Driving Peeves: SUV's & Turn Signals

[BicycleTree]

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.

No, believe me, Boston is their final destination. If you'd seen the traffic I've seen there would be no debate here. If they were going somewhere else they would take a different road. As for transportation once they get to the city, the same consideration applies to the car, which must be parked (not an easy task) and then one must go from the car into the place of employment.

No, I am not changing any subject. There are several things going on here and I am replying to several different people at once. I'm not always going to be talking about the same thing you're talking about, but I'm always in the same general region.

 

[Moonbear]

5. The short-distance, suburb-to-suburb commute is the
segment of the commute market that is expanding most
rapidly. Suburb-to-suburb commuting has increased
congestion on suburban freeways without a corresponding
increase in the average worker's travel times. This is
because the typical suburb-to-suburb commuter uses the
freeway system for relatively short trips that are not
subject to prolonged delays.

6. The reverse commute is another growth segment of the
commute market. Reverse commuting has made "efficient"
use of lightly used highway and transit capacity.

7. Commuters have saved time by adjusting their arrival
and departure times-thus avoiding the peak of the rush
hour crush. Staggered working hours have extended the
duration of the peak period congestion but increased the
mobility that commuters can secure from the transportation
system.

8. Working mothers account for an increasing proportion of
the workforce. To balance their roles at home and in the
workplace, many working mothers make shopping and childcare
trips on their way to and from work. Coupling trips
together during commute hours has saved time, but added to
peak-period congestion.

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

 

[BicycleTree]

I notice you excise #4, the reference to how the Bay Area Rapid Transit improves the situation. Also, most of that is not terribly relevant.

 

[BicycleTree]

Now, let's make this interesting. Obviously, some of the commuters could use buses and thereby improve the traffic situation, and if there were such a demand, more buses could be put into production to accommodate those people.

So the question is, what percentage of those people in SOV's on the southeast expressway would it be practical to accommodate by bus if they so had the mind? I'm going to guess 60%.

 

[Moonbear]

I notice you excise #4, the reference to how the Bay Area Rapid Transit improves the situation. Also, most of that is not terribly relevant.

Nope, #4 refers to commuters into the cities of San Francisco and Oakland, not the suburb-to-suburb commute, which is discussed beginning with point #5.

And it is relevant. It shows why people are in cars and not on buses. It also shows that the congestion does not necessarily mean longer commute times. And lastly, it shows that part of the cause of the congestion is NOT the commuters from the cities to suburbs, as you claim, but that suburb-to-suburb commuters are hopping on and off freeways for shorter spans, who you were claiming would take alternative routes.

 

[BicycleTree]

Moonbear, suburb to suburb commuting is not under consideration. It is not relevant. Suburb to city commuting is the only kind of commuting that at the moment I am claiming would be greatly improved by more buses, the reason for that being, it is the only kind of commuting which I have had direct experience of and noted the number of SOV's. Suburb-to-city commuting is the only kind of commuting that my peeve concerns.

 

[Moonbear]

Now, let's make this interesting. Obviously, some of the commuters could use buses and thereby improve the traffic situation, and if there were such a demand, more buses could be put into production to accommodate those people.

So the question is, what percentage of those people in SOV's on the southeast expressway would it be practical to accommodate by bus if they so had the mind? I'm going to guess 60%.

Why guess 60%? I can pull any number out of my butt, but it doesn't make it meaningful. If you want to establish an argument, go do your research and give us a figure that is based on some evidence.

Some might be accommodated by buses between suburbs, I don't know what percentage, but, as soon as you alleviate some of that congestion with buses, people will move further away because they can live further from the loud city without any longer of a commute, and gradually congestion builds up again.

 

[BicycleTree]

This is something I have said many times.

 

[Evo]

No, believe me, Boston is their final destination.

I don't know how you can say this with any certainty. I've lived in DC & upstate NY & Philadelphia and driven to the Boston "area" many times, but Boston itself was never my final destination.

 

[BicycleTree]

Why guess 60%? I can pull any number out of my butt, but it doesn't make it meaningful. If you want to establish an argument, go do your research and give us a figure that is based on some evidence.

Some might be accommodated by buses between suburbs, I don't know what percentage, but, as soon as you alleviate some of that congestion with buses, people will move further away because they can live further from the loud city without any longer of a commute, and gradually congestion builds up again.

I guessed 60% as a starting point, basically a wild guess. If you want to argue it is much higher or lower, make such an argument.

 

[Moonbear]

Moonbear, suburb to suburb commuting is not under consideration. It is not relevant. Suburb to city commuting is the only kind of commuting that at the moment I am claiming would be greatly improved by more buses, the reason for that being, it is the only kind of commuting which I have had direct experience of and noted the number of SOV's. Suburb-to-city commuting is the only kind of commuting that my peeve concerns.

It IS relevant, because those suburb-to-suburb commuters are on the SAME highways/interstates/freeways as the city-to-suburb commuters, and ALL contribute to the congestion.

 

[BicycleTree]

I don't know how you can say this with any certainty. I've lived in DC & upstate NY & Philadelphia and driven to the Boston "area" many times, but Boston itself was never my final destination.

Did you use the southeast expressway going into boston during rush hour, just casually, and knowing what you were getting into?

Did you use any direct arteries to Boston during rush hour? (you know it's rush hour because you're doing 10 mph on the freeway). If you did, did you know what you were getting into?

 

[Moonbear]

I guessed 60% as a starting point, basically a wild guess. If you want to argue it is much higher or lower, make such an argument.

