Driving Peeves: SUV's & Turn Signals

[BicycleTree]

You know Boston has a commuter rail and a subway system that many many people already use. Perhaps you should move to a smaller city if you don't like the idea of a large influx of people in the morning.

I know that, and I also use that system. However, it doesn't reach out very far.

 

[Moonbear]

YThe problem is that most Americans don't work in major cities, and city-style public transportation is not a viable option for their locales.

The reality is that those who DO work in cities and CAN take public transportation already do that. I grew up in NJ suburbs where a large part of the population commutes to NYC for work. I don't know of anyone who had work hours compatible with taking buses or trains who didn't do so. The people who drove into the city are those who didn't have predictable hours compatible with bus routes (they might be in rush hour traffic in the morning, but then worked until 10 PM), or needed to carry a lot of files back and forth with them that were too heavy to lug around on buses. Yes, they were not the norm among commuters, but when you start adding them up, a few from this town a few from that town, that's where all those cars come from. Adding more buses isn't going to get them off the road, and in major cities, the buses themselves are creating congestion because there are so many of them.

 

[Moonbear]

I know that, and I also use that system. However, it doesn't reach out very far.

Whose homes would you like to tear down to expand it?

 

[chroot]

I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant that the majority of commuters to the city live in areas where there are other commuters.

As I've said, the problem of moving many people from the suburbs to a small number of destinations in the city is already a solved problem. The metro, subway, BART, etc. already accomplish this. This is great, but only useful for a small percentage of the population.

- Warren

 

[Evo]

Chroot, I wouldn't say that the majority of Americans live in the subarbs, but it is the growing trend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburbanization

Two things - it says 45% of the population live in what is deemed suburbs, quite a large percent of the population live in small towns that are not considered suburbs, this means that the number of people living in the suburbs of a large city vastly outnumbers city dwellers (which supports chroot) and the statistics are 15 years old.

 

[BicycleTree]

If a bus has even two people on it, it's not causing congestion, it's reducing congestion. A bus with one person on it increases congestion by a small amount compared to a car in most traffic conditions (ten extra feet out of fifty, perhaps, counting the space needed between vehicles). But the average bus contains a great deal more than one person.

 

[BicycleTree]

Two things - it says 45% of the population live in what is deemed suburbs, quite a large percent of the population live in small towns that are not considered suburbs, this means that the number of people living in the suburbs of a large city vastly outnumbers city dwellers (which supports chroot)

How much attention are you paying to this discussion?? The people I am talking about are suburb dwellers who commute. People who live in the city are not people I am concerned with at the moment. These statistics support me in saying that there is a need for more buses from the suburbs and for more people who take buses from the suburbs.

and the statistics are 15 years old.

 

[chroot]

If a bus has even two people on it, it's not causing congestion, it's reducing congestion.

What??

Buses are slow. They accelerate poorly from stop lights. They have to turn slowly. They have low top speeds. They have to stop all the time. A bus probably has to continually carry a dozen people or more to make it a net "congestion savings!"

But the average bus contains a great deal more than one person.

Again, this is true in the city. It would not be true anywhere else -- and your proposed "sea of buses" was aimed not at cities, but at freeway traffic jams. As we've all already tried to explain, that won't work.

- Warren

 

[BicycleTree]

Chroot, you didn't even know that we were talking exclusively about highway traffic jams going into the city from the suburbs until a short time ago.

Consider this, which I have alluded to before in this discussion: before entrance ramps to the highway, there is a bus station and parking lot. You park your car and board a bus, and because people do this there is no jam.

Also, having to walk from a parking garage is as much inconvenience as having to walk from where the bus drops you off.

 

[BicycleTree]

Point taken about the acceleration of buses (although they can attain highway speeds). However, the fair number of people who ride any given bus make buses a space-saver.

 

[Moonbear]

This is certainly a problem.

I'd also like to discuss the myth of BicycleTree's work-on-the-bus proposal. My professional work involves hundreds of thousands of dollars of test and measurement equipment sprawled over several benches -- obviously I cannot do any real work on the bus. Many other people have the same problem: buses don't provide enough room per passenger to actually do any serious work. Some professionals could bring a laptop and work on a presentation, perhaps, but many people find the fifty sweating bodies crammed into your personal space to be a bit of a distraction. Needless to say, unless your "work" involves reading novels, most people aren't going to get a whole lot done on a bus.

