Ron Johnson wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 02/27/07 15:29, Paul Johnson wrote: >> Ron Johnson wrote: >> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> On 02/26/07 16:11, Paul Johnson wrote: >>>> Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 08:16:06PM +0100, Joe Hart wrote: >>>>>> That explains one of the reasons that public transportation is much >>>>>> better here, although in New York City, public transportation is also >>>>>> readily available (unless it is raining :) ) >>>>>> >>>>> Public transportation viability also depends on dense population >>>>> centers. Lots of places in the US are suburban (read up on the >>>>> problem of suburban sprawl sometime) and so are not really good >>>>> markets for public transportation. >>>> The irony being that suburbs are so large due to the removal of public >>>> transportation in favor of freeways... >>> Ummm, no. >> >> Oh, I'm sorry, I guess after living in LA, I couldn't see the streetcar >> tracks through all the freeways and smog. Would you mind posting URLs to >> current photos? > > You are confusing the two issues. > > Suburbs are large because lots of people *want* to live in the > suburbs. Fresh air, green lawns, grilling on the patio while > watching the kids splash in the pool, etc.
Yes, city parks are a wonderful thing. Your city should consider building some sometime. > *That* is what makes public transportation nonviable, not conspiracy > theories. A few centuries of urban planning and General Motors says you're wrong. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
