In response, you offer the criticisms of an anti-rail mouthpiece, and a lot of "theories." I'm still not seeing any sort of research, documented studies or evidence that proves "Rail actually increases traffic." (As a side note, the entire paper is not presented and the footnote links do not work; perhaps Cox's own
study on how "rail actually increases traffic" is in the missing Methodology portion...)
To begin with, Mr. Cox's entire base premise is laughably incorrect:
If his understanding of public transit is this biased and myopic, any assumptions he makes based on that flawed premise can be called into question.
Oddly enough, your own
view of public transit is terribly skewed (perhaps that's why you champion Cox's essay):
From this narrow view, I can only assume you've never lived or worked in a large metropolitan city, nor regularly commuted via rail for any reason whatsoever.
It appears that Mr. Cox's primary solution to ever-increasing traffic and congestion is... more/better roads. (Big shock, that.)
While this "solution" sounds very nice, Cox gives no indication of what this design model would actually entail: what building these intelligent highways would cost, what it would cost to retrofit all vehicle manufacturing plants and
replace all existing vehicles with self-accelerating, self-braking, self-steering cars, how the roads would be built/retrofitted so as not to further
impede traffic and increase congestion, and how long this road-building / "smart car" replacement process would take. (Again, no documentation or realistic
alternative solutions, just a lot of nutty "theories").
Then, Cox tosses this gem of critical thinking out there:
For this nutty idea to bear fruit, every car on the road
would have to be a hybrid-electric vehicle. Oh, and nobody is trying to "force" people who can drive to use mass transit. Nice hyperbole.
Finally, this bolded portion of Cox's anti-rail screed is a flat-out lie, and I know this because I live along I-5, 30 miles from Portland: