"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...


Sure, and because General Motors and other companies made a point of
putting streetcars out of business, even if they had to buy the
companies running them (using front companies) and replace streetcars
with buses. At one time America had over 1,200 electric light rail
operations.

And all of these got you exactly where they went - not necessarily where
you were going.

Well, there was a time when Americans weren't terrified of walking a few
blocks to get to their final destination, back when they didn't look they
were on their way to audition for The Biggest Loser.

GM alone converted 900 of these to buses. Of course the
American fascination with the automobile was part of the process, but
it got a big push from companies that wanted to sell cars and buses.

"The American facination with the automobile" is a really tired cliche.

Which doesn't make it any less appropriate.

We can afford to build damn near anything the Pentagon says it needs,
but we can't afford to refurb the national rail system? We can give
tax breaks to the oil companies, but we can't afford high speed rail?
We're still sending foreign aid to *China* of all places, but we
can't upgrade our own transport systems? Something doesn't add up
here.

I do agree with those statements. There is a lot of spending done by
Washington that is just plain upside down. So - you're supporting the
idea of Washington spending more money on a national rail system? Scarey
thought...

Or you could consider that I meant not wasting money on foreign aid to
China, gold-plated weapons that don't always work, and tax breaks for the
oil companies and *instead* spending that money on transportation
infrastructure in America that will benefit the whole nation for
generations, rather than adding to the existing budget.