[BTinSF]

More Than $9,000 Saved Annually by Individuals Who ‘Dump the Pump’ and Help Save the Environment by Riding Public Transportation

Transit News--June 18, 2009

contacts:
Virginia Miller
(202) 496-4816
vmiller@apta.com

Mantill Williams
(202) 496-4869
mwilliams@apta.com

WASHINGTON, DC – Riding public transportation can save an individual an average of $9,068 a year based on the June 17, 2009 national average gas price and the unreserved monthly parking rate, according to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). This is the highest annual transit savings recorded for this year, as gas prices have increased by 95 cents since January.

The release of the June Transit Savings Report coincides with National Dump the Pump Day. Dump the Pump day is a day set aside to encourage people to ride public transportation to save money and protect the environment.

Taking public transportation is an economical way to travel as individuals choose to “dump the pump” and help save the environment. Riding public transportation reduces carbon emissions and mitigates America's dependence on foreign oil.

APTA’s Transit Savings Report calculates the average savings for public transit users at $756 per month. This is based on the cost of parking and the June 17 gas price of $2.679 as reported by AAA.

“With gas prices increasing almost daily, we are all looking for ways to save,” said APTA President William Millar. “I encourage drivers to take part in the 4th annual Dump the Pump day. You’ll save money and help save the planet.”

The Transit Savings Report, released monthly by APTA examines how an individual in a two person household can save money by taking public transportation rather than driving and living with one less car.

Regarding parking costs, the national average for the monthly unreserved parking rate in a city’s downtown business district is $143, according to the 2008 Colliers International Parking Rate Study. Over the course of a year, parking costs alone can amount to an average of $1,720.

More than 100 public transportation systems and transit associations are participating in Dump the Pump day activities this year. Some public transit systems are having public events with drawings for free transit passes and other prizes, while other systems are offering free or reduced rides, and doing radio promotions. For more information on National Dump the Pump Day, visit www.publictransportation.org.

The top 20 cities with the highest transit ridership are ranked in order of their transportation savings based on the purchase of a monthly public transportation pass and factoring in today’s local gas prices and the local monthly unreserved parking rate.*

Top Twenty Cities – Transit Savings Report

City Monthly Savings Annual Savings

New York $1,114 $13,371
Boston $1,083 $13,000
San Francisco $1,011 $12,131
Chicago $931 $11,169
Philadelphia $908 $10,894
Seattle $901 $10,812
Honolulu $874 $10,488
Los Angeles $826 $9,915
San Diego $823 $9,873
Minneapolis $813 $9,755
Cleveland $808 $9,692
Portland $795 $9,534
Denver $781 $9,368
Washington DC $769 $9,223
Baltimore $765 $9,176
Miami $732 $8,779
Dallas $727 $8,724
Atlanta $713 $8,562
Las Vegas $711 $8,535
Pittsburgh $675 $8,099

*Based on gasoline prices as reported by AAA on 6/17/09.

Methodology
APTA calculates the average cost of taking public transit by determining the average monthly transit pass of local public transit agencies across the country. This information is based on the annual APTA fare collection survey and is weighted based on ridership (unlinked passenger trips). The assumption is that a person making a switch to public transportation would likely purchase an unlimited pass on the local transit agency, typically available on a monthly basis.

APTA then compares the average monthly transit fare to the average cost of driving. The cost of driving is calculated using the 2009 AAA average cost of driving formula. AAA cost of driving formula is based on variable costs and fixed costs. The variable costs include the cost of gas, maintenance and tires. The fixed costs include insurance, license registration, depreciation and finance charges. The comparison also uses the average mileage of a mid-size auto at 23.4 miles per gallon and the price for self-serve regular unleaded as recorded by AAA on May 17 at $2.679 per gallon. The analysis also assumes that a person will drive an average of 15,000 miles per year. The savings assume a household gives up one car.

In determining the cost of parking, APTA uses the data from the 2008 Colliers International Parking Rate Study for monthly unreserved parking rates for the United States.

To calculate your individual savings with or without car ownership, go to http://www.publictransportation.org.


Source: http://www.apta.com/media/releases/090618_transit_report.cfm

[Steely Dan]

i save so much money by not owning a car that a lower middle class college dropout such as myself can afford to own a condo (albeit a tiny one) in a famous landmark building in the heart of downtown chicago. if i had car epxenses to worry about, there's no way i could afford my current lifestyle.

then the conventional wisdom crowd usually chimes in "but what about when you need a car? everyone needs to use a car occasionally? car ownership is an automatic given in our society", to which i respond, "taxis and car-sharing". i don't deny that there are specific situations that are made infinitely easier by use of a car, but it is the "i don't need to own a car" part of the equation that most americans simply can't mentally fathom. ownership is so very ingrained into our culture. me? i don't have a problem sharing and it saves me thousands of dollars.

