Article on Mass Insurance Reform
Tom Carlson
Massachusetts has held the dubious distinction of leading the
nation in car policy claims for more than 20 years. Finding out
why is becoming more urgent as state officials start changing the
auto insurance system
....
Why are Massachusetts drivers so bad?
"The question is taking on new urgency now as state officials
begin efforts to revamp the Massachusetts auto insurance system.
One of the chief reasons the average premium in Massachusetts
costs more than $1,000 a year is the fact that drivers here file
more auto insurance claims than anyone else in the country.
Getting to the root of the problem -- the key to finding a way to
improve the situation -- is not so easy. Based on interviews with
highway safety, insurance, and law enforcement officials, there
is no single cause for the high level of accidents here. It
appears to be a combination of unusually aggressive drivers,
periodic bad weather, lax law enforcement, insurance fraud, and
too many cars being driven on an antiquated and confusing road
system."
Boston Globe
http://tinyurl.com/2fzfy
Tom Carlson
E.R.
none other than Tom Carlson:
>Getting to the root of the problem -- the key to finding a way to
>improve the situation -- is not so easy. Based on interviews with
>highway safety, insurance, and law enforcement officials, there
>is no single cause for the high level of accidents here. It
>appears to be a combination of unusually aggressive drivers,
Anyone who's spent any time in Boston knows that... ;}
--
E.R. aka S.J.G. aka Ricardo - Xlate & correct for e-mail reply
'91 mx6gt, white, 5sp MT, V1, CB
RJ
Interesting paragraph:
Four of the top 20 crash sites were rotaries or circles. The state has
already eliminated three of the rotaries in the top 20 and would like to
eliminate all 70 in Massachusetts, even though they are making a
comeback in a handful of other states where officials are convinced they
promote safety by forcing drivers to slow down.
Tom Carlson
RJ wrote:
I"m not convinced all traffic circles (aka "rotaries) are a problem.
However the Massachusetts implementation of traffic circles is horrible.
Horrible. Vast pieces of tarmac with no markings. No lanes painted, no
yield lines, poor signage. If they fixed that, many of the circles would
become quite viable. Others don't work due to unequal amounts of traffic
entering from them from various directions.
Dave C.
> Interesting paragraph:
>
> Four of the top 20 crash sites were rotaries or circles. The state has
> already eliminated three of the rotaries in the top 20 and would like to
> eliminate all 70 in Massachusetts, even though they are making a
> comeback in a handful of other states where officials are convinced they
> promote safety by forcing drivers to slow down.
I have yet to see a masshole slow down for a rotary, unless traffic is
already backed up approaching the rotary. The locals handle a rotary as if
it is a straight-through stretch of roadway with a slight "S" curve in the
middle of it. That's regardless of yield signs or even RED traffic signals.
If they feel their car can handle the rotary "curves" at speed, they don't
lift up on the throttle at all. So the officials from that "handful of
other states" probably are not familiar with the way rotaries really work,
if they think it forces drivers to slow down. The only way a rotary can do
that is if it causes an UNNECESSARY traffic tie-up. In other words, back up
traffic for miles by installing a rotary just to make a few drivers slow
down. What a plan. -Dave
Dave C.
Why are premiums so high? Could it have anything to do with the fact that
there are only about three insurance carries SELLING car insurance in MA,
and all but one of them are planning to STOP selling insurance in MA soon???
Can we spell monopoly?
Unusually aggressive drivers is an understatement. But if that was the only
cause, accidents rates would be much higher in CT than MA. I'm used to
mixing with the massholes, it is the CT drivers that scare the shit out of
me, though.
Lax law enforcement? I guess they are not counting speeding enforcement.
There are many more speed traps per mile of road in MA than there are in any
of the surrounding states. And I do drive ALL of the surrounding states.
But if you take road usage tax (ie speeding fine) collection out of the
equation, then law enforcement is indeed non-existent in the state of MA.
