XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: bap@shrdlu.com   
      
   On 14/01/14 03:21, Robert Bannister wrote:   
   >> I know train fans love trains, but the fact is that the circumstances   
   >> under which they make economic sense are limited.   
   >>   
   >   
   > That's what the conservatives said about rail in my city. Now the   
   > no-longer-quite-new trains are packed and are much faster than you could   
   > possibly drive and cheaper than using a car. It's the parking at the   
   > train station that is the problem.   
      
   It's certainly true that trains are more easily justifiable when   
   population densities are high. But foreseeable changes might alter   
   population-density in the US. If the cost of energy continues to rise it   
   will tend to encourage energy-efficient use of land. That could involve   
   reducing the size of cities so that the majority of the population can   
   use trains. Self-driving cars could be a part of a larger integrated   
   transport system. Less energy-efficient than having to walk to a bus   
   stop but more efficient than using individually owned cars.   
      
   Of course there is also the safety issue. If we continue to be more   
   risk-averse then manually driven cars might be banned or more likely   
   discouraged by higher insurance costs.   
      
      
      
      
   --   
   Bernard Peek   
   bap@shrdlu.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)