I'll never understand why people want to pay for their own home office and stay home by themselves all day. I'm an introvert and that seems antisocial. I imagine it's because most American commutes are so bad that it's easier to recreate the office in your own house. Ridiculous.
Best of both is you can arrange your schedule so you can spend a day or two in the office and the rest at home or vice versa. In any case, some participation results in marked decrease in commuting (public or private).
With you ... I'm not mad for meetings nor do I miss the office ... I do wish it was way busier when I do go in ... 45% empty is bad vibe; too many buddies not there
But stay home all day? No way. I'll go nuts. I usually go to a cigar shop or Starbucks and work only returning eod.
I, conversely, will never understand why people would want to shlep into work every day. If my job was so boring that I had to escape by chatting with coworkers, I would just find another job.
It's sure nice that humans don't need any sort of social contact during the day to be satisfied. We evolved to spend all day quietly reading a small glowing rectangle all day after all. Spending most of one's life at a small desk in the corner of a living room is the most comfortable environment we can aspire to.
I get all my social contact I need from my friends, and enjoy a pretty solid firewall between my personal and professional lives. I was hired to write code, not be made to entertain my extroverted colleagues that 'need social contact during the day to be satisfied'.
First, the title is really grasping at straws; the article doesn't talk about any 'recovery' for the region outside of metro ridership, nor does it demonstrate the necessity of such.
The incentives are all there for people to favor cars until highway congestion gets particularly serious. When drivers don't have to pay for driving, it takes other incentives to push them toward alternatives. When the wealthy commuters of the DC area are being given huge rebates for their electric cars, that's another incentive that transits have to claw back against.
Then you look at the DC metro, which runs infrequently to a limited set of places and is frequently on fire or out of service for other reasons, and it's not hard to understand why suburban commuters use cars. Furthermore, outside the city the metro stops are largely commuter stops, which means people drive to big parking lots and then have to get into a train.
If a working metro were a priority, new lane-mile construction would cease and highways would be tolled much more commonly.
This is really the fault of the safety commission for requiring them to remove so many of their train cars from service based on a single minor accident with zero injuries.
If we treated car safety the same way that they are treating this, we would never allow a single car on the roads. There is not a single model of car that is remotely close to the level of safety that Metrorail has achieved. By reducing service so drastically, they will inevitably push people to drive instead leading to more deaths.
18 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 50.4 ms ] threadCould we return to a more pastoral time when we mostly go to market center on Weds?
But stay home all day? No way. I'll go nuts. I usually go to a cigar shop or Starbucks and work only returning eod.
This is the real issue. A train system can't easily be turned on and off. It was a huge investment, should we shut it down?
The incentives are all there for people to favor cars until highway congestion gets particularly serious. When drivers don't have to pay for driving, it takes other incentives to push them toward alternatives. When the wealthy commuters of the DC area are being given huge rebates for their electric cars, that's another incentive that transits have to claw back against.
Then you look at the DC metro, which runs infrequently to a limited set of places and is frequently on fire or out of service for other reasons, and it's not hard to understand why suburban commuters use cars. Furthermore, outside the city the metro stops are largely commuter stops, which means people drive to big parking lots and then have to get into a train.
If a working metro were a priority, new lane-mile construction would cease and highways would be tolled much more commonly.
Car payments/depreciation, registration fees, insurance, gas/electricity, tires, maintenance, etc., don't count as paying for driving?
> If a working metro were a priority, new lane-mile construction would cease and highways would be tolled much more commonly.
This is the same trend as usual: ideas that make it worse for drivers, without giving them a better alternative to driving.
>This is the same trend as usual: ideas that make it worse for drivers, without giving them a better alternative to driving.
I disagree completely. More lanes and more congestion make driving worse. My suggestion decreases both.
If we treated car safety the same way that they are treating this, we would never allow a single car on the roads. There is not a single model of car that is remotely close to the level of safety that Metrorail has achieved. By reducing service so drastically, they will inevitably push people to drive instead leading to more deaths.