Rail Transit

[salmoned]

Re: Rail Transit

Oops, replicant post.

[salmoned]

Re: Rail Transit

The only posters using smoke and mirrors are those who take comments out of context and misconstrue them. Your failure to address even the legitimate arguments you see, without regard for 'smoke and mirrors', exemplifies who is and isn't presenting cogent arguments here. You keep mentioning 'passive-aggressive' writing - I have no idea what you mean by the term (it seems to be your own incarnation of 'smoke and mirrors'), if it means I don't agree with you, I'm guilty as charged. Why can't you just address the arguments without addressing the presenter personally? If I'm using smoke and mirrors, show us the smoke, show us the mirrors, but don't slur the character - ad hominem arguments are fallacious on a prima facie basis.

So, since we don't have a rail system, we can't imagine how drivers may react with regard to rail, eh? We can't extrapolate from our experience with bus usage or what drivers in other cities have done when rail systems were built there - we're just completely in the dark as to what drivers HERE might do when a rail system is built. That's your position? If so, why should we commit billions of dollars when it may not spur even one car commuter to switch to rail? If we don't know how many may switch from driving straight to work to the more complicated driving/walking/busing to rail, etc., that lack of knowledge works more as an argument against building rail than for it. Studies are called for, not jumping into construction. If rail is presented as easing traffic, shouldn't we be fairly certain how much traffic might ease, if at all, before building it?

Fortunately, we DO know to a good degree of certainty how many might switch from car to rail commuting, based on studies of other cities which have constructed rail systems within the last 30 years, so your position is rendered moot. The effects on traffic in those cities has been less than spectacular - an average reduction of less than 5%, or 1 in 20 vehicles 'removed' from the roads. The actual cost per vehicle removal is astronomical - we could pay those commuters to stay home and not work at all (including annual count & pay increases) for less than building and maintaining a rail system.

If John Doe lives alone and doesn't know any of his neighbors, I'd say more HOV lanes would be a great incentive for him to introduce himself and, perhaps, discover how easy it is to find commuting partners. If not, well, at least he could become a functioning member of his community by interacting with his neighbors. I'm afraid this John Doe character you've imagined doesn't seem very friendly, however.

[TuNnL]

Re: Rail Transit

Go back to post #747 for the start of a suggestion that can easily be 2X to 5X+ as effective at getting cars off the road during commuting hours than rail, years sooner than rail and with a minimum of taxpayer expense. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH ....

If you look at traffic congestion as a behavioral problem, you will quickly see that adding a rail system is unlikely to change the behavior of solo car commuters - BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

The problem I think many on this message board have with your posts, salmoned, is you start off making a legitimate argument and in the middle, you bury an absurdly presumptive statement based on subjective theory. That way, no one can have an honest debate with you, because of the smoke-and-mirrors tactics your passive-agressive writings employ. I’m only posting to see if you plan to continue this subterfuge, or are finally genuinely interested in fully considering the merits of what others with an opposing viewpoint have to say.

Case in point: The behavior of a solo car commuter is currently dictated by the fact that we do NOT have a rail system. Therefore, you are only making a blind assumption that they would not change their behavior if a rail system DID exist. If the rail system is going to the same place you need to get to, it doesn’t matter whether you are traveling alone or with company. It helps you avoid the risk that driving on the freeway presents. Regardless of how many HOV lanes there are on H-1, accidents will happen. And when they do, you’re f*#ked. Even making ALL lanes into HOV lanes will not change this fact. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make more lanes HOV during peak hours. But if John Doe lives alone and doesn’t know any of his neighbors, he still has to get from point A to point B somehow. Who’s to say he won’t choose rail?

[salmoned]

Re: Rail Transit

Random, since you've been responding in this thread for a while, I assumed you've been following along (my error). Go back to post #747 for the start of a suggestion that can easily be 2X to 5X+ as effective at getting cars off the road during commuting hours than rail, years sooner than rail and with a minimum of taxpayer expense. It simply involves expanding the HOV concept to more existing lanes of traffic than now. It's flexible, even reversible, and it isn't punitively priced. Everyone benefits, except those who continue to be solo driver commuters. I'm not promoting this idea as 'the answer' to traffic congestion, only as one possible part of a solution. What I am promoting is local, creative and low(er) cost solutions with immediate and long term benefits for all the island's residents, including those who don't commute.

If you look at traffic congestion as a behavioral problem, you will quickly see that adding a rail system is unlikely to change the behavior of solo car commuters - they are committed to the concept of freedom embodied in their solo driving habits, despite sitting in rush hour traffic day after day after day, even if they rarely waiver from a home to work to home routine. Rail will do nothing to motivate them to change their ways, in fact, it will motivate them to continue in their wasteful, traffic congesting behavior (by permitting them to think the other guy will choose rail and ease their own [self-made] traffic congestion). The best way to change behavior is to make that behavior, day after day after day, so onerous [and the desired behavior so attractive] as to compel change. With an estimated 80% of commuters driving solo, we have a huge hurdle to overcome, but the benefits of doing so (in easing traffic, saving fuel, improved lifestyle, etc.) are considerable.

[Random]

Re: Rail Transit

If a rail system is promoted to ease commuter traffic, as I see it has been promoted (particularly by the Carpenter's Union), then why can't we try some other cheaper, easier, faster and more effective methods before committing huge sums of money to rail?

What other methods and can they be long-term?