Originally Posted By vbdad55 <One more note, the term "suburb" as applied to Southern California usually means a distance of 30 miles and over. Some people may drive as far as 50 to 70 miles to work. Believe me, there is no way mass transit will get you to work.< My suburb is 42 miles from Downtown Chicago ( and we are not the furthest out on the line) - and the train ride takes 37 minutes on one of the 'express trains' you can catch in the morning or back home. If you catch the multiple stop trains that times ranges from 50 minutes to 70 minutes. For 42 miles how can one do better in rush hour traffic in a car. We read the paper, play cards, listen to music (ipod) etc to and from.... the furthest out stop is 59 miles, but no reason it couldn't be more if there was demand for it....so yes it can and does work. I lived in Southern California for 2 years and if they decided to build it , it would work, but you'd have to convince people to get out of their cars. I am a car fanatic, but I would rather ride the train then sit in traffic for 2 hours. I have made the commute in a car when it snowed here where it took 3 - 4 hours to get home, while those on the train might have been delayed 10 minutes....
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Everyone wants to talk about lessening our dependence on oil, the problem is people keep making excuses why we can't. The argument against mass transit is near the top of that list. It does not work in all instances - depending on start and stop destinations, but it can work for many.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda When I lived in the Boston area, of the 21 years that I lived there, 14 years, I didn't own a car. I didn't need one. I could get anywhere I wanted to by their wonderful transit system of subways, commuter rail, or buses (though I rarely needed a bus). When I lived in Atlanta, I had to buy a car as I was living in Gwinett County, which at the time didn't have any type of mass transit (they do now). However, living in San Marcos (about 30 or so miles North of downtown San Diego), I couldn't live without a car. Where in the Boston area, I could walk (or take a short cab ride) to any subway or commuter rail station, I live too far from bus stations, and rail is non-existent (though we will have some starting late next year). Either way, even if I drove to where I could catch a bus downtown, it's faster, even with traffic, to drive. And even when the train starts running, I will have to take it to Ocenside before transferring to a train south to San Diego. It too will take longer.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 The point being, it's not that is can't be done...as evidenced by Boston /Chicago / New York....it's just no one has done it in some places yet. The question is why ?
Originally Posted By EdisYoda Part of it has to do with timing. The subways (or elevated trains) were built in the early part of the last century. In fact, Boston had the first subway in the U.S. So, subways have been a part of that city as long as cars have been. Also these cities have a long history of commuter rail as well. Today, it's much harder to get that type of infrastructure built.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Commuter rail in Chicago uses right of ways from exiting railroads, not a separate system. That is the system that carries people the longest distances... the elevated trains / subways are Chicago ( and a few very close in burbs only) the 250,000 riders I mentioned are commuter rail ) Metra -- the CTA ( buses/els/subways is many more than that and in addition to. I agree it is easier to build as the city is growing, but if one can build highways, train tracks could be built also.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda <<Commuter rail in Chicago uses right of ways from exiting railroads, not a separate system. >> Most do. The problem is that in new systems that use existing rights of way, most need to be upgraded to support passenger service. This usually involves replacing all the rail, ties and ballast. That's what they are doing on the new system going in here (Escondido to Oceanside). With the exception of a loop from the San Marcos station to U.C. San Marcos, it's all on existing rights of way, but they are basically rebuilding it all.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>Anyway, I've said several times that the war on the middle class is a real thing (although "war" might be a bad metaphor; "the middle class squeeze" is probably more accurate). As a member of the middle class, I understand it from the inside.<< <Again, I say, you buy into the argument without thinking about it.> And how would you know if I thought about it or not? Newsflash: not agreeing with you does not equal "not thinking about it." <Okay, I missed the Post 73, but what does that mean? RT list some things that affect both groups, but the premise of the book is the middle class in other ways unique from the poor.> And is one not allowed to disagree in whole or in part with the premise of this book? Or is it unassailable gospel? >>In the context you used it, it usually does. As RT said (and I'm copying here, so you don't even have to find it) "I don't cheat on my wife" DOES in fact mean "I never cheat on my wife."<< <You misread my quote. You get off on it. You restate it to your benefit. You can't get it out of your brain that in saying "don't" in my sentence, it doesn't mean NEVER.> Actually the problem is, in your brain you knew what you meant. But what's in one's brain doesn't always make it to the page (or computer screen). We showed you how what you wrote came across. If you didn't mean it that way, that's fine; you're free to say so. But it was a perfectly logical reading on our part. <In your example, the sentence only has one answer. Did you cheat or didn't cheat? I wrote my sentence, clarified it again, and then you called it a back pedal. It's amazing what you do to my language.> It was your sentence that was unclear in the first place. You did that all by yourself. >>But when you do respond to me later, you should respond to what I said, not what others did.<< <Oh brother.> Just as you're not responsible for what Beau or anyone else says, I'm not responsible for what RT or anyone else says, even if I agree with it in whole or in part. It's simple net courtesy, if you're responding to person A, to respond to what person A said, and not what person B said.
