Driving Peeves: SUV's & Turn Signals

[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.