QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare. You're still not reading very well. You were the one claiming to travel frequently between NYC and Chicago. Then state that the microjets will be serving smaller airports like an air taxi service. No, I'd say you're misreading. In the first paragraph, I say that in spite of your claim that rails are the answer to congestion, O'Hare is adding more runways. Then I go to a new subject by starting a new paragraph and say that microjets are a threat on the horizon (to Amtrak). Nowhere in the paragraph do I claim they will help me in my travels between New York and Chicago, as you think. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I still fail to see how these will help you, I never claimed that microjets will "help" me. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl ... and the fact remains that the small airports are small because the number of passengers using them are small. No matter how many flights you offer, without passengers wanting to use them, they'll be out of business in a short time. Yours is an opinion without backup data. Others, who are certainly more knowledgeable about the aviation industry, have put their money where their mouths are and have ordered the jets. The so called "back up data" is obvious. If more passengers wanted or needed to use these small airports, they would grow and wouldn't be small anymore. And I still fail to see how this is a threat to Amtrak? Airports aren't in downtown like train stations are. You have to factor in transport to and from the airport at each end of the trip, as well as the terminal and security time. Flights out of the smaller airports cost more than driving to the big ones and flying from there. Take Avoca or Allentown, PA for example. There goes the price advantage, even if they serve the same markets as Amtrak. It's not obvious to me. Opinion, conjecture, and argument are not the same as facts. I'd say the charter and taxi operators have a different line of reasoning, they think there's an untapped market for travel of 200 to 500 miles out there that's not served by Amtrak or the airlines. The taxi and charter operators might well have difficulties making microjets profitable, and some of them may well go bust, but the point is that Amtrak cannot offer a competitive model to random point-to-point service and offer the same frequency. Not surprised, it's obvious that the basics of business are beyond you. You can easily find the facts on why a given airport got big, lots of people used it and there was justification to enlarge it. Just like the O'Hare example you present above (adding runways, etc). If you take this fact, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to answer why airport "B" stayed small. "If you build it, they will come" only works in the movies. If you had been more organized in your arguments and offered some hard numbers or evidence to back them up, I could have shown you how breath-taking my ignorance can be! As was said before, you based your argument on a single article that several users pointed out how flawed it was. For example, just to take the part you cut-and-pasted, it didn't state that the poor were especially heavy users of any other form of transportation, either.
QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare. You're still not reading very well. You were the one claiming to travel frequently between NYC and Chicago. Then state that the microjets will be serving smaller airports like an air taxi service. No, I'd say you're misreading. In the first paragraph, I say that in spite of your claim that rails are the answer to congestion, O'Hare is adding more runways. Then I go to a new subject by starting a new paragraph and say that microjets are a threat on the horizon (to Amtrak). Nowhere in the paragraph do I claim they will help me in my travels between New York and Chicago, as you think. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I still fail to see how these will help you, I never claimed that microjets will "help" me. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl ... and the fact remains that the small airports are small because the number of passengers using them are small. No matter how many flights you offer, without passengers wanting to use them, they'll be out of business in a short time. Yours is an opinion without backup data. Others, who are certainly more knowledgeable about the aviation industry, have put their money where their mouths are and have ordered the jets. The so called "back up data" is obvious. If more passengers wanted or needed to use these small airports, they would grow and wouldn't be small anymore. And I still fail to see how this is a threat to Amtrak? Airports aren't in downtown like train stations are. You have to factor in transport to and from the airport at each end of the trip, as well as the terminal and security time. Flights out of the smaller airports cost more than driving to the big ones and flying from there. Take Avoca or Allentown, PA for example. There goes the price advantage, even if they serve the same markets as Amtrak. It's not obvious to me. Opinion, conjecture, and argument are not the same as facts. I'd say the charter and taxi operators have a different line of reasoning, they think there's an untapped market for travel of 200 to 500 miles out there that's not served by Amtrak or the airlines. The taxi and charter operators might well have difficulties making microjets profitable, and some of them may well go bust, but the point is that Amtrak cannot offer a competitive model to random point-to-point service and offer the same frequency. Not surprised, it's obvious that the basics of business are beyond you. You can easily find the facts on why a given airport got big, lots of people used it and there was justification to enlarge it. Just like the O'Hare example you present above (adding runways, etc). If you take this fact, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to answer why airport "B" stayed small. "If you build it, they will come" only works in the movies. If you had been more organized in your arguments and offered some hard numbers or evidence to back them up, I could have shown you how breath-taking my ignorance can be!