- Warren

I've been on packed commuter buses. You're lucky if you get a seat, let alone space to sprawl out and do work. Those who do get a seat sometimes take a nap, which makes up for the extra half hour earlier they have to leave home to make sure they catch the bus (because if the first bus is full, you're waiting until the next one comes along).

 

[Evo]

How much attention are you paying to this discussion?? The people I am talking about are suburb dwellers who commute. People who live in the city are not people I am concerned with at the moment. These statistics support me in saying that there is a need for more buses from the suburbs and for more people who take buses from the suburbs.

Apparently I'm paying more attention than you, I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to knavish.

And the statistics do not support you, with the surburban sprawl, fewer and fewer jobs are in inner cities, they are in suburban areas, as chroot mentioned. Most of the jobs in this area are in a suburb of the "city".

 

[BicycleTree]

Moonbear, about bus scheduling: yes, not having hours consistent with the bus is a good reason not to take the bus. But if many people have this problem, it's only another good reason to have regular buses that come and go until 10 or 11 PM.

 

[Moonbear]

Chroot, you didn't even know that we were talking exclusively about highway traffic jams going into the city from the suburbs until a short time ago.

No, this is where we started this discussion, but you keep changing the topic. When one argument doesn't work, you circle around back to another.

 

[BicycleTree]

Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead live in the suburbs, commuting to work.

Does this mean "commuting to a different place in the same town"? I think it means "commuting to the city."

 

[chroot]

Chroot, you didn't even know that we were talking exclusively about highway traffic jams going into the city from the suburbs until a short time ago.

You didn't decide this yourself until a short time ago, kiddo. You were originally talking about buses on freeways, and I don't see many freeways inside cities.

Consider this, which I have alluded to before in this discussion: before entrance ramps to the highway, there is a bus station and parking lot. You park your car and board a bus, and because people do this there is no jam.

I'll say it again for perhaps the fourth time: I consider the problem of getting people from the suburbs into the downtown areas to be already solved. The majority of the cars making up a freeway traffic jam are not going to a city.

- Warren

 

[Moonbear]

Moonbear, about bus scheduling: yes, not having hours consistent with the bus is a good reason not to take the bus. But if many people have this problem, it's only another good reason to have regular buses that come and go until 10 or 11 PM.

No, it's not, and the reason is that you only have a handful of people at any given destination who need to get home at those hours. You'd also want to reduce the frequency of buses to account for reduced travelers (you wouldn't want to run a bus every 15 min when three out of 4 buses an hour will run empty and one of them will have two people on it; that ADDS to traffic). If it's 9 or 10 at night and I'm ready to leave the office and get to the bus stop at 10:05, I'm not going to want to wait another 55 minutes for a bus when I could drive and be home in that time, especially if I woke up at 5 AM. That is a very typical professional schedule in a big city.

 

[BicycleTree]

Also, Evo, whoever you were responding to, you were making statements which were not true relating to things I have said.

Moonbear, it is a fact that chroot was not aware of that until recently. If you read back you can establish this.

I am responding to every point made; if I have missed one by now (I think I've covered them) then please draw my attention to it.

 

[Moonbear]

Moonbear, it is a fact that chroot was not aware of that until recently. If you read back you can establish this.

Only chroot can establish what he was or was not aware of. I know what I was aware of and his arguments have been consistent with that.

 

[chroot]

Does this mean "commuting to a different place in the same town"? I think it means "commuting to the city."

What makes you feel so comfortable making assumptions like this with no supporting evidence? Almost everyone I know commutes from what is considered one suburb to another. I live in the San Francisco bay area, however, so there may be some bias here due to the weird geography. I will continue to believe that the majority of suburbanites actually do not work in their parent cities, however, unless you can prove otherwise.

- Warren

 

[BicycleTree]

No, it's not, and the reason is that you only have a handful of people at any given destination who need to get home at those hours. You'd also want to reduce the frequency of buses to account for reduced travelers (you wouldn't want to run a bus every 15 min when three out of 4 buses an hour will run empty and one of them will have two people on it; that ADDS to traffic). If it's 9 or 10 at night and I'm ready to leave the office and get to the bus stop at 10:05, I'm not going to want to wait another 55 minutes for a bus when I could drive and be home in that time, especially if I woke up at 5 AM. That is a very typical professional schedule in a big city.

