Armin wrote...
This is where Europe with it's dense cluster towns is a little closer to Boogetyland than the US with it's endless suburban sprawl. The denser clusters make transportation so much more efficient! I'm sure there are other policy differences between Europe and the US, but the price of fuel must have played a role in that difference in development!
No actually its down to population density and physical size not fuel cost since there have always been (before the motor car) close villages with all amenities which made it unnecessary to travel great distances.For those that did travel beyond the villages there was a comprehensive network of horse drawn coaches then the rail system in the 1800's and then later busses and then the motorcar.
But this dense cluster network existed before the influence of fuel cost.
"...if they'd accepted their six- and seven-figure jobs in downtown Dallas and then chosen a nearby home choice, instead of a McMansion out near the curvature of the Earth, all would be better for them and their life would have been much much simpler. Most people don't think that far ahead."
Of course there are several factors in that, as for instance they could have chosen to work in a smaller city, so that even if they worked in town, the distance to work is much less. I used to work on the other side of downtown, yet I could do the commute in a bit over an hour - on my bike.
"In other countries, public transportation is not an afterthought by government, it's actually built in to the infrastructure. That's why European cities are so... livable."
I don't agree, on either point. At least with the various cities I've visited or lived in, the public transport had obviously been grafted on older patterns, it's just that the grafting was long enough ago that the city had started to grow around it. Consider the British rail system, for instance. If the rail system wasn't an afterthought, then why do most railroads lead to one of the stations in a ring around central London, so that if for instance you're coming from somewhere west and going to somewhere north, you have get off at (IIRC) Victoria, trundle yourself across town to Kings' Cross, and get on another train?
But this dense cluster network existed before the influence of fuel cost.
Exactly! It came into being when travel over long distances was even more cumbersome and expensive! Then, travel got easier and cheaper, but more so on one side of the Atlantic than the other. And behold: the side with the cheaper travel sparawled out more.
As I said before, there's a bunch of other variables, too...
I think we have a big problem in the US because things are more spread out and public transit coverage is spotty to nonexistent outside major urban areas. I used public transportation for 25 years when I worked in Providence but now I work in Massachusetts and it's just not practical (RIPTA to Providence; MBTA to Boston; MBTA to Brockton; BAT to Easton; About 3.5 hours each way, schedules don't line up, still driving 28 miles, etc., etc.). Boy am I glad I bought my Insight last year.
"
I don't agree, on either point. At least with the various cities I've visited or lived in, the public transport had obviously been grafted on older patterns, it's just that the grafting was long enough ago that the city had started to grow around it. Consider the British rail system, for instance. If the rail system wasn't an afterthought, then why do most railroads lead to one of the stations in a ring around central London, so that if for instance you're coming from somewhere west and going to somewhere north, you have get off at (IIRC) Victoria, trundle yourself across town to Kings' Cross, and get on another train?
The topology of most mass rail is based on the principle of maximising occupancy of the trains. If you were to have a train service that goes from point a to point b across town you'd end up with trains that are underutilized half of their route in one direction or the other depending the time of the day. The assumption is that most people do not travel across town in the morning for work and then back again in the afternoon. Most people travel to downtown in the morning and out to the suburbs in the afternoon. Therefore the rail system is meant to cater for them primarily. Anything else would be trying to give everyone their own private rail system.
I think you missed my point. It wasn't about daily commuter service, but the long-distance trains. Sure, there's a point to having a central hub (or hubs), but the question is why have the multiple stations? If the system was designed from scratch, it'd seem more practical to have one central station, so that you'd just have to walk to a different platform, or even have a through car that was switched from the inward to outward line. The current system makes as much sense as e.g. flying into Heathrow, then having to take a bus to Stanstead for an onward flight...
James....There are reason's for multiple stations in London I suggest you read up on it for an explanation.
A traveller can take other routes in the country without touching London but guess your experience was limited.
Would like to explain the above but its off thread.
I see today the price of a barrell of oil is now $128.00
Maybe some of the doubters of the world situation are starting to face the reality of events unfolding before us.
Oh, I've no doubt there are reasons for everything, which probably made good sense to the designers at the time. The point, though, is that these transit systems obviously weren't designed in, but were grafted on to an existing city/country. The builders had to work with what was there already, and in many cases then had to deal with unanticipated growth. It'd be a lot easier if they had the luxury of designing the whole thing from scratch
James,
Yes, they always have to work with that is there but they are never stuck with it during the planning stages. Money rules in the end and it is obviously cheaper and less intrusive to build on what is already there. However, given the right circumstances it is possible to start from scratch. Making use of eminent domain governments can get their hands on the land/properties that are "in the way" of the project. One example that comes to mind is Sydney's M2 and M7 motorways. The M2 displaced a few hundred people and split in two a university campus. It was loathed by those affected but it reduced travel time significantly for about 100,000 people every day.
the other day at work one of the people ( who drives a large truck of course ) was telling me that people might not want tiny cars like mine.... My response was that I want a Insight even if no one else does and I won't trade my 60+ MPG for any of the cars that I see today .... His response was to tell me that he thinks in a year we will see $2.75 per gallon again in the U.S. and it won't matter... I tried not to laugh too loud... but I think I giggled a little despite my best efforts... I told him I doubt it and that allot of Europe is already over $8 per gallon, and that he should prepare for the future when those prices hit the U.S. instead of just hoping the price drops.
It made me laugh mostly that there are still people with there heads in the sand, actually expecting gas prices to go down significantly instead of the up we have been seeing regularly for decades .... I guess the old saying still holds true... some people just can not be told the stove is hot , they have to burn there hand on the stove to understand... those people will still be buying SUVs to commute a single per to work at $5 per gallon and then complain about the price of gasoline
People will change when they have to I guess... When they can't afford to drive so far to and from work they will find a closer job to their house or find a closer house to their work or find a cheaper way to get from point a to point b like high MPG cars , mass transit , bicycles , etc... When SUVs become too expensive for the common man to afford to drive do to gas prices, the rich will continue to buy them as a status symbol... and some people will buy them just for the status symbol even if they really can't afford such a vehicle.
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Re: Global Gas Prices