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare. You're still not reading very well. You were the one claiming to travel frequently between NYC and Chicago. Then state that the microjets will be serving smaller airports like an air taxi service. No, I'd say you're misreading. In the first paragraph, I say that in spite of your claim that rails are the answer to congestion, O'Hare is adding more runways. Then I go to a new subject by starting a new paragraph and say that microjets are a threat on the horizon (to Amtrak). Nowhere in the paragraph do I claim they will help me in my travels between New York and Chicago, as you think. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I still fail to see how these will help you, I never claimed that microjets will "help" me. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl ... and the fact remains that the small airports are small because the number of passengers using them are small. No matter how many flights you offer, without passengers wanting to use them, they'll be out of business in a short time. Yours is an opinion without backup data. Others, who are certainly more knowledgeable about the aviation industry, have put their money where their mouths are and have ordered the jets. The so called "back up data" is obvious. If more passengers wanted or needed to use these small airports, they would grow and wouldn't be small anymore. And I still fail to see how this is a threat to Amtrak? Airports aren't in downtown like train stations are. You have to factor in transport to and from the airport at each end of the trip, as well as the terminal and security time. Flights out of the smaller airports cost more than driving to the big ones and flying from there. Take Avoca or Allentown, PA for example. There goes the price advantage, even if they serve the same markets as Amtrak. It's not obvious to me. Opinion, conjecture, and argument are not the same as facts. I'd say the charter and taxi operators have a different line of reasoning, they think there's an untapped market for travel of 200 to 500 miles out there that's not served by Amtrak or the airlines. The taxi and charter operators might well have difficulties making microjets profitable, and some of them may well go bust, but the point is that Amtrak cannot offer a competitive model to random point-to-point service and offer the same frequency. Not surprised, it's obvious that the basics of business are beyond you. You can easily find the facts on why a given airport got big, lots of people used it and there was justification to enlarge it. Just like the O'Hare example you present above (adding runways, etc). If you take this fact, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to answer why airport "B" stayed small. "If you build it, they will come" only works in the movies.
QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare. You're still not reading very well. You were the one claiming to travel frequently between NYC and Chicago. Then state that the microjets will be serving smaller airports like an air taxi service. No, I'd say you're misreading. In the first paragraph, I say that in spite of your claim that rails are the answer to congestion, O'Hare is adding more runways. Then I go to a new subject by starting a new paragraph and say that microjets are a threat on the horizon (to Amtrak). Nowhere in the paragraph do I claim they will help me in my travels between New York and Chicago, as you think. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I still fail to see how these will help you, I never claimed that microjets will "help" me. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl ... and the fact remains that the small airports are small because the number of passengers using them are small. No matter how many flights you offer, without passengers wanting to use them, they'll be out of business in a short time. Yours is an opinion without backup data. Others, who are certainly more knowledgeable about the aviation industry, have put their money where their mouths are and have ordered the jets. The so called "back up data" is obvious. If more passengers wanted or needed to use these small airports, they would grow and wouldn't be small anymore. And I still fail to see how this is a threat to Amtrak? Airports aren't in downtown like train stations are. You have to factor in transport to and from the airport at each end of the trip, as well as the terminal and security time. Flights out of the smaller airports cost more than driving to the big ones and flying from there. Take Avoca or Allentown, PA for example. There goes the price advantage, even if they serve the same markets as Amtrak. It's not obvious to me. Opinion, conjecture, and argument are not the same as facts. I'd say the charter and taxi operators have a different line of reasoning, they think there's an untapped market for travel of 200 to 500 miles out there that's not served by Amtrak or the airlines. The taxi and charter operators might well have difficulties making microjets profitable, and some of them may well go bust, but the point is that Amtrak cannot offer a competitive model to random point-to-point service and offer the same frequency.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare. You're still not reading very well. You were the one claiming to travel frequently between NYC and Chicago. Then state that the microjets will be serving smaller airports like an air taxi service. No, I'd say you're misreading. In the first paragraph, I say that in spite of your claim that rails are the answer to congestion, O'Hare is adding more runways. Then I go to a new subject by starting a new paragraph and say that microjets are a threat on the horizon (to Amtrak). Nowhere in the paragraph do I claim they will help me in my travels between New York and Chicago, as you think. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I still fail to see how these will help you, I never claimed that microjets will "help" me. