[Cougar]

Mezla PigDog, on 17 December 2009 - 03:27 PM, said:

I say make it too expensive for people to drive and force them onto public transportation as an angry mob. That's just what the rush hour needs.

Same shit different shovel, hit 'em in the wallet, it's the only way.

They wouldn't be angry, why would someone be angry about having to sit next to a mental African screaming into his phone on a bus that smells of piss and sweat, while the kids from the local girls school loudly discuss fingering and BJs whilst playing distorted 'Dizzee Rascal' on their I-phones at an ear splitting volume(yes that is exactly what happened to me on the 104 last night by the way).

[Mezla PigDog]

All that kind of stuff completely fades into the background after a while of bus travel, it genuinely isn't that bad. When you have no alternative, you learn to live with it. Admittedly, it may be the source of my all consuming hatred of humanity and desire for ethnic cleansing based on income (lack of)/hairstyle/tracksuit (gym goers will be collateral damage)/number of ASBO kids, but you've got to take the rough with the smooth.

[Cougar]

I don't think that's ethnic cleansing, I think that's just murder, you aren't singling out any ethnicities.

[cerveza_fiesta]

I credit Steven Erikson 100% with preventing mass murder by my hand.

A good book on public transit makes it zip by.

From your experience in urban planning though, what do you think about the short-bus solution cougar?

[Darkwatch]

I haven't read all the posts but I would just like to state the following:

Ottawa mass transportation is probably some of the best I've seen, at leas in Canada. In general the buses aren't late and they cover almost everywhere (now, they've been expanding) they have express lines and they've only been on strike once (though it was one hell of a Strike).
Part of the reason is the Ottawa transit system which includes not only reserved lanes (which cars use anyway) but also a separate high way in some parts to make sure you skip congestion during rush hours.
The problem is it's insanely expensive to own a bus pass.
The basic pass costs 84$ and doesn't cover the express and rural bus lines (which are themselves more expensive ticket wise).
To be fair though the Québec city system costs only ten dollars less and has some pretty horrible service going on. Ok, maybe not on their main routes, but main routes is one of those things they have to fix, the RTC seem to stubbornly refuse the existence of certain areas of the city. Though of course because of the bloody de-mergers they might just be telling those municipal separatists to eat shit by providing less service. If there's one thing I enjoy about Québec city it's the irony the place exudes.
The Montreal system I've only experienced in bit in pieces and so far it's been ok.
Never had to deal with any other city's system really so I can't complain.

[Menandore]

Darkwatch, on 17 December 2009 - 05:36 PM, said:

I haven't read all the posts but I would just like to state the following:

Ottawa mass transportation is probably some of the best I've seen, at leas in Canada. In general the buses aren't late and they cover almost everywhere (now, they've been expanding) they have express lines and they've only been on strike once (though it was one hell of a Strike).
Part of the reason is the Ottawa transit system which includes not only reserved lanes (which cars use anyway) but also a separate high way in some parts to make sure you skip congestion during rush hours.
The problem is it's insanely expensive to own a bus pass.
The basic pass costs 84$ and doesn't cover the express and rural bus lines (which are themselves more expensive ticket wise).
To be fair though the Québec city system costs only ten dollars less and has some pretty horrible service going on. Ok, maybe not on their main routes, but main routes is one of those things they have to fix, the RTC seem to stubbornly refuse the existence of certain areas of the city. Though of course because of the bloody de-mergers they might just be telling those municipal separatists to eat shit by providing less service. If there's one thing I enjoy about Québec city it's the irony the place exudes.
The Montreal system I've only experienced in bit in pieces and so far it's been ok.
Never had to deal with any other city's system really so I can't complain.

$84 for what? If you're talking $84 per week for a bus pass then yeah, that's insanely expensive but if it's per month then that doesn't seem so bad...

[Obdigore]

I do like what the Minneapolis authorities are doing. They are building a light-rail that delivers fast, good service, to suburb car parks (everyone here has a car if you live in the burbs, good luck not having one).

They also have a couple different bus companies, I am not sure if they are privatized or not, but the busses are almost always on-time (unless it is during a snow storm.) The state is also putting in extra lanes on the major freeways that can only be used by Busses, Car Pools, or people that buy a pass to use them.

