Re: Rail Transit
Most people only look for a job close to home or move close to their work, once they obtain a long-term position. Homes are no more permanent than jobs for most. Very few of us live in ancestral homes. So work may be where you find it, but so are homes. So, why don't we ensure homes are built near work (via control of building permits), rather than allowing homes to be built wherever, without regard for available jobs in the area?
Rail is not going to replace cars. Comparing rail (estimated use - less than 5% of current car commuters) to cars (more than 80% of all commuters) is a no-brainer loser for rail, since it'll cost at least 16X as much as cars do on a per person basis (assuming one person per car, 32X assuming 2 persons per car, etc). The cost estimate for cars includes all use, not just the use that could be potentially replaced by rail (which is a small fraction of the total transportation cars currently provide). What this means is that we could provide all potential rail commuters (currently using cars) with cars, insurance, maintenance and gas for all their needs for much less than the annualized cost of rail, which only serves for their commuting. No only that, but by keeping those commuters in their cars, they'll save time on their commutes, since the total time taken by rail travel will always average greater than cars. So please don't cite these ridiculous cost or time comparisons - rail loses every time.
Originally posted by Composite 2992
View Post
Rail is not going to replace cars. Comparing rail (estimated use - less than 5% of current car commuters) to cars (more than 80% of all commuters) is a no-brainer loser for rail, since it'll cost at least 16X as much as cars do on a per person basis (assuming one person per car, 32X assuming 2 persons per car, etc). The cost estimate for cars includes all use, not just the use that could be potentially replaced by rail (which is a small fraction of the total transportation cars currently provide). What this means is that we could provide all potential rail commuters (currently using cars) with cars, insurance, maintenance and gas for all their needs for much less than the annualized cost of rail, which only serves for their commuting. No only that, but by keeping those commuters in their cars, they'll save time on their commutes, since the total time taken by rail travel will always average greater than cars. So please don't cite these ridiculous cost or time comparisons - rail loses every time.
Comment