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl ... and the fact remains that the small airports are small because the number of passengers using them are small. No matter how many flights you offer, without passengers wanting to use them, they'll be out of business in a short time. Yours is an opinion without backup data. Others, who are certainly more knowledgeable about the aviation industry, have put their money where their mouths are and have ordered the jets. The so called "back up data" is obvious. If more passengers wanted or needed to use these small airports, they would grow and wouldn't be small anymore. And I still fail to see how this is a threat to Amtrak? Airports aren't in downtown like train stations are. You have to factor in transport to and from the airport at each end of the trip, as well as the terminal and security time. Flights out of the smaller airports cost more than driving to the big ones and flying from there. Take Avoca or Allentown, PA for example. There goes the price advantage, even if they serve the same markets as Amtrak.
QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare. You're still not reading very well. You were the one claiming to travel frequently between NYC and Chicago. Then state that the microjets will be serving smaller airports like an air taxi service. No, I'd say you're misreading. In the first paragraph, I say that in spite of your claim that rails are the answer to congestion, O'Hare is adding more runways. Then I go to a new subject by starting a new paragraph and say that microjets are a threat on the horizon (to Amtrak). Nowhere in the paragraph do I claim they will help me in my travels between New York and Chicago, as you think. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I still fail to see how these will help you, I never claimed that microjets will "help" me. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl ... and the fact remains that the small airports are small because the number of passengers using them are small. No matter how many flights you offer, without passengers wanting to use them, they'll be out of business in a short time. Yours is an opinion without backup data. Others, who are certainly more knowledgeable about the aviation industry, have put their money where their mouths are and have ordered the jets.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare. You're still not reading very well. You were the one claiming to travel frequently between NYC and Chicago. Then state that the microjets will be serving smaller airports like an air taxi service.
QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I still fail to see how these will help you,
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl ... and the fact remains that the small airports are small because the number of passengers using them are small. No matter how many flights you offer, without passengers wanting to use them, they'll be out of business in a short time.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside All this ignores a threat on the horizon, and I've mentioned this several times in this SIG, the onset of microjets, a new FAA category of airplane. Already several thousand have been ordered and will be used as air taxis between small city airports, which have plenty of capacity to spare. You're still not reading very well. You were the one claiming to travel frequently between NYC and Chicago. Then state that the microjets will be serving smaller airports like an air taxi service. No, I'd say you're misreading. In the first paragraph, I say that in spite of your claim that rails are the answer to congestion, O'Hare is adding more runways. Then I go to a new subject by starting a new paragraph and say that microjets are a threat on the horizon (to Amtrak). Nowhere in the paragraph do I claim they will help me in my travels between New York and Chicago, as you think. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl I still fail to see how these will help you, I never claimed that microjets will "help" me. QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl ... and the fact remains that the small airports are small because the number of passengers using them are small. No matter how many flights you offer, without passengers wanting to use them, they'll be out of business in a short time. Yours is an opinion without backup data. Others, who are certainly more knowledgeable about the aviation industry, have put their money where their mouths are and have ordered the jets. The so called "back up data" is obvious. If more passengers wanted or needed to use these small airports, they would grow and wouldn't be small anymore. And I still fail to see how this is a threat to Amtrak? Airports aren't in downtown like train stations are. You have to factor in transport to and from the airport at each end of the trip, as well as the terminal and security time. Flights out of the smaller airports cost more than driving to the big ones and flying from there. Take Avoca or Allentown, PA for example. There goes the price advantage, even if they serve the same markets as Amtrak. It's not obvious to me. Opinion, conjecture, and argument are not the same as facts. I'd say the charter and taxi operators have a different line of reasoning, they think there's an untapped market for travel of 200 to 500 miles out there that's not served by Amtrak or the airlines. The taxi and charter operators might well have difficulties making microjets profitable, and some of them may well go bust, but the point is that Amtrak cannot offer a competitive model to random point-to-point service and offer the same frequency. Not surprised, it's obvious that the basics of business are beyond you. You can easily find the facts on why a given airport got big, lots of people used it and there was justification to enlarge it. Just like the O'Hare example you present above (adding runways, etc). If you take this fact, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to answer why airport "B" stayed small. "If you build it, they will come" only works in the movies. If you had been more organized in your arguments and offered some hard numbers or evidence to back them up, I could have shown you how breath-taking my ignorance can be! As was said before, you based your argument on a single article that several users pointed out how flawed it was. For example, just to take the part you cut-and-pasted, it didn't state that the poor were especially heavy users of any other form of transportation, either. 