For the last time..There are 5 diffrent types of rail systems that serve diffrent pop. denisitys.

[Anonymous]

I am sick of people telling me that we dont have the population density to support rail transit. They think that we need the pop. density of chicago or NYcity to have a rail system. NO and NO!. They just dont get it.

1.Heritage streetcar- serves citys with populations of 40,000 to 80,000 connecting tourist areas and Universitys areas for recreational or parking mitigation.

2.Light Rail rapid transit. Serves citys of 200,000 to 600,000 or more. Workes best to connect first tier suburbs with city core. Examples Cleveland and Pittsburgh

3. Heavy above ground rail- Works best to take people to the airport and large sporting venues. also in vast citys that may have populationdensitys but buildings are not spaced so close toghther to nessate the building a subway

4.Subway and elevated- workes best in high density downtowns and citys. Also works where geographic enviroments such as steep grades makes above ground trains impracitcal such as hilly Montreal or San Fran.

5.My favorite-Commuter Rail-Connects low density suburbs and even rural areas with strong downtown cores. since many people drive to the station the Commuter RR line need not be next to high density area. In The case of MARC train servcie in MD the stations are in a National Park(C&O Canal Historical Park)
The problem is that even planners are getting this mixed up and it hard to advoacte when we are not all using the same dictionalry

[chad thomas]

What works best for the Amish?[:D]

[dehusman]

Using sporting events to justify a rail line is pure folly. Especially when the modern trend is every sport to have its own venue.

What you need to support a commuter rail line of any type is a consistent, day in day out traffic base. 10 weekends a year for a football stadium won't support a busline, let alone a rail line.

The major failure of modern commuter lines is the suburbs. The rider base is so disbursed that riders have to travel by car to get to the staion and since the employment loacations are disbursed with the modern "business parks" there is no one concetration of jobs to attract riders. The auto has killed off the feeder transit networks. By the time the commuter drives to the station/stop nearest home and then travels to the station/stop nearest work and arranges for transportation from the station to the work location most of the benefits of rail commuting have been erroded.

The fact is that we have not designed our development for any form of mass transit. The suburbs do not support mass transit until the traffic density gets so horrible that it is less painful to take mass transit than drive.

If we were serious about wanting to use mass transit we would zone our cities so that along a transit corridor we put islands of high density dwellings (apartment complexes) alternating with multifloor office space (all commercial buildings within 1/4 mile of the station have to be a minimum of 6 floors) and an indoor mall or "town center" style of shopping area where all the stores are designed to be accessible by foot traffic. That type of arrangement would maximize the number of people who could find living space, work, and shopping along the same transit system. Taking transit wouldn't be for those one or two weekends a year you go to the zoo or to a home football game, it would be day in and day out to take you between home, work and shopping.

Dave H.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Peterson6868

I am sick of people telling me that we dont have the population density to support rail transit.

It's the truth though. Why do you think that all the High Speed Rail vultures....errr I* mean VENTURES are so dependant upon the taxpayer being willing to play sap and help pay for lines that are so far away that they might as well not even be there?

Because the investment necessary is so steep that 'online' patronage would never be sufficient to provide a reasonable payback.

The customer base is so widely dispersed that the ROI would never be disbursed... [}:)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

If we were serious about wanting to use mass transit we would zone our cities so that along a transit corridor we put islands of high density dwellings (apartment complexes) alternating with multifloor office space

Exactly, and city planners have wanted to do this forever. The problem is Americans don't get that walkable neighborhoods with stores, offices, and train stations are a better way to live than in bedroom burbs miles from anything.

[Anonymous]

We gotta have a civil rights movement for people who don't drive cars. Prohibit any new urban/suburban development that is not at least as accessible and functional for those who don't drive as it is for those who do! Period! Paragraph! Furthermore . . .

[jimrice4449]

Garyaiki and Lincol5390 both show a trait common to liberal control freaks. "Those ignorant peasants just don't know what's good for them. We enlightened folk do" Virtually every succesful mass transit system in the country serves a city that experienced it's founding growth before private ownership of automobiles was common. The auto provides the average person w/ a degree of personal mobility undreamed of when the city cores of places like NYC, Chicago and San Francisco were laid out. The growth of suburbs since WWII is a manifestation of people CHOOSING the type of living arrangements they want. The idea regulating building so as to force the use of mass transit is not only laughable, it should be repugnent

[edblysard]

Lincoln,
The Soviets had just such places...
Only they called them Gulags.
Not a prison in the conventional sense, but the economic bars and lack of any personal freedoms, like the right to choose where they lived and worked were just as effective as any prison cell block.
And, not that oddly, the apartment housing bears a close resemblance to a cell block.

