Castenea wrote:Harold, all that is necessary for a city is the roads between the city and the markets where farmers sell their produce to wholesalers and where farmers get their goods. Most farmers would be a bit put out though at only having less than all weather roads to get to market, unless they were semi-subsistance.
I'm not suggesting that local roads need to be "less than all weather" just that they don't need to connect cities; connecting cities is the job of railroads and airlines.
Castenea wrote:I also think you are severely underestimating the cost of public transport system you are proposing. Owner operated vehicles only run when the owner feels there is a need, a public transit system must run their vehicles on a set schedule, no matter how many (or few) passengers there are.
Amtrak operates a high-speed, catenary-powered, all electric passenger service along the eastern seaboard. That doesn't put any wear on highways; in fact, it removes several thousand vehicles a day from the highways.
Catenary powered all electric, high speed trains are all over the planet. How an where the electricity for those trains varies almost as much as the locations of those trains do. On a per-passenger or per ton basis, those trains are orders of magnitude more efficient than any other mode of transport.
Electric light rail, monorail, people-movers, et al in the urban environment are also orders of magnitude more economical, even if 12 of 24 trips each day are totally empty.
Sure, an integrated continental mass transit system is going to be expensive but possibly not as expensive as millions of private vehicles AND mass transit for those who can't afford private vehicles.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!
(Now if I could just find the right questions.)