🚀 go-pugleaf

"Don Hagstrom" <don002@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5I5f6.300$lC2.55637@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> This will remove the air pollution argument against cars.  Urban sprawl
> arguments may remain but I don't think we will ever be able to stop people
> from wanting to live in low density areas.

I question the notion that people always want to live in low density area.
Even through it has been a trend for the past 50 years in the United States,
in other parts of the world, it was the reverse. People in other countries
abandoning low density rural areas to move to the cities. And why would
cities be formed ever if cities are so undesirable? No one puts a gun to
other people to make them move to cities.

There are somethings that the cities provide that rural areas and the
suburbs can't.

>  Most likely we will see an
> increase in commuter rail systems that do effectively transport people
from
> suburb to suburb but LRT will be shown to be a failure in all but the most
> dense of areas.

In urban areas, there would be an increase used of mass transit. In auto
oriented suburbs, they may become more pedestrian and bicycles oriented.

Freeways is a common link between the urban areas, suburbs, and rural area,
when in the past there were different tiers of transportation infastructure
in those areas. Freeways as it is now in the long run is not sustainable, as
there are capacity and equality issue. The challenge in the future is how we
can create a new common link between urban, suburbs, and rural area that has
higher capacity, more equality, more safe.