Antiquated and confusing road system? Yeah, I guess that's right. MA is
the only state I've ever seen with flashing green traffic signals. If you
don't know what flashing green means, don't worry about it. To the local
drivers, green, yellow and red are all the same anyway. They all equate to
"FLOOR IT". MA is also the only state I've ever driven where street (name)
signs seem to be illegal. If you don't already know where you are going in
MA, you are guaranteed to get lost, as you will never even know what street
you are on. -Dave
Dave C.
> entering from them from various directions.
>
You've just described every rotary in the state of MA. They all have one
main through road interrupted by many side roads. They would all work
better if they were replaced with a regular intersection controlled with a
traffic signal timed to greatly favor the main road. -Dave
Shawn Hearn
Tom Carlson <tom.carlson@_hh.cell> wrote:
> State of bad drivers
>
> Massachusetts has held the dubious distinction of leading the
> nation in car policy claims for more than 20 years. Finding out
> why is becoming more urgent as state officials start changing the
> auto insurance system
> ....
> Why are Massachusetts drivers so bad?
I don't think MA drivers are any worse than drivers in any other
state. The problem with MA is the terrible road system the drivers there
have to contend with. Even after most of the Big Dig has been completed,
driving in MA is like finding your way around in a maze.
I have driven in many areas across the country and MA takes the cake as
the most confusing of them all, including Washington DC, New York, Los
Angeles, Philadelphia, Salt Lake City, Miami, and other cities where
I have driven over the past few years.
Just a few months ago when i was up in a suburban Boston town for a week
of computer software training, I asked the instructor one day how I
could drive to the nearest train station to take the train into Boston
for a few hours after class. I got to the train station fine by
following the instructor's directions, but the signs in the area were so
darned confusing, I couldn't find the entrance to the parking garagage
at the train station. I found the station just fine, but figuring out
where to go in order to park for a few hours was a nightmare. One sign
said to go one way to th parking garage entrance than when I get there,
another sign says the garage is closed and to use the "main entrance"
sso I drive in the direction that sign points to, and I get to the main
entrance and there are huge signs saying "do not enter" on every orifice
of the parking garage building, except for the one where it said the
entrance was closed. i asked a couple of passers by and they had no clue.
Than two days later after class, i decided just to drive into Boston
myself instead of dealing with the local regional rail system. No
problem. I took the Mass Pike (or whatever it was called) to get there
and I had no problem parking. I have been to Boston many times. Than
when I was ready to leave after spending some time walking around and
eating dinner, I try to retrace my steps to get back to the Mass pike,
and I ended up lost for well over an hour doing something that would
have been trivial to do in most any other city; getting on a major
highway. I stopped three times at different gas stations to ask how to
get on the Mass Pike, and only on the third try did I get directions
that actually worked.
Driving in MA is a nightmare I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. The way
to improve the number of accidents in MA is to make the road system
comprehensible to mear mortals.
Shawn Hearn
Tom Carlson <tom.carlson@_hh.cell> wrote:
I am. I live in NJ in an area where there are (were) many traffic
circles. Every one of those circles is slated to be redesigned into
a different pattern; every one. Fortunately for me, the first traffic
circle to receive that treatment is the one that's nearest to where I
live.
Mike Helm
But speed enforcement has little to do with safety. Red light
enforcement would be more effective at reducing accidents.
Tom Carlson
Shawn Hearn wrote:
Right. Then you go to someplace normal and circles/roundabouts work fine. Like
all over Europe. In France, a lot of traffic lights have been removed in small
towns in the last few years and replaced with roundabouts. Traffic flows much
better and there is no stopping for a light. It works because they are well
designed and extremely well marked. How many times have you seen a yield line
in Massachusetts?
Just what NJ needs is more 5 minute red lights.
NJ isn't much better than Massachusetts.
Tom Carlson
"Dave C." wrote:
I disagree. Replacing yield signs with red lights isn't going to make traffic
flow better. But improving the circles with standardized markings, yield
lines, and signs would. Bad implementation!=bad technique.