[edmontonenthusiast]

I think it's pretty easy to live without a car if you don't live in suburban areas. I hate how many think cars are absolutely necessary, when they're not. And Steely Dan makes an excellent point (I always thought this myself)...you save so much more money without the regular expenses of cars/trucks/minivans/etc.

Granted a few jobs will require a vehicle of sorts, like a guy transporting goods to different cities, but most it isn't necessary. Sometimes more convenient, but not necessarily the best choice.

Sometimes there are cases you absolutely need a car, then rent one! Far cheaper than owning and maintaining one.

[JMancuso]

owning a car does not cost me much at all. i paid my truck off 6 years ago so no loan, i pay $60 a month in insurance (full coverage) and about $30-40 a month for gas.

[FREKI]

I actually save by driving when it comes to my daily commute..

But of course if we add the cost of the car I would have to hang on to it for a long time before I would save in the long run..

Having a car however is for more than just the daily commute so well worth it IMO..


If we btw also add the factor of time the cars becomes even more favorable..

[theWatusi]

(eagerly awaiting MikeToronto's response.)

[glowrock]

The thing that constantly gets my goat about these comparisons is that they ASSUME it's either someone either owns a car and drives everywhere (ie: never, ever use transit), or that they DON'T own a car and use transit exclusively! Last time I checked, many, many people who use transit DO own a car, so these comparisons are pretty moot. And many people who own cars DO use transit, sometimes quite a bit!

I know for those of us who live in NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, and Philly it's probably more of a hassle to have a car than it's worth (mainly because the streets are incredibly crowded and parking is incredibly expensive), but I think it's more realistic to look at these comparisons not so much as people only using one mode or another of transportation, but rather a combination of both. Or, perhaps, say that instead of an urban family having TWO cars, they might just have one.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[JMancuso]

never mind that apart from a handful of cities in the US, public transportation is in no way a realistic alternative to cars. sure you can take an hour and 3 buses to get from point A to point B when it can take you a half hour by car, but who would?

[OhioGuy]

When I owned a car in Chicago, I paid extra for garage space to avoid having to scrape off ice and snow during the winter, as well as to ensure I always had a place to park without having to search street after street after street. Anyway, that cost me $75. That, combined with car payments, insurance payments, and gas costs to & from work added up to approximately $575 a month. Now I'm spending approximately $85 per month for an unlimited CTA transit pass. This past weekend I went home to Ohio and rented a car for 2 days. That cost $61, certainly a better deal for me than continuing to have a car that would have cost me much more than that.

[racc]

Cars in general are a poor investment. Considering car expenses are paid for with after tax income, car freedom day, the day in the year after which car expenses are paid for happens sometime between March and June. Before that, your entire working day is spent earning money to pay for your car.

In the US, average life span is reduced by one year due to auto fatalities and another 2 years due to physical inactivity, which, in part is caused by driving everywhere. As guys account for two thirds of auto fatalities, that is probably closer to two years off your life.

Then there is the time dealing with repairs, filling the tank, collisions, injures due to collisions, buying a car, selling a car, finding parking, etc. Don't forget time exercising at the gym or running to stay fit.

Someone actually crunched all the numbers and figured out by the time you account for all the time spent dealing with car stuff and the time spent earning money to pay for it, the average speed is around five miles per hour, not much faster than walking.

Even in a lot of suburbs, if you take the effort to pick a home near shopping and transit, you can get by without a car or with one car instead of two.

[miketoronto]

Sorry but unless you pay for parking which 95% of the population does not have to, than owning a car does not cost $9,000 a year.

Infact if you don't pay for parking, than taking transit sadly does not save you much money at all.

My friend and I were actually just looking at doing a day trip, and taking the train would be way more expensive than just taking his car.

Sad but true in most places.

Transit fares are just way to expensive.

[BTinSF]

i save so much money by not owning a car that a lower middle class college dropout such as myself can afford to own a condo (albeit a tiny one) in a famous landmark building in the heart of downtown chicago. if i had car epxenses to worry about, there's no way i could afford my current lifestyle.

then the conventional wisdom crowd usually chimes in "but what about when you need a car? everyone needs to use a car occasionally? car ownership is an automatic given in our society", to which i respond, "taxis and car-sharing". i don't deny that there are specific situations that are made infinitely easier by use of a car, but it is the "i don't need to own a car" part of the equation that most americans simply can't mentally fathom. ownership is so very ingrained into our culture. me? i don't have a problem sharing and it saves me thousands of dollars.

I'll go you one better. I was nearly able to buy my second home in Arizona on what I saved not having to RENT a garage space in San Francisco--I leave the car in the garage I now own in AZ.

