# 'the mad concept of private transport'



## Bonjules

Hola todo el mundo,

Here we go again. Once more, esp. this time of the year we are treated to the spectacle of thousands, no, millions of cars sitting for hours in enormous colummns on the roads of Europe and many other places (forget about La La Land, there you sat in them 30 years ago). Sitting in the stifling heat, yet contributing greatly to the same. Endangering the survival of Man, Animal and Plant, using up huge resources.
Yet otherwise reputable, not always unreasonble OnLine Periodicals report Porsches new, even stronger and 'better' creation as if it was the greatest thing.
The famous casual observer from another planet woud certainly be inclined to ask: Why? Is there something wrong with these peolple?
Saludos


----------



## GenJen54

I'm sorry, Bonjules. I don't quite get what you are asking us to discuss. 

The use of cars in general? Europeans taking vacation? Porsches? Please clarify so people may respond. 

Thank you.


----------



## cuchuflete

People sitting in cars are not engaging in terrorist bombings, or
consuming too much lager, and rioting inside and outside of football stadiums.  They are not generally beating their children or spouses, or making assinine political pronouncements on TV.  Nor are they looking at pornographic web sites, or writing racist propaganda.

All things considered, sitting in a traffic jam is fairly tame compared with lots of other common activities.


----------



## .   1

People sitting in cars on a regular basis are simply displaying the flaw in our reliance on one mode as a general cure-all for basically all land transport.

People sitting in cars for extended periods on a regular basis display the flaw in the belief that our governments are actively acting in our best interests.  The U.S.A. ran into the problem of gridlock and murderously congested traffic 30 years ago and still the rest of the world slavishly follows the very same model as best practice.

.,,
P.S.
Sadly I have no solutions to the problems to offer.


----------



## Bonjules

Hello,
Sorry if I didn't make myself very clear.
People sitting for hours in massive traffic jams while heating up the planet is, of course but one illustration of the madness of the whole idea.
The problem is the promotion of the whole concept of private transportation, which, even if could be done without polluting the place is a dead end street. Besides asking folks for higher standards of behavior than they are apparently able to deliver - thusly causing great suffering- and wasting enormous amounts of potentially productive time, it can not be sustained because it exhausts the one all important non-renewable resource: space.
Want any more?
saludos

PS Can someone change the title to 'the mad concept of private transport' or such?


----------



## Etcetera

Dear me, aren't you going to say that there should exist public transport only?


----------



## maxiogee

Bonjules said:
			
		

> The problem is the promotion of the whole concept of private transportation, which, even if could be done without polluting the place is a dead end street.



Private transport. What's wrong with it? I do it without polluting the environment. I have a bicycle. It is my primary form of transport. Totally non-polluting (disregarding the metal being extracted and the manufacturing process), and highly economical. 

I have a nine kilometre trip (each way) to make most days. To do so by public transport involves taking a minimum of two buses. The shortest overall time from my hall door to the door of the premises I'm going to is a little over an hour and a quarter. After leaving my hall door I have a walk of about a kilometre to the 'best-option' bus stop. The route I travel is not likely to be too popular even in the near future to make it worth anyone's while to do a direct bus route.


----------



## ireney

Bonjules I think I know what you mean. We at least, absolutely love our cars. If we could possibly drive them all the way into the bar/church/house/sea we most certainly would.

Now is this idiotic? It certainly is. Is advertisment the only reason behind it? No, it isn't. It's social status (which is not only ad-driven), it's the vicious circle of :unreliable (and in the past no) public transportation ----> need of a car -----> traffic jam ------> unreliable public transportation and I bet there are other reasons out there too.

I personally never use my car within the city limits mainly because finding a parking spot may take me as much time as it took me to drive to my destination.
However, when it is time to go on vacations, what mode of trasport would you think I should use? Mind you I either go to our country house for a long period of time (which means LOADS of bags) or around Greece to do some site-seeing.


----------



## Etcetera

ireney said:
			
		

> However, when it is time to go on vacations, what mode of trasport would you think I should use? Mind you I either go to our country house for a long period of time (which means LOADS of bags) or around Greece to do some site-seeing.


