Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
06.19.2008 2:15 pm

Rail transit should replace automobiles in U.S.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

In the business column dated 6/16 “Rail transit just isn’t trying to improve fuel efficiency”, the Cato Institute fellow focuses on inefficiencies in our transit. He bemoans that buses often run less than full. To him, this means we should all drive fuel-efficient cars instead. To me, this means that we have allowed our country to be built so recklessly that the efficiency of a shared ride is infrequent. We should recognize this as a mistake, not go further down that road.

Having just returned from a visit to France, I found their transit systems pleasant and very well used. France’s great urban design planning, which is all but missing in America, ensures livable cities. Not only old cities, but new ones. When more housing was needed around Paris, the government created nine satellite villages with frequent rail access to Paris. Within these, every resident can walk to the grocer, schools, and other necessary venues – a bit like our popular New Town, but with no transit link.

Rail transit is not just for the sake of “a reduced carbon footprint.” Rather, a quality transit network helps community life - such as in America when streetcars gave great access. One would think that the Cato Institute would favor transit, since their goal is for the lay public to be more involved in public policy. Can’t Cato see that our supposedly “free” market has in fact policies weighted heavily toward creating automobile dependence? Can’t Cato see that community involvement has disintegrated under that dependence?

We will never attain the beauty of French cities, but I still yearn for a new light rail from Clayton to Westport, engaging new development in the townships along the way. If you’d seen the vitality along the tram and commuter rail lines of Nice, Lyon and Paris, you would favor that, too. If you’d ridden the electric trolley buses in downtown Lyon, you’d agree that downtown St. Louis also needs such a circulator to invigorate sidewalk life. Such memorable vitality is the reason that we create quality transit. Some in America have forgotten to watch out for people instead of numbers.

Andrew Sisk

Kirkwood

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes, average: 3 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...
8 comments

Comments are closed.

Hey Andrew, planes and ships leave every day to the land of frogs. I have no desire to travel with strangers, or live in a land where new housing is developed by Government. The United States is the greatest land in the world because of our freedoms, and our choices. When we start producng our own oil, prices will fall again, and our freedoms remain unchanged. As they should be.

— whitelightnin
3:59 pm June 19th, 2008

Mr. Sisk

What is the geographical size of France?
What is the geographical size of the United States?

I certainly like the concept of rail transportation connected
everywhere. It is not practical, nor afforable, for us to try and
build a European type rail environment in our country.

— stlknight
6:39 pm June 19th, 2008

#2 stlknight,

France is just one of many countries in Europe which are served by the Eurail Pass (www.eurail.com). The population of Europe is considerably more than the US (400 million + vs. 300 million). In terms of geographic size, it is probably smaller (excluding Russia), but not by much. Note that train service goes to Northern Europe, like Stockholm, Helsinki, etc. where the population density is similar to or lower than most of the US.

— sej
10:29 pm June 19th, 2008

There have been a few French guys with some good ideas. unfortunately, they lived 150 years ago or more. I enjoy going to Europe and riding the trains their people have been taxed 60-70% for. No pretty buildings or rail system are worth selling yourself and your children into slavery though. I’ll take a car and $10 a gallon gasoline rather than enslaving an American for half their life so I can have inexpensive transportation.

— John Deal
11:46 pm June 19th, 2008

I think we could meet somewhere half-way. Its worthy of consideration as part of an overall energy policy.

— Keith
1:15 pm June 20th, 2008

Is our focus placed correctly? Large, heavy trucks are damaging highways designed over half century ago for much lighter weights and lower volumes. They move freight over great distances, trading fuel efficiency for time and route efficiency. Interstate highways are clogged with semis moving goods formerly moved by rail and barge. Should we be looking at more effective modes for transferring freight ahead of localized rapid transit for commuters? It takes several passenger cars to equal the road wear, emissions and fuel consumption of a single 40 ton truck.

— Bb
2:03 pm June 20th, 2008

Andrew,

America is not a socialistic ‘planned’ community. WE are free to go where we want when we want, and no amount of utopian dreaming is going to change that.
While you were in France, were you able to visit the ghettos where North African immigrants are warehoused? Maybe that wasn’t on the tour because those areas aren’t all that “engaging” unless you see Molotov cocktails as a spice of urban life.

We had electric trolleys in St Louis in the 1950s. You can see them at the Transportation Museum right near your hometown of Kirkwood.

By the way, as a resident of Kirkwood, what are your thoughts on the number of older houses being torn down to build newer behemoths?

— MercMan
9:51 pm June 20th, 2008

MercMan,

You say we are not a “socialistic planned” country, and therefore the government should not be actively encouraging certain behaviors. What about all the tax deductions, particularly the deduction for mortgage interest? What if I prefer to rent an apartment? I either have to buy a house or I stand to lose money by effectively subsidizing other people’s residences through higher tax payments. And also what about all the corporate welfare at the federal, state, and local levels? This includes everything from Wal-Mart getting tax breaks for building stores in certain areas, to the Cardinals getting tax breaks for Busch Stadium. Aren’t these taxpayer dollars encouraging people to shop at Wal-Mart instead of a Mom-and-Pop store and encouraging people to see a ball game rather than other forms of entertainment? And what about the Highway 40 construction (and all other infrastructure projects)? Aren’t those tax dollars encouraging us to drive to work rather than taking Metrolink, biking or carpooling? And speaking of Metrolink, isn’t that supported with taxpayer dollars to encourage us to take the bus?

I could go on and on. And I’ve barely scratched the surface.

— sej
1:09 am June 21st, 2008