As for the "but you need a car occasionally" issue: I rent if I need it for more than a few hours. If it's just a few hours, I use ZipCar. My total expenses for this sort of use are maybe $1000 to $1200 per year including vacation rentals in Florida when I visit the relatives.

[BTinSF]

Sorry but unless you pay for parking which 95% of the population does not have to, than owning a car does not cost $9,000 a year.

Infact if you don't pay for parking, than taking transit sadly does not save you much money at all.


Sorry but you are wrong--at least you would be in the US. Just look at the cost of insurance for a young single male. Add the cost of gas ($3/gallon in SF), the cost of licensing it (couple hundred dollars a year here, a lot more if the car is new and expensive), the cost of maintenance and repairs.

And in cities most people DO pay for parking one way or another. If they own a home or condo that has deeded parking, they paid at least $100K more for it in San Francisco than something similar without deeded parking. There's actually a program here now to force developers to separate the cost of parking from the basic cost of housing and charge for them separately--to force more people like you to recognize that there IS a cost.

never mind that apart from a handful of cities in the US, public transportation is in no way a realistic alternative to cars. sure you can take an hour and 3 buses to get from point A to point B when it can take you a half hour by car, but who would?

I will let others speak for their cities. In mine, it rarely takes more than one transfer to get anywhere you want to go. On the other hand, if you chose to drive, you will have almost no chance of finding a free parking space when you get there. Parking will cost you and it will cost you so much it will likely be more than the cost of a cab. If you park on the street at a meter ($.25 for 10 minutes), somebody is likely to bash your bumper squeezing into the space in front of or behind you (factor in the cost of repairs and/or the psychological cost of seeing your nice car quickly trashed into something that looks like it came out of "Road Warrior"). There's also a good chance you will get a ticket. The typical San Francisco auto driver gets hundreds of dollars a year in parking tickets (many get thousands). They consider it just another expense of living here (with a car).

[FREKI]

Then there is the time dealing with repairsAnd that takes what, 5min to park at the auto shop, hand over the keys and pick up the temp car while they fix it..

That's 10-15min for handling over/picking up unless you have ( as much I assume ) a subscription that includes such service for you..

filling the tankTakes me 5min about once or twice a month..

collisions11 years no such thing for me yet..

injures due to collisionsCar users are the safest lot in the streets - how long will it takes a bikerider or pedestrian after collision?

buying a carThat's about 20min if you know what you want..

selling a carThat's 15min...

finding parkingI can't speak for all there, but I have free and always alvailable parking at work as well as at home..

Don't forget time exercising at the gym or running to stay fit.And that isn't needed if sitting in a bus or train?
Even in a lot of suburbs, if you take the effort to pick a home near shopping and transit, you can get by without a car or with one car instead of two. Why settle?

Personal transport is there to make life easy and it does just that..

In my case it takes me some 20 seconds to walk to my car from home and about the same at work.. the drive can be done in roughly 12min - a total of little under 13min

If I were to take the bus I would spend 5min walking to the bus stop - they run every 5min so about 3min waiting, then the drive would be 25min and another 5min work to work - a total of 38min..

So in a single day I save atleast 26min each way or roughly an hour total by using a car - an hour I can spend on working more ( yeah right ) or enjoy life..

In a year that totals to about 200 hours and we if we compare that to the gas pumping ( roughly 2 hours a year ) and the yearly service check ( 40min ) then I have earned more than 197 hours I would have spend stuck in a bus or waiting for one arriving..

197 hours I can spend as I see fit, be it in the gym, in the park or infront of the computer..

And to go into the extremes almost 3 more years of sparetime in a lifetime...

Go cars! :)

[ItsConanOBrien]

I agree with Steely.

I don't have a car but am able to use my girlfriend's for groceries and the occasional trip. I also have a car-share membership but I've only used it once so far. In my city, the public transit options are very limited and it is frustrating that a 10 minute trip by car takes closer to 45 minutes on the bus. But it's a trade-off financially and I would rather not spend my money on a car.

[JMancuso]

Sorry but you are wrong--at least you would be in the US. Just look at the cost of insurance for a young single male. Add the cost of gas ($3/gallon in SF), the cost of licensing it (couple hundred dollars a year here, a lot more if the car is new and expensive), the cost of maintenance and repairs.

And in cities most people DO pay for parking one way or another. If they own a home or condo that has deeded parking, they paid at least $100K more for it in San Francisco than something similar without deeded parking. There's actually a program here now to force developers to separate the cost of parking from the basic cost of housing and charge for them separately--to force more people like you to recognize that there IS a cost.