We usually prefer to get somewhere by car, but for long-distance journeys train is the most convenient means of transport. We once went from St. Petersburg to Moscow in our car. It was just awful! I'll never do that again!
Of course, in Europe, things must be a bit different. Russia is a very big country. I remember that it took me more than four hours to get to Yaroslavl from Moscow by bus, and Yaroslavl's not that far from Moscow. 
My personal opinion is that cars are good for commuting, and trains are better for long journeys. 
As for city buses, I'd rather replace them all with metro or trams.


----------



## Bonjules

Good for you, Maxi. Bikes are great. you can park 10 of them in the space of 1 car.
No, of course, some private transport will always be necessary. The principle would have to be :collective transport where at all feasable, individual where absolutely necessary (like in thinly populated areas).
Obviously, a careful, humane planning policy for cities and manufacturing areas will have to go hand in hand with devising that system.
Sadly, we're not getting any of this.


----------



## Cath.S.

Cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Nor are they looking at pornographic web sites,


Man, I'd rather have people "pollute" only that way, it does no harm whatsoever imho! 

People sitting in cars might not be doing all the things you list, but then it is an illusion : they'll do them as soon as they get out of their car.
Is that what you suggest, Cuchu, lock people in their cars and we will save the planet from other evils? 

There are people out there who are ready to invade other countries in order to steal their petrol to fill up their tank.

I have a bicycle too, so does my partner, and we only use our van when we have to go far or to bring heavy goods back home. We also sleep in it while travelling sometimes (and always take the bikes with us).


----------



## Etcetera

Bonjules, 
but the principle you've described suggests some control over people using private transport, most probably from the government. Is this that good?
Moreover, even if you'll succeed in persuading us all to use publis transport only (frankly, I doubt it!), it wouldn't solve the problem of traffic jams, for instance. Traffic jams will always be, but they would consist of buses instead of cars! 
And as I observe almost every day on the roads, it's always easier for cars to drive out of a jam than for buses.


----------



## ireney

> We usually prefer to get somewhere by car, but for long-distance journeys train is the most convenient means of transport. We once went from St. Petersburg to Moscow in our car. It was just awful! I'll never do that again!
> Of course, in Europe, things must be a bit different. Russia is a very big country. I remember that it took me more than four hours to get to Yaroslavl from Moscow by bus, and Yaroslavl's not that far from Moscow.
> My personal opinion is that cars are good for commuting, and trains are better for long journeys.




Etcetera I am from Greece. If you dropped all of Greece somewhere in Russia you'd lose it and have to start asking if people have noticed a place where people shout a lot, wave their arms and complain about the cold but insist on drinking their vodka with ice and quite often with orange or lemon juice


----------



## Bonjules

Etcetera, 
I don't know what kind of idea of 'Government' you are proposing, but questions of major societal import seem like a great opportunity for participatory democracy to me. We, the people...I read that somewhere.
    With space and resources getting scarce, it may  be that we have to limit ourselves in some ways, accept some restricions on some of the things we'd love to do - or subject ourselves to the kind of chaos we're headed for.
Buses are certainly not ideal, but have a better ratio than cars. I went to school in a european city that had a very efficient rail system (street car). Had to commute a considerable distance daily; actually, it was mostly fairly relaxing.
  To Ireney I'd say, you don't seem to have much alternative to your occasional trip to the country, as things are now in your place. The thing to do is demand better alternatives.


----------



## ireney

Bonjules it would be nice although I fail to see how my government (any government really) will not have a heart attack by having to compute the cost of having regular public transportation to every remote hill village and such that I want to visit.

Anyway, what with the wages here and the unemployment and other social issues I'm afraid this is wayyy down my priorities. Plus, when it comes to the ecological aspect of the issue, we have other, bigger, more polluting problems to solve first.


----------



## Bonjules

Cuchu, I forgot..

How do you know anyway that people aren't looking up porn sites while driving? That seems exactly the kind of thing you'd expect them to do.
While I'm not up on the latest techno-gadgetry I'd assume there are laptops one can use in a car. That seems mild compared to making love while driving, as I once did, I must shamefully admit (I don't do it any more, I swear, and after all, it was in La La Land..-'it's Chinatown' ye know..) 
salut's


----------



## cuchuflete

I included staring at images of supposedly alluring bodies as one of many examples of what some consider "bad" behaviour.
I'm not really sure what pornography is, unlike members of right-wing parties who are oh so certain.  Now that I understand the topic, I'd be happy to retract that reference...
gawkus interrruptus?   