1. They failed to refute the argument as far as I'm concerned. 2. If it's a matter of quoting source data or citing it, what's the matter with cut-and-pasting? It's better than retyping it. It's all a part of proper scholarship, but I doubt you understand what that means, since you don't even bother to cite your sources. Possibly because you don't have any, another indication of sloppy critical thinking. 3. The OP cites the use of the modes relative to each other not absolutely. I explained this also on page 2, post 6, "to the extent that they [the poor] do travel you can measure the relative effectiveness of the modes in meeting the travel needs of the public and that must include the poor". Try and comprehend that.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd "If you build it, they will come" only works in the movies.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd "If you build it, they will come" only works in the movies. Oh, really? 95% of all highway traffic is induced. Cities NEVER justify spending on airports because the old one was too crowded. They are ALWAYS looking at the economic development that comes with the new, induced traffic. (that's why there are no "for profit" airports or highways anywhere.) Rail mass transit also induces ridership, but bus routes do not. New sports stadia almost always have better attendence than the stadia they replaced, even when tickets cost more. Seems to me, "if you build it, they will come" works almost every time! (except for transit bus routes)
QUOTE: Originally posted by wsudem I ride Amtrak from Kelso to Portland. With Gas averaging $3 a gallon and my ol 72 chevy pick-up averaging 8.5 mpg when combining city and highway gas mileage, its cheaper to take an train, than to drive down to Portland
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd "If you build it, they will come" only works in the movies. Oh, really? 95% of all highway traffic is induced. Cities NEVER justify spending on airports because the old one was too crowded. They are ALWAYS looking at the economic development that comes with the new, induced traffic. (that's why there are no "for profit" airports or highways anywhere.) Rail mass transit also induces ridership, but bus routes do not. New sports stadia almost always have better attendence than the stadia they replaced, even when tickets cost more. Seems to me, "if you build it, they will come" works almost every time! (except for transit bus routes) Really? In this area, the interstate highway system didn't create new routes, it made popular ones faster to drive. Interstate 80 took a great load off NJ route 46 and increased the volume possible, it didn't "induce" anything except the possible shut down of the Lackawanna Cutoff. And how many of these large airports are over 100 miles from major population centers? This is where the congestion is because that's where the majority of people flying start or fini***heir air travel. There is research into the POTENTIAL for business. An advantage of the small airlines or bus systems is, if they don't make it in one location, they can start flying the planes out of another airport, or alter the route.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl ..."If you build it, they will come" only works in the movies. Oh, really? 95% of all highway traffic is induced. Cities NEVER justify spending on airports because the old one was too crowded. They are ALWAYS looking at the economic development that comes with the new, induced traffic. (that's why there are no "for profit" airports or highways anywhere.) Rail mass transit also induces ridership, but bus routes do not. New sports stadia almost always have better attendence than the stadia they replaced, even when tickets cost more. Seems to me, "if you build it, they will come" works almost every time! (except for transit bus routes) Really? In this area, the interstate highway system didn't create new routes, it made popular ones faster to drive. Interstate 80 took a great load off NJ route 46 and increased the volume possible, it didn't "induce" anything except the possible shut down of the Lackawanna Cutoff. And how many of these large airports are over 100 miles from major population centers? This is where the congestion is because that's where the majority of people flying start or fini***heir air travel. There is research into the POTENTIAL for business. An advantage of the small airlines or bus systems is, if they don't make it in one location, they can start flying the planes out of another airport, or alter the route. Induced travel is a fact. You add capacity and you get more traffic. Check this out: http://www.cts.cv.imperial.ac.uk/documents/publications/iccts00003.pdf Not only does induced travel exist, but it's predictable. If it's predictable, then how can you say something induced it? You're implying that rail transit systems are built on speculation. The taxpayers would never go for that. Or are you saying, for example, that the infamous Alaskan "Bridge to Nowhere" is actually going to induce enough traffic to make it worth while? What do predictions have to do with causation? Do weather predictions cause weather? Transit systems WERE and ARE built on speculaton. Most of the pre-1950 lines were built with private money by land speculators. The new ones built with public money are built with ridership estimates that include induction - not mere modal shift of exitsting trips. Will the AK br induce traffic? Of course. Enough to justify the expense? That's a whole 'nother question. Let's stick to one issue at a time!