I will let others speak for their cities. In mine, it rarely takes more than one transfer to get anywhere you want to go. On the other hand, if you chose to drive, you will have almost no chance of finding a free parking space when you get there. Parking will cost you and it will cost you so much it will likely be more than the cost of a cab. If you park on the street at a meter ($.25 for 10 minutes), somebody is likely to bash your bumper squeezing into the space in front of or behind you (factor in the cost of repairs and/or the psychological cost of seeing your nice car quickly trashed into something that looks like it came out of "Road Warrior"). There's also a good chance you will get a ticket. The typical San Francisco auto driver gets hundreds of dollars a year in parking tickets (many get thousands). They consider it just another expense of living here (with a car).

to me san francisco would be one of those cities where car is not needed and becomes a liability.

[edmontonenthusiast]

(...)



I will let others speak for their cities. In mine, it rarely takes more than one transfer to get anywhere you want to go. On the other hand, if you chose to drive, you will have almost no chance of finding a free parking space when you get there. Parking will cost you and it will cost you so much it will likely be more than the cost of a cab. If you park on the street at a meter ($.25 for 10 minutes), somebody is likely to bash your bumper squeezing into the space in front of or behind you (factor in the cost of repairs and/or the psychological cost of seeing your nice car quickly trashed into something that looks like it came out of "Road Warrior"). There's also a good chance you will get a ticket. The typical San Francisco auto driver gets hundreds of dollars a year in parking tickets (many get thousands). They consider it just another expense of living here (with a car).

Well since you asked...

Here in Edmonton it depends. We're terrible as our only mode of (public) transportation that goes most places in the city is the bus. We need more options. On top of that, a lot of the buses get very infrequent after 9pm until around 7:30am.

Most places that are at least a significant distance apart (~20 mins by car or more) are around 30-50 minutes commute via bus. But that number quickly becomes hours long when commuting between outlying suburbs. I still don't mind 40 minute long bus rides - though. But I Know many do.

Our fare is also 2.50, but I think it should be at least a little lower to be able to be affordable for people who can't. A transfer is free, but you don't need to take it, and the time is limited, usually a 2 hour windowish. Luckily one usually only needs to do 0-1 transfers to get to ones destination for the most part. I know there are a few with 3-4 transfers, but I do think we're pretty good at low numbers of transfers.

But we also have the Edmonton Light Rail Transit operated by the same company as the buses. It is an excellent system, with great service. It's quick and reliable for many. But our problem is it doesn't go that many places. We just opened 2 new stations, with 2 more opening next year. A new leg is also all ready to get starting construction, but the budget needs to be approved. We're also looking at routes going to places like Mill Woods and Lewis Estates & West Edmonton Mall, as well as urban low floor.

[miketoronto]

FREKI hit it very well though. Transit just wastes so much time for most people, that they are not going to give up their car.

Almost everyone who takes transit has much longer travel times compard to driving, and that is why only a small amount of people use transit, even in transit friendly cities like Boston, SF, Toronto, Montreal, etc.

owning a car does not cost me much at all. i paid my truck off 6 years ago so no loan, i pay $60 a month in insurance (full coverage) and about $30-40 a month for gas.

A montly transit pass for me $109.00. $9.00 more than he pays for using his car, if you count that he has his car paid off. And that is how most people think. The car is either paid off, etc so people don't factor in the cost when deciding to drive or take transit.

If I was running a transit system I would focus on making the system more easy to use and fast compared to the car. Because people are not going to switch over to just save a couple bucks a year, if they can afford to drive.

And the majority of American's do not pay for parking, as the majority of American's do not live in inner city SF, NYC, or Boston.

Sadly the only thing that keeps transit ridership high in places like Boston, SF, and New York City are downtown parking charges. Remove parking charges or move all the downtown jobs to a suburban office park, and ridership would drop in half overnight if not more. Same goes for Calgary. Their ridership is tied to downtown employment like most transit systems. Remove the downtown jobs and the ridership would be close to zero.
If you factor in downtown parking charges, than that is the only time transit is cheaper than driving, if you already own your car. But the fact is most North America's don't work downtown or pay for parking, so transit is actually going to have to treat riders like customers and make a service that competes well with the car.

And if you include more than one person in your trip, than transit usually ends up being more expensive than driving downtown and paying for parking. My parents and I went downtown the other day for a show. We actually took transit this time(my dad usually always wants to drive) and it cost us the following round trip.
$3.50 for me(I have a monthly pass that works out to $3.50 a day)
$7.40 for my parents.

Now for parking if we drove, we could have gotten a spot for $5.00-$10.00. Transit really did not save us much money if at all.
You also have to factor in that it took us one hour by transit to get downtown, when we could have driven in 20 minutes.

