Do bicycles and cars mix?

Scott in Aztlan wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 02:43:33 GMT, "Pete" wrote:

All this merely points to a poor implementation of non-car transport.

It *can* be done. The US public merely lacks the will or desire to do it.
For a variety of reasons. Mainly, I think, because we don't *want* to.

I fully understand why.

I live approximately 3 miles from my office. It takes me less than 9
minutes
door-to-door to drive there. If I take the bus, that trip becomes 45
minutes,
primarily because the bus that comes closest to my house takes me 6 miles
in the
opposite direction before I can transfer to the bus that drops me off near
my
office. Alternatively, I can take a different bus and walk about a mile;
this
version of the trip takes about 30 minutes. I could also ride my bike, but
there
are no showers in my office building, and going through the workday
reeking of
sweat typically isn't the best career move.

If these are our choices, we will NEVER pry people out of their cars.


Those are the tradeoffs you get with public transit.

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote in message ...
On 7 Aug 2003, Tanya Quinn wrote:

I don't see how this is diminishing productivity. Its not so hard to
plan your schedule around the transport schedule

Irrelevant. In a free society, people justifiably demand the freedom to go
exactly where they want, exactly *when* they want.

Well I'd like to exactly where I want and when I want too, but I don't
think that the car is the way to do it. By car, I can *leave* when I
want to go *where* I want, but I don't necessarily get there *when* I
want. At many times of day and many places automobile traffic is too
congested to get people where they want to go when they want. If they
choose to take public transit that has to compete on the same roadway
space as the car, they aren't going to get where they want when the
want either. But if for instance, one lane of a multi-lane road was
physically only usable by transit, then people that want to get where
they want faster could actually use it. People that wanted to have the
comfort of their cars but didn't care about how fast could do that
too. Problem is people that drive the cars whine too loudly about
taking away some of the space that is now theirs to use for people
that want to get places quickly by taking 50+ single occupancy
vehicles and putting their occupants in one slightly larger vehicle.

Most taxi trips are cheaper than that, and if as the OP says they only
need to use a car about once a month its much cheaper to use the taxi
than to pay maintenance, insurance etc on the car. (not to mention it is
depreciating in your driveway)

Fortunately, it's not your decision to make for anyone but yourself.

Nope, but I was just pointing out the economics. People complain that
cabs are too terribly expensive, but they don't consider the fixed
costs of the automobile if they use that automobile extremely
infrequently. If they still prefer the car that's their choice but
they can hardly say its because of money.

Is it so terrible to have to wait five minutes while reading a paper
or book

Yes! It's not the degree of the wait, its likelihood or its frequency --
it's putting oneself at the mercy of the vagaries of somebody else's
schedule. It's the principle.

I don't see how this is any different from having to wait in a traffic
slowdown. If you live somewhere where your car trip is consistent in
timing every time well good for you then but most places there is
something called traffic. And that's the main problem with automobiles
- while cars give you freedom to go where you want when you want, once
too many people start enjoying the freedom, nobody goes anywhere at
all, the steel boxes just crawl along like little ants.

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 01:24:40 GMT, (PC) wrote:

If by that you mean you never log off or reboot, save for once a week,
then yeah.. Otherwise, what on earth are you saying?

Pete is a moron.
Cops are the cause of everyone's problems.
My actions does not give them any right to break the law.
Their illegal actions are the result of their idiocy.
Their life is not my fault.
If you can't handle being a cop, find a real job.

Tanya Quinn wrote in message
om...
"Daniel J. Stern" wrote in message
...
On 7 Aug 2003, Tanya Quinn wrote:

I don't see how this is diminishing productivity. Its not so hard to
plan your schedule around the transport schedule

Irrelevant. In a free society, people justifiably demand the freedom to
go
exactly where they want, exactly *when* they want.

Well I'd like to exactly where I want and when I want too, but I don't
think that the car is the way to do it. By car, I can *leave* when I
want to go *where* I want, but I don't necessarily get there *when* I
want. At many times of day and many places automobile traffic is too
congested to get people where they want to go when they want. If they
choose to take public transit that has to compete on the same roadway
space as the car, they aren't going to get where they want when the
want either. But if for instance, one lane of a multi-lane road was
physically only usable by transit, then people that want to get where
they want faster could actually use it. People that wanted to have the
comfort of their cars but didn't care about how fast could do that
too. Problem is people that drive the cars whine too loudly about
taking away some of the space that is now theirs to use for people
that want to get places quickly by taking 50+ single occupancy
vehicles and putting their occupants in one slightly larger vehicle.

