Has traffic gotten worse lately? (Boston, Billerica: real estate, 2013, school)

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by wolfgang239

Same goes with a public transit system. Which is unfortunate as this ship has sailed, there is no way to go back on the auto centric world we live in (in my lifetime at least). If we were smart and planned many years ago there would be a much better transit system. Now we have dysfuntional overpriced patronage centers with horrible management. I'd rather drive thanks.




Not true and this is from 15 years ago. Unless you are counting overall MPG. which this will help with.

By most measures, cars today are more fuel efficient than they've ever been http://www.autonews.com/article/2014...oreUserAgent=1

[impala096]

Originally Posted by lrfox

I know we're getting off topic, but the lunacy involved with the anti-mass transit crowd is unbelievable. They just plain don't get it. For starters, if you don't pay a toll every time you drive, it's the equivalent of getting on public transit without paying a fare. Period. Tax dollars pay for roadways. Some toll roads recoup the cost, but the vast majority of roadways come at a cost to taxpayers- just like mass transit.

Gas tax.

Originally Posted by lrfox

Second, if you are so hellbent on driving, you should still support funding mass transit. Better transit takes more cars off the road. It reduces wear and tear on roads, traffic, and decreases demand for fuel. good public transit is the best thing in the world for people who love to drive.

It doesn't work that way. Research latent demand.

Originally Posted by lrfox

Then there's the extreme- the people who think transit and transit oriented development is part of some U.N. plot to strip humans of their freedom and force people who live as slaves. There are more people who actually believe this is a real thing than you'd ever want to believe (google "Agenda 21 conspiracy").

You have as much credibility as the conspiracy theorists at this point.

[wolfgang239]

Originally Posted by lrfox

By most measures, cars today are more fuel efficient than they've ever been http://www.autonews.com/article/2014...oreUserAgent=1

I agree. Just pointing out that it was not extremely rare to find cars that could get 30mpg a decade ago which you stated.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by Parsec

Cars are also 1000 lbs heavier today versus 30 years ago due to new safety standards and more powerful engines that are introduced every few years. We absolutely have made progress in fuel efficiency considering how heavy vehicles have become and how much faster even a compact car is nowadays. Comparing apples and apples, cars get much better gas mileage than they did 30 years ago.

Right, but imagine how much better we could be doing if 200 HP wasn't a requirement for an entry level compact.

[charolastra00]

Originally Posted by lrfox

I know we're getting off topic, but the lunacy involved with the anti-mass transit crowd is unbelievable. They just plain don't get it. For starters, if you don't pay a toll every time you drive, it's the equivalent of getting on public transit without paying a fare. Period. Tax dollars pay for roadways. Some toll roads recoup the cost, but the vast majority of roadways come at a cost to taxpayers- just like mass transit. Second, if you are so hellbent on driving, you should still support funding mass transit. Better transit takes more cars off the road. It reduces wear and tear on roads, traffic, and decreases demand for fuel. good public transit is the best thing in the world for people who love to drive.

Then there's the extreme- the people who think transit and transit oriented development is part of some U.N. plot to strip humans of their freedom and force people who live as slaves. There are more people who actually believe this is a real thing than you'd ever want to believe (google "Agenda 21 conspiracy").



It is and it's a shame. Personally, I think the Commuter Rail system has the potential to be excellent. We need major track and station upgrades (Particularly at South Station) to be able to increase headways and efficiency. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll ever have the money to make those changes.

I agree with you. However, public transit breaks down outside of a hub. If you are commuting INTO Boston/Cambridge or within the city and immediate suburbs, public transit is great. Many complain, but I grew up in Atlanta so the MBTA is fantastic, if imperfect, to me. But while many companies who are now located around 128 in Woburn, Burlington, Waltham and beyond offer shuttles to Alewife, there are few options other than driving to get between suburbs.

For instance, I went to college in the suburbs with a commuter rail stop just down the street. I assumed that would help me with internships later on as I did not plan on getting a car. When senior year rolled around, I found many of the jobs in my field were not based in Boston and even though many were only a few miles away, there was NO viable way to get to them. There are some bus routes that go suburb to suburb, but it is not economically viable to service the suburbs with mass transit because jobs are spread out.

Most of the traffic I encounter is people driving suburb to suburb. I think a lot of the resistance toward more funding for the MBTA is we all know those funds will primarily go to (much needed) upgrades on the existing system, not anything that would help those of us with no viable public transit option get to work.

Heck - that college I mentioned? Its staff who live in the city and commute out have gone months not being able to get to work on the weekend because the commuter rail is closed for repairs. Yes, the repairs are needed, but the MBTA didn't even bother with bus replacements for these trains. There's no equivalent bus to get people to work.

[mp775]

Originally Posted by impala096

Gas tax.

Which, as has already been said, doesn't come close to fully funding the roads.

It doesn't work that way. Research latent demand.

The same is true for transit. Much latent demand for transit is currently in cars.

[Urban Peasant]

Originally Posted by charolastra00

Yes, the repairs are needed, but the MBTA didn't even bother with bus replacements for these trains. There's no equivalent bus to get people to work.

Are you talking about the Fitchburg Line? The likely issue is that such a commuter rail line crosses over different metro regions that receive separate transportation funding for their respective MPOs. MBTA buses don't often leave the Boston Region MPO's jurisdiction. In fact, I can only think of two instances of this, the #240 going to Avon and the #230 going to Montello, Brockton, both of which are not part of our MPO region. This might also explain why the MBTA always hires an independent contractor to run the commuter rail (don't quote me on that). At one time long ago, MBTA contracted buses and equipment to independent operators to run long distance routes. Somewhere, somehow, some legislator probably put a stop to that.

[impala096]

Originally Posted by mp775

Which, as has already been said, doesn't come close to fully funding the roads.

I was only responding to this sentence….

Originally Posted by lrfox

For starters, if you don't pay a toll every time you drive, it's the equivalent of getting on public transit without paying a fare.

Lrfox was implying that drivers don’t pay a toll to drive. Whether or not the gas tax fully funds the roads wasn’t the debate. You are pushing this conversation in another direction entirely.

[Dm84]

Originally Posted by impala096

I was only responding to this sentence….



Lrfox was implying that drivers don’t pay a toll to drive. Whether or not the gas tax fully funds the roads wasn’t the debate. You are pushing this conversation in another direction entirely.

Before your car pulls out of the driveway, you've paid sales tax, insurance, registration and inspection fees, and you pay the yearly excise tax. Pretending that the only "toll" drivers pay is the gas tax is as silly as saying the gas tax fully funds the roads.

[impala096]

I never suggested that the only "toll" drivers pay is the gas tax. Why would you assume that i suggested such a thing? Lrfox implied that drivers pay no "toll" to drive which is inaccurate. I gave one example of a "toll" drivers pay (gas tax) but that doesn't mean i think that's the only example.

You're disagreeing with someone that agrees with you Dm84.