I love transit, take it everyday, think its great. But I am still critical about how long it takes to get you anywhere. It just takes way to long and these issues have to be addressed or people will walk away from transit. And I do feel weird sometimes when someone asks me how I can rely on transit when I could commute to work in 20 min by car vs 45 min by transit, etc. Alot of people think I am nuts for using transit, because of the time issue.

The majority of transit riders on good transit systems are choice riders who already have a car. So transit is going to have to focus on good service and not cost to keep riders.
In Toronto for example, 65% of transit riders on the TTC have a car.
Over 80% of riders on the suburban commuter train network have a car.

In Montreal, 51% of transit riders have a car.
In Calgary, almost 50% of transit riders have a car(and that number keeps going up in Calgary).
In Portland the mecca of transit and smart growth, 70% of transit riders are choice riders.

[edmontonenthusiast]

"FREKI hit it very well though. Transit just wastes so much time for most people, that they are not going to give up their car.

Almost everyone who takes transit has much longer travel times compard to driving, and that is why only a small amount of people use transit, even in transit friendly cities like Boston, SF, Toronto, Montreal, etc."

:previous:Even though the article addresses money-saving, there are far more other benefits to ditching the car, or using it not so much, which can and will get people to ditch them.

[racc]

197 hours I can spend as I see fit, be it in the gym, in the park or infront of the computer..

And to go into the extremes almost 3 more years of sparetime in a lifetime...

Go cars! :)

Well I'm glad it works for you. You do seem to have forgot the time you spend to earn the money to own and operate a car. Don't forget it is after tax money.

[miketoronto]

Well I'm glad it works for you. You do seem to have forgot the time you spend to earn the money to own and operate a car. Don't forget it is after tax money.

That does not really count. Do you think the average American family which pulls in $100,000 or more really cares about how much they worked for the car? It is money they have anyway.
Most American families are not hurting in the money department, and cars are just a natural cost that is not thought about much.

[vid]

owning a car does not cost me much at all. i paid my truck off 6 years ago so no loan, i pay $60 a month in insurance (full coverage) and about $30-40 a month for gas.

You're an exception.

[JMancuso]

You're an exception.

as far as not paying much for gas, yes (i work from home) but there are a lot of people who own their cars free-and-clear. not everyone dumps their car every few years for a new one thus constantly having a car payment.

[Gordo]

as far as not paying much for gas, yes (i work from home) but there are a lot of people who own their cars free-and-clear. not everyone dumps their car every few years for a new one thus constantly having a car payment.

Well, sure. But until the car gets very old, you're still paying each month in depreciation and the money that you could be making off of not having that money tied up in a car.

For example, I sold my last car about four years ago for $9000 (it was paid off). It would only be worth maybe $5000 now (perhaps less), and I've made about $2000 off of that sum earning interest during the last four years. So, it would have cost me about $1500 a year in depreciation and lost interest costs even though I owned the car free and clear. Not actually spending cash each month does not necessarily mean that you're not spending money each month - it's just hidden. Now, if you're driving a really old car, these costs are pretty minor or nonexistant.

[lawfin]

i save so much money by not owning a car that a lower middle class college dropout such as myself can afford to own a condo (albeit a tiny one) in a famous landmark building in the heart of downtown chicago. if i had car epxenses to worry about, there's no way i could afford my current lifestyle.

then the conventional wisdom crowd usually chimes in "but what about when you need a car? everyone needs to use a car occasionally? car ownership is an automatic given in our society", to which i respond, "taxis and car-sharing". i don't deny that there are specific situations that are made infinitely easier by use of a car, but it is the "i don't need to own a car" part of the equation that most americans simply can't mentally fathom. ownership is so very ingrained into our culture. me? i don't have a problem sharing and it saves me thousands of dollars.

I have this discussion with my relatives, who, like me, were raised in rogers park, all the time.....they look at me as if I am crazy.

also have this discussion with my wife, at first she was incredulous, she is from libertyville her car is her umbilical cord.....at point her parents has 4 cars and only the two of them lived in their house...they still have 3

[vid]

There are also repair costs you have to deal with as vehicles age and their components begin to fail.

[JMancuso]

if you plan on selling it at some point, sure but i am referring to those who plan on driving it into the ground such as myself. i've been lucky, my truck has been rock solid and so far only the clutch and AC has gone in the 12 years i've had it.

[lawfin]

Most American families are not hurting in the money department, and cars are just a natural cost that is not thought about much.
really...hmmm

[Gordo]

if you plan on selling it at some point, sure but i am referring to those who plan on driving it into the ground such as myself.

If you're not planning on selling, the costs will never be seen by you, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. Lost interest on the lump sum value is still a cost to you for anything. It's more relevant for a car because of the dollar values that we tend to be talking about, as well as cars being (generally) depreciating assets. It's easier to ignore the interest that a down payment or equity in a house or a business or something like that could be making because we generally view those things as appreciating assets.