I agree with  Bonjules about the relative merits of public transport, but in densely populated areas.  It doesn't compute, socially or economically, in vast rural regions with little population.  When I've lived in cities, I used the available "mass transit", which was fairly good in most towns.  Now I'm
in a place where the nearest equivalent, the school bus, takes well over an hour to get a child from my street to school.  By private car it's about seven minutes.  That's how long it takes to walk to the school bus stop, when the winter wind is howling.  Simplified questions lead to simple answers, but realities are often a little more complicated, especially when it's well below zero, F or C.


----------



## karuna

In my childhood to get to the school I went 3 km by foot to the bus stop and then half an hour ride by bus. But I liked it better than today's fast commute by car everywhere. The bus was the place where we could socialize, play games or even do the homework that wasn't done last night.

Nowadays when I want to relax from work, or get away from phone calls and other distractions, I leave my cellphone at home and just board the bus or train to have a ride around the city. This way I have some time to read or learn a foreign language a little.


----------



## Bonjules

Thank you, Karuna and eveybody.

Cuchu, I'm glad you brought up your situation, because it points to the huge, ugly, seductively tempting underbelly of this entire problem complex.
That the ease of private transport makes us do a lot of things that maybe we shouldn't. And it would not be necessary or right to lay personal blame on you or anybody - we all do nice things for ourselves when given the chance. I did it: Sure it was a glorious privilege living for years on 50 fairly pristine acres in the Berkshire (Mass.) foothills and working - with the help of a car - in a town 25 miles away. But was it right?
My house had already been there 100 years or so, but now on the same - unpaved -road 8 new homes were built. There was bear, moose, coyote etc., you name it - all now considered pretty much a 'nuisance'.
Same in other parts: Anyone read the recent articles on what's happening to the English and Irish countryside?
Worse: In some regions, like Calif., for decades now tracts of hundreds, sometimes thousands of single fam. homes at a time have been built, not just to accommodate people, but absolutely forcing them to use cars(I used to assess the 'little boxes' for loans). If 'the space is there' and it's so easy to 'just drive', why not? Naturally, this must defeat any kind of possibility of mass transport.
Is it so hard to see that in absence of a policy that respects the land and all the other creatures we still (more or less)share it with this process will not stop? Until the world is neatly divided up in 50X150 foot lots (more for those with more do/re/mi, naturally). Cheers.
.


----------



## .   1

G'day Bonjules,
I agree with you but I must ask if you have any suggestions to change the situation.

.,,


----------



## Bonjules

Well, .,, (by the way, is there some other way to address you?), thank you for your interest.
Of course, like they say, where there is a will, there is a way; many things could be done, some of them fairly easily. In the long run, like Cuchu tells us, complex problems defy easy solutions.
In the treatment of addiction it is well established that you start with trying the addict to admit to the problem. Considering the sparse response
this topic is creating, it seems that we are not very close to the point
where enough people deem this worthy of much thought....
We love our 'tinker-brains', creating these wonderful machines, we love our toys....maybe things won't change very much until we literally choke.
Saludos


----------



## Etcetera

Bonjules, but still.
Do you really think that replacing private cars by public buses would do any better to the environment?
Personally, I doubt.


----------



## maxiogee

Etcetera said:
			
		

> Bonjules, but still.
> Do you really think that replacing private cars by public buses would do any better to the environment?
> Personally, I doubt.



When was the last time you were on a public bus?

If private cars are replaced by the unreliable and uncomfortable, inconvenient and disgusting public buses I've been on in many countries it might deter people from undertaking unnecessary journeys. 
Many people seem to see owning a car as a licence to go where they want, at prices which will be paid by future generations in pollution, depleted resources and an environment which we have despoiled to build ever more roads.


----------



## Etcetera

maxiogee said:
			
		

> When was the last time you were on a public bus?


 Today, about an hour and a half ago. I've just return from a bus 'journey' to a neighbour town. 
And it wasn't a city bus,actually, but an intercity one. 
Well, mind that I don't like cars - as well as buses. I prefer to travel by train whenever it's possible. But unfortunately, it's highly unlikely that railroads will ever let you get to whatever place you like.