The buses could easily be coordinated to arrive when people need them. If there are only a few people coming out of work at a given time, then buses would not come until later. If people come out of work at 10:05 and want a bus at 10:15, the buses would be there at 10:15.

 

[BicycleTree]

What makes you feel so comfortable making assumptions like this with no supporting evidence? Almost everyone I know commutes from what is considered one suburb to another. I live in the San Francisco bay area, however, so there may be some bias here due to the weird geography. I will continue to believe that the majority of suburbanites actually do not work in their parent cities, however, unless you can prove otherwise.

Actually, there's a subtle issue in the Wikipedia sentence:

Many Americans no longer live where they work and instead live in the suburbs, commuting to work.

It says the Americans live in the suburbs instead of living where they work. This means that where they work is someplace else, i.e. not the suburbs. So you have them working in cities or rural areas--which is more likely to be the meaning of the sentence?

 

[chroot]

If people come out of work at 10:05 and want a bus at 10:15, the buses would be there at 10:15.

I'd like a bus to stop at my doorstep at exactly 8:52 am each morning, and then another to stop at my office at exactly 6:12 pm. Both buses, of course, will take me directly from home to office, and back. Oh, except on the days when I work late, I'd like the bus to stop at exactly 7:24 pm. Can you arrange that for me, glorious public transportation master?

- Warren

 

[Moonbear]

Consider this, which I have alluded to before in this discussion: before entrance ramps to the highway, there is a bus station and parking lot. You park your car and board a bus, and because people do this there is no jam.

These are called park and rides. They already exist. They haven't solved the problem.

 

[BicycleTree]

It would probably be practical to have a bus arrive whenever there is a prediction of, say, fifty people who want to use it within the preceding 15 minutes.

 

[Moonbear]

The buses could easily be coordinated to arrive when people need them. If there are only a few people coming out of work at a given time, then buses would not come until later. If people come out of work at 10:05 and want a bus at 10:15, the buses would be there at 10:15.

Until the day I'm done early and want to leave at 8? You know what that sort of door-to-door transportation-on-demand is called? A car.

 

[BicycleTree]

These are called park and rides. They already exist. They haven't solved the problem.

Well, that's interesting, and something I didn't know. Certainly they have helped solve the problem as opposed to hindering the its solution. What do you think the reason is that park-and-rides haven't solved it?

 

[chroot]

Actually, there's a subtle issue in the Wikipedia sentence:

It says the Americans live in the suburbs instead of living where they work. This means that where they work is someplace else, i.e. not the suburbs. So you have them working in cities or rural areas--which is more likely to be the meaning of the sentence?

So now we're speculating on the meaning of an ambiguous sentence, are we BicycleTree? Does that strike you as a particularly strong argument?

I live in a suburb. I work in a different suburb. Many other people do, also. In fact, you've thus far annoyed me enough with your all-talk-and-no-numbers dance that I'm considering doing your research for you.

- Warren

 

[Evo]

Actually, there's a subtle issue in the Wikipedia sentence:

It says the Americans live in the suburbs instead of living where they work. This means that where they work is someplace else, i.e. not the suburbs. So you have them working in cities or rural areas--which is more likely to be the meaning of the sentence?

They don't work in their suburb, they could work in a different suburban area, like chroot. That's also the case here, business moved out of the high priced downtown area and took advantage of lucrative tax cuts in suburban areas. Most of the office space in our downtown area is vacant.

 

[Moonbear]

It would probably be practical to have a bus arrive whenever there is a prediction of, say, fifty people who want to use it within the preceding 15 minutes.

Which is why there aren't any buses running to the suburbs after 8 or 9 PM.

 

[chroot]

It would probably be practical to have a bus arrive whenever there is a prediction of, say, fifty people who want to use it within the preceding 15 minutes.

I don't even think I can muster the strength to counter this kind of brilliance.

- Warren

 

[BicycleTree]

They don't work in their suburb, they could work in a different suburban area, like chroot. That's also the case here, business moved out of the high priced downtown area and took advantage of lucrative tax cuts in suburban areas. Most of the office space in our downtown area is vacant.