EDIT - In your case, with a 12 year old truck, most costs (including forgone interest earnings) are already sunk. Most people don't keep vehicles for 12 years (my parents did/do though!).

[BTinSF]

In your case, with a 12 year old truck, most costs (including forgone interest earnings) are already sunk. Most people don't keep vehicles for 12 years (my parents did/do though!).


Me too. My car's a 1993--with 30K miles on it (which explains why I don't miss having it here--never drove it even when I did for all the reasons detailed above, mainly no place to park at the destination).

In my life I bought new cars in 1971, 1982 and 1993. That's it. In college I drove my mom's old car which she gave me. It was the 1971 trade-in.

[FREKI]

Well I'm glad it works for you. You do seem to have forgot the time you spend to earn the money to own and operate a car. Don't forget it is after tax money.Well one gotta spend one's cash on something - if not a transportation tool that ads freedom and flexibility to your life then what?

It's not like you don't need to work to pay for a bus pass, bike or taxi either..


Spare time means a lot more than cash to me, so to me very well worth it!


And in terms of expenses I only have gas and I spend less on my work commute use than a bus pass would cost me so while there of course was the initial amount when I bought it that would technically itself pay it self off if we ad the factor of time..

In fact if I desided to work the extra 200 hours I save yearly I could easily earn the car in in a year or two and get another 10+ years of income that would otherwise have been waisted in a crowded bus next to a crying kid :)



If you don't like cars that's fine by me - personally I have nothing against PT , I just prefere to free up as much time as posible, and a car allows me to do that and that is way worth any expenses that comes with it be they large or small.. an extra hour a day, having fun commuting, control of temp and music and the ability to go everywhere you want to at any time you want to.. yes please! :)

[urbanactivistTX]

never mind that apart from a handful of cities in the US, public transportation is in no way a realistic alternative to cars. sure you can take an hour and 3 buses to get from point A to point B when it can take you a half hour by car, but who would?

Yep... call me crazy for "using" Houston's public transportation system. But once you get past evening rush hour, it starts to become a real hassle. Past 10 o'clock, the bus routes (the few that are still operating) are only running on the hour.

I get caught at my church choir rehearsal like this all the time. Getting to church is great...I take the bus from my neighborhood to downtown (about 15min), then grab something to eat either in downtown or riding the train to the med. center (another 10-15 if I ride the train), and then the train station drops me off right in front of the church. But once rehearsal is over, I have to dart out of the door and hope/pray that the 9:50pm train hits the Museum station at or before 9:50 so I can get to downtown by 10. If I'm later than 10:10 getting there, I am stuck waiting in downtown Houston until 11:10pm. At that point, it's just not worth it.

I know that "transit frustration blog" is probably boring, but I just thought I'd share. This is one weekly battle that prevents me from dumping the car.

[ProTram]

In Portland, I pay $4.75 for an all day pass which is valid on MAX, WES, Streetcar AND buses.

For the equivalent with a car I pay $9.83/day for car payment, $2.90/day for insurance and probably about $6/day for gas.
So that makes it...

$18.73/day for the car

vs.

$4.75/day for public transit

A difference of $13.98 a day (or apx. $419.40/month or $5,102.70/yr)

And I understand many people do not have car payments, so if that was the case for me, it would still be...

$8.90/day for the car

vs.

$4.75/day for public transit

A difference of $4.15/day (or apx. $124.50/month or $1,514.75/yr)

And none of this factors in if I bought a month or year pass for public transit which would offer further discounts!

Yea I have less freedom to drive wherever I want whenever I want but if I am saving upwards of $5,000 a year, it is a sacrifice I am willing to make. And hey, if I want to go anywhere special, I can always rent a car for a day or two and still have most of that money to spend on something better.

[alexjon]

I dunno about you guys, but I can get anywhere lickety split as long as it doesn't involve driving here. Driving in Seattle is a hassle and only good if you have time to kill.

The only exception is anything on the 3 trolleybus routes coming off the hill. In those situations, ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Seattle's strange streets on the south part of Cap Hill and north part of First Hill slow down the buses severely. Anyone who takes the 2, 3 or 4 can tell you how crappy they are.

And actually, taking a bus in San Antonio was pretty fast, too, unless you were using Fredericksburg Road.

Omaha, Detroit and Phoenix all have awful awful bus systems, though. I'd rather drive in those places or call a cab.

[WonderlandPark]

Even if gas was $20/gallon, I would still be driving to work. Really don't have a choice in the business I am in.

[miketoronto]

The only complaint I got about transit is that it in many areas it is a lot slower than driving.
But service frequency is great with buses running every 5-10 min seven days a week on most routes even in the suburbs, and trains every 5 min or less.

