Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Here too, but the population probably went up 40% in November (Covid spike!!).

Major changes in our lives over the next decade

So you're saying the Browns bring home the bacon for the 1st time in almost 60 yrs?

Let's not get crazy.

It all stinks a little too much of social engineering to me. A lot of people continue to CHOOSE to drive their cars because they like it. It's their personal space, it gives them freedom, it avoids having to deal with others' schedules, etc.

It seems like a lot of transit policy is designed to make it artificially painful to drive a car, rather than making transit itself desirable.

I mean, to some degree I suppose it is. But the economics of the situation are what they are.  We build roads, expand roads, build parking lots, code land to ensure parking spaces, while typically neglecting other modes of transportation (walking, biking, mass transit, etc.) What does that get you? Incentive to own a car, definitely. Which means we need more roads and more parking. Things get more spread out, which only gives you more incentive to have a car.  Which leads to...

The other side of the coin is that while cars are expensive, maintenance is fairly cheap. If you have a car, and in many places it's difficult to go without one, the costs differences between public transportation and driving your car are negligible.  For example, I could take the bus route to work, but that would take longer, be more uncomfortable, and much less flexible, all while barely reducing the cost. I still need a car, because while there are some beautiful parks and a giant lake by my house, the only actual store within convenient walking distance is a gas station. It would be pretty dumb of me to actually use the available public transportation.

I find when people are calculating the "economics" of mass transit, they are actually just talking about whether it turns a profit. But that isn't the economics, that's just whether it turns a profit. The economics of the situation also include what we have given up by making cars a near necessity and how much we value that, as well.

It all stinks a little too much of social engineering to me. A lot of people continue to CHOOSE to drive their cars because they like it. It's their personal space, it gives them freedom, it avoids having to deal with others' schedules, etc.

It seems like a lot of transit policy is designed to make it artificially painful to drive a car, rather than making transit itself desirable.

So, this feels to me, just sort of observing, like it kinda puts all the onus on the idea of transit policy and not very much on the reality of cars.

Traffic and parking problems are a reality of urban living. As much as one might argue public transit is a boondoggle (oft true), wide roads and massive amounts of parking ain't free, especially in some cities. Explaining that someone chooses to drive because they like to do it sort of sets aside the fact that many people choose not to drive when given the option for a litany of reasons. Traffic is unpleasant. Parking in urban centers is expensive. If the choice is to be on someone's schedules or be at the whim of a daily traffic flow, some people like schedules. Some people like the idea that if they get on the 8:15 train, they'll very likely be near their office at 8:50. 

This idea that it's there to "enlighten" folks is hogwash. If it's not there, no one chooses at all. They just suck it up with fewer options. I suppose the argument is “making one choice worse is social engineering” but I don’t understand how we equate fewer options with actually more freedom.

Many moons ago (too many), I had a summer job in the city. Some days I could borrow my parents’ car to drive in. More often, I took public transit. And I sometimes got to choose. The train ride (there were two legs) was about an hour 15. The drive, 45 minutes on a good day, a little longer on a bad day (and worse now). I’d pay about 1/8 of my daily pay to park and still walk up a hill, if there was room in that lot. Otherwise, I could pay $4-$5 more for the garage. Transit was about 60 percent of that cheaper price, without worrying about gas or milage or bumping someone while drowsy at 6:15. Depending on the day and when the shift started, I guessed and made choices. I had choices to make.

I understand there are many issues with rail. It’s often unfeasible, impractical or shortsighted. But I’ve also sat in a hot car for two hours trying to cross Chicago when I timed a drive wrong. This is neither freedom of choice nor is it the joy of operating on my own schedule. And if the El and all those trains stopped existing, Chicago and everywhere else wouldn’t suddenly figure out a way to make that trek easier.

Chicago has some multi-level streets.

Lots of trains. It's actually a pretty good system, when you combine Metra Rail with the L trains and busses. Someone thought that out pretty well.

Metra:



CTA L:

Lots of cities have multi-level roads, trains, etc. In addition to never travelling internationally, I appears that Fro has not done much domestic travel either.