Most taxi trips are cheaper than that, and if as the OP says they only
need to use a car about once a month its much cheaper to use the taxi
than to pay maintenance, insurance etc on the car. (not to mention it
is
depreciating in your driveway)

Fortunately, it's not your decision to make for anyone but yourself.

Nope, but I was just pointing out the economics. People complain that
cabs are too terribly expensive, but they don't consider the fixed
costs of the automobile if they use that automobile extremely
infrequently. If they still prefer the car that's their choice but
they can hardly say its because of money.


People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do nothing
around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?

writes:

Nope, but I was just pointing out the economics. People complain that
cabs are too terribly expensive, but they don't consider the fixed
costs of the automobile if they use that automobile extremely
infrequently. If they still prefer the car that's their choice but
they can hardly say its because of money.


People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do nothing
around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?

Home depot dosen't deliver large items? I'd go somewhere that does.

--
Jordan Bettis http://www.hafd.org/~jordanb
The truth is more important than the facts.
-- Frank Loyd Wright

Jordan Bettis wrote:

writes:


Nope, but I was just pointing out the economics. People complain that
cabs are too terribly expensive, but they don't consider the fixed
costs of the automobile if they use that automobile extremely
infrequently. If they still prefer the car that's their choice but
they can hardly say its because of money.


People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do nothing
around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?


Home depot dosen't deliver large items? I'd go somewhere that does.

At least in our area they provide delivery services and also offer trucks
for rent.

wrote:
People who post drivel like this are impractical people who do nothing
around the house. Can you imagine going to Home Depot in a taxi?


People who post drivel like the above...
Can you really justify a year's worth of truck payments
to have it handy for a couple of trips to the home improvement
store? Makes as much sense as paying $200 a sheet for plywood.
On second thought, you ARE paying $200 a sheet for plywood.
Mitch.

"Tanya Quinn" wrote in message
om...
Problem is people that drive the cars whine too loudly about
taking away some of the space that is now theirs to use for people
that want to get places quickly by taking 50+ single occupancy
vehicles and putting their occupants in one slightly larger vehicle.

How often do 50+ people want to start at one place and go to same place.
The answer is very very seldom. If you are going to pick them up and let
the off along the way then the trip takes about four times as long. Where
time is expensive, that is obviously a non-solution.


Nope, but I was just pointing out the economics. People complain that
cabs are too terribly expensive, but they don't consider the fixed
costs of the automobile if they use that automobile extremely
infrequently. If they still prefer the car that's their choice but
they can hardly say its because of money.

My experience is that a cab tends to run about $1.50 to $2.00 per mile
(including tip) compared to about 35 cents per mile for a car. You
typically have to wait about 30 minutes for a cab to arrive which is about
$18 for a typical income of $75K per year where I live. So the people are
making a wise economic decision using a car and a terrible decision to use a
cab except for a few circumstances.

Why is there a fixed cost for a car. If you use a car less, it cost less
per year. Since most people these days drive a car until it is worn out,
the cost is mainly a function of mileage (including insurance). There are
some time fixed cost, but a large part is mileage based.

And that's the main problem with automobiles
- while cars give you freedom to go where you want when you want, once
too many people start enjoying the freedom, nobody goes anywhere at
all, the steel boxes just crawl along like little ants.

Crawl along like little ants every where, every time? That is nonsense for
most places. There are obviously traffic jams, but people still use cars
because they are still faster than transit.

A large part of the congestion is caused by excessive spending on transit
and gross under spending on roads. For example in Silicon Valley the
amount of money to get 1K people out of their cars into transit is running
at about the same as the money it would take to add capacity for an
additional 100K people.

Obviously the more you spend to try to get people out of cars into transit,
the more congestion you are going to produce.

On Sat, 9 Aug 2003, Mitch Haley wrote:

Can you really justify a year's worth of truck payments to have it handy
for a couple of trips to the home improvement store?

You're still barking up the wrong tree, here, Mitch. It doesn't make a
particle of difference if the expenditure wouldn't pass even the laxest
cost-benefit analysis. Y'see, in a free society, no individual has to
"justify" his purchases and expenditures to anyone but himself, 'cept
maybe his spouse.

DS

On 8 Aug 2003 14:35:58 -0700, (Tanya Quinn) wrote:

Dave Head wrote in message exercise which is good for you. And if someone is driving to work and
then drives to the gym to work out for an hour, they've saved their
work out time by biking.

Well, right now I can't seem to exercise every evening, (I usually use a
LifeStep 9500 machine, if you're familiar with gym equipment), or my knees get
sore. I don't think I'd have much better luck on the bike.

