More on the psychology of light railI've been struggling this week to find time to respond to Tom Kirkendall's thoughtful post earlier this week on my psychology of light rail musings, and I've finally found it on a quiet Saturday morning. He raises three very valid concerns:
- The distortions caused by simple yes-no voting, when the results might be very different if an array of options were available (an example of where instant runoff voting would be very useful).
- Even though the feds cover much of the capital costs of rail, we're locally stuck with the high operating costs, which, in turn...
- ...has already forced Metro to cut back some bus routes and it may have to cut others in the future, regardless of the promises in the referendum.
Further down below the post is an interesting comment by AMac, who talks about the difficulties of fitting mass transit into the demands of modern life:
"I am a middle-age, middle-class guy, who for years commuted to downtown Baltimore, a city served (if that's the word) by both busses and light rail. Erratic and long hours made carpooling impractical. Yet day-care dropoff and pickup responsibilities made certain arrival and departure times non-negotiable. This combination, and it's hardly uncommon, makes most public transportation commutes pretty undesirable from a-quality-of-life point of view."
That is the great challenge of transit in a nutshell.