Hugo S. Cunningham
I saw rotaries work very efficiently in low-traffic areas in Ireland
where we might put up a four-way stop sign. Often, the "rotary" was
nothing more than a pole planted in the middle of an intersection.
The advantage is that nobody has to stop unless there actually is
cross traffic. One would, however, need vigorous enforcement of lower
speed limits approaching and entering a rotary, as well as
right-of-way rules. Massachusetts is not noted for traffic
enforcement.
--Hugo S. Cunningham
E.R.
>Why are premiums so high? Could it have anything to do with the fact that
>there are only about three insurance carries SELLING car insurance in MA,
>and all but one of them are planning to STOP selling insurance in MA soon???
>Can we spell monopoly?
A monopoly is just fine, so long as the government is controlling
it. Mandatory auto in$urance is, by definition, not a free market,
so a perfectly competitive private-corporation model (ideal free
market) is unattainable.
>Unusually aggressive drivers is an understatement.
Yup, I know Boston. :}
>Antiquated and confusing road system? Yeah, I guess that's right. MA is
>the only state I've ever seen with flashing green traffic signals. If you
>don't know what flashing green means, don't worry about it.
If it is referring to a "pelican" type Xwalk, good on you guys! ;}
>To the local drivers, green, yellow and red are all the same anyway.
Yup, I know Boston! ;}
>They all equate to "FLOOR IT".
Yup, I know Boston! ;}
>MA is also the only state I've ever driven where street (name)
>signs seem to be illegal. If you don't already know where you are going in
>MA, you are guaranteed to get lost, as you will never even know what street
>you are on. -Dave
Aww, c'mon Dave, you've already expressed familiarity with this
neck of the woods; many councils here are too cheapskate to erect
signs that you can actually see from more than 10 metres away, so
if you are not sure whether or not your turn is coming up, you're
virtually guaranteed to miss it, or otherwise are obligated to
make some crazy reckless last-second threshold braking maneuver
and, uhhh, test the limits of traction in the intersection that
you realize is the one you wish to turn into only when you're
right up on it. But they drive like that in Boston anyway. ;}
E.R.
>Than two days later after class, i decided just to drive into Boston
Brave soul...
>myself instead of dealing with the local regional rail system.
Which is actually far far better than anything here.
>Driving in MA is a nightmare I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. The way
>to improve the number of accidents in MA is to make the road system
>comprehensible to mear mortals.
Takes note: best not to drive in MA. They do have public transit
there though, including Amtrak, so it's not absolutely *essential*
to be driving in that general area (though folks have said there
are few transport links if you wish to travel to RI). Assuming I'm
even admissible to the U.S. in the first place - it's been years
since I was last there - I have vague plans for a stay in the
NY/CT/MA area, for sure. But I already knew better than to
consider driving there! ;}
David S Chesler
> Interesting paragraph:
>
> Four of the top 20 crash sites were rotaries or circles. The state has
> already eliminated three of the rotaries in the top 20 and would like to
> eliminate all 70 in Massachusetts
There are only 70 rotaries in the Commonwealth?
--
- David Chesler <che...@post.harvard.edu>
http://www.geocities.com/chesler.geo/rotary/index.html
Todd N. Verklarung
> re_jo...@hotmail.com (RJ) wrote in message
> news:<1gema4e.1t795lw1r5y90mN%re_jo...@hotmail.com>...
>> Interesting paragraph:
>>
>> Four of the top 20 crash sites were rotaries or circles. The state
>> has already eliminated three of the rotaries in the top 20 and would
>> like to eliminate all 70 in Massachusetts
>
> There are only 70 rotaries in the Commonwealth?
No, silly; there are 70 rotaries in the top 20.
Todd(n.t)
Dan Peltier
> State of bad drivers
>
> Massachusetts has held the dubious distinction of leading the
> nation in car policy claims for more than 20 years. Finding out
> why is becoming more urgent as state officials start changing the
> auto insurance system
> ....