Believe me; the Soviets have “mass transit” down to a fine science.
Count yourself lucky that you were never part of the “masses”!
Ed

[Anonymous]

Now there’s a couple fine examples of not getting it. The “Gulags” along Metro-North, Metra, and Caltrain are places successful Americans choose to live. And some even choose “prison cells” on Park Avenue or Nob Hill. They are free to move to unzoned Houston but somehow they don’t want to.

America has a frontier myth that real freedom is a 160 acre homestead where you can shoot pheasant for dinner. That’s not how most Americans live but too many try to fake it as urban cowboys or some comic book idea of a frontiersman.

If people would fess up that their lives are as soft as London hairdressers and learn a lifestyle that’s appropriate for metropolitan areas they might find civilization isn’t as bad as Ru***ells them it is.

[ericsp]

QUOTE: Originally posted by garyaiki

Now there’s a couple fine examples of not getting it. The “Gulags” along Metro-North, Metra, and Caltrain are places successful Americans choose to live. And some even choose “prison cells” on Park Avenue or Nob Hill. They are free to move to unzoned Houston but somehow they don’t want to.

America has a frontier myth that real freedom is a 160 acre homestead where you can shoot pheasant for dinner. That’s not how most Americans live but too many try to fake it as urban cowboys or some comic book idea of a frontiersman.

If people would fess up that their lives are as soft as London hairdressers and learn a lifestyle that’s appropriate for metropolitan areas they might find civilization isn’t as bad as Ru***ells them it is.

Where do you get these ideas? Yes, people choose to live in the areas you mentioned. But if I were to take your philosophy that you and lincoln5390 seem to have, I would say "No, you cannot live there, you must move out to a suburb." This is the first time I have heard freedom defined a 160 acre homestead. Freedom is being able to make you own choices. If you want and can afford 160 acres than move there. If you want to and can afford to live on Nob Hill then move there. But do not tell people they must live in a "walkable neighborhood". If you like that lifestyle, then move to one. Why do you find it necessary to force other people into this? By the way, I see no posts by anyone named Rush.

[Anonymous]

Anyone who read my post or lincoln’s post without blinders on can see neither of us is telling people where they must live or forcing them to use mass transit.

Go ahead and make a sensible argument against voluntary I SAID VOLUNTARY walkable neighborhoods.

[edblysard]

."We gotta have a civil rights movement for people who don't drive cars. Prohibit any new urban/suburban development that is not ..."(fill in your personal favorite, his was about non drivers)

To which Gary agreed; "Exactly, and city planners have wanted to do this forever. The problem is Americans don't get that walkable neighborhoods with stores, offices, and train stations are a better way to live than in bedroom burbs miles from anything."


So, unless we build places that fit your personal wants and desires, we shouldn’t be allowed to build anything?

Note that Gary has stated that his vision, "walkable neighborhoods with..."as a statement of fact, as opposed to his opinion.
Also note that he said Americans should “learn a lifestyle that’s appropriate”…as if he has the right, or is allowed to choose lifestyles for someone else…

"America has a frontier myth that real freedom is a 160 acre homestead where you can shoot pheasant for dinner. That’s not how most Americans live but too many try to fake it as urban cowboys or some comic book idea of a frontiersman."

So, now he resorts to the personal attack, which is often the last resort of those who have run out of salient facts to further their side of a debate.

It would be easy to follow his example, see below…

"If people would fess up that their lives are as soft as London hairdressers and learn a lifestyle that’s appropriate for metropolitan areas they might find civilization isn’t as bad as Ru***ells them it is."
To which one could reply…

Would have no idea how soft a London hairdresser's life is, don’t know any, so I guess we will have to take Gary’s word for it, assuming he must know from personal experience, or he might be implying that being as soft as a hairdresser is appropriate?

See, we can play the insult game all day long, if you choose….

And I don’t know too many folks who take Rush seriously, I don’t pay much attention to dope heads, nor do I give much credence to their ranting.


"Go ahead and make a sensible argument against voluntary I SAID VOLUNTARY walkable neighborhoods"

This is the first time you used the word, nothing in your previous postings said anything about voluntary, you did state that the neighborhoods you prefer were "a better way to live than in bedroom burbs miles from anything."

