Do bicycles and cars mix?

wrob wrote in message ...
wrote:

Keith F. Lynch wrote in message
...
John David Galt wrote:
I totally agree. But "makes sense" is defined economically. If it
takes taxpayer subsidies for transit to exist at all, offering it
doesn't make sense.

So we should close all the roads and highways? That's where most of
the transportation-related tax money goes.

Next we should close all the airports? That's where most of the rest
of the transportation-related tax money goes.


Airports are cash cows my friend. They make money unless they try
very
very hard not to. They could pay taxes and still make profits. Ticket
taxes pay for airports, as do PFCs (in the USA). ATC is a profit-maker
in
Canada, and should be in the USA too. It is also a profit-maker in
Switzerland.

ATC a profit-maker eh?

Yes, they turn a profit. Airports are cash cows too. Canada is not a
tax-dedicated system. Just how ignorant are you anyway? Apparently
totally.

wrote in message news:Z5QZa.6597
And the bus consumes for fuel too. They have to return empty, run
off-hour service, and as a result average about 7 persons. Cars save fuel.

While buses in some places may run inefficiently, in other denser
places they have as much traffic going in one direction as in the
other (especially when you have multi-purpose zoning where there are
both businesses and residents in any one location so rush hour isn't
just taking people from one section to another) Off-hour service is
usually reduced in the schedule as well. Where did you pull the
magical number 7 out of?

writes:

And the bus consumes for fuel too. They have to return empty, run
off-hour service, and as a result average about 7 persons. Cars save fuel.

Cars do a ton of dead-heading.

Take the kids to school, deadhead back.

Take the kids to soccer practice, deadhead back.

Take the kids to dance lessons, deadhead back.

Take a friend to the airport, deadhead back.

Etc.

--
Jordan Bettis http://www.hafd.org/~jordanb
Debian GNU/Linux: No remote root exploits in the base install for three years!

wrote:
Tranasit makes it harder for people to get to work.

If this were true, nobody would ride it to work.
--
Keith F. Lynch - - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.

wrote:
Planners refuse to plan using current technology. Rather, they want
to move backwards into the 19th century using fixed rail transit
systems.

Or into the 18th century with fixed highways. Just because an idea is
old doesn't mean it is bad.

Rail is more attractive than bus, not just because it has a higher
capacity and ususally runs more frequently, but also precisely because
it is fixed. People are reluctant to choose a home or workplace based
on a bus line, since it could be changed at whim. One of the reasons
why highway transportation is attractive is because the local highway
isn't going to be shut down or moved next month. Rail transit is
attractive for the same reason. DC's Orange line will still be going
to Vienna, Virginia in 2050, same as the I-66 highway. As for the 2T
bus, who knows?
--
Keith F. Lynch - - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.

Jack May wrote:
"Keith F. Lynch" wrote:

So we should close all the roads and highways? That's where most of
the transportation-related tax money goes.

Its also where the transportation taxes come from that more than pay
for the roads and some of the transit.

So why did Virginia raise sales taxes by 12% a few years ago? They
claimed it was for "transportation". And why did Northern Virginia
have a proposal on the ballot last year to increase them by another
22%? That too was earmarked for transportation, partly for transit
but mostly for highways. (It was defeated.)

The previous governor ran on a platform of "no car taxes". Last I
heard, those taxes were indeed being phased out. I wonder who makes
up the difference?

Next we should close all the airports? That's where most of the
rest of the transportation-related tax money goes.

Also where a lot of the taxes come from which are part of the price
you pay for a ticket.

The billions of dollars in airline bailouts came from general taxes.

The rest of your post is good for a laugh, but it mainly shows you
are living in a fantasy world instead of reality.

In other words, you have no arguments against it. Except that you
find that a car happens to work for you, and you think everyone else
should be forced into the same mold.
--
Keith F. Lynch - - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.

John David Galt wrote:
Krist wrote:
I do think that it is possible to create a transit system that allows a
large fraction of the population this type of choice. The place I live in
proves that. Some places in the States.

In some other places it might not be possible...
But then, the role of transit is not te force people out of their car, the
role ought to be to offer choice where offering choice makes sense.

I totally agree. But "makes sense" is defined economically. If it takes
taxpayer subsidies for transit to exist at all, offering it doesn't make
sense.

With your "get everyone out of my way, and if they are in my way, they are
breaking the law and driving unsafely and rudely, even if they are stopped
at a red light" stance, I'd have guessed the opposite out of you. Wouldn't
you want to pay $0.10 to get one driver off the road and out of your way?
Wouldn't you like it if more drivers did the same to remove others off the
road?

Considering that if there was no public transport, the people that would
then be forced to seek other means would often drive sub-standard vehicles
without insurance or financial means to take care of any mistakes made, I
see additional benefit to you.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Jordan Bettis wrote:
Marc writes:

My toothbrush sits unused for more than 99% of the time as well.
However, I think that is a good purchase, even if it is only used
for a short time every day. The same goes with cars for most people
as well.

