Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy Boy
Totally correct aquablue.
This Tappan Zee Bridge would never be approved in Europe for a construction start unless there were rail connected to the bridge. The politicians would realize that it would be political suicide to implement this project without rail traffic on the bride. The common people would have been furious.
The Europeans do not build bridges and other big infrastructure projects unless public transport is included. Cost what it wants, but it is the greatest benefit to society to invest in public transportation than cars. Unfortunately the USA is a backward country and a underdeveloped country when it comes to rail traffic and public transportations. Both Asia and Europe is light years ahead. See the Oresund Bridge between Sweden and Denmark, where the fast trains go under the bridge, it would cost more than the entire bridge politicians counted out just for the rails before Construction. But it was never an option to not build rails because they knew that it was profitably in longterm. The bridge opened in summer 2000 and in 2010, bridge had been paid only by the train passengers 4 times over. It's cheaper to take the train then the car because Europeans loves public transportations more then the car and thats the right way to go. Time to learn from those who knows better. AMEN
|
Cheap flights on planes killed passenger train service in N. America decades ago. Currently a litre of gasoline costs roughly $.90 is USA compared to say $1.90 in Europe. So road trips by car are still a viable option. I am not against trains at all, from my childhood until my mid-30s I used public transit exclusively (subways, commuter trains) to get around locally. But when I traveled to visit relatives I flew because I had to cross an ocean
Europe's geography and population are also more closely concentrated than in N. America, where people are generally more spread out. So flying sometimes makes the most sense.