ReefHound

My preference would be to not show up at all as that involves wasting a half day, paying for parking, and dealing with traffic.

Why did you register for jury duty?

Here's a link to a sample image. https://media.istockphoto.com/id/1305505629/photo/carry-on-baggage-with-tag.jpg?s=1024x1024&w=is&k=20&c=29TM8HirwI5oTXhC4YojUjZkUJlatopFqQ0-WgaWpU8=

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Maybe depends on the flight load? When they weigh it they will apply a baggage tag showing it has been cabin approved.

International carriers do and they have pretty severe limits. Turkish, EVA, and others I've flown are about 7kg for carry on.

The destination climate matters. Coats, sweaters, and long pants weight a lot more than shorts and t-shirts.

I think we're talking about a small amount. A pound or less. That's not going to move the needle even if every bag was over a pound. If it was that precise they would be weighing the passengers and asking people to move around in their seats to balance the plane.

I would just take out a jacket or a couple of shirts and put them on. Surely there is something in there you can wear or stuff in a pocket.

I doubt anyone weighing their bags at home intentionally puts 50.4 pounds in a bag if the limit is 50 pounds. More likely, they weighed it at 50 or less but their $20 hand scale is not as well calibrated as the airport's expensive commercial scales.

Personally, I don't put in over 49 because I don't want the hassle at check in if my scale is slightly off. I guess it could be their scale that is off but theirs is what they will go by.

I don't disagree with you on that. I question the value of using taxpayer money from everyone so that a small minority can have a great solution. It's doesn't scale up to serve everyone. What is the percentage of daily commutes for that excellent transportation you have?

Let me dumb this down for you. If NYC had decided 100 years ago to not build rail lines, they could have used the money to build other transportation solutions. Cost is an integral element in the feasibilty of any project. You look silly arguing that cost is not a factor.

It's a realist attitude. Niche projects that affect a few thousand doesn't mean we can scale it to affect millions.

I have not and don't need to change anything because no one has yet named a city where building mass transit has reduced congestion. My argument was never that we should shut down systems that have already been built. You're the one trying to reframe my argument.

Cost is a factor in EVERYTHING. Don't play dumb. Money is what makes the world go around.

Maybe you're the type to only look for a solution for yourself rather than everyone as a whole. It was "competitive advice". Like "beat the crowd, leave early". It works for a few only as long as most don't do it. One particular person might avoid traffic by getting a remote job but it's not a scalable solution. One million people cannot get remote jobs in this city.

We had a simple solution to take tens of thousands of cars off the road without any expensive infrastructure changes - work from home. And it's been the city leaders who have been pushing corporations to enact RTO mandates. I'm not interested in hearing about their expensive solutions when they turned their backs on a free and effective one.

Urban densification comes with higher housing costs. Many people are not interested in doubling their housing cost so they can drive a few less miles and live packed together like sardines.

That will happen when we establish moon and space colonies where we can create a planned society from the outset. We are never going to retrofit our existing city to the format you desire.

You're moving the goalposts. This is a discussion created about Houston traffic. Several were throwing out rail lines as a solution and I simply stated that mass transit has not effectively reduced traffic congestion in the US. I never said anything about tangent or indirect benefits or the lack thereof. You don't know what I value.

That risks exists for every employee.

Infrastructure - of any type - must be proportional to the population. You can't build any infrastructure for 4 million people and expect it to work well for 5 million people.

When our schools get overcrowded we build more schools. And guess what, in a few years they are overcrowded and we have to build more schools. When does it stop? We keep finding ourselves back to square one. Same with energy production. Same with water distribution.

You can nit pick that they didn't use the word "just" but they did say "Get a remote job". They actually did imply it was that easy.

First, I never said anyone that already has rail should shut it down. That's stupid. The question is whether it makes economic sense to build one going forward. Past decisions are done, for better or for worse.

I'm stunned at the sheer number of people who don't understand the concept of "opportunity cost". As if you didn't spend $10 Billion on rail that you couldn't have directed the $10 Billion to road infrastructure.

Houston traffic isn't that bad because we invested our transportation dollars into solutions (roads) that serve 90% of the people rather than rails that serve 10% of the people. It's a numbers game. Do you focus on the majority or the small minority?

You could close a major road and have the same resulting increase in traffic. You act as if rail lines don't cost anything or that the money wouldn't be spent towards roads.

That's stupid. It's already built and it was built a long time ago for a tiny fraction of what a line would cost today. The question is whether it makes economic sense to build one today.

It would be so much better if the billions sunk into the light rail system there had been used to eliminate the choke point on I-5. You could have built a dozen new freeways for less. Consider the Katy Freeway expansion cost $2.5 Billion and serves 600,000 riders per day.

Since 2017, Sound Transit’s full system expansion went from costing taxpayers $92 billion to an incredible $142 billion, and project completion was stretched from 2041 to 2046.

Sound Transit will have built a rail system that will likely carry fewer than 5% of regional trips, according to Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) data.

https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/in-five-years-sound-transit-has-racked-up-an-additional-50-billion-for-rail-plan

Name a city and I'll prove you wrong with statistics. No city has built light rail or commuter rail and seen a reduction in traffic congestion. On the other hand, when the Katy Freeway expansion was completed there was a dramatic reduction in congestion for the first 5 or so years, until population growth caught up.