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl ..."If you build it, they will come" only works in the movies. Oh, really? 95% of all highway traffic is induced. Cities NEVER justify spending on airports because the old one was too crowded. They are ALWAYS looking at the economic development that comes with the new, induced traffic. (that's why there are no "for profit" airports or highways anywhere.) Rail mass transit also induces ridership, but bus routes do not. New sports stadia almost always have better attendence than the stadia they replaced, even when tickets cost more. Seems to me, "if you build it, they will come" works almost every time! (except for transit bus routes) Really? In this area, the interstate highway system didn't create new routes, it made popular ones faster to drive. Interstate 80 took a great load off NJ route 46 and increased the volume possible, it didn't "induce" anything except the possible shut down of the Lackawanna Cutoff. And how many of these large airports are over 100 miles from major population centers? This is where the congestion is because that's where the majority of people flying start or fini***heir air travel. There is research into the POTENTIAL for business. An advantage of the small airlines or bus systems is, if they don't make it in one location, they can start flying the planes out of another airport, or alter the route. Induced travel is a fact. You add capacity and you get more traffic. Check this out: http://www.cts.cv.imperial.ac.uk/documents/publications/iccts00003.pdf Not only does induced travel exist, but it's predictable. If it's predictable, then how can you say something induced it? You're implying that rail transit systems are built on speculation. The taxpayers would never go for that. Or are you saying, for example, that the infamous Alaskan "Bridge to Nowhere" is actually going to induce enough traffic to make it worth while?
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl ..."If you build it, they will come" only works in the movies. Oh, really? 95% of all highway traffic is induced. Cities NEVER justify spending on airports because the old one was too crowded. They are ALWAYS looking at the economic development that comes with the new, induced traffic. (that's why there are no "for profit" airports or highways anywhere.) Rail mass transit also induces ridership, but bus routes do not. New sports stadia almost always have better attendence than the stadia they replaced, even when tickets cost more. Seems to me, "if you build it, they will come" works almost every time! (except for transit bus routes) Really? In this area, the interstate highway system didn't create new routes, it made popular ones faster to drive. Interstate 80 took a great load off NJ route 46 and increased the volume possible, it didn't "induce" anything except the possible shut down of the Lackawanna Cutoff. And how many of these large airports are over 100 miles from major population centers? This is where the congestion is because that's where the majority of people flying start or fini***heir air travel. There is research into the POTENTIAL for business. An advantage of the small airlines or bus systems is, if they don't make it in one location, they can start flying the planes out of another airport, or alter the route. Induced travel is a fact. You add capacity and you get more traffic. Check this out: http://www.cts.cv.imperial.ac.uk/documents/publications/iccts00003.pdf Not only does induced travel exist, but it's predictable.