I don’t plan on making any argument against walkable neighborhoods; they are a great idea, if that’s where and how you want to live, fantastic, go for it.

But insulting those who don’t choose to live the way you feel is "better" isn’t a good way to win friends and influence people.

Personally, I like having a backyard where my kids can see owls, possums and such up close and personal, instead of only being able to watch them on TV.

If you choose to live in a highrise, or a densely populated area, next to a freeway and transit line, go for it, after all, that’s is one of the great things about America, you pretty much have a choice to live where you want to.

I have yet to see a posting here that states that living in the burbs, or out in the county, is "better" than anywhere else, but I do see where you have stated that your choice is...


Perhaps had you stated that living in a dense population areas, with walkable neighborhoods and mass transit service was your personal choice, and the reason you like that lifestyle is...and then list the reasons you find it personally more enjoyable, as opposed to insulting those who don’t live the lifestyle, or in the area you prefer, you might have gotten a few positive responses.

But you chose to present you idea as a statement of fact, writing that it was "better", which implys that anything else is not as good, and then insulted those who didn’t agree with you.

Lincoln states that nothing else should be built unless it fit his criteria, and you agreed with him.
To whit...."Exactly, and city planners have wanted to do this forever. The problem is Americans don't get that walkable neighborhoods...."

Point is, regardless what city planners want, in the end, it is the citizen who gets to choose how their city or neighborhood is designed, which is why Houston isn’t a zoned city, the voters choose to defeat zoning every time is comes up.
Planners get to do just that, plan, not choose, unless you want to give them the power to choose for you, which still leaves you the choice to not live in their city.

Some Americans do choose to live in these densely populated neighborhoods, either because they have to or want to...but others do not choose to live like that...yet you imply that they shouldn’t be allowed to live elsewhere, or enjoy any other lifestyle beyond what you think is “better”, and then insulted those that do choose to not to agree with you.

Ed

[Junctionfan]

Houston doesn't have zoned areas? Does that mean heavy industrial can sandwich heavy residential?

[edblysard]

I live less than two blocks from Acme Brick, (yes, it really is Acme) and Daniel Archer Valves is a few blocks away.
It is some what zoned, in that new residential areas are closed to heavy industry building there, but the older neighborhoods are cheek and jowl with many industries.

Of course, things like blast furnaces, mines and such or not here, but small manufacturing and distributing facilities are.

Trinity rail car builds tank cars smack dab in the middle of the near north side, within sight of downtown Houston!

Ed

[Junctionfan]

Who like that? In Toronto, most industries are buffered by heavy or medium commercial before residential comes into play simply because industries have a tendency to lower property value which becomes less desirable to those who want to go into the realestate investments.

There is only a few spots in Toronto that I can think of where it doesn't seem to make much of a difference and that is because it is the Waterfront and with CN/VIA/GO Union Station near it which does add some buffer but it is in downtown. The Gardener Express adds some buffer between Redpath Sugars and the downtown core too.

Most people I know prefer some kind of zoning just to protect their realestate investments for that purpose.

[dharmon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Peterson6868

I am sick of people telling me that we dont have the population density to support rail transit. They think that we need the pop. density of chicago or NYcity to have a rail system. NO and NO!. They just dont get it.

1.Heritage streetcar- serves citys with populations of 40,000 to 80,000 connecting tourist areas and Universitys areas for recreational or parking mitigation.

2.Light Rail rapid transit. Serves citys of 200,000 to 600,000 or more. Workes best to connect first tier suburbs with city core. Examples Cleveland and Pittsburgh

3. Heavy above ground rail- Works best to take people to the airport and large sporting venues. also in vast citys that may have populationdensitys but buildings are not spaced so close toghther to nessate the building a subway

4.Subway and elevated- workes best in high density downtowns and citys. Also works where geographic enviroments such as steep grades makes above ground trains impracitcal such as hilly Montreal or San Fran.

5.My favorite-Commuter Rail-Connects low density suburbs and even rural areas with strong downtown cores. since many people drive to the station the Commuter RR line need not be next to high density area. In The case of MARC train servcie in MD the stations are in a National Park(C&O Canal Historical Park)
The problem is that even planners are getting this mixed up and it hard to advoacte when we are not all using the same dictionalry

Wait a minute.....I thought that your favorite was ...

#6. Freight railroads to carry freeloading vagrants from dumpster to dumpster....