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

Have you ever wondered why in Paris the traffic is so jammed, while there is a very efficient subway network?

Simply because it is unbearable to travel standing in a dirty and crowded subway train with the stench of people who don't use deodorants, and with a stifling heat.
Nobody likes to arrive in the office and start a 8 hour working day sweating like a pig.
That's why so many parisians still use their cars despite the traffic jams and pollution.
Using a bike? that could be an idea, but where do you store your bike in your 20 square meter Parisian flat without balcony? and where do you park it once you are at the office? Chain it to a pole in the street? well, if you want to find two bikes, go ahead! or maybe we could initiate a new trend with our bikes leaning against our desks.

For the moment, the only solution I have is coming to the office by subway (and arrive there sweating like a pig), spend a certain amount of time in the office's bathroom trying to refresh myself, and then at the end of the day, get my running gear on ang jog back home.

I've been living in Rome too, and there the problem is different : they cannot build any subway network because as soon as they start digging they find the "Coliseum". Therefore, all they have are buses, but they are very slow and unreliable due to the traffic jam.
Using a bike? not if you want to stay alive : you'd be instantly hit by a crazy roman driver.

Where is the solution?


----------



## djchak

There is ALREADY a way to go anywhere using private transport and go above 50 MPH....motorcycles. They take up less space and use less gas. But outside of the countries where they are common and accepted (usually poorer countries), no one wants to use them..... why? 

SAFTEY. 

The truth is, outside of major metro areas, you need private transport. But people aren't willing to use other alternatives if they don't do the job effeciently.

The best thing we can do is make energy efficient cars, that use renewable resources, till we can figure out how to make zero emmisions cars inexpensively.


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

djchak said:
			
		

> The truth is, outside of major metro areas, you need private transport. But people aren't willing to use other alternatives if they don't do the job effeciently.


You are right : when I go to my parents' house in Sicily, I always use a car there because public transports are really impossible to use, and I really feel that my car gives me a freedom that I don't have in Paris with the subway, although subway works very well in Paris (but in Paris it's impossible to use a car)
Honestly I wouldn't use a motorcycle because I feel it's not very safe, and you cannot use it when it rains.




			
				djchak said:
			
		

> The best thing we can do is make energy efficient cars, that use renewable resources, till we can figure out how to make zero emmisions cars inexpensively.


Maybe zero emission cars have already been invented, but even if somebody had found the miracle solution, I think that he'd have been paid to keep it for himself : there's too much money turning around petrol, and until there'll be petrol on earth, I'm sure that we won't have cars that use alternative energies.


----------



## Etcetera

Lavinia.dNP said:
			
		

> Maybe zero emission cars have already been invented, but even if somebody had found the miracle solution, I think that he'd have been paid to keep it for himself : there's too much money turning around petrol, and until there'll be petrol on earth, I'm sure that we won't have cars that use alternative energies.


It's very likely. I've never thought about this problem from that point of view.


----------



## maxiogee

Lavinia.dNP said:
			
		

> Honestly I wouldn't use a motorcycle because I feel it's not very safe, and you cannot use it when it rains.



That's news to me, and to the thousands of others who use motorbikes in Ireland and elsewhere.

I had several motorbikes over a period of about ten years. 
It did involve usually travelling with rain gear, but so what?
A motorbike is as safe as the person riding it wants it to be.
Over the period I was riding I had one semi-serious accident.
I was forced by an over-taking car to drive through a puddle.
It concealed a deep pot-hole and I was thrown from the bike.
I have a damaged knuckle and a small scar on my knee as a result.
I can live with that.
I am about to get back into the saddle having bought a bike from my son which he has realised he really couldn't afford to insure.


----------



## Etcetera

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I had several motorbikes over a period of about ten years.
> It did involve usually travelling with rain gear, but so what?
> A motorbike is as safe as the person riding it wants it to be.
> Over the period I was riding I had one semi-serious accident.
> I was forced by an over-taking car to drive through a puddle.
> It concealed a deep pot-hole and I was thrown from the bike.
> I have a damaged knuckle and a small scar on my knee as a result.
> I can live with that.
> I am about to get back into the saddle having bought a bike from my son which he has realised he really couldn't afford to insure.


