EDITORIAL Transportation bill ignores big picture George Bush proposes to spend $105.4 billion over the next five years to prepare sod repair the nation's highways and mass transit systems. One thing is for certain, the country's dependence on oil will do noth ing but increase. * The bill allocates $87 billion for federal highways while earmarking only $18.3 billion for mass transit improvement. The administration should be concentrating more on mass transit systems instead of conceding the na tion's reliance on oil. A switch to alternative transit systems is not an overnight project, but it needs much more than the lip service it is now receiving. ■ Mass transit, along with developing more alterna tive energy sources, should be the cornerstones of the administration's energy goals. Both this new bill and the president's energy plan ignore conservation and pollution problems caused by fossil fuels. Instead Bush's policies continue to pander to oil and automo bile lobbyists. The government should work to have mil systems in every major city and its suburbs instead of making automobile iravel more appealing. Single-occupant ve hicles in big cilies are a prime example of petroleum abuse. Light rail systems will hr? more energy efficient and give people an alternative means of commuting in the big cities The United States has known since the H»7;t oil embargo that it cannot continue its current energy poli cies which emphasize the use of petroleum. Hnvirunmentaiisls are concerned, anti rightly so. about the continued emphasis on highway travel, which adds up lo more automobiles, higher oil con sumption and more ozone-depleting poisons in the air. Governmental anti independent studies prove the earth's atmosphere is changing rapidly and that global warming is a very real concern. Bush's new policy, by ignoring mass transit alternatives, ignores this prob lem. This country places too much emphasis on car Halos as an economic indicator. Auto sales are down for the year, but analysis predict an upturn as soon as the Persian Gulf War is over. Cheap, accessible oil means more cam sold which translates into more driving. Americans are so hung up on their cars and the conve nience of individual transportation that they won’t drive less unless forced to. The nation's roads need repair, but the country also needs a definite change in its transportation poli cy. It must face the future with the idea of using less oil, not more. Automakers and oil companies have too much in fluence in the government, and so much of the nation's economy depends on the use of gas that any attempt to switch .the focus of energy to soiar. geothermal, wind or others merely brings cries of foul from the rich com panies. Ail they see is the profit margin. They fail to see the benefits in healthier living, cleaner air and less for eign dependence on energy. What's good for the coun try is not always good for bottom line. When the guif war is over, every American should be protesting the nation’s energy and transportation policy. if not, they can look forward to facing a similar cri sis down the road because of the country's neglect to implement a safe, cleau and beneficial energy policy. What do you know? "We don’t know how this war is going to end; we don't know what Saddam is going to do; we don't know the exact course of it. ... We don't intend to go beyond the U.N.'s resolutions at this time." — White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater speaking about the allied goals in the Persian Gulf War. LBr'S 60 F06 ;'^r./ ^ '-'A L J LETTERS Neither nor It is ironic, to sm1, in tin* U*tt«*r by |