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl ..."If you build it, they will come" only works in the movies. Oh, really? 95% of all highway traffic is induced. Cities NEVER justify spending on airports because the old one was too crowded. They are ALWAYS looking at the economic development that comes with the new, induced traffic. (that's why there are no "for profit" airports or highways anywhere.) Rail mass transit also induces ridership, but bus routes do not. New sports stadia almost always have better attendence than the stadia they replaced, even when tickets cost more. Seems to me, "if you build it, they will come" works almost every time! (except for transit bus routes) Really? In this area, the interstate highway system didn't create new routes, it made popular ones faster to drive. Interstate 80 took a great load off NJ route 46 and increased the volume possible, it didn't "induce" anything except the possible shut down of the Lackawanna Cutoff. And how many of these large airports are over 100 miles from major population centers? This is where the congestion is because that's where the majority of people flying start or fini***heir air travel. There is research into the POTENTIAL for business. An advantage of the small airlines or bus systems is, if they don't make it in one location, they can start flying the planes out of another airport, or alter the route.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl ..."If you build it, they will come" only works in the movies. Oh, really? 95% of all highway traffic is induced. Cities NEVER justify spending on airports because the old one was too crowded. They are ALWAYS looking at the economic development that comes with the new, induced traffic. (that's why there are no "for profit" airports or highways anywhere.) Rail mass transit also induces ridership, but bus routes do not. New sports stadia almost always have better attendence than the stadia they replaced, even when tickets cost more. Seems to me, "if you build it, they will come" works almost every time! (except for transit bus routes)
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl ..."If you build it, they will come" only works in the movies.
QUOTE: Originally posted by morseman Poor people don't ride the trains ??Several years ago my wife and I were unable to book a room on the Silver Star Philadelphia- Ft,Lauderdale as we were too late in getting a reservation. Had to travel by coach and there were plenty of poorer families travelling the complete distance. Across the aisle from us was a mother with three young children. Hew husband was fighting in Iraq. We thought we wouldn't get any sleep with her kids. Several times during the trip she would open he tote bag and pull out a loaf of bread & peanut butter for the kids. That's all they had the entire trip. At night they said their prayers and bundled up for the night. & we never hears a peep from them. Don't tell me poor people don't ride Amtrak. Isolated incident?? Whenever we take the Silver Star we usually take a stroll thru the coaches to see how the other half of the world lives and the coaches are uusually full of similar folks.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd "If you build it, they will come" only works in the movies. Oh, really? 95% of all highway traffic is induced. Cities NEVER justify spending on airports because the old one was too crowded. They are ALWAYS looking at the economic development that comes with the new, induced traffic. (that's why there are no "for profit" airports or highways anywhere.) Rail mass transit also induces ridership, but bus routes do not. New sports stadia almost always have better attendence than the stadia they replaced, even when tickets cost more. Seems to me, "if you build it, they will come" works almost every time! (except for transit bus routes) Really? In this area, the interstate highway system didn't create new routes, it made popular ones faster to drive. Interstate 80 took a great load off NJ route 46 and increased the volume possible, it didn't "induce" anything except the possible shut down of the Lackawanna Cutoff. And how many of these large airports are over 100 miles from major population centers? This is where the congestion is because that's where the majority of people flying start or fini***heir air travel. There is research into the POTENTIAL for business. An advantage of the small airlines or bus systems is, if they don't make it in one location, they can start flying the planes out of another airport, or alter the route. Induced travel is a fact. You add capacity and you get more traffic. Check this out: http://www.cts.cv.imperial.ac.uk/documents/publications/iccts00003.pdf Not only does induced travel exist, but it's predictable.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd "Field of Dreams". Large traffic jam shown in the pull-back shot at the end of the movie. http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd Tom- Conversing with you is like being trapped in that Monty Python sketch!
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside Induced Demand An example of induced demand in action: the Internet and the World-Wide-Web What some transportation experts say about induced demand (click) Extracts:
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside Induced Demand An example of induced demand in action: the Internet and the World-Wide-Web What some transportation experts say about induced demand (click) Extracts: Of course all of those are in or near established population centers. None are in the middle of a midwest cornfield like the source of the movie quote.
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl QUOTE: Originally posted by eastside Induced Demand An example of induced demand in action: the Internet and the World-Wide-Web What some transportation experts say about induced demand (click) Extracts: Of course all of those are in or near established population centers. None are in the middle of a midwest cornfield like the source of the movie quote. An earlier TD quote: "You're implying that rail transit systems are built on speculation. " Rail transit is ALWAYS near population centers. So, you no longer deny that induced traffic does occur near population centers?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.