If they were moving from one suburb to another, would it be called "Suburbanization"? No.

The sentence is not ambiguous. It might require a moment to understand it, but there is no ambiguity.

 

[chroot]

If they were moving from one suburb to another, would it be called "Suburbanization"? No.

Okay, BicycleTree -- I'm calling BS on this, as a referee. Unless you can provide some evidence that most people living in the suburbs actually commute to the parent city, I'm not going to permit you to keep using it as a premise in your arguments. Suitable evidence will include neither the supposed definitions of words, nor the open interpretation of a single sentence from a publicly-editable website.

- Warren

 

[BicycleTree]

Which is why there aren't any buses running to the suburbs after 8 or 9 PM.

So there aren't buses running to the suburbs after 8 or 9 pm... because people aren't there to use them. And your reason why people aren't there to use them is... they have to take cars back because... there aren't any buses after 8 or 9 pm. Is that an accurate representation?

 

[BicycleTree]

Fair enough, Chroot. I'll go look for some statistics now.

 

[Moonbear]

Well, that's interesting, and something I didn't know. Certainly they have helped solve the problem as opposed to hindering the its solution. What do you think the reason is that park-and-rides haven't solved it?

All of the reasons I've been telling you more buses is not the solution. There are already LOTS of buses heading from suburbs to major cities, where congestion is a problem. Did you read the blurb about the XBL lanes through the Lincoln Tunnel? They've already maxed out the capacity of the exclusive bus lanes to the point where adding more buses isn't feasible. If the buses are going to sit in traffic as long as the cars will, then people will drive their own cars rather than sit on a crowded bus. When the bus lanes are just as congested as the car lanes because there are so many buses, more buses just make the problem worse. There are huge volumes of people moving in and out of cities at rush hour.

Here in Cincinnati, there isn't much "suburban" space and everything opens up pretty quickly into rural areas where public transportation isn't at all feasible. Some of the larger corporations have instead taken a different approach to alleviating congestion on the interstates by staggering their shift start and end times. Some start the day at 7:30 and end at 4:30, others 8 to 5, others 8:30 to 5:30. It keeps everyone from spilling out at exactly the same time. But we only have a few large corporations like that. In a bigger city, like NY or Boston, that's not feasible either.

 

[Huckleberry]

We could make a public transportation system that uses a BT powered thread treadmill. That would solve everyones transportation problems.

 

[Evo]

From the US Department of Transportation

Changing demographic and travel behavior characteristics have
resulted in significant challenges for transportation decision-
makers, planners, and practitioners throughout the U.S. Efforts
to meet these challenges have had varying degrees of success
and/or failure and, as we look to the future, it appears that
dealing with existing and evolving transportation needs will
only become more difficult. Commuting in the U.S. has evolved
substantially over the past several decades, from the more
traditional commute with a majority of destinations in the
central business district to new travel patterns where commuting
from suburb to suburb has grown to be the dominant commuting
pattern.

http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/CAUS.html

 

[BicycleTree]

http://www.uncc.edu/bgraves/City/lectures/Subover.htm
This indicates that suburb-to-suburb commuting actually composed twice as much commuting as suburb-to-city commuting in 1994. Also, "Suburbs to central city has not been dominant since 1970." So it seems that suburb-to-city commuting does not compose the greatest amount of transportation. Nevertheless, when you consider the 40 million workers in suburbs, it is definitely a significant problem, accounting for about six million people.

 

[Moonbear]

So there aren't buses running to the suburbs after 8 or 9 pm... because people aren't there to use them. And your reason why people aren't there to use them is... they have to take cars back because... there aren't any buses after 8 or 9 pm. Is that an accurate representation?

No. It's because there aren't ENOUGH people to make it worth running buses AT ANY GIVEN TIME going to ANY GIVEN LOCATION. Scattered over the evening, and across all the various suburban areas, this is still a lot of people. Oh, and don't forget that all of these roads are shared all the time by interstate travelers and vacationers; on Fridays in the summer, anyone heading south out of NYC not only faces the usual rush hour commuter traffic, but also the roads jam-packed with travelers to the Jersey shore (with their cars jam-packed with kids and stuff for the beach).