> Why are Massachusetts drivers so bad?
Something popped out at me while I was reading:
"Massachusetts has led the nation in auto insurance claims for at least
two decades. In 2002, according to figures supplied by the Insurance
Research Council, 7.2 property damage liability claims were filed per
100 insured cars in Massachusetts, well above the national average of 4.1."
"Adjusting for the number of miles driven, road fatalities here
are the second-lowest in the nation, behind Vermont."
Is it possible that the average insured auto in Massachusetts just
gets driven farther each year than the average insured auto in
other states? In other words, what is the "claims per road mile",
and how does it differ from other states?
On the other hand, lower fatalities means that traffic is
moving at lower speeds, which means there's greater traffic
congestion. In that case, it makes sense that we have more accidents
but fewer fatalities, and "bad drivers" don't necessarily have much
to do with it.
Dan
David S Chesler
> >> Four of the top 20 crash sites were rotaries or circles. The state
> >> has already eliminated three of the rotaries in the top 20 and would
> >> like to eliminate all 70 in Massachusetts
> >
> > There are only 70 rotaries in the Commonwealth?
>
> No, silly; there are 70 rotaries in the top 20.
D'oh!
Bill Duncan
Rt.9.
"David S Chesler" <che...@post.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:3e64214a.04060...@posting.google.com...
Rozzie
<william...@fmr.com> wrote:
> I thought this number a bit low - I can hit 4 just going from Roslindale to
> Rt.9.
Every time I hear about the plot to get rid of rotaries, I think of
these rotaries on the West Roxbury Parkway and hope they never
disappear. These are rotaries the way they are supposed to be, big
with plenty of room to maneuver, a fairly equal traffic load, with nice
greenery in the middle. These rotaries create a civilized slowdown on
major roads that would otherwise be speedways.
The only real trouble spot is at VFW Parkway and West Roxbury Parkway,
where the southbound VFW traffic often has the illusion that they have
the right of way no matter what. It's a favorite haunt for the State
Police.
I'm 100% sure that traffic lights would cause more backups and a slower
trip for all concerned. There would be the need for left turn lanes,
long and confusing light cycles, and one of Boston's easiest drives
would turn into another traffic mess.
Mitsguy2001
>From: "Dave C." mdu...@sff.net
>Date: 5/31/2004 8:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <2i0obgF...@uni-berlin.de>
I don't think that is true. Rhode Island is BY FAR the worst. Rhode Island
has rural freeways with 40 MPH speed limits that are very strictly enforced.
And Rhode Island has major arterials with a 25 MPH speed limit that are very
strictly enforced. I mean, strict as in they give a ticket if you are doing 1
MPH above the speed limit. Massachusetts is nowhere near that ridiculous.
Mitsguy2001
>Date: 6/1/2004 3:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ancob0pt9q837gp7u...@4ax.com>
>
>And so it panned out that the following script was sculpted by
>none other than Dave C.:
>
>>Why are premiums so high? Could it have anything to do with the fact that
>>there are only about three insurance carries SELLING car insurance in MA,
>>and all but one of them are planning to STOP selling insurance in MA soon???
>>Can we spell monopoly?
>
>A monopoly is just fine, so long as the government is controlling
>it. Mandatory auto in$urance is, by definition, not a free market,
>so a perfectly competitive private-corporation model (ideal free
>market) is unattainable.
>
>>Unusually aggressive drivers is an understatement.
>
>Yup, I know Boston. :}
>
>>Antiquated and confusing road system? Yeah, I guess that's right. MA is
>>the only state I've ever seen with flashing green traffic signals. If you
>>don't know what flashing green means, don't worry about it.
>
>If it is referring to a "pelican" type Xwalk, good on you guys! ;}
What is a "pelican" type crosswalk?
Mitsguy2001
>From: E.R. red_star...@email.kom
>Message-id: <7gdob0tnktepsb04g...@4ax.com>
>
>And so it panned out that the following script was sculpted by
>none other than Shawn Hearn:
>
>>Than two days later after class, i decided just to drive into Boston
>
>Brave soul...