I guess one's attitude towards motorbikes depends on one's and one's friends experience. 
When I was at secondary school, a lad from our school died in an accident. He fell from his motorbike. 
What also matters is the quality of roads, of course. I wouldn't ride a motorbike on Russian roads. And wouldn't advise anyone to do that.


----------



## Bonjules

Thank you all,

Motorbiking is certainly fun but inherently risky -even for responsible riders, as Maxi illustrates.
All the suggestions about cars running on safe, inexhaustable fuel still don't answer to several fundamental problems:
1. the resources necessary to build them, including the huge productive capacity tied up in that process and the associated pollution.
2. The space the vehicle itself takes up, leading to congestion, gridlock
and filling huge, potentioally beautiful city spaces with them tin/plastic boxes to store them.
3. The ever increasing roads to accomodate them, also devouring the landscaspe, covering everything with concrete/asphalt, leaving less and less space for Nature
4. the problem of then having to dispose of them again, when the next model comes up...where do you put them?
These are just some of the things...


----------



## Etcetera

OK, Bonjules, we already know and understand what's the trouble with cars. 
What can you suggest as a solution?


----------



## maxiogee

How about a stout pair of brogues? 
Any place they can't take you isn't worth going to.


----------



## Sallyb36

Horses would be great!!


----------



## Bonjules

Well, Etcetera,

I'm trying very hard to outline the problem... am I also entirely responsible for the solution ?(Ja, ja)

Judging from the rather underwhelming response here (with some honorable exceptions!) it does not seem very likely that 'we already know and understand...' Until that point, little will happen on a larger scale, I' m afraid. Meanwhile, a lot of creative smaller scale things could be done; Will mention some schemes when I have more time.
The most important thing in the long run is certainly a push to completely re-think of how we design and plan living spaces(housing) and working/manufacturing zones in the first place in a way that will reduce or eliminate the need for individual transport. That would make sense anyway since there simply is not enough space on this planet for everyone to have a house with a nice yard, double garage etc etc...
if there is to be anything left for other creatures. Obviously, this touches on other areas as population control, rich versus poor countries and individuals and so on. (..It seems we need to start seriously thinking about the future if there is to be one. Comes to mind that joke about that old feller' who stated, when asked if he was finally going to marry his longtime ladyfriend : 'Well, ye know, don't want to rush into anything...'.)


----------



## maxiogee

Sallyb36 said:
			
		

> Horses would be great!!



You know, I've been thinking this over, and can foresee the animal-rights brigade up in arms were the general population to take to riding horses or driving horse-drawn carriages.


----------



## djchak

Max, try driving around Chicago for about 7 years.

I've had enough close calls to trade the bike in for a while.

If I lived in a more rural / exurban place I would probably get back in the saddle myself.

But the point is, people care about themselves before energy efficiency.

Ethanol looks great for now, but either nuclear energy has to rapidly increase, or make hybrid vehicles more appealing.

Right now, the most appealing methods for the price is the Toyota brand hybrids (in the US). 43 / 37 MPG is better than most. Without having to drive a "pod". 



http://www.hybridcars.com/camry.html


----------



## Bonjules

djchak,
 read #31


----------



## maxiogee

djchak said:
			
		

> Right now, the most appealing methods for the price is the Toyota brand hybrids (in the US). 43 / 37 MPG is better than most. Without having to drive a "pod".



This is sparked by your comment djchak, but it is not 'directed' at you.

Why is there no outcry for cars that last, and for existing cars to be modified so that they can become efficient and less polluting?

Must the American motor industry (and those of other nations) exist only by getting people to buy newer models when the one they have is still rather servicable, and can surely be tweaked and tuned to give it many more years of life?
At what point will everyone have enough cars?


----------



## djchak

Well ... i'm sure you know this.. but

Cars are thought of (in the US) as ideally, something you buy new every 5 years. If your car is over 5 years old, either it is still desireable, a classic car, or you just can't afford a new one.

The way cars are built is usually more proprietary, as you need the electronics as well as the existing engine and other parts.

