Traffic Cincinnati We need Light Rail!!!!!

[Wilson513]

Originally Posted by motorman

More input from Cincy's Brother from Another Planet... (Taking names later.)
_____________________
(A) EAST BOUND, I-275

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqCorFCrjNA
______________________
(B) SOUTH BOUND, I-75

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rigkwv8zshI

I watched your video which show an incredible fast trip south traversing 16000 feet in less than 5:03 through the most congested spot in Cincinnati, not withstanding childish histrionics that most commuters would find laughable. And, a few speed variations from other people likely texting or otherwise distracted.

But, an average speed of 52 fps or about 40 mph including braking and even a couple of stops.

My point proven.

[motorman]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

I watched your video which show an incredible fast trip south traversing 16000 feet in less than 5:03 through the most congested spot in Cincinnati, not withstanding childish histrionics that most commuters would find laughable. And, a few speed variations from other people likely texting or otherwise distracted.

But, an average speed of 52 fps or about 40 mph including braking and even a couple of stops.

My point proven.

Not so fast!

The only thing proven was that your exacting tabulations were made from the wrong lane. Now, back up and view the video again - only this time focus on a vehicle headed towards the Brent Spence Bridge...

My point proven.

[jmecklenborg]

How fast do cars travel in garages and parking lots? What about time at gas stations and getting oil changes and other maintenance?

[Chemistry_Guy]

The premise of this thread is such a poorly thought out failure that I am surprised to see the usual transit advocates hitching their horses to it, so to speak. There are many reasons to advocate for increased investment in public transit (and some I even agree with). There is the egalitarian argument that poor, disabled, and elderly people are effectively prohibited from working in certain areas because of their inability to physically get there. There is an environmental argument that the byproducts of burning hydrocarbons are damaging our health and the ecological pathways that we depend on for food and clean water. There is even a public health argument that driving is relatively dangerous, and that people are more likely to die in transit than they are at work, even in traditionally hazardous occupations. I'm happy to debate these arguments in terms of individual vs collective benefits responsibilities and realism vs pragmatism, but that is not the direction this thread has been headed.

The argument that when a person choosing to live in the distant exurbs (outside of 275) is forced to handle several minutes of delay during a major construction project constitutes a reason for ripping a path through the city and building a train is a pure trainwreck of logic that runs counter to the "pro transit" arguments that actually make sense. When the pro-transit argument in a city with the density and commuting patterns of Cincinnati becomes "bad traffic", it is a sign that future transit initiatives are doomed to failure.

[Briolat21]

Originally Posted by Chemistry_Guy

The premise of this thread is such a poorly thought out failure that I am surprised to see the usual transit advocates hitching their horses to it, so to speak. There are many reasons to advocate for increased investment in public transit (and some I even agree with). There is the egalitarian argument that poor, disabled, and elderly people are effectively prohibited from working in certain areas because of their inability to physically get there. There is an environmental argument that the byproducts of burning hydrocarbons are damaging our health and the ecological pathways that we depend on for food and clean water. There is even a public health argument that driving is relatively dangerous, and that people are more likely to die in transit than they are at work, even in traditionally hazardous occupations. I'm happy to debate these arguments in terms of individual vs collective benefits responsibilities and realism vs pragmatism, but that is not the direction this thread has been headed.

The argument that when a person choosing to live in the distant exurbs (outside of 275) is forced to handle several minutes of delay during a major construction project constitutes a reason for ripping a path through the city and building a train is a pure trainwreck of logic that runs counter to the "pro transit" arguments that actually make sense. When the pro-transit argument in a city with the density and commuting patterns of Cincinnati becomes "bad traffic", it is a sign that future transit initiatives are doomed to failure.

Thank you. That was a much more eloquent summation than I could manage, but was one of the things I was trying to get at.

There are reasons for public transit.

Occasional congestion on the freeways (the worst of which being the 2x daily "rush hour" periods) isn't a particularly strong one.

[Kamms]

Originally Posted by Wilson513

I watched your video which show an incredible fast trip south traversing 16000 feet in less than 5:03 through the most congested spot in Cincinnati, not withstanding childish histrionics that most commuters would find laughable. And, a few speed variations from other people likely texting or otherwise distracted.

But, an average speed of 52 fps or about 40 mph including braking and even a couple of stops.

My point proven.

LOL...I watched the videos...LOL...this is the reason for light-rail...LOL.

That's rush hour? That guy is having a hissy fit...the best is in the 2nd video when that car ''cuts him off'' (or what he calls being cut-off).

This can't be a serious argument for a light-rail system.

[Yac]

This thread is going nowhere constructive.
Closed.
Yac.