Hi Dave,
Have you tried biking? Its actually a form of exercise that is least
harsh on the knees, definitely more so than stair climbing. I find my
knees get sore (as my legs are a bit uneven in length) if I walk for
too long and with stairs. If you get sore knees cycling you may just
need to adjust the height of the seat.

Hi Tanya,

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

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.

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.

You don't have to bike a real long distance, short trips to the store
occasionally save wear and tear on your car and can be fun.

in other states, but they are all "State Highways" here. They're terribly
dangerous for the _cars_, too. I point it out, and they say its too expensive
to change. I say that's what dynamite is for...

Yup dynamite would be good

Firstly, I don't want to give up the luxury of not having to plan things. I'm
sure I'm not alone, so that will hurt ridership on that basis.

There's two types of travel: travel within the city, that you do on a
frequent basis. For this, yes, ideally you should not have to plan
your life around the transit schedule. In a city with enough demand,
vehicles should come by frequently enough that you don't have to check
the schedule (say every 5 minutes)

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.

Travel between cities - usually this happens on a less frequent basis,
and the trips take a longer time. For this it is reasonable to plan
for a less frequent schedule. Obviously once a day would be
inconvenient, but hourly trains between major centers should not be so
much of a problem for this type of travel. You go to the station close
to the departure time, and ideally the trains run ON TIME.

And doesn't get so full you can't get on it, and have to wait another hour for
the next train. People ride the trains up and down the east coast on a daily
basis, if they have an office in, say, New York City. I expect its a pleasant
trip - I actually like riding trains, although DC to NYC is something on the
order of 2.5 hours, each way, so isn't something I'd want to do every day.


Second, in order for transit to be _really_ accepted, it has to be faster than
a car, door to door, at all times of the day and night. That way, it can be
making money 24 / 7. Its no wonder the mass transit is so expensive, when it's
built such that it can only be used "efficiently" when the alternative is
totally hosed by congestion.

The main time when there is traffic congestion in any place is during
"rush hour", where everyone is trying to get to work at more or less
the same time. Commuting accounts for a large portion of personal
travel. If people used transit to go to work but cars for pleasure it
would still have many benefits for all. If you want to make the
transition to car-free you need to have competitive service at all
times of day and night, I don't think transit necessarily has to
always win, but to win some of the time, and not be too much of a
penalty at other times would be ideal.

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
way to do that any more is the personal rapid transit, which could be built to
be so fast, door to door, that people would think it a "no brainer" to hop on
and get where they're going in, say, half the time, or 1/3rd the time, of their
car.

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,
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.


As for waiting, it often isn't a short time. I tried to take the bus in
Indianapolis to get from a car dealer back home after dropping off the car. I
_waited_ for that bus, which was _scheduled_ to come 1/2 hour from the time I
got to the bus stop, but that one never came. I had to wait for the next one,
an hour later.

This obviously is not a place then where public transit is a viable
option. (for most people) If buses showed up every 10 minutes like
clockwork, you would be waiting on average for 5 minutes unless you
just missed one.

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.

A much better transit system than Indianapolis is Washington, DC. I decided to
go to an inventor's meeting on the north side of DC. I hate to drive _in_ DC,
so I parked at Springfield on the south side, walked a considerable distance to
the platform, got on after about a 10 minute wait, went downtown, transferred
to another train that was about a 15 minute wait (this was in the evening), got
off at the closest station, and spent 15 minutes or so hiking up to the
facility where the meeting was. I had GPS to pinpoint the building, so I
didn't walk too far out of the way, but it was a pretty lengthy walk.

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'm fortunate (transit-wise) in that I live in Toronto. Subway trains
come every 90 seconds during the peak periods, and 5-6 minutes in the
slowest periods up til about 1:30 a.m. These waits are very reasonable
for going places and many destinations are easily accessible from the
subway stations. Parking is also scarce and expensive in the downtown
so its quicker to take transit than drive AND park.

Yep - the world needs transit that works faster than a car.

Now, the trains run 60 mph at top speed, but they aren't at top speed very
much. They stop... and stop... and stop... Average speed is pretty low,
actually. Then you add the waiting when changing trains. Its crawling,
door-to-door.

Because of stops subways and rapid trains within a city are usually
slower than a car could circle the city on an expressway. On city
streets traffic lights cause about as many stops as the train would
stop. For intercity travel though high speed trains that can travel up
to 4 times faster than cars become a very competitive option when
going somewhere that would be a 4 hour drive.

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.

I could have easily _circled_ the city, and beat that train. The transit
system _has_ to go to the personal rapid transit model, with no stopping of
rail vehicles from start to stop, or it is never going to be competitive with
cars.

