[thenbagis]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

That, to me, is the most absurd thing I've ever heard...

Decrease in traffic, as in automobile traffic? In my opinion, you're always going to have high traffic. Public transportation, especially commuter rail or even BRT can provide a bypass around the bottlenecks.

So by that logic, the Schuylkill Expressway should be empty because of the R5 and R6 lines.

Then we need to fix our funding mechanisms or develop new ones; ones that leave out the effects on the automobile...

So, apparently I was kind of wrong. The federal funding mechanism used to heavily favor hours saved by commuters. Supposedly this was changed in 2010.

US Government Plans Overhaul of New Start Funding Guidelines, Reducing Importance of Cost-Effectiveness
Yonah Freemark January 13th, 2010
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/...ducing-importance-of-cost-effectiveness/

“The cost-benefit analysis is heavily biased towards the number of annual hours commuters will save by using the new transit system. This means that people who already have longer commutes are seen as more valuable for the FTA than those who choose to live in in-town locations with shorter distances between their residences and workplaces. As a result, transit networks are encouraged to extend out into the suburbs, rather than be densified and reinforced downtown.“

(the quoted part was the part I remembered and based my opinion on service to West Chester)