See, where as I give you a theoretical argument, you offer nothing.
On the contrary, I gave you a thoroughly documented study, complete with verified research done by a host of qualified experts working for a trusted state agency.
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:
Transit plays an important role in America ... which is to provide mobility for those who do not have a car available.
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):
the people who are on the trains are usually just people that previously were on the bus.
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.)
intelligent highways on major busy roads. Such highways would include sensors that detect and control cars, with computers that automatically steer, accelerate, and slow cars in tandem. This would allow much higher traffic flows per lane than are currently seen, perhaps quadrupling the capacities of a given highway space.
Many automobiles today have cruise control, and some newer models sense when a car ahead slows down and automatically slow in response. The Toyota 2004 Prius will self-steer. All that will be needed is to connect self-accelerating, self-braking, self-steering cars to an intelligent highway network.
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:
Hybrid-electric cars such as the Prius also virtually eliminate air emissions and greatly reduce energy consumption. Thus, most of the reasons cited for heavy investments in rail transit--saving energy, reducing air pollution, and solving congestion--are being taken care of at a much lower cost without attempting to force people who can drive to use less efficient mass transit.
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. :roll:
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:
Portland is also obsessed with rail transit at the expense of auto driving. A major bottleneck in the region is located on Interstate 5, which runs north and south from Washington, through Oregon and into California. A crucial segment of the highway runs through the city of Portland but has only two lanes each way and is heavily congested. For 50 miles to the north and south of this segment, Interstate 5 is at least a six-lane highway, much of it in rural areas.
I think the way that we have designed cities is stupid because it has been all cars without any attention given to rail or bikes or walking.
On this we can agree. However, your friend Mr. Cox has plenty of complaints about the second-most bike-friendly city in the
world - Portland OR - and its efforts to address the needs of pedestrians and bike riders. Evidently, he believes people on bikes and on foot are just as much his enemy as public transportation is.
What Does Not Work
Many urbanized areas have reduced traffic signal coordination; changed one-way streets to two-way (effectively eliminating signal coordination); placed barriers in roads (euphemistically called traffic calming but more accurately titled congestion building ); and spent transportation funds that could be used to reduce congestion on unrelated activities. Supporters of these steps include a congestion coalition of planners, urban environmentalists, transit agencies, and transit builders who hope to gain when people agree to build rail transit out of desperation.
Portland, Oregon, is a leader in this movement. Local officials have put speed bumps in collector streets and eliminated lanes from minor arterials. The regional transportation plan for the Portland area calls for turning many arterials into boulevards --the planners' term for fewer lanes and wider sidewalks--with the aim of increasing walking and bicycling at the expense of driving.
In conclusion, Mr. Cox's premises are egregiously flawed, his "solutions" are either wildly impractical and/or utterly impossible to implement, his principle sources of funding remain troublesome, and he has not produced a valid study that clearly contradicts the work that TTI has been doing for decades.
I'm afraid your "rail actually increases traffic" argument remains unproven.
