BIKE: The energy crisis; transportation, economics, and politics

[Patrick Goetz]

Roger Baker wrote:
> 
> For similar reasons, I think that Mike Dahmus' and Patrick Goetz's 
> current opposition to even a modest commuter rail start (largely on the 
> grounds that one modest initial rail start doesn't solve that many 
> problems linked to our current transportation behavior and thinking) 
> will soon enough be regarded as an inappropriate political stance 
> closely related to our currently widespread denial of cheap oil 
> addiction. We'll know soon.
> 

This is patently absurd.  We're both suggesting that a considerably more 
comprehensive rail system providing service to useful destinations be 
implemented sooner rather than later, that the public will to build and 
pay for such a system exists, and that the modest commuter rail start 
could actually serve to turn public opinion against rail rather than 
increase support for it.  Please engage again in the creative 
visualization exercise of hundreds of motorists sitting behind rail 
crossing arms at such major intersections as Airport & Lamar during rush 
hour for minutes at a time while nearly empty commuter rail cars scoot 
by, horns blasting so loudly that it hurts their ears just to add insult 
to injury.  Yep, you can bet that every one of these motorists is going 
to become a rail supporter forthwith, if not sooner.

Please explain how the preceding is closely related to a denial of cheap 
oil addiction?  And for the record, Roger -- please inform the list how 
it is that you get around town.  I ride my bicycle:  cheap oil/gas 
consumption = 0 gallons per week.  If we're talking about walking the 
walk, who is actually in denial about their own consumption of cheap oil?