2006-06-12 09:25:31 · 10 answers · asked by charleslevesque 1 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Rail
Actually the down fall came with the Eisenhower Interstate system and rise of faster aircraft...
BTW, zarhantan, all diesel-electric locomotives have combustion engines.. The diesel engine powers a generator which creates voltage for the traction motors. What you mean is the electric does the real work unlike a hydraulic or geared unit. Most trains in the country are diesel-electrics -- not straight electrics.
And Chris.. That claim that train are less efficient was wrong... Per mile, ton, and per passenger, they are far more efficient than cars.
2006-06-12 13:47:21 · answer #1 · answered by DT89ACE 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with the other respondants about the interstate highway systems creating urban sprawl and killing our downtowns. The interstate would be great if there were an exit every 20 miles or so, one for each major downtown. But the system we have now is just crazy.
My friend lives in a suburb of Fort Lauderdale and there is NOTHING within walking distance (2 miles) of her home -- not a convenience store, not a diner, not a taco stand, not a playground -- nothing but private homes for miles. It was over 3 miles to the closest mass transit stop! How could a person without a car even survive?
This is great burden for families to need 2 cars. If we had better mass transit, families could get rid of the second car.
2006-06-13 20:15:31 · answer #2 · answered by kill_yr_television 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but auto and gas companies killed off most of the nation's streetcar systems after the Second World War through the General Motors Conspiracy.
2006-06-13 02:28:55 · answer #3 · answered by brian 2010 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most trains run on electricity. Even the diesel engine. The diesel just runs the generator. The electricity does the real work (unlike in a cumbustion engine). What has killed mass transit is that people like the idea of being able to have their own schedule, stop when and where they like and the ability to fly there faster.
2006-06-12 16:29:29 · answer #4 · answered by zharantan 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Blame Eisenhower. He was in the back pocket of the big three and oil. If not for his building up the roadways, there would be more and better mass transit and rail systems.
2006-06-13 12:41:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cars are just funner. It's something that you own and it becomes a member of the family. I guess it is partly due to gas companies. I just couldn't love a hybrid/hydrogen/electric car like a petrol powered one. It just feels like a machine, not something you could cuddle with at night.
Also, I recently heard that trains are less efficient than cars...PER PERSON...so it's better for the environment to drive a car lol.
2006-06-12 16:36:13 · answer #6 · answered by Chris_Knows 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When General Motors makes cars AND owns streetcar lines, which do you think they would prefer people use?
2006-06-19 01:32:03 · answer #7 · answered by Omar Y. 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
mass transit is still very much alive, and unbelievably cheaper than owning your own automobile
2006-06-12 16:28:38 · answer #8 · answered by woundshurtless 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mass transit is not dead
2006-06-12 16:27:37 · answer #9 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Think you could muster up the motivation to actually ask a question?
2006-06-12 16:27:15 · answer #10 · answered by Grrraarrr 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