wigwagfan wrote:ne plus ultra wrote:But your arguments don't make sense. People DO use Amtrak in settings like those you speak of. Transit DOES make a difference for Amtrak, even in cities where there is also transit to the bus or the airport. The casino is no doubt interested because, oddly enough, though you and I would never dream of leaving 'extra early' to go to a casino, the bread and butter of the casino business is catering to oddballs, some of whom do just that. You're arguing a milennialist argument about something that really just requires logical discussion. Transit access and interested partners do make for a somewhat better scenario. You don't have to make untenable arguments about transit and about partners just to come up with reasons to criticize the route.
I had to read your argument and quite frankly, there is no sense to be made of it at all.
Yes, OK, so five people are willing to board Amtrak at a remote station in the middle of the night. However - it DOES discourage ridership. Look at how many people use Amtrak in Salt Lake City, for example...how many MORE people would use Amtrak if the schedule was better? Spokane is another perfect example. Schedules ARE a huge factor into who will use transit (regardless of mode).
A "milennialist" argument? An argument by nature of the millenium? Huh? Logical discussion...uh, why are we arguing over something that occurred ten years ago? Untenable arguments...what is untenable about scheduling? If the schedule doesn't work, people won't use it - it is a very basic argument.
Google "millennialist". It means something different than what you think. Most millennialists didn't live at the time of a millennium. They're people who believe despite all evidence that the millennium has arrived, that god is going to end the world soon, that the sky is falling. This was a commonplace of cartoonists 40 years ago, long before the actual millennium was looming. A goofball walks around with a sign saying "the world is ending". It's a very absolutist worldview. By calling your arguments millennialist, I was saying that you've made your points in such an exaggerated, absolutist way, that they've lost the strength that they should indeed carry.
So for instance, you said that transit access makes "not a shred of difference." Frankly, I don't even think you believe this. Almost anyone would look at such a statement and dismiss it out of hand. So I'm suggesting that if you tame your arguments back down to size, you'll be more convincing. "Transit makes a big difference, but there are reasons to think in this case, it won't make enough of a difference to justify the subsidized train ..."
Likewise, you tried to make a point about the casino by saying "why would I ...?" and the clear implication was "why would anyone ...?" And again, I agree with what should have been your point - the much calmer point you make in your follow-up -- schedules are very important.
So say that. Don't pretend that it's absurd to think anyone would travel to a casino on an oddly scheduled train. It isn't absurd. The casino itself thinks some useful number of people will use it -- that's why they've said they'd like to partner with such a train. I'm sure they didn't add their name as interested because they thought 5 people would use the train on a given day. I agree with you that the casino trip, at odd hours, is unlikely to add enough passengers to make it worth subsidizing.
But by saying "why would I ...travel at odd hours", you've merely invited someone to set you straight that many people do travel at odd hours.
So just tone down the rhetoric. When emotion makes you overstate a case, it weakens it.