Dave Head wrote in message
Hi Tanya,

I used to bike, but have several problems with it now.

That's unfortunate, its a fun way to get around.

One is biking _around here._ I'd have to load up the bike and take it
someplace safe. Starting out from the house, with the way these roads are, is
too dangerous for me. The roads have lots of curves and sharp crests. A few
months ago, a guy in my office came over one of these crests and plowed into
traffic stopped for a school bus. A bike wouldn't have a chance around here.

There are two problems, one - some places roads are really badly
designed. If you are in a remote area you might not have an alternate
route. Two is a perception problem. Many people perceive bicycling in
traffic to be a lot more dangerous than it actually is.

Also, I've developed a situation where my hands go numb when gripping anything
continuously. It happens when gripping the heart monitor contacts on the step
machine, too, but I can continue with that while leaving go of those contacts,
but you can't ride a bike and let go of the handlebars, at least not
continuously or safely. I think I'm not going to be doing much biking any
more.

Another unfortunate. You might however test-ride a recumbent bicycle.
As you don't have to support your body weight on your hands you might
find it easier on your hands. Gel-padded gloves might also help.

I've developed a real liking for the idea of the personal rapid transit system.
If built up in the air, on "stilts", it wouldn't take up any significant real
estate, and would be a "no waiting" solution that people would enjoy riding.

Wonder why cities are trying to get rid of their elevated expressways?
Things on "stilts" are expensive to keep up in the air Not only
that but they are an eyesore to the rest of the city, block out light
etc.

With transit usually being in the position of bleeding money, I think it has to
win 100% of the time, so that people will ride it enough so the fares can be
reasonable and the system still make money. I think that just about the only

If the idea is to offer "public" transit then the system's goal needs
to be to break even not to make money.

A personal favorite idea of mine is to go the extra mile and make personal
rapid transit big enough so you can drive your car onto a railcar, and have the
railcar run at much higher speed than would be safe to drive in a car. Then,

If its big enough that you can drive your car onto it, what the heck
is the point of it? Other than being faster? And fast travel has its
disadvantages to business. Retail stores for instance thrive on
traffic passing by - at a speed you can both see them and stop for
them. This may be riding a streetcar, a bicycle, walking by, or
driving along (at not too outrageous a speed).

when arriving, you could drive the rest of the way whever you're going. A
system like that would not need to be built "all at once". Just the 1st 2
terminals could be completed, and then system would then be open for travel
between them. The farther its built, the more useful it becomes. The fares
from the operating part could be used to help finance the further development
of the system. Plus, cars could then be made to "run on electricity," as the
system would use it to move the railcars.

If you already are necessitating the car, this is more expensive than
cars + highways, who is going to pay for this? You are perhaps using a
different fuel - electricity vs. gas but you are using much more
energy to move the same distance.

Yes, its a common failing that bus systems are set up to go downtown, no matter
if you want to go 2 miles tangent to the circle centered on downtown. Also a
common failing is not enough buses so you have to wait too long.

For a variety of bus routes and a frequent schedule you need a large
mass of people using the bus, and enough people wanting to travel in a
particular direction at a given point of time. Low density suburban
design does not support this.

Where buildings are designed around the automobile and providing a lot
of parking, it is going to not be so convenient to take transit, as it
will be a long walk to most points from a rapid transit station. Its
hard to change the design of a city

If the transit system was built to move your car rapidly, without congestion
while doing it...

I see a noisy blurry city that isn't fun to walk around in at all. If
the main cause of congestion is too many cars this won't solve
congestion.

Unfortunately, even our high speed trains aren't even twice as fast as a car.
Maybe 1.5X, and they are really rare, too. Regular trains in some areas of the
country, mainly the plains in the west and midwest, do about 80 mph. That's
still real close to my car when I'm driving that area, and my car doesn't stop
as often, at least until I have to get a motel G.

Technology is available for trains that move much faster. High speed
bullet trains in Japan can travel 200 mph. Try doing that in your car
and see what happens in an accident

If transit is going to make money, I think it is necessary that it beat cars
even when the cars have optimal conditions for travel. I think the PRT scheme
is the only thing that has a chance of doing that. Car-carrying PRT would be
the ideal situation, I think.

How can car-carrying PRT beat cars, when it is a car still? And it
takes up far too much space and is far too expensive. Interesting idea
though.

I think people are too highly paranoid about safety in general.

When you read about the criminal activity in the paper every day, its rather
hard to ignore.

Do you read about car accident fatalities in the newspaper too?
There's far more of those than there are random serial killers killing
pedestrians on the street

and get the ice and snow off the vehicle.

Car comes out of the garage, where the previous ice and snow has already melted
all over the floor... G

But what about at your destination? Are their garages at all the
places you want to go to?

Ya just have to satisfy what people want, and the spoiled ones, which are about
99% of the population, want cars. They want to do be able to do all the things
they can't do on transit - listen to the radio (you can't get AM or FM in the
subway tunnels, and Led Zeppelin just ain't the same on headphones), eat,
drink, and even sing. They want privacy.

I've seen people singing on transit g But yes cars provide a bubble
to isolate the user from the rest of the world. Whether you think
thats a pro or con depends on your perspective. Transit lets you do
more things - eat, drink, read the newspaper, knit, whatever you want
while you are in journey. Some people think its okay to multitask
while driving (breastfeeding, reading, playing musical instruments)
but they are accidents waiting to happen.You could multitask as a
passenger in a car - and certainly if people are carpooling to work
this is an improvement over single-occupancy vehicles, but generally
the ride is not as smooth as a subway or other fixed-rail vehicle for
reading. Perhaps there are ways of integrating the car comforts better
into transit to make it more attractive.

That would probably work, although being 20 miles out in the country, I'd still
have to put the bike on the roof of the car for a while... G Would need some
way to lock up the bike, tho, and there aren't bike racks most places around
here.

Yes - well country living does prevent challenges to transportation.
Unless you are a really keen biker living remotely usually
necessitates driving places.

But once you get to the city you can park and walk or park and ride
transit or park and bike too. Once a critical number of bicyclists
appear in a given place its easier to get the city or businesses to
install bike racks or ring/posts. There's ring/posts most everywhere I
go but when I happen to venture out into the land of only the
automobile (suburbia) I have to be more creative at locking the bike.
Parking meters, street signs, railings, trees (iffy someone could cut
the tree and you lose bike and a tree), and anything else that looks
relatively immobile work. Some places that have the space don't
actually mind if you bring the bike inside.

Tanya