>
>>myself instead of dealing with the local regional rail system.
>
>Which is actually far far better than anything here.
>
>>Driving in MA is a nightmare I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. The way
>>to improve the number of accidents in MA is to make the road system
>>comprehensible to mear mortals.
>
>Takes note: best not to drive in MA. They do have public transit
>there though, including Amtrak, so it's not absolutely *essential*
>to be driving in that general area
But it is useless outside of Boston.
>(though folks have said there
>are few transport links if you wish to travel to RI).
That's an understatement.
Unless you plan on staying only in Boston, and never leaving Boston, ever, you
need a car. The same goes for any other place in the US.
John S
Mitsguy2001 wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Article on Mass Insurance Reform
> >From: E.R. red_star...@email.kom
> >Date: 6/1/2004 3:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <7gdob0tnktepsb04g...@4ax.com>
> >
> >And so it panned out that the following script was sculpted by
> >none other than Shawn Hearn:
> >
> >>Than two days later after class, i decided just to drive into Boston
> >
> >Brave soul...
> >
> >>myself instead of dealing with the local regional rail system.
> >
> >Which is actually far far better than anything here.
> >
> >>Driving in MA is a nightmare I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. The way
> >>to improve the number of accidents in MA is to make the road system
> >>comprehensible to mear mortals.
> >
> >Takes note: best not to drive in MA. They do have public transit
> >there though, including Amtrak, so it's not absolutely *essential*
> >to be driving in that general area
>
> But it is useless outside of Boston.
Actually, MBTA trains go west to Worcester, north to Lowell, Haverill, and
Rockport, and south to Providence among other places outside of Boston. The
Lowell area, like other areas also runs its own bus lines. Long distance trains
also serve points north, west, and south.
John F. Carr
Rozzie <rozzi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <Ui1vc.511$Mn....@news-srv1.fmr.com>, Bill Duncan
><william...@fmr.com> wrote:
>
>> I thought this number a bit low - I can hit 4 just going from Roslindale to
>> Rt.9.
>
>Every time I hear about the plot to get rid of rotaries, I think of
>these rotaries on the West Roxbury Parkway and hope they never
>disappear. These are rotaries the way they are supposed to be, big
>with plenty of room to maneuver, a fairly equal traffic load, with nice
>greenery in the middle. These rotaries create a civilized slowdown on
>major roads that would otherwise be speedways.
I think traffic speed would be similar. There is already room to
get up to cruising speed (average 40-42 MPH). Off-peak delay is
lower with a rotary than a signal. I don't know about rush hour.
>The only real trouble spot is at VFW Parkway and West Roxbury Parkway,
>where the southbound VFW traffic often has the illusion that they have
>the right of way no matter what. It's a favorite haunt for the State
>Police.
That's where the short limited access parkways turns back into
urban street with intersections and driveways. Southbound
drivers probably feel they deserve the right of way coming
off such an important road.
Here's the layout:
<http://ortho.mit.edu/nsdi/seamless6.cgi?zoom=2&x0=229440&y0=894048&action=zoomin&pwidth=500&pheight=400&x=161&y=190>
Do you think changing the geometry of the southbound approach
would help? (Globally southbound is locally northwest; enters
from right edge of picture.)
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
John W Gintell
<tom.carlson@_hh.cell> wrote:
Improved signage and lane markings would go a long way to improving the
situation and wouldn't be overly expensive. Mass has the worst signage of
any place I've ever been in the US or in Europe. Bad signage and lane
markings leads to confusion, bad driving incidents, and bad driving habits.
For example, people cross over at the last minute to make a turn because
there was no sign, or they couldn't see it until they got to the
intersection.