I think the 'light-rail' is a great idea, as it moves people quickly in and out of the city. I do have a problem with busses that don't understand that when they move out from a stop they need to actually look around for the car doing 40 (which is the speed limit) on that road. They often do not.

I would like to see them institute a 'double-road' system, which would be building a second railway/bus lane over the current road system, to allow busses and railways to commute freely, which would greatly increase the amount of people who use them.

Here in MPLS, it is cheaper (gas, mileage, and parking) for me and my GF to commute in my car daily than to use a bus for each of us daily.

Quote

Metro Transit is the transportation resource for the Twin Cities, offering an integrated network of buses, trains as well as resources for those who carpool, vanpool, walk or bike. It is working to add Bus Rapid Transit and the Northstar Commuter Rail Line to the list of options.

Metro Transit is one of the country's largest transit systems, providing roughly 95 percent of the 73 million bus trips taken annually in the Twin Cities. Each weekday customers board Metro Transit buses and trains an average of 240,000 times.

Metro Transit operates the Hiawatha light-rail line, 118 bus routes — 63 are local-service routes and 46 are express routes and 9 contract service routes, using a fleet of 821 buses. The majority of the company's fleet (681) are standard 40-foot buses while 140 are articulated ("accordion") buses. All Metro Transit buses are equipped with wheelchair lifts or ramps and racks for bicycles. All trains feature step-free boarding, bicycle racks and luggage storage areas.


To ensure safety for our customers and drivers, Metro Transit has its own police department. We have 144 Metropolitan Transit Police officers who work full-time and part-time to enforce laws pertaining to safety on buses, on trains and at bus stops and rail stations.



Metro Transit funding
Metro Transit is an operating division of the Metropolitan Council. Like transit properties in most metropolitan areas, Metro Transit relies heavily on state and federal money to finance its operations and capital programs. Regional policy requires that a third of Metro Transit's operating budget be generated from customers. Metro Transit currently collects roughly 35 percent of its budget from fareboxes, 60 percent comes from state appropriations and motor vehicle sales, and the remainder is from federal and self-generating sources.

Sounds like they are moving on average 120k people per day. A quick search on population in the Twin Cities area says there is 2.8million in 2007. Working adults probably what 2.4 or so? Less than 10% of people per day are using public transportation.

I do like cougar's idea of cutting off the city to anyone that isn't a commercial/public transport vehicle.
Taxis, Busses, Delivery Trucks, fine. Personal vehicles, no-sir. I think it would be extremely expensive to do, and would require a huge update to the current sky-way system we use, but eh, it might work well.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 17 December 2009 - 07:29 PM

[Shinrei]

@Cougar Well, I don't.


Owning a car is very expensive in Japan. Taxes are high, gasoline is high, and there is a safety inspection required on all vehicles, every 2 years that costs from $600 to $1500 US depending on your car. To travel via expressway from my apartment to my wife's home takes 2 hours, and the tolls costs about $40.

The roads are STILL packed, and there are STILL places in Japan (which is a place many people might argue has the best countrywide public transport in the world)where you're screwed if you don't have a car. And, rush hour in the cities is traffic jams as far as the eye can see, despite the costs of owning and maintaining a car.

"Hit'em in their wallet" is going to have to be a pretty big hit to make people stop having cars, if Japan is any indication. And who will that "hit" the hardest? The working class and people who need to commute to their (possibly multiple) jobs right? So cars will become property of only the rich...

[Thelomen Toblerone]

That safety inspection sounds like an MOT - or is that something different? Judging by the surprise at it, I;m guessing you don't have an MOT equivalent in the US, which terrifies the fuck out of me and ensure I will never ever drive in the US.

[HoosierDaddy]

Stay on the right side of the road, and watch for women in vans and you'll be fine.

[Shinrei]

Shakken is a safety inspection where you get to pay for a sticker to say your car has been inspected. It is, without a doubt, a government program intended to ensure that Japanese consumers replace their cars more often than necessary. Typical shelf life for a car around here is 6 or 7 years before people buy new ones. Why? Because the inspection gets more expensive based on the age of the car (not necessarily what condition it is in). So often times, you get perfectly servicable cars with only 70,000km on them that are worth less on the market than the safety inspection costs, so they're junked. This is NOT good for the environment, obviously. And not good for Japanese consumers either.

Great for the government and their buddies the car industry.

