59% Experience Road Rage During Their Daily Commute

In the next 10 years we will see a lot more people working from home
thanks to the ubiquity of hi-speed internet. we will also see people
rely more on other forms of transportation like rail if gas prices
continue their upward trend.. just my 2 cents.

wrote:

> In the next 10 years we will see a lot more people working from home
> thanks to the ubiquity of hi-speed internet. we will also see people
> rely more on other forms of transportation like rail if gas prices
> continue their upward trend.. just my 2 cents.

Rail is excellent for ppl doing city commuting from the suburbs. Rather less
useful elsewhere.

Graham

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:

> Eeyore > said in
> rec.autos.driving:
>
> >Rail is excellent for ppl doing city commuting from the suburbs. Rather less
> >useful elsewhere.
>
> I take the train to work regularly. I live in a suburb and I work in a
> suburb (in fact, they are the SAME suburb).

Your idea of a suburb may be somewhat larger than mine !

Graham

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>
>As to your statement, simply replace "city" with "employment center"
>and "suburb" with "residential area" and it gets much better.

Only comes close to working if there's a rail line running between the
employment center and the residential area. You can't have a rail
line running between every employment center and every residential
area.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:

> In article >,
> Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
> >
> >As to your statement, simply replace "city" with "employment center"
> >and "suburb" with "residential area" and it gets much better.
>
> Only comes close to working if there's a rail line running between the
> employment center and the residential area. You can't have a rail
> line running between every employment center and every residential
> area.

That depends on the size of the area you're considering.

Rail only really makes good sense in larger areas where rail's capacity can be
put to good use.

Graham

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:
>
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>> >
>> >As to your statement, simply replace "city" with "employment center"
>> >and "suburb" with "residential area" and it gets much better.
>>
>> Only comes close to working if there's a rail line running between the
>> employment center and the residential area. You can't have a rail
>> line running between every employment center and every residential
>> area.
>
>That depends on the size of the area you're considering.
>
>Rail only really makes good sense in larger areas where rail's capacity can be
>put to good use.

Except that rail fails to scale to larger areas for the reason I
mentioned. If all your employment centers and residential areas are
in a line, it can work. If there's only one employment center or one
residential area, it can work (hub and spoke). Once you get multiple
employment centers and multiple residential areas, it falls apart
rapidly.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
> >"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
> >> Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >As to your statement, simply replace "city" with "employment center"
> >> >and "suburb" with "residential area" and it gets much better.
> >>
> >> Only comes close to working if there's a rail line running between the
> >> employment center and the residential area. You can't have a rail
> >> line running between every employment center and every residential
> >> area.
> >
> >That depends on the size of the area you're considering.
> >
> >Rail only really makes good sense in larger areas where rail's capacity can be
> >put to good use.
>
> Except that rail fails to scale to larger areas for the reason I
> mentioned.

Can you clarify in that case ?


> If all your employment centers and residential areas are
> in a line, it can work. If there's only one employment center or one
> residential area, it can work (hub and spoke). Once you get multiple
> employment centers and multiple residential areas, it falls apart
> rapidly.

You end up with several hub / spokes. I fail to see the problem with that. Most of
the hubs are far enough apart that it's essentially inconsequential. Or maybe you
had something like London in mind where there are radial routes too, such as the
Circle Line on the Tube. That's one you missed.

Graham

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:
>
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>
>> If all your employment centers and residential areas are
>> in a line, it can work. If there's only one employment center or one
>> residential area, it can work (hub and spoke). Once you get multiple
>> employment centers and multiple residential areas, it falls apart
>> rapidly.
>
>You end up with several hub / spokes. I fail to see the problem with that.

The time and distance cost involved with changing trains mounts rapidly.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
(Matthew T. Russotto) said in
>rec.autos.driving:
>
>>Except that rail fails to scale to larger areas for the reason I
>>mentioned.
>
>With proper urban planning, it CAN work. When you have willy-nilly
>sprawl, then yes, rail is less effective.

Arranging everyone's entire life for the convenience of rail transit is
ridiculous.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
> >"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
> >
> >> If all your employment centers and residential areas are
> >> in a line, it can work. If there's only one employment center or one
> >> residential area, it can work (hub and spoke). Once you get multiple
> >> employment centers and multiple residential areas, it falls apart
> >> rapidly.
> >
> >You end up with several hub / spokes. I fail to see the problem with that.
>
> The time and distance cost involved with changing trains mounts rapidly.

In London for example, overground rail and underground tube lines have many
dedicated interchanges. It causes little trouble in reality.

Graham