Some examples, There is a spot on inbound Soldier's field road where there
are 3 lanes on one side of the intersection and 2 on the otherside with no
warnings. Many places the lane markings peter out and then suddenly there is
a different number of lanes. Going east from Harvard Sq through the
underpass the sign that shows where Kirkland St, Cambridge St, and Broadway
are isn't visible until it is too late. Coming into Cambridge from Route 2
there are no signs telling people what the road names are or even that you
are in Cambridge. At the first rotary there are no Concord Ave signs in
either direction. In Inman Sq there are signs saying it is Calnan Sq, and
two other commemorative square names, but other than the bus stop there are
no Inman Sq signs and the street signs are hard to read.
Rozzie
Carr <j...@mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <020620042107330820%rozzi...@hotmail.com>,
> Rozzie <rozzi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >The only real trouble spot is at VFW Parkway and West Roxbury Parkway,
> >where the southbound VFW traffic often has the illusion that they have
> >the right of way no matter what. It's a favorite haunt for the State
> >Police.
>
> Here's the layout:
>
> <http://ortho.mit.edu/nsdi/seamless6.cgi?zoom=2&x0=229440&y0=894048&action=zoo
> min&pwidth=500&pheight=400&x=161&y=190>
> Do you think changing the geometry of the southbound approach
> would help? (Globally southbound is locally northwest; enters
> from right edge of picture.)
Southbound VFW Parkway drivers definitely get less of a view of the
rotary. I think you have identified part of the problem, that the
angle leads them to believe the rotary is a continuation of their road.
If they connected with the rotary at more of a right angle, that would
improve things.
Also they could cut down some trees on the right side of the road to
improve visibility of the upcoming rotary. When I'm approaching the
rotary from that direction, I can see why drivers may fail to yield.
Mitsguy2001
>Date: 6/3/2004 12:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <40BEA43F...@no.spam>
>
>
>
>Mitsguy2001 wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: Article on Mass Insurance Reform
>> >From: E.R. red_star...@email.kom
>> >Date: 6/1/2004 3:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: <7gdob0tnktepsb04g...@4ax.com>
>> >
>> >And so it panned out that the following script was sculpted by
>> >none other than Shawn Hearn:
>> >
>> >>Than two days later after class, i decided just to drive into Boston
>> >
>> >Brave soul...
>> >
>> >>myself instead of dealing with the local regional rail system.
>> >
>> >Which is actually far far better than anything here.
>> >
>> >>Driving in MA is a nightmare I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. The way
>> >>to improve the number of accidents in MA is to make the road system
>> >>comprehensible to mear mortals.
>> >
>> >Takes note: best not to drive in MA. They do have public transit
>> >there though, including Amtrak, so it's not absolutely *essential*
>> >to be driving in that general area
>>
>> But it is useless outside of Boston.
>
>Actually, MBTA trains go west to Worcester, north to Lowell, Haverill, and
>Rockport,
First of all, the Commuter Rail does not run very frequently. Secondly, there
is very little that is walking distance from most Commuter Rail stops, and you
need a car to get anywhere.
>and south to Providence among other places outside of Boston.
The train to Providence runs only during weekday rush hour, and is otherwise
useless.
>The
>Lowell area, like other areas also runs its own bus lines.
But that's not useful to get outside of Lowell.
>Long distance trains
>also serve points north, west, and south.
By long distance, you mean Amtrak. Amtrak trains run VERY infrequently, and
are VERY unreliable, and are basically useless.
John S
Mitsguy2001 wrote:
It runs frequently when people are commuting. I use the train all the time
without a car at either end.
>
>
> >and south to Providence among other places outside of Boston.
>
> The train to Providence runs only during weekday rush hour, and is otherwise
> useless.
Amtrak trains run 7 days a week. Similar situation exists with MARC trains
between Baltimore and Washington.
>
>
> >The
> >Lowell area, like other areas also runs its own bus lines.
>
> But that's not useful to get outside of Lowell.
Don't recall claiming otherwise.
>
>
>
>
> >Long distance trains
> >also serve points north, west, and south.
>
> By long distance, you mean Amtrak. Amtrak trains run VERY infrequently, and
> are VERY unreliable, and are basically useless.
