In the west very few trains or light rails stop at airports. I appears that we and most other countries will just burn through the oil and then see what happens. I take the bus once in a while from the airport but getting all the way home is a real struggle. IMO we need very good light rail systems that go somewhere other than the ghetto. Some planning for the future would be nice as well. Figure out what to do when oil is not viable NOW.

[BDunnell]

A couple of things

We unfortunately have had no forethought in building cities and employment centers. In the west very few trains or light rails stop at airports. I appears that we and most other countries will just burn through the oil and then see what happens. I take the bus once in a while from the airport but getting all the way home is a real struggle. IMO we need very good light rail systems that go somewhere other than the ghetto. Some planning for the future would be nice as well. Figure out what to do when oil is not viable NOW.

Very good points, all of them.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I am thinking that as the next 50 years come along, a lot of North American cities will intensify light rail, subways and conventional commuter trains. It is long over due, but the people who push this stuff have to also realize that it has to be fast and efficient. That seems to fly in the face of the operators around here, who spend more time fighting with the unions of the people who operate the systems.