 

[Evo]

http://www.uncc.edu/bgraves/City/lectures/Subover.htm
This indicates that suburb-to-suburb commuting actually composed twice as much commuting as suburb-to-city commuting in 1994. Also, "Suburbs to central city has not been dominant since 1970." So it seems that suburb-to-city commuting does not compose the greatest amount of transportation. Nevertheless, when you consider the 40 million workers in suburbs, it is definitely a significant problem, accounting for about six million people.

That's the problem BT, these workers in the suburbs aren't going to any specific area, they're going all over the place, which is why buses aren't feasible.

 

[Moonbear]

http://www.uncc.edu/bgraves/City/lectures/Subover.htm
This indicates that suburb-to-suburb commuting actually composed twice as much commuting as suburb-to-city commuting in 1994. Also, "Suburbs to central city has not been dominant since 1970." So it seems that suburb-to-city commuting does not compose the greatest amount of transportation. Nevertheless, when you consider the 40 million workers in suburbs, it is definitely a significant problem, accounting for about six million people.

Nobody said it's not a problem, they're saying that putting more buses on the roads isn't necessarily the right solution. In some places it might be, but not everywhere.

 

[chroot]

This indicates that suburb-to-suburb commuting actually composed twice as much commuting as suburb-to-city commuting in 1994. Also, "Suburbs to central city has not been dominant since 1970." So it seems that suburb-to-city commuting does not compose the greatest amount of transportation. Nevertheless, when you consider the 40 million workers in suburbs, it is definitely a significant problem, accounting for about six million people.

As I've been saying since page one of this thread:

Gettting people back and forth from large cities to suburbs is essentially a solved problem with regards to public transportation. If you commute from suburbs to a major city, you almost certainly already have at least one kind of public transportation available to you. The major problem, again -- for the last time I'll say it tonight -- is the suburb-to-suburb commuters, by far the largest portion of the commuting public. There are many different places to work, and many different places to live, and there is no clear way to make public transportation work in those situations.

You sure do seem to think you have all the answers, BicycleTree -- that's surprising to me, since you don't even have a real understanding of the problem.

- Warren

 

[BicycleTree]

All of the reasons I've been telling you more buses is not the solution. There are already LOTS of buses heading from suburbs to major cities, where congestion is a problem. Did you read the blurb about the XBL lanes through the Lincoln Tunnel? They've already maxed out the capacity of the exclusive bus lanes to the point where adding more buses isn't feasible. If the buses are going to sit in traffic as long as the cars will, then people will drive their own cars rather than sit on a crowded bus. When the bus lanes are just as congested as the car lanes because there are so many buses, more buses just make the problem worse. There are huge volumes of people moving in and out of cities at rush hour.

So to decide whether buses help or hurt, consider: if the people taking buses took cars instead, would congestion increase or decrease?

It would increase.

If the buses must sit in traffic because of too many cars, causing people to take cars instead, thus causing more congestion, then which is the problem: cars, or buses?

Cars.

The fact is that the more people you can put in cars and HOV's as opposed to SOV's, the fewer vehicles are on the road and the less congestion there is.


Please state again the reasons that you think apply to this specific situation of park-and-rides. I have presented counter-arguments to much of what you said, and not all of the things you said would apply to park-and-rides.

Here in Cincinnati, there isn't much "suburban" space and everything opens up pretty quickly into rural areas where public transportation isn't at all feasible. Some of the larger corporations have instead taken a different approach to alleviating congestion on the interstates by staggering their shift start and end times. Some start the day at 7:30 and end at 4:30, others 8 to 5, others 8:30 to 5:30. It keeps everyone from spilling out at exactly the same time. But we only have a few large corporations like that. In a bigger city, like NY or Boston, that's not feasible either.

In many places, buses will not help. In many places, buses will help.

Don't change the subject away from park-and-rides.

 

[Moonbear]

* Private Vehicle Boom--All alternatives to driving alone to work by private vehicle declined between 1980 and 1990. In fact, the increase in the number of commuters in single occupant vehicles (SOV) exceeded the total increase in commuters. This means, in effect, that not only did all new workers choose to drive alone, but also a few million persons not new to the labor force also switched from other modes to SOV's. Only working at home (telecommuting) showed growth. Will this trend continue? Although it is difficult to predict the future, it is expected that continued growth in jobs and population in the suburbs will foster private vehicle use. Also, continued low costs of fuel and continued pressures of time on multiworker households will keep single occupant vehicle commuting an attractive mode.