By VERY infrequently you apparently mean only once or several times an hour south
of Boston, and several times a day north of Boston. They are so useless that they
carry thousands and thousands of people daily.
Mitsguy2001
>From: John S joh...@no.spam
>Message-id: <40BFD603...@no.spam>
So then you live or work walking distance to a suburban commuter rail station?
That is very rare.
>> >and south to Providence among other places outside of Boston.
>>
>> The train to Providence runs only during weekday rush hour, and is
>otherwise
>> useless.
>
>Amtrak trains run 7 days a week.
But Amtrak doesn't run very frequently, and the stops are too far apart, and it
is VERY unreliable. It is not unusual for trains to be delayed 8 hours.
> Similar situation exists with MARC trains
>between Baltimore and Washington.
That is irrelevent to Boston.
>> >The
>> >Lowell area, like other areas also runs its own bus lines.
>>
>> But that's not useful to get outside of Lowell.
>
>Don't recall claiming otherwise.
But if you want to see any part of the world other than Lowell, you need a car.
>> >Long distance trains
>> >also serve points north, west, and south.
>>
>> By long distance, you mean Amtrak. Amtrak trains run VERY infrequently,
>and
>> are VERY unreliable, and are basically useless.
>
>By VERY infrequently you apparently mean only once or several times an hour
>south
>of Boston, and several times a day north of Boston. They are so useless that
>they
>carry thousands and thousands of people daily.
They only carry the people who have no other choice and can't afford a car, or
refuse to own a car for political reasons. And they carry railfans.
John S
Mitsguy2001 wrote:
That would be extremely unusual, particularly on the Northeast Corridor, where
Boston sits.
>
>
> > Similar situation exists with MARC trains
> >between Baltimore and Washington.
>
> That is irrelevent to Boston.
So is Lowell, but your claim was that transit was "But it is useless **outside** of
Boston. [emphasis added].
>
>
> >> >The
> >> >Lowell area, like other areas also runs its own bus lines.
> >>
> >> But that's not useful to get outside of Lowell.
> >
> >Don't recall claiming otherwise.
>
> But if you want to see any part of the world other than Lowell, you need a car.
Sorry, you're incorrect. Lowell is not the only place with buses or other forms of
non-car transportation. In fact you could travel all the way to Southern France
for example from Lowell without touching a car.
>
>
>
> >> >Long distance trains
> >> >also serve points north, west, and south.
> >>
> >> By long distance, you mean Amtrak. Amtrak trains run VERY infrequently,
> >and
> >> are VERY unreliable, and are basically useless.
> >
> >By VERY infrequently you apparently mean only once or several times an hour
> >south
> >of Boston, and several times a day north of Boston. They are so useless that
> >they
> >carry thousands and thousands of people daily.
>
> They only carry the people who have no other choice and can't afford a car, or
> refuse to own a car for political reasons. And they carry railfans.
Earlier you were stating that you need to use a car to get to commuter rail
stations. Now you are saying that rail users have no other choice and can't
afford a car. Which is it?
I own a car, and I travel on commuter rail quite regularly, in Boston and
elsewhere. I do not use a car to get to or from the commuter rail station. I'm
not unusual at all.
Mitsguy2001
>From: John S joh...@no.spam
>Message-id: <40C11DB1...@no.spam>
Actually, I don't think I've ever seen an Amtrak train on time. Obviously we
have had different experiences with Amtrak.
>
>>
>>
>> > Similar situation exists with MARC trains
>> >between Baltimore and Washington.
>>
>> That is irrelevent to Boston.
>
>So is Lowell, but your claim was that transit was "But it is useless
>**outside** of
>Boston. [emphasis added].
I meant, it is useless in suburban and rural areas outside of Boston.
>> >> >The
>> >> >Lowell area, like other areas also runs its own bus lines.
>> >>
>> >> But that's not useful to get outside of Lowell.
>> >
>> >Don't recall claiming otherwise.
