🚀 go-pugleaf

in article G88LE8.HEG@thunder.sbay.org, Ian Kluft  wrote:

> That's wildly optimistic.  It applies in large urban areas but not in
> small ones, and definitely not in rural areas.

Most people I know, like my business partner, who live in rural areas would
DIE before even considering moving to anything approaching "city size".

> Sometimes you don't have enough population, whether viewed as potential
> ridership or as a tax base, to even begin to make serious transportation
> infrastructure.  The density of the city really does matter.

Even San Jose doesn't really warrant a rail system. The one it has is mostly
useless, except to a very narrow group of people. The cost per
passenger-mile is horrendous.

> The point is that when you propose a rule or change for a lot of other
> people, try to determine how it will affect all of them, not just people
> similar to yourself.

I have found city dwellers (probably due to their concentration) to be the
most parochial when it comes to "the way things ought to be". I have no
problem with city people who enjoy their high density...as long as they
don't insist on imposing their preferences on everyone else.

BTW, the whole issue of "energy efficiency" is nothing more than a
convenient imperative to add righteousness to the "everyone must live in
cities" evangelism.

-- 
John Higdon     | Email Address Valid | http://www.anntec.com/
+1 408 264 4115 |  Silicon Valley, CA | FAX: +1 408 264 4407
  Cheap, provincial San Franciscans can call: 415 428-COWS