So I started out writing a blog that asked how the world would look if we were running on electric cars. It involved some kind of analysis about how, since electric cars can’t travel more than 100 miles at a time, people would probably move closer to the central city in order to minimize their commute. But then again, that means we’d have to have a lot of those battery-changing stations. And where would we put those? In place of gas stations? That doesn’t quite seem plausible. And what would we do with the batteries once they’d been used? Suddenly while writing this blog entry, I’ve realized that I do not think the electric car can be resurrected. I think it’s one of those trends that will never catch on – of course, I thought the same thing about neon harem pants, and clearly I’ve been wrong before.
For one thing, electric cars couldn’t work anywhere. Besides not working out in nearly every rural and far-reaching suburban environment, it wouldn’t work in areas like New York City, where people are already less likely to drive cars. As far as choosing a large investment project, I don’t think the electric car is the appropriate risk.
I’ve officially chosen rail once again. I’ve decided that although it may be a bigger risk for some regions, California being one of them, it also has more benefits. Besides the potential environmental and technological advancements, it can serve more people with less cost to the individual. It would also most likely have the same land use effects as an investment in electric cars – that is, the increase in movement towards the central city, which is something I support.
Now that I’ve officially resisted temptation and made rail my choice, I can refocus on our relationship in coming entries.
Before I leave off on this topic, would anyone care to agree or disagree? It’s been pretty quiet around here lately and I’d like to hear if anyone has other thoughts. Have I chosen correctly?