So you are not tied to a schedule or anything. Service is also 24 hours. Only problem is that in large segments of the city it takes way longer than driving.

[Policy Wonk]

I can't think of anything productive I would do with an extra $9000 - I can think of a lot of things I would do with more free time.

[ProTram]

That free time can be offered and fulfilled when you are sitting on a train or bus. If you have a wireless internet connection or if you have a book, you can actually relax and do whatever you want and not get strung out sitting in traffic.

[Policy Wonk]

Uhh... No!

[edmontonenthusiast]

^uhh yes. i think a bus ride is much more relaxing than getting stuck in rush hour traffic. you don't have to worry about adhering to laws, doing any work, you can just relax on the bus.

but mike has a point also, the infrequency of buses is terrible. that's why lrt is usually popular. again, i don't mind it, but i know it is a big turnoff to many unfortunately...maybe people are just too rushed.

[Justin10000]

That does not really count. Do you think the average American family which pulls in $100,000 or more really cares about how much they worked for the car? It is money they have anyway.
Most American families are not hurting in the money department, and cars are just a natural cost that is not thought about much.

$100,000 for a family is not a lot these days.

You really need to go to the US, and read up on current US affairs. The American Middle class is taking a severe beating. Cars are a natural cost that most families would kill to do without, but cannot since the typical American suburb is built around the car.

[miketoronto]

^uhh yes. i think a bus ride is much more relaxing than getting stuck in rush hour traffic. you don't have to worry about adhering to laws, doing any work, you can just relax on the bus.

but mike has a point also, the infrequency of buses is terrible. that's why lrt is usually popular. again, i don't mind it, but i know it is a big turnoff to many unfortunately...maybe people are just too rushed.

I am not saying transit has to be as fast as the car. We will have to accept that transit in some cases will take a little longer than the car. But it should not take over double the time it takes to drive somewhere. That is where it gets annoying. If it takes 5-10 min longer, or even 15 min, like say 45 min to get downtown instead of 30 min by car. Thats o.k. But when we get into it taking 40-60 min longer than driving, then theres an issue.

[edmontonenthusiast]

Here unless it's really close where you're going from your bus stop to destination, it's usually double the time it takes by car. 15 min? 30 min by bus. 30 min? 50-60 min by bus.

This is of course excluding the outlying suburbs where it takes hours to go from ______ Hills to ______ Heights.

But I agree, they don't need to be on par with cars, but more reasonable. LRT here is very quick, I assume the subway in Toronto is too.

[alexjon]

North and Eastend LRT is between 3x and 5x faster than driving here at peak hours, and LRT takes the same amount of time as driving in the Southend.

Of course, that North and Eastward expansion will take a few years. Sheesh.

[dchan]

Much of the argument we're all having is apples and oranges - there's really no totally right or wrong answer.


For the pro-transit people (not the absolute, "give me transit, or give me death" crowd, but you get get the idea):
- The key to your argument is total cost saved as well as time not spent driving. Total cost saved is a pretty easy to deduce, since owning a car costs so much - that's the cost of purchasing a new car, the cost of maintaining it, the cost of repairs, the cost of insurance, the cost of gasoline/diesel, and the cost of parking and tolls. Those costs add up to quite a bit, and the real cost of owning a car no longer seems so cheap.

But the "time not spent driving" side of the argument can be hard to grasp. One of the key arguments of pro-car is that cars save so much time over transit. Here in Bethlehem, going to the Lehigh Valley Mall takes 15 minutes by car, 45 minutes by bus. So I can definitely understand that argument.

But there's the other side of the argument. That is, that the time spend driving the car is spent on driving the car alone. You really can't do anything else, and I condemn cell-phone users or texters who believe they can multi-task behind the wheel. Really: driving is a task that requires all of your attention.

Whereas, you can read, catch up on work, take a nap, or do other things while taking transit.....provided the situation is comfortable enough. And for those commuters living in the Lehigh Valley who are crazy enough to work in New York City, the buses offer a comfortable enough environment to do those things. Plus, the time savings by driving a car aren't much: the savings is typically 30 minutes, compared with the 1.5 to 2.5 hour trip, depending on traffic.


For the pro-car people (again, not the "you can pry my car out of my cold dead hands" crowd):
- The problem with the "you can read, catch up on work, take a nap, etc." argument is that it counts in only a few transit situations - subways, commuter trains, and long distance buses or express buses. Those are the only transit modes comfortable enough or with few enough stops to make those activities possible. (Commuter trains, such as the LIRR, and especially if they're express trains, are easily the most comfortable by a wide margin)

Remember the Bethlehem to LV Mall trip I mentioned above? The buses around here are so noisy, so slow, so herky-jerky uncomfortable, and so friggin' loud that it's virtually impossible to do anything but sit and take in how uncomfortable and long the trip is. Reading will make you feel queasy, a nap is out of the question (unless you have one of those noise-canceling headphones), and the bus is filled with poor people and old people almost exclusively. Is it worth the extra 30 minutes to save a few bucks? Personally, I'd rather just ride my bike out there to save a few bucks, and the mall's like 10 miles away with some pretty nasty hills in between.

