I was in US (west coast) for a few weeks.
During the stay there, I realized that the state of infrastructure in US is really not that great. Especially the picture that is presented to the outside world, thats really skewed.
I'll just take one example. The railway network. Try to position yourself in Los Angeles, and strip yourself of a car. Now imagine your transportation options... its hard to find any, or if any, horribly skewed against effeciency. This is just because of the lack of a decent railway network.
I didnt have a car there, and therefore was in the exact same situation. I tried to visit a friend in San Francisco, and there was not a decent option that I could use. The only option was to drive (which I couldnt since I didnt have a car), or fly, which is relatively costly.
The point is, if you dont have a car in California region, its really impossible to imagine transportation. When I asked this question to some colleagues there, and the response was even harder to understand than the transport situation.
I got to know that, the car companies had bought out the railway networks (which were private companies) and shut them down so that the car businesses can thrive. As a result, slowly, the railway network died down, and all the "infrastructure" development happened for the benefit of the car users. which I'll admit, its a great job done. Absolutely fantastic roads, other services etc.
Now compare this with a typical locality in Europe. You'd find excellent roads, as well as train network. You can pick any country, and they have an average plus road as well as railway network. That tells me that by having both of the transportation models, citizens gain and less fuel and money is spent.
I wonder, whether the US govt doesnt know this (hard to imagine), and if it does know about it, why doesnt it do anything to fix the situation ?
During the stay there, I realized that the state of infrastructure in US is really not that great. Especially the picture that is presented to the outside world, thats really skewed.
I'll just take one example. The railway network. Try to position yourself in Los Angeles, and strip yourself of a car. Now imagine your transportation options... its hard to find any, or if any, horribly skewed against effeciency. This is just because of the lack of a decent railway network.
I didnt have a car there, and therefore was in the exact same situation. I tried to visit a friend in San Francisco, and there was not a decent option that I could use. The only option was to drive (which I couldnt since I didnt have a car), or fly, which is relatively costly.
The point is, if you dont have a car in California region, its really impossible to imagine transportation. When I asked this question to some colleagues there, and the response was even harder to understand than the transport situation.
I got to know that, the car companies had bought out the railway networks (which were private companies) and shut them down so that the car businesses can thrive. As a result, slowly, the railway network died down, and all the "infrastructure" development happened for the benefit of the car users. which I'll admit, its a great job done. Absolutely fantastic roads, other services etc.
Now compare this with a typical locality in Europe. You'd find excellent roads, as well as train network. You can pick any country, and they have an average plus road as well as railway network. That tells me that by having both of the transportation models, citizens gain and less fuel and money is spent.
I wonder, whether the US govt doesnt know this (hard to imagine), and if it does know about it, why doesnt it do anything to fix the situation ?
No comments:
Post a Comment