Nope, it's your argument, you can do your own research. If you don't want to substantiate your numbers, then I don't have to give your argument any credibility.

 

[BicycleTree]

It IS relevant, because those suburb-to-suburb commuters are on the SAME highways/interstates/freeways as the city-to-suburb commuters, and ALL contribute to the congestion.

There are off-ramps along the southeast expressway. Very few people use them.

 

[Evo]

BT, many people that commute from suburb to city do so for all the reasons that have been mentioned, the need to work odd hours, the need to come and go during the work day, the need to go places other than directly home after work. Of course there will be some that do it for convenience, but probably not that many.

 

[BicycleTree]

Nope, it's your argument, you can do your own research. If you don't want to substantiate your numbers, then I don't have to give your argument any credibility.

I'm trying to start a discussion here, I'm not trying to make an argument. 60% seems like a nice middle-of-the-line value. What do you think? You must have some figure in mind, seeing as how you've been arguing about it for so long.

 

[Evo]

There are off-ramps along the southeast expressway. Very few people use them.

Probably because they don't need to stop before they hit Boston.

 

[Moonbear]

Did you use the southeast expressway going into boston during rush hour, just casually, and knowing what you were getting into?

Did you use any direct arteries to Boston during rush hour? (you know it's rush hour because you're doing 10 mph on the freeway). If you did, did you know what you were getting into?

It happens. Travelers using the interstates don't always manage to plan their trip to avoid rush hour, especially if you're trying to plan a trip along the East coast that includes passing through or near DC, NYC and Boston. You're bound to hit one of them smack dab in the middle of rush hour no matter how hard you try to avoid it.

 

[Huckleberry]

I don't know how you can say this with any certainty. I've lived in DC & upstate NY & Philadelphia and driven to the Boston "area" many times, but Boston itself was never my final destination.

I'd agree with BT on this one. It is usually easier to go around Boston on 495 than go through it if it isn't your destination. And when I watch the news in the morning Boston traffic is always horrible. I assume that this is from people going to work and the same for the afternoon when they are returning home. Many people don't carpool.

 

[Evo]

I'm trying to start a discussion here, I'm not trying to make an argument. 60% seems like a nice middle-of-the-line value. What do you think? You must have some figure in mind, seeing as how you've been arguing about it for so long.

I say it's 1%, come up with published figures so that there can be a realistic discussion.

 

[BicycleTree]

BT, many people that commute from suburb to city do so for all the reasons that have been mentioned, the need to work odd hours, the need to come and go during the work day, the need to go places other than directly home after work. Of course there will be some that do it for convenience, but probably not that many.

So what would your guess be as to the percentage that could use a bus without much trouble, if buses were put into service wherever they could get a fair bunch of people assuming those who can are willing?

Edit: it's not 1%. Come up with a rational guess. I'm pretty sure there are no published figures.

 

[Moonbear]

Probably because they don't need to stop before they hit Boston.

Or they don't know enough about alternate routes, so stick with the main road even if it means sitting in traffic.

 

[Evo]

So what would your guess be as to the percentage that could use a bus without much trouble, if buses were put into service wherever they could get a fair bunch of people assuming those who can are willing?

Guessing is pointless.

 

[BicycleTree]

What travellers without regional knowledge do with respect to the arteries leading into Boston is not relevant because travellers from other regions do not constitute a significant amount of the load during rush hour.

Evo, if you have no guess, then what have you been arguing for the past hour or two? You don't know whether 90% or 10% could be helped by more buses, but you still think buses are a bad idea?

 

[Moonbear]

So what would your guess be as to the percentage that could use a bus without much trouble, if buses were put into service wherever they could get a fair bunch of people assuming those who can are willing?

Edit: it's not 1%. Come up with a rational guess. I'm pretty sure there are no published figures.

And I say it's not 60%; come up with a rational guess. 1% sounds more reasonable to me, especially given your assumptions. Please clarify what you mean by:
1) without much trouble
2) a fair bunch of people

 

[Evo]

Evo, if you have no guess, then what have you been arguing for the past hour or two? You don't know whether 90% or 10% could be helped by more buses, but you still think buses are a bad idea?

Guessing is irrelevant and a discussion based on guesses would be pointless, come up with some published numbers we can discuss.

I never said buses are a bad idea, they're just not the answer. Did you read that DOT link I furnished?

 

[BicycleTree]

And I say it's not 60%; come up with a rational guess. 1% sounds more reasonable to me, especially given your assumptions. Please clarify what you mean by:
1) without much trouble
2) a fair bunch of people

1.) who could drive to a bus stop, if such a stop were feasible for the bus company to create given that people who could use it were willing, in their town or in another town closer in that the bus stops at, and who both go to work and return from work during rush hours (more people than this could do it "without much trouble" but let's cut things clean)
2.) let's say 10 people as a lower bound

 

[BicycleTree]

Guessing is irrelevant and a discussion based on guesses would be pointless, come up with some published numbers we can discuss.

Whenever you make a qualitative statement about the effectiveness of busing, you're making a guess. An unquantitative guess, arguably less discussable than a quantitative guess.

If there were somehow published figures on this (how would you even harvest this type of information?) there wouldn't be a discussion at all.

 

[honestrosewater]

Does anyone want to talk about possible solutions?

 

[Huckleberry]

SOS has a good solution. She drives right over traffic with her M1 Abrams wheelchair. She doesn't even get ticketed for driving under the influence. Who is going to stop her?
http://www.sportbikes.ws/images/smilies/tank.gif