So your "more free time" argument holds up pretty well, depending on the type of transit taken as well as the the trip's overall distance and time.

And the other part of your argument is that most people already own already own cars, save for a good chunk of big city residents. So if you already own a car anyway for whatever reason, how can people claim your new car costs and other monthly fixed costs (minus extra gasoline, extra wear-and-tear, and extra depreciation costs) in their arguments on costs when they try to convince you to take transit? As far as I can tell, the car's fixed costs are already sunk costs in these situations.


So here's my experience with transit, at least from my home in Fresh Meadows in Queens, NY.

My familty doesn't 'need' a car - my mother can take the bus to work, and my father has retired. But it's pretty damn convenient. Consider how many times a week my parents drive to Flushing to eat or shop for groceries. And then consider that the Q17 bus takes 45 minutes to reach Flushing and come back, compared with the 10-15 minutes it takes by car. Consider how many groceries they bring back each time - it's quite a bit. The bus is certainly available, but certainly not convenient by any means.

Back in high school, it took me about 1 hour or so to get to my school in Lower Manhattan by subway and car (one of my parents usually drove me to the subway stop). If I had taken a bus to reach the subway stop, it would have taken me about 1 hour and 20 minutes. But if I had paid an extra $1.50, I could have taken an express bus and reached Lower Manhattan in 30 minutes, and my school in 40 minutes.

When I sprained my ankle severely a few days before 9/11, I could barely walk. My father had to drive me to school that day, and luckily, my ankle loosened up enough that I was able to walk at more than a snail's pace. I believe it took him 30 minutes to reach my school.

But had he parked and stayed the whole day, like some commuters might who drive to the city to work, he would have paid $30 or more for parking in a parking garage. That's how expensive parking is here in NYC, and that's just those "early-bird specials" meant to attract commuters (who would probably go for the monthly rate, which is about $500 or so) or somebody visiting for the day - think about those who have to park during the prime evening hours.

The fact is that parking is free or almost free in Queens, the Subway system is nearly nonexistent, the buses are decent but take too long, and the borough as a whole was built around the automobile. But whenever I take my mother on a weekend day-trip into Manhattan (mostly Central Park), we would drive to the subway stop (there's plenty of parking to be found near 179th Street Station) and then hop on the Subway. We would spend the afternoon walking around Central Park or somewhere else, hop on the Subway to go to her favorite restaurant in Chinatown, and ride the Subway back to 179th St. Station, and take our car home. Honestly, it's the best of both worlds. :)

[Policy Wonk]

^uhh yes. i think a bus ride is much more relaxing than getting stuck in rush hour traffic.

Come down to Calgary and hop on the 301 during rush hour and tell me if you really found the experience relaxing.

[edmontonenthusiast]

^this from the guy that wants CCA open. :facepalm:

regardless, you guys have an EXTENSIVE lrt system...so don't be whining...if you don't want to take the '301' take the lrt...or a different bus! not every bus is a spa to ride on. i don't really know what would be that wrong with a bus route that would make it worse than driving but ok.

[dchan]

I am not saying transit has to be as fast as the car. We will have to accept that transit in some cases will take a little longer than the car. But it should not take over double the time it takes to drive somewhere. That is where it gets annoying. If it takes 5-10 min longer, or even 15 min, like say 45 min to get downtown instead of 30 min by car. Thats o.k. But when we get into it taking 40-60 min longer than driving, then theres an issue.

My problem with buses is that it sometimes seems like it has to stop at every block. Buses are naturally slow, for sure, but they get bogged down if they have to stop every couple of blocks and wait for some old lady or a young mother and her 3 children to pay for their fares before proceeding. It's these small hitches and delays that add up to the extra 30-45 minutes.

I'm in favor of bus rapid-transit, as well as getting rid of all those extraneous stops. I mean, there may be no subway or LRTs here in Bethlehem, but you can simulate one - make each stop several blocks or more away for one another, have people pay through some system before getting on a bus, etc. It really doesn't seem that hard to implement, no?

[Strange Meat]

Most American families are not hurting in the money department

:sly:

compared to whom?

[fflint]

More amazing than the rarely-publicized true cost of ownership? The denial among those who don't want to acknowledge the true cost of ownership.

[Policy Wonk]

^this from the guy that wants CCA open. :facepalm:

regardless, you guys have an EXTENSIVE lrt system...so don't be whining...if you don't want to