Public Transit?
in [Drive]
|
Prev: Toyota safety crisis prompts 'black box' plan for new cars and lorries
Next: New graphic photos of chopped up Mexicans (Los Zetas)
From: Daniel W. Rouse Jr. on 2 May 2010 16:38 "Scott in SoCal" <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:uomrt5peij8n60f9brc3a9p8lphmsp53eo(a)4ax.com... > Last time on rec.autos.driving, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> said: > >>Given the choice, I drive everywhere, no exceptions. > > So does everybody else - which is why the freeway is a parking lot > every morning and every evening. > >>That means I choose >>when to start my trip to arrive at my destination, when to leave my >>destination, what routes to take going to and leaving my destination > > Do you also get to choose how many minutes you will spend sitting in > traffic? Seems to me that is out of your control - just like a train > schedule, only less predictable. > Actually, I do have some control over that. If I see that the freeway is bumper-to-bumper before entering the freeway, I have the choice of four different alternate routes to avoid the freeway. If the freeway is free-flowing but a traffic jam is occuring up ahead, I have the freedom to exit and use side streets as an alternate. I can also use the traffic reports to my advantage. If the traffic reports indicate no problems, I can leave later and use the freeway. If the traffic reports indicate big problems, I can leave earlier and use any of the alternate routes of my choice. Transit has no such freedom. Same routing, same schedule, and depending on the driver the bus may be 10 or more minutes off schedule. Also a missed connection also means a longer wait--no different than if one was in a traffic jam--except for the transit rider gets to wait at the transit centers for the next bus and there still isn't a choice of alternate routing for the bus. The trains all useless to me except maybe on weekends, so I am forced to rely on bus for the weekday commute when I am forced to use transit. [snip...]
From: Matthew Russotto on 8 May 2010 17:45 In article <1dgpcz42crbuh.1w1zv6of2a0u.dlg(a)40tude.net>, richard <member(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >On Sat, 01 May 2010 08:45:45 -0500, Douglas Stanley wrote: >> Would a good public transit system work to improve safety as well as >> reduced use of fuel? I believe so. I lived in NYC for several years >> and I felt their transit system was excellent. > >Public transit as we know it today? Are you serious? NYC is a special case. Manhattan in particular is amenable to public transit. It's a long, thin island, which eliminates the usual probably of a basically linear system trying to serve an area. And it has very high population density, meaning it can run trains every few minutes and not waste a lot of money running them empty. >Let's move up to the next level. An automated system. Have a system of >automated cars that run on electrical powered rails. Each car could hold up >to 10 people. When you arrive at a station, there will be a car waiting. If >not, put in a request and one will come from another nearby station. > >The cars will be operated by a controller at a central station. Not a >driver. As the system will be independent of the roadways, there will be no >need for traffic lights. You go directly to your destination without >stopping at every "stop" as a bus would. Thus saving you a ton of time. > >With electric power, no wasted fuel and no dangerous emissions, less >maintenance and that in turn saves the company a ton of money. For the system to be independent of the roadways, it needs to not intersect at grade with the roadways. For it to go directly to your destination, it has to be as dense as the roadways. If each "car" holds 10 people yet never stops on a given trip, it will be running underutilized nearly all the time. Whether it's practical at all is questionable; whether it's feasible economically is a definite no. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: Matthew Russotto on 8 May 2010 18:45 In article <qbsot5thskqs9p8ah6jajhj6q6vou1u16p(a)4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Last time on rec.autos.driving, richard <member(a)newsguy.com> said: > >>> Would a good public transit system work to improve safety as well as >>> reduced use of fuel? I believe so. I lived in NYC for several years >>> and I felt their transit system was excellent. >> >>Public transit as we know it today? Are you serious? > >People who argue against transit always point to the ridiculously >atrophed condition that it is currently in, not the robust, efficient, >useful, and highly-patronized system it once was and could be again. Funny... those robust, efficient, useful, and highly-patronized systems all failed. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: Matthew Russotto on 8 May 2010 18:55 In article <uomrt5peij8n60f9brc3a9p8lphmsp53eo(a)4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >Do you also get to choose how many minutes you will spend sitting in >traffic? Seems to me that is out of your control - just like a train >schedule, only less predictable. I wish I'd taken a picture of the big board in the NJ Transit section of Penn Station on Thursday... delays across the board. -- The problem with socialism is there's always someone with less ability and more need.
From: Daniel W. Rouse Jr. on 8 May 2010 21:51
"Matthew Russotto" <russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message news:bf-dnQT9y8DwdHjWnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net... > In article <qbsot5thskqs9p8ah6jajhj6q6vou1u16p(a)4ax.com>, > Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>Last time on rec.autos.driving, richard <member(a)newsguy.com> said: >> >>>> Would a good public transit system work to improve safety as well as >>>> reduced use of fuel? I believe so. I lived in NYC for several years >>>> and I felt their transit system was excellent. >>> >>>Public transit as we know it today? Are you serious? >> >>People who argue against transit always point to the ridiculously >>atrophed condition that it is currently in, not the robust, efficient, >>useful, and highly-patronized system it once was and could be again. > > Funny... those robust, efficient, useful, and highly-patronized systems > all failed. Yes, they did, because they rely on steady ridership and subsidy of the system in general. When the subsidy is decreased, the fares go up. When the fares go up, the transit system loses ridership. Then the transit system does service reductions, further losing riders, which of course leads to more fare increases and service reductions, it's a downward spiral effect by design. Watch routes that were once every 15 minutes be reduced to every 30 minutes. Some of the smaller routes, those become hourly all day or at least hourly mid-day. Weekend service hours are often further reduced or outright cut on some of the routes. I know this because I've used transit off and on, each time I had to deal with a non-trivial car repair. But each time I've had to use it, it's never been more routes, longer hours, and more frequent routes of a given run, that's for sure... it's always been more and more of an inconvenience to use each and every time I have had to use it. |