So is this an ultimatum? Like for the lasT time or you're going to leave or jump off a bridge?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Peterson 6868 is really reaching to come up with five distinct types of rail systems. As I look at it, 1 and 2 are not so much distinct as different points on a continuum, light rail and streetcar have a lot in common. 3 and 4 are basically the same thing, it's like making a distinction between various segments of the CTA Blue Line, which is variously surface, median strip, L and subway.

At any rate, all are quite expensive and consequently do need a pretty good population to justify building and operating them.

[morseman]

SEPTA .with all its faults has a very good incentive for its ridership
on the Philly-Paoli line. Commuter parking The Wynnewood parking lot
extends almost to the adjacent Narberth lot. Parking lot at Devon was n't
that large so there is a Septa lot several blocks away on Lancaster Avenue.
From what I have seen all parking lots are always full. New multi-level
parking lot was being build at Ardmore station last time I was there.
Who uses these lots???? The type of person who would use his car to
go a few blocks to buy a pack of cigarettes, invalids, people who live
several miles away in the outer burbs. This is a source of revenue
for SEPTA. I believe SEPTA also has shuttle busses during
peak hours to some locations.

[SALfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jimrice4449

Garyaiki and Lincol5390 both show a trait common to liberal control freaks. "Those ignorant peasants just don't know what's good for them. We enlightened folk do" Virtually every succesful mass transit system in the country serves a city that experienced it's founding growth before private ownership of automobiles was common. The auto provides the average person w/ a degree of personal mobility undreamed of when the city cores of places like NYC, Chicago and San Francisco were laid out. The growth of suburbs since WWII is a manifestation of people CHOOSING the type of living arrangements they want. The idea regulating building so as to force the use of mass transit is not only laughable, it should be repugnent

AMEN!! Anybody who wants to live like a rat in a box piled on top of other boxes and surrounded by other boxes, go ahead - it's a free country. I would prefer to have a single-family, single-level home on a 1/2-acre lot, but can't. I resent people who have an inflated opinion of their own intelligence trying to impose their opinions on me. If you think it's so great, dive on in, but leave me alone to do what I want to do.

[edblysard]

So,
How about it, Gary and Lincoln?

Would either one of you consider re-stating your original postings, in a manner that invites discussion as opposed to the "My way is the only way, and if you don’t like lit, lump it" style you employed before?

If so, I bet there are a lot of folks who would want to read what you find enjoyable about a "walkable" neighborhood.

I have lived in both a walkable neighborhood, and out in the Texas Hill country, and now live in a near town suburb of Houston, so I would like to hear your opinion on this, and how to fit the 3 million plus residents of Harris County in to a mass transit system.

Ed

[Junctionfan]

I have two feet and no money at the moment so everywhere is a potential walkable neighbourhood; I have the blood blisters to prove it.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard

So,
How about it, Gary and Lincoln?

Would either one of you consider re-stating your original postings, in a manner that invites discussion as opposed to the "My way is the only way, and if you don’t like lit, lump it" style you employed before?

I have real work to do at the moment, I may get back to this later if it's not beating a dead horse.

"better way to live" was the point of my first post. I really am amazed that sent people of into Gulag and prison cell flames.

The advantage of life in the ex-burbs is cheaper land and housing. People living at higher densities get smaller houses and less land for the money but life has much more to offer when much of what you need is nearby.

Children are an excuse for living in the exburbs and I don't buy that at all. They aren't safer from crime or traffic and they have to be driven everywhere. I grew up where I could go almost everywhere I wanted by walking or biking. I truly feel sorry for children who have to be driven everywhere.

I have to stop there. Flame on

[edblysard]

Well,
What I wrote about the Gulag was not a "flaming attack", merely pointing out the similarities between the huge housing projects and the labor cities in Russia.

As for driving my kids everywhere, one walks to school, one has graduated, and the youngest, at 6, isn’t allowed to walk, my wife drops her off.

And yes, kids are the best excuse for anything...they enjoy watching the meteor showers, listening to the night birds, and being able to sit on the front lawn and not be a victim of a drive by shooting.
And there is less traffic.

As is obvious from your reply, you intend to argue, instead of debate, your mind is closed to any idea beyond that.
Not worth pursuing this anymore, as you will contribute nothing but negative comments.

By the way, I grew up walking everywhere too, or riding my bike, living in the same burb house I live in now.
Actually went rabbit hunting in the fields where the Super Wal-Mart now sits.
It’s within walking distance...although I preferred the wooded field to the parking lot.