Why is there no outcry? Becuase cars that last are considered either "old" or a "classic". Becuase most people don't care about fuel until the COST rises. What they usually want is a car that is confortable with lots of space .

Some might go for other factors, like the accelaration, "personalty", luxury.... 

Fuel economy is only a factor when it affects your wallet. Even then sometimes it's worth it.

I know several young women who buy big sports cars with large V8 engines. Do they drive fast? No. They bought the car for looks and show. They spent $30K plus for it, and it uses up a full tank of gas every week...and they only travel within a 10 mile radius, typically.

I'm bought a small sports sedan myself, pretty fuel efficent, but not a Honda Insight that gets 60 MPG. Why? Becuase I want a car that suits me and my uses, not a "Pod" from a sci fi convention.

As hybrids become less dorky, and more affordable, they will catch on.

Toyota and Honda realize this (by now).


----------



## Etcetera

Sallyb36 said:
			
		

> Horses would be great!!


Oh, no! I'd rather buy a bike! 
Well, I agree that pollution caused by cars is a serious problem, indeed. Several years ago, when the Moscow rapid transit systems decided to promote themselves (there was no need for that, actually, but still...), one of their slogans was like that: "Underground is a nature-friendly means of transport". 
But Lavinia has already listed the disadvantages of travelling by underground - and things are very much the same in Paris, Moscow and St. Petersburg.


----------



## Bonjules

Well, it seems that talking about cars, even 'dorky' hybrids
is a lot more fun than talking about getting rid of them.
Before we get carried away too far on that happy notion though, I'd still love for some folks to read and respond to 
#31
saludos


----------



## GenJen54

The issue is much more complex than you make it out to be. 

Most societies these days are born of the premise that people have individual rights.  This individualism inherently leads to a want of freedom - i.e. individual "space" on the roads. 

I agree that cars take up space, make exhaust, ruin landscapes, etc., but there are few, if any solutions. 

In cities where the founding leaders had the foresight to build a public infrastructure, cars are not necessary. (I have friends living in NY who have never driven).  In other areas, such as the City where I live, which is 600 square miles in its total area, cars are a must. 

We have no subway or light rail system here.  As I have mentioned in earlier posts, the bus system does not travel to the suburb where I live.  Our downtown area is just now starting to welcome residents with new condo and brownstone complexes, although there is no commercial infrastructure, so one would still need a car to go to the store, mall, doctor's, etc. 

In short, areas such as mind are build around the idea that cars are a necessity.  While I would love to argue that riding my bike is a palatable alternative, I don't think I would fare very well at the office after a twenty mile commute in 100+ weather. 

When I have lived in cities where the public transport was more readily available, I embraced that system and used the subway, busses, and my feet to get around.  Unfortunately, where I am, it's simply not an option.


----------



## Bonjules

GenJen,
I think in the substance we are very close: We need to design our Living/working spaces in a way to minimize the need for cars.
I am not sure why you and others keep telling me about their individual lack of alternatives. I can imagine it very well; like I said before, this is not about individual self-sacrifice - I'm not a saint and don't expect aynone to be one. In fact, I have 2 cars, which helps me to burn a lot less fuel for local rides in my tiny Suzuki "jeep". I really live in the sticks among steep hills, so steep that I can't even ride a bike; forget about hauling anything.
But sometimes I have to go to the 'Big City'(San Juan) and I am with all the other cars and trucks on the superhighway - hate it everytime. 'What a waste of time and fuel. Dangerous, bec. of how some people drive and the Diesel exhaust is terrible for your health. Then the fight for a space to park in San Juan -it's very bad. Puerto Rico is a small island (~ 100 mi long), to build a rail system along this major traffic artery on the northern coast would be very easy. 
Anyway, to drive today (if you must) is ok as long as you fight for the change and that you won't have to in the future.
Where I don't agree with you is about that 'freedom'(to drive) idea. That idea of 'freedom' is the one promoted by the Automobile Industry. I think there are other, more important and fundamental rights in conflict with that, like the right to a healthy environment; the right to survive on this planet in some decency for a while. 
Future generatioins - well, problably the very one coming up- will curse us for leaving them this unlivable mess. 
Because of what we have done in the name of liberties and 'rights' for ourselves that they will -rightfully- regard as egotistical and narcicistic. What will we say to them?
If we dont' do things very quickly, the exhortation in your signature will be a mute point; there won't be any place left to get out of the heat.
saludos


