Jym Dyer wrote:
>=v= Additionally, the cost per mile of building roads or rails
>is not the best focus, for two reasons, one minor and one major.
>=v= The minor reason is the "per mile" comparison, because it
>sidesteps the question of land use patterns. Road-building in
>the U.S. these days mostly means sprawl, a pattern involving
>miles and miles of highways, arterials, streets, and driveways,
>all spread out. Rail-building, ideally, means transit-oriented
>development that's more compact.
>=v= The major reason is that this comparison is entirely one of
>short-term costs, not long-term ones. Short term, it costs less
>to build roads. Long term, they cost more to maintain. Plus
>those off-loaded costs mentioned above. Plus they require more
>energy to travel on, which means higher fuel costs, which also
>means more pollution, which in turn means more environmental
>and health costs.
>=v= Any accounting that stops at the short term to ignore the
>long term is foolish.
Jym, governments and corporations don't care about the long term, if that
were the case then us North Americans wouldn't be in the transportation
cesspool that we are in right now. ASD