Ed

[Anonymous]

Thanks Edblysard. Here's what I said:

"We gotta have a civil rights movement for people who don't drive cars. Prohibit any new urban/suburban development that is not at least as accessible and functional for those who don't drive as it is for those who do! Period! Paragraph! Furthermore . . ."

Does that say that we shouldn't accommodate motorists? What's wrong with accommodating non-motorists in all the developed areas that accommodate motorists? Aren't we equal under the U.S. Constitution?

[Anonymous]

You dont have to live in a high density area to use or need commuter rail.
Much of chicago and the south shore was pastoral up until the 1960s.
MARC goes to West Virgina. Metro North Goes To Port Jervis. However you do need to have a Strong and Dence Downtown. I say we can save green space in the suburbs by concentrating our industry and buisneses downtown and have the residential in the Suburbs.Conect the first string suburbs by light rail. Heavy rail to the airport from the inner city and a heritage streetcar along the waterfront

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by lincoln5390

Thanks Edblysard. Here's what I said:

"We gotta have a civil rights movement for people who don't drive cars. Prohibit any new urban/suburban development that is not at least as accessible and functional for those who don't drive as it is for those who do! Period! Paragraph! Furthermore . . ."

Does that say that we shouldn't accommodate motorists? What's wrong with accommodating non-motorists in all the developed areas that accommodate motorists? Aren't we equal under the U.S. Constitution?

You have said that unless it fits these standards, it shouldn't be legal to build.

Mass transit is a greatly debated issue, I believe that if it works, i.e. makes money, someone will start one. Out where I live it would be silly, things out west have already spread out to far. Most people would have to walk many miles to downtown. If you can’t build a subdivision out in what used to be the country, nothing will be built.

The point of the gulag is that the government shouldn’t be able to tell you where you have to live, or force the building of certain types of buildings, the government zoning is just so loud factories don't get put next to houses, that is about it.

QUOTE: America has a frontier myth that real freedom is a 160 acre homestead where you can shoot pheasant for dinner. That’s not how most Americans live but too many try to fake it as urban cowboys or some comic book idea of a frontiersman.
If people would fess up that their lives are as soft as London hairdressers and learn a lifestyle that’s appropriate for metropolitan areas they might find civilization isn’t as bad as Ru***ells them it is.

Does this mean anything? Other than, if you listen to Rush, or don't think that mass transit would work and would use it, you are soft and should be ignored. I always thought Freedom was the ability to choose, where you live and how you live.

Americans don't want to walk for miles to wait for a train to go someplace, slower than driving due to extra stops, then walk some more. Then, once they are finished walk back to the station, and wait for a train to go home. You can only take what you can carry walking. Part of freedom is the right to be lazy, I agree it might work in some area's. But go out west, and see if you still think it would work, rail networks would need to be vast to reach any amount of businesses. A few years ago they thought about putting a mass transit system between Nampa and Boise, it wouldn't have worked, people want things done fast and they don't want to walk for miles. Not to mention the price of riding has to be cheaper than buying gas for your car.
James[C):-)]

[Paul Milenkovic]

At some level transportation is transportation and work is work, and there is enough drudgery to go around. There is this idea that America has too many cars, that if we had a rail network, we would be in the Promised Land. You can go to Japan, and they have a fine network of commuter rail, but a lot of people have to travel long distances on that to find housing they can afford, and while bumper-to-bumper traffic is no source of joy, being packed into commuter rail cars by "pushers" is no picnic either.

I had a chance to observe part of the Metra operation up close recently with a group of railroad, transit, and other interested people. It does a fine job of bringing people from rather distant suburbs into downtown Chicago. Randall O'Toole thinks Metra averages only 1/3 a freeway lane in ridership over its entire network, while the Metra people believe they are replacing 10's of billions of freeway construction to replace what they do.

Both people are right. Chicago is rather "underfreewayed" into its downtown, which is probably a good thing, and Metra definitely picks up the slack. Freeways don't do as well as 11 car trains of 150 passenger gallery cars, 10 times an hour during peak, at moving people. On the other hand, the freeways are getting "back hauls" the commuter lines don't see (looking out the train window I asked about a clog of traffic on the Kennedy going in the "reverse commute" direction). The reaction on the train was "those poor saps not taking the train" but my later reaction was "how come Metra isn't serving that market?"