>>
>> But if you want to see any part of the world other than Lowell, you need a
>car.
>
>Sorry, you're incorrect. Lowell is not the only place with buses or other
>forms of
>non-car transportation. In fact you could travel all the way to Southern
>France
>for example from Lowell without touching a car.
But how would you get from Lowell to Exeter, RI? Don't suggest RIPTA, since it
doesn't goto Exeter.
>> >> >Long distance trains
>> >> >also serve points north, west, and south.
>> >>
>> >> By long distance, you mean Amtrak. Amtrak trains run VERY infrequently,
>> >and
>> >> are VERY unreliable, and are basically useless.
>> >
>> >By VERY infrequently you apparently mean only once or several times an
>hour
>> >south
>> >of Boston, and several times a day north of Boston. They are so useless
>that
>> >they
>> >carry thousands and thousands of people daily.
>>
>> They only carry the people who have no other choice and can't afford a car,
>or
>> refuse to own a car for political reasons. And they carry railfans.
>
>Earlier you were stating that you need to use a car to get to commuter rail
>stations. Now you are saying that rail users have no other choice and can't
>afford a car. Which is it?
It depends.
>
>I own a car, and I travel on commuter rail quite regularly, in Boston and
>elsewhere. I do not use a car to get to or from the commuter rail station.
>I'm
>not unusual at all.
>
I don't know of anyone who does that in real life on a regular basis.
John S
Mitsguy2001 wrote:
I've never seen you driving legally either. Does that mean you only drive
illegally? A quick check of Amtrak's website show that all trains to New York are
on time, except for one that left 2 minutes late but arrived NYP on time.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > Similar situation exists with MARC trains
> >> >between Baltimore and Washington.
> >>
> >> That is irrelevent to Boston.
> >
> >So is Lowell, but your claim was that transit was "But it is useless
> >**outside** of
> >Boston. [emphasis added].
>
> I meant, it is useless in suburban and rural areas outside of Boston.
Lots of suburban areas outside Boston have non-car transportation.
>
>
> >> >> >The
> >> >> >Lowell area, like other areas also runs its own bus lines.
> >> >>
> >> >> But that's not useful to get outside of Lowell.
> >> >
> >> >Don't recall claiming otherwise.
> >>
> >> But if you want to see any part of the world other than Lowell, you need a
> >car.
> >
> >Sorry, you're incorrect. Lowell is not the only place with buses or other
> >forms of
> >non-car transportation. In fact you could travel all the way to Southern
> >France
> >for example from Lowell without touching a car.
>
> But how would you get from Lowell to Exeter, RI? Don't suggest RIPTA, since it
> doesn't goto Exeter.
I didn't say every part of the world, I was merely responding to your post saying
that a trip to *ANY* part of the world other than Lowell would need a car.
>
>
> >> >> >Long distance trains
> >> >> >also serve points north, west, and south.
> >> >>
> >> >> By long distance, you mean Amtrak. Amtrak trains run VERY infrequently,
> >> >and
> >> >> are VERY unreliable, and are basically useless.
> >> >
> >> >By VERY infrequently you apparently mean only once or several times an
> >hour
> >> >south
> >> >of Boston, and several times a day north of Boston. They are so useless
> >that
> >> >they
> >> >carry thousands and thousands of people daily.
> >>
> >> They only carry the people who have no other choice and can't afford a car,
> >or
> >> refuse to own a car for political reasons. And they carry railfans.
> >
> >Earlier you were stating that you need to use a car to get to commuter rail
> >stations. Now you are saying that rail users have no other choice and can't
> >afford a car. Which is it?
>
> It depends.
Oh I see.
>
>
> >
> >I own a car, and I travel on commuter rail quite regularly, in Boston and
> >elsewhere. I do not use a car to get to or from the commuter rail station.
> >I'm
> >not unusual at all.
> >
>
> I don't know of anyone who does that in real life on a regular basis.
Just like the dinner party crowd types who never heard of anybody who had voted
for Ronald Reagan, right?