I don't believe that is necessary - it can be competitive when it has
its own right-of-way where cars are congested (and as population grows
traffic will become more congested), it can be competitive on price
where time is not too bad - if parking is scarce and expensive, it can
be competitive even if its slightly slower if its more comfortable
(not often, but room for improvement) or enjoyable (can do something
else at the same time)

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.

technology is here, with personal rapid transit, if someone will just go ahead
and build it. People would likely still have to drive to a PRT terminal, at
least until the system is built out to basically "everywhere", but PRT would
win the competition, and then people would _pay_ to ride it. Beginning of the
end of highway congestion, I think.

I'm trying to envision how this would work. It will take a lot of
space to implement this and I can only see it working fairly well on
expressways - otherwise how does all the stopping, starting and
turning that happens on local streets take place? It may be better
than a high-speed train in that it eliminates waiting but it would
seem that it would necessarily be a huge consumer of space, with a lot
of empty vehicles constantly going by. While our current culture seems
to value personal space it takes up a lot more valuable real estate
than a train would. I actually enjoy the aspect of transit where I can
run into an acquaintance and have a conversation.

You'd have to build it up in the air. A people-only version, where people ride
it instead of my favorite concept of the PRT carrying a car, could do that
fairly easily. A car-carrying PRT would be fairly difficult to build up in the
air, but probably is still doable, like the "el" was doable in Chicago.

As for waiting on transit, _nobody_ likes to wait. On anything. But waiting
on a train is generally done in the weather, no matter if it is raining,
snowing, -20 degrees or 105 degrees. Its done in the rain, and in the sun.
Throw in an occasional mosquito for good measure. Then there's the exposure to
the criminal element, an acutal concern in some regions. One's car is a means
of rapid escape, with the capability of being a deadly weapon if necessary.

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.

But
lets ignore that and concentrate on your other points. Of course
nobody likes to wait. I don't like to wait. That's why I spend more of
my time riding my bicycle for transportation than I do taking public
transportation. I can get out my door and go, not walk to a stop and
wait and wait. Without adequate funding transit can't hope to come up
with efficient schedules.

Unless transit can be made to turn a profit, so it doesn't _need_ outside
funding that comes on the whim of politicians, it doesn't have a prayer of
becoming widespread, I think. That's one of the reasons I think it has to win
against a car on a 24 - 7 basis.

When its snowing and you want to drive, you have to shovel your
driveway to get your car out,

Only with the heaviest snows... I have a Jeep! G

spend a few minutes waiting for the car
to warm up

They keep telling us we don't need to do that... I still think its a good
idea tho.

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

If the roads
haven't been plowed yet its not fun trying to drive through either.

It is in the Jeep! G

While many people have the luxury of a garage and space heater at home
these aren't often available at the other end - where they've parked.
When its snowing and I want to take transit, I dress appropriately
including boots, I walk, and its not so cold by dressing properly and
walking to the transit stop. If its a subway I'm waiting indoors. If
its a bus I'm waiting for there's usually a bus shelter where I can
stay out of the wind and not get snowed on.

If its raining I carry an umbrella. Really I think people are far too
spoiled somehow that they think getting a little wet or slightly
chilled is going to kill them.

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.

But how about my upcoming shopping trip? I have to get to several outdoor
stores to do my shopping, then to a haircut, probably to Radio Shack, and
almost certianly a movie before or after. I can barely get that done in a car.
If there is a 10 - 15 minute wait for a bus to show up each leg of the trip,
it'll take 2 trips, minimum. Plus - I'm on my way to a movie as soon a I
finish this - 10:05 PM movie. Find me a train - or bus - at that hour. Ain't
happening...

I'm assuming these stores aren't in different cities. What I would do?
Bring my bike and a backpack and/or panniers depending on how much
stuff I had to buy. I also can bungee things to the rear rack - like
when I bought a heavy wooden stool. I attached a large crate to the
rack when I went shopping for a flat of pansies for my garden, and
didn't obviously want them to get squished in a backpack. (If I was
buying a whole carful of stuff it would be a rare rare shopping trip
and likely an excuse to need to rent one) Ride to each store, lock up
my bike right at the door (no looking for parking spots, or feeding
meters!) - though its a bit of a pain to take the panniers off each
time to make sure the stuff doesn't get stolen in the meantime. Where
I live a 10:05 movie or when it gets out would not be a problem on
transit, but I enjoy biking at night in the summer - there is a nice
breeze. If I had time I'd go home and dump my stuff first, then go
back on my bike with some lights. Lock it up well, enjoy the movie,
come back out, and enjoy the peacefulness of coming home when traffic
has really gotten light.

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.

Dave Head


Tanya