Re: Taken For A Ride

["Richo" <richardc@tpg.com.au>]

None of the subsequent posters after mine have made any reference to what
motivated the USA - and us to a certain extent - to avoid spending money on
suburban rail - and why such a stark contrast to western europe.
You can't argue that Europeans were anti-car - the likes of Merc and BMW
also had their glory years during the 1950s economic boom. And yes Germany
did keep building autobahns after the war...its obvious that there was
balance (as the show called for) rather than the "level playing field" which
we have. Sydney already had a rail plan from the 20s, all to places that had
highish population densities - yet they struggled to build the line to
Circular Quay before the dosh ran out. Even 1973-4 didn't result in a strong
network of highspeed rail - meanwhile Americans queued for their gasoline
and were restricted to less than 100k on the interstates - so I again pose
the question to those interested.

Dave McL <davemcl@AXE*THISiprolink.co.nz> wrote in message
37f10d23@news.iprolink.co.nz">news:37f10d23@news.iprolink.co.nz...
> canetram59 wrote:
>
> > Pacific Electric lasted for about another 35 years or so.
>
> As I said three posts back up this thread, Pacific Electric was never
> owned by NCL. The Los Angeles city tramways were, but they outlasted NCL
> and were closed by the public utility the LA MTA in 1963.
>
> <sigh>
>
> David McLoughlin
> Auckland New Zealand




  -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
   http://www.newsfeeds.com       The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including  Dedicated  Binaries Servers ==-----