[councilor]

the whole pubic transport business is like a vicious circle:

to have a large and successful public transport system (comfortable, runs on time, many customers) , a significant amount of money is required to be input by the government to get facilities in order. but no one is willing to pay for that unless there is guarantee that there will be customers and if not a profit, then at least the sytem is sustainable in the long term. but that isn't going to happen unless the srvices improve, which brings matters back to the original problem.

so in the end, only two types of people ride public transport: the really off-the-walls green types and those who don't have a choice in the matter.

Take the NSW cityrail - after changing the timetables three times, the trains are only now arriving on time. but nearly half the trains still don't have air conditioning. corruption and kickbacks are rampant (just had a clean-up of the system last year I think). with no improvement in services, another ticket rice hike has been approved by the ACCC.

the upshot is, people don't want to use the public transport any more.

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

@ the idea of not allowing personal vehicles into cities, what about those of us who love to drive? What about our freedoms? I happen to be a car guy. I love cars, absolutely my favorite hobby and eventually they'll be my job. I abhor the idea of public transportation, I've used it & hated it. Even in Germany, where I was only there for 3 weeks and the public transportation was easy and relatively convenient. It could never be as convenient as having my own vehicle. Even in NYC, congested as it is, having my own vehicle was FAR more convenient than public transportation.

[Jusentantaka]

Grand Goombah Graeld, on 19 December 2009 - 06:41 PM, said:

@ the idea of not allowing personal vehicles into cities, what about those of us who love to drive? What about our freedoms? I happen to be a car guy. I love cars, absolutely my favorite hobby and eventually they'll be my job. I abhor the idea of public transportation, I've used it & hated it. Even in Germany, where I was only there for 3 weeks and the public transportation was easy and relatively convenient. It could never be as convenient as having my own vehicle. Even in NYC, congested as it is, having my own vehicle was FAR more convenient than public transportation.

Well, I seem to agree with the car-love idea, in spite of my increasingly socialist sentiments, but how convenient to drive do you think NYC any major city would be if every one had a car? A one-legged geriatric could walk across any US metropolis (except maybe LA) faster than you could drive it if it was like that.

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

Well, not everyone WANTS to drive. Not everyone CAN drive. Those people, for the most part, already don't drive. But there are still some who prefer not to drive. My wife, for instance. Before we met, she'd never driven (grew up in NYC), and now most times, prefers not to drive. If better public transportation (safer, more convenient) were available, she'd hardly ever drive; except for the fact that her job requires it, that is. Well, when she finishes her masters & starts teaching, then. She'd hardly ever drive in that scenario. I suspect there are many more like that. So, honestly, I do support better public transportation, I just don't have any intention of using it myself. MY only problem lies in the forcing of people onto public transportation. It should be each person's individual choice.

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

The public transport systems in Vancouver and Victoria are great if you travel radially between the near suburbs and the downtown core or major universities. If your route takes you anywhere else, public transit is generally not an attractive option. A few examples:

My first years of post-secondary were at an out of the way campus. I lived fairly close by and could drive there in about ten minutes. Taking public transit I could have either arrived fifty minutes before class or taken a forty-five minute ride with multiple transfers to arrive twenty minutes before class. Needless to say I drove.

Once I transferred to Uni, I had my choice of four bus routes to take and with the exception of a strike, never more than a five minute wait for a direct route. As the bus ring was more central to the campus than the parking lots, public transit was faster (and since the uni's here give you an automatic bus pass with your student fees, it was far cheaper). I took transit.

Now, I both live and work in the burbs. If I worked downtown, I could catch the light rail and be door to door in thirty to forty minutes, and definitely would as parking can range up to $20 a day and driving would take as much as half an hour longer. But, since I do not work downtown, taking transit would add forty minutes or so to my twenty five minute commute.

There are problems with banning all but commercial traffic in downtown cores as some people, the typical construction worker (carpenter, plumber etc) for example, require their own vehicle but will not have a company one. This would mean either a large and costly bureaucracy or put a lot of small companies out of business.

I agree with those who have said light rail is better than buses. It does take a much larger initial investment, but it also reduced the need for road and highway upgrades. Half of the major two lane roads in areas here that are serviced by buses are effectively one lane only during rush hours as they have not put in pullouts at any of the bus stops.