🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <jB5rzgiGksFO092yn@en.com>, ljduchez@en.com (Lou Duchez)
 <5o7hjh$9il$1@news.cis.ohio-state.edu> <33A7FE3F.75FC@net-link.net>
 <5on5q5$qu6$1@news.cis.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>In article <5on5q5$qu6$1@news.cis.ohio-state.edu>,
>Regrettably, much of US policy is based on what will make big business
>rich.  Thus, public policy has, for 50 years or so, been directed such
>that it's harder and harder to get by without a car, much to the benefit

That's not entirely correct.  The government doesn't make people want to live 
in nice suburbs, not next to a chemical plant or heavy industry downtown.  Big 
business doesn't make ppl want to live where they can drive to safe stores, 
malls, get their groceries without worrying about everyday activities such as 
those in the innercity.  The push toward longer commutes has many reasons in 
our country, and most of them don't coalesce to any conspiracy, simply desires 
and facts.

>public.  Maybe public transportation isn't the answer for everyone, but
>it's not really an option for those who might want to make use of it.

Public transportation could be better in the US, of course.  The simple 
geographical lack of density in our cities is a factor tho.  It's easier for 
smaller, more compacted countries to develop and maintain a full rail system, 
etc throughout the country than it is here.  I do wish it would improve some.  
But then again, with the low cost of gasoline here, it's not surprising most 
people opt for the greatest flexibility.  Who wants to take a nice train to a 
city barely 200 miles away if you have to take a cab or a bus everywhere after 
you get there?

----------------------------------------------------------------
N. Decker
-bite@scott.net
-ndecker@prosoftauto.com                         Bite @ IRC                
     (remove the - from my email address to respond)