* Suburban Commuting Boom--Overall, the suburbanization of population and jobs is not only continuing, but its rate of growth has accelerated. Fifty percent of the nation's commuters live in the suburbs, and 42 percent of the jobs are located there. Of the 19 million new jobs created between 1980 and 1990, 70 percent were located in the suburbs. Suburb-to-suburb commuting accounted for 44 percent of metropolitan commuting flows in 1990 and reverse commuting (central city-to-suburb) accounted for 12 percent. At the same time, the traditional suburb-to-central city commute decreased its share of growth.

* Travel Time Implications--Surprisingly, even though single occupant vehicle usage increased for the work trip, average travel time to work increased only by 40 seconds, from 21.7 minutes in 1980 to 22.4 minutes in 1990. The commuting patterns described above help explain this phenomena--there is a time advantage of suburb-to-suburb commuting over suburb-to-central city commuting.

Another explanation for the very small increase in travel time is due to the shift from slower modes to faster modes (e.g. transit to carpooling, or carpooling to SOV). This will not continue in the future--the transportation system will not be able to absorb much more mode shift to the SOV.

http://www.commuter-register.org/crtrends.html

 

[BicycleTree]

As I've been saying since page one of this thread:

Gettting people back and forth from large cities to suburbs is essentially a solved problem with regards to public transportation. If you commute from suburbs to a major city, you almost certainly already have at least one kind of public transportation available to you. The major problem, again -- for the last time I'll say it tonight -- is the suburb-to-suburb commuters, by far the largest portion of the commuting public. There are many different places to work, and many different places to live, and there is no clear way to make public transportation work in those situations.

In these situations, perhaps, buses would not be practical. Nevertheless, I am only concerned with one problem at the moment, since this thread is about driving pet peeves, and my peeve is the traffic situation on the southeast expressway into Boston, and by extension similar situations in other cities. What I see when commuting on that road is people in traffic jams that don't need to exist. People who could take buses or park-and-rides. But who don't.

 

[Evo]

The reason park n rides haven't solved traffic problems are:

1)They go into the city, if you don't work in the city, you can't take them.

2)Not conveniently located from many suburbs

3)A nuisance - The lots for these things are over crowded, there are lines into and out of the parking area, you have to wait for the bus, you're exposed to the elements while waiting and while walking long distances to and from your car.

4)Not practical - if you need to work late, you could miss the last bus and not be able to get home.

 

[BicycleTree]

Getting back to that, instead of the argument, here's why I think they don't: They like the comfort and luxury of their own car, the psychological concept of "protected space." They like getting to work slightly faster selfishly at the expense of the traffic situation overall, which causes everyone to be slower.

 

[Evo]

In these situations, perhaps, buses would not be practical. Nevertheless, I am only concerned with one problem at the moment, since this thread is about driving pet peeves, and my peeve is the traffic situation on the southeast expressway into Boston, and by extension similar situations in other cities. What I see when commuting on that road is people in traffic jams that don't need to exist. People who could take buses or park-and-rides. But who don't.

In many cases buses wouldn't work because the people need transportation once they get there. Boston may not be their final destination, it's more likely that they are destined for the suburbs, which means the bus won't work.

You keep changing your subject.

 

[BicycleTree]

The reason park n rides haven't solved traffic problems are:

1)They go into the city, if you don't work in the city, you can't take them.

2)Not conveniently located from many suburbs

3)A nuisance - The lots for these things are over crowded, there are lines into and out of the parking area, you have to wait for the bus, you're exposed to the elements while waiting and while walking long distances to and from your car.

4)Not practical - if you need to work late, you could miss the last bus and not be able to get home.

They are overcrowded? You know what the solution to that is... have more of them.

1 is not relevant because I am only concerned with suburb-to-city commuting.

I don't understand what you mean by 2. If they are located at on-ramps to roads you would take anyway, how much more convenience do you need?

4--well, as I said you need later buses.