How much of your income does your toothbrush consume? How about your car?

Why does it matter if I feel the need for the item?

Both are items that mostly sit unused. Both are items that are relatively
recent inventions (though there were precursors of the modern equivalent
going back thousands of years). Neither is truly a necessity.

And the sum that most people pay for the "small items" that sit unused more
than the car generally exceeds the cost of their car. Yes, any individual
item is greatly below the car in cost, but the sum of the items exceeds
them.

Just singling out the toothbrush was easier than listing thousands of items
people have in their homes that mainly sit unused.

If the internet has taught me one thing it's how to recognize bad
anologies.

And nuts that like to tell others what to do.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

"Keith F. Lynch" wrote:
John David Galt wrote:
I totally agree. But "makes sense" is defined economically. If it
takes taxpayer subsidies for transit to exist at all, offering it
doesn't make sense.

So we should close all the roads and highways? That's where most of
the transportation-related tax money goes.

Next we should close all the airports? That's where most of the rest
of the transportation-related tax money goes.

Once users of those modes all have to pay their own way, I think mass
transit will be very competitive, and will no longer need subsidies.

Metro in the median of I-66, for instance, can carry more people
faster, more efficiently, while using less energy, in less space,
more safely, while producing less pollution, more quietly, than the
surrounding highway.

I've heard the same claims about transit systems around the US. When they
cost more than twice the fare in subsidies, take longer door-to-door,
increase the commute distance, run unused enough to not save energy or
pollution over individual modern vehicles, and just plain don't live up to
the hype once in.

If you want me to believe that about yours, you'll have to cite someone
other than the transit authority who substantiates those claims.

And passengers can read or work, rather than
giving their full attention to driving.

I can't do either on a train or bus. I've tried.

Nor do they have a massive
upfront capital cost, or the need to carry what amounts to an internal
passport, or the need to find and pay for a parking space at both ends
of every trip.

I have free parking at both ends. I have at every place I have ever
worked.

It seems that the problem is that the situation for, say, Washington D.C.
is used as an ideal, when it simply doesn't work in Dallas. In D.C., my
sister was renting a place. The only way she could get an assigned spot
would have been to buy it for $15,000. Then, she would have had to pay
over $250 a month for parking at work. For someone wanting basic
transportation, they'd have to pay as much or more to park the car than for
the car itself. She could either afford a car or a place to park it, but
not both.

As for Dallas, parking outside downtown is generally free. There are many
more jobs out of downtown than in it. Often, even downtown jobs will
include parking. I know of no one that has to pay to park at their
residence. But then, there are almost no residences in downtown.

Also, Metro can carry everyone. Millions of people are unable to
drive cars for medical, financial, legal, age, or temperamental
reasons.

Busses can't be that user friendly, either. They are charging less than
they cost to run, so they are trying to assist people that aren't able to
afford it financially. There have been other posters here pointing out
that busses are far from inclusive regarding medical conditions. There
isn't a set minimum age for busses, but I'd expect that there may be some
ages where there would be problems. If a 1 year old that wasn't even
speaking yet stumbled on with bus fare taped to his forehead, I don't
expect that he'd be riding.

I'm not sure of anyone that is *unable* to drive because of temperamental
reasons (should not be driving and unable to drive are separate), but if
someone was so tense over commuting in a car, I can imagine that they could
have similar problems when they have no control of the situation in a bus
as well. I find it frustrating in a bus when the driver parks for 15
minutes because he is getting ahead of schedule, and I have no such
problems in a car.

If you don't generate your own electricity, sew your own clothes,
build your own house, or grow your own food, why should you drive
your own vehicle? Specialization just makes sense.

Well, we ought to just have our teeth removed and have some machine chew
our food for us as well. Teeth cause many health problems, and not having
to use them would be a benefit to society. Heck, why even bother to think,
as everyone (other than Marilyn) can be out-thought by someone else as
well.

Just because it can be automated or outsourced does not mean it is a good
idea to do so.

(Yes, I know what Heinlein said. It's good to be *able* to drive a
car, swim, send morse code, survive in the wilderness, fly a plane,
repair a CD player, etc, but unless that's your profession or a hobby
you enjoy, why do it every day?)

But what if driving is your hobby? You are posting to a driving group.
One must expect that there would be people in such a forum that would claim
to have driving as a hobby. If it is a hobby you like and you can do it
every day, why would you go out of your way to not do it?

The only reason why cars are so common is because of distortions in the
economy caused by various government policies, taxes, and subsidies.

Or the lack thereof. In Europe, there are significant taxes that support
much more than just the auto infrastructure. In the US, the taxes are much
smaller and are more closely tied to the source of the revenue.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

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