----------



## Lavinia.dNP

Bonjules said:
			
		

> GenJen,
> I think in the substance we are very close: We need to design our Living/working spaces in a way to minimize the need for cars.
> I am not sure why you and others keep telling me about their individual lack of alternatives. I can imagine it very well; like I said before, this is not about individual self-sacrifice - I'm not a saint and don't expect aynone to be one. In fact, I have 2 cars, which helps me to burn a lot less fuel for local rides in my tiny Suzuki "jeep". I really live in the sticks among steep hills, so steep that I can't even ride a bike; forget about hauling anything.
> But sometimes I have to go to the 'Big City'(San Juan) and I am with all the other cars and trucks on the superhighway - hate it everytime. 'What a waste of time and fuel. Dangerous, bec. of how some people drive and the Diesel exhaust is terrible for your health. Then the fight for a space to park in San Juan -it's very bad. Puerto Rico is a small island (~ 100 mi long), to build a rail system along this major traffic artery on the northern coast would be very easy.
> Anyway, to drive today (if you must) is ok as long as you fight for the change and that you won't have to in the future.
> Where I don't agree with you is about that 'freedom'(to drive) idea. That idea of 'freedom' is the one promoted by the Automobile Industry. I think there are other, more important and fundamental rights in conflict with that, like the right to a healthy environment; the right to survive on this planet in some decency for a while.
> Future generatioins - well, problably the very one coming up- will curse us for leaving them this unlivable mess.
> Because of what we have done in the name of liberties and 'rights' for ourselves that they will -rightfully- regard as egotistical and narcicistic. What will we say to them?
> If we dont' do things very quickly, the exhortation in your signature will be a mute point; there won't be any place left to get out of the heat.
> saludos


 
Bonjules, I perfectly agree with you, but on one thing : I couldn't say that I don't agree with the "car=freedom" notion, because it is a matter of fact : cars give us freedom.

Of course I agree that there are environmental issues that should have the priority, but if you tried using public transports, you'd see that they are what is the most opposite to the notion of freedom : you need to plan your travel according to their timetables, and not all public transports are every 5 minutes, they are crowded and there's barely the space to breathe, they are not available when you go out at night.

As selfish as it may seem, let's ask ourselves : is it really worth doing all this sacrifice for an earth that we'll never see?

Is it really worth worrying that much when we know that in the future our heirs will be able to use alternative and non polluting sources of energy which we already have but are not being used nowadays because there's still petrol, and too much money turning around it.

With this I don't mean that we can make an irresponsible use of cars and pollute our planet freely. Everyone should do his best to pollute the less possible.

But if you ask me why I'm not using my car and I always use the subway, well, I'd like to tell you that it's to avoid pollution, but honestly that would be a lie.
To be honest with myself, he reason why I'm not using my car is traffic jams and lack of parking spaces, otherwise, believe me, i'd love to get rid of this daily torture which is the Parisian Metro.

How can we solve this problem?


----------



## Bonjules

Lavinia, you are very honest, which is refreshing.

The whole complex seems related to the question of Public Perception, Tradition and Political Will. Let me explain: Europe had/has(?) a stronger tradition of taking important issues as a community/national responsibility than the US which seems to emphasize private initiative, which goes along with letting the 'market' decide everything.
That 'public'/national systems have shortcomings is clear, but often related to the governments(as ultimately demanded by the people) attitude and leadership towards it (Look at the NHS history and debate in England). With initiative, creativity and money you can make things work; with contempt and neglect you can ruin them, as with the NHS, which is still suffering from Thatcher.
With subway and rail systems it is the same thing. First you have to, after a debate, set a policy, then make it work. Naturally that is harder when our favorite toys, our beloved machines that 'define who we are', our defiance at having our 'freedom' curtailed and so on is concerned. Politicians want to be popular, debates about railways, buses or metros are not very sexy ( just as debates about public health policy aren't). In other words: We must improve your subway!!!
We have a choice: boring, tedious public policy with some restrictions on our 'freedoms' or contiuing the fun, sexy chaos we are inviting with dire consequences for all very shortly.
saludos


----------