The downtown is a vital place, and Metra serves it well (and CTA bus and transit lines taking city dwellers downtown and other places serve it even better), but the real action in job growth has been in the burbs. Metra serves 300,000 riders daily (perhaps 150,000 commuter round trips). That is 150,000 downtown jobs. Randall O'Toole tells me that the downtown lost jobs while the burbs gained 300,000 jobs during the 1990's. In other words, Metra serves 150,000 downtown workers, but 300,000 suburban workers had been added in 10 years without seeing any of the benefit.

In a practical sense, freeways are rather peak capacity limited, but overall they are carrying many more people than Metra because we are using the freeways in more directions over more hours and in more ways and while Metra does an indispensible service to the downtown during peak times, outside of the downtown, outside of peak, it is rather underutilized. It affects their cost structure -- I asked a Metra guy about the cost economics of a 2 million plus gallery car and he replied that the thing is only used two hours a day and while they last 40 years or more, their acquisition is "off operating budget" because they get capital grants to buy them outright without having to lease or otherwise expense train cars the way Amtrak does.

I am not saying that commuter rail, or light rail, or whatever can't work in smaller cities, but as far as transit goes, Metra has a major impact on the ability to get workers to the downtown, it wasn't built up in a day but over a 50-60 year period, it does a great job of what it was built to do, but there has been a whole other economy in Chicago building up outside the reach of Metra, and whether Metra reduces urban sprawl in any significant way is an open question. If you start building such lines in other places, you have to have a vision about what you are doing and realistic expectations about the outcome. Commuter rail is not a magic wand to return us to the pre-auto golden age.

[Anonymous]

Right, the trolleys of old went out of business for a reason. Here they did serve small towns, but people didn't have cars then.

[Anonymous]

Here's a website that daily posts links to news items and opinion on planning issues like density, etc.

http://www.planetizen.com/

Maybe it's better to check that out for help in reshaping or refining our positions. I'm probably more at fault than any of us for always dragging my opinions on urban planning into this forum. I'll try to do better in the future. Thanks for your patience.

[edblysard]

Actually, Lincoln,
That’s exactly what this forum is for, dragging issues into, so they can be discussed and debated, shaped and formed.
None of us has all the answers, and a lot of us want to hear and see the other side of issues.

It isn’t the issue that’s the problem; it’s the way it was presented.
As if the one side, and one opinion, were the only one.

You ended your original posting with "Period."

Which would seem to indicate you have no desire to discuss the issue anymore, because it seems your mind is made up on this?

Open, fun and spirited debate is great, it allows all of us a chance to present our opinions, have those opinions picked over by the other forum members, cut up and re assembled, and presented in several different ways.

It also allows each of us to better know the others, thorough their replies and opinions.
Some members take their opinions and themselves way to seriously, forgetting that this is supposed to be fun.
After all, we are not going to solve any world wide problems here, nor reshape American railroading, but we should be having fun discussing the things that interest us.

If you were to restate your position as an opinion, as opposed to making it a statement of fact, you will find a lot of people willing and wanting to explore why you have this opinion, and happy to offer their opinion.

Which will provide you with a lot of information you may not have had before, and a chance to see how you fellow forum members feel and think.

Note the attitude Gary has adopted, where he used sarcasm and insult to basically state his is the only way to live, and that he feels sorry for the rest of us that don’t agree with him.

While I would have loved to discuss that with him, and debate the merits of urban versus suburban living, mass transit as opposed to auto commuting, he has removed any chance of that, by closing the debate before it began, through the use of personal insults and sarcasms and his expression of pity for those of us that don’t agree with him.

He is right, and those that don’t agree with him are wrong.
Because he has "real work to do" he may or may not get back to this...
As if the rest of us have nothing close to real work...

I came to this forum for discussion, not one upmanship...

So his implied importance, not only of his "real" work, but of the appropriate lifestyle he espouses, make any discussion beyond his narrow viewpoint meaningless, to him at least.

In essence, he is looking to pick a fight, as opposed to having a discussion or a debate.

Because there are million of us that don’t live in densely populated urban areas, he just closed off any chance of hearing our reason for making that choice, and our ideas for making the commute to our jobs, and into our cities easier.

He loses the chance to discuss the proposed commuter light rail lines Metro has proposed here, the current route, which has fantastci ridership figures, and the routes they are developing, the inner and near city stations, park and ride pavilions, and the entire concept, because it appears he doesn’t think anything beyond his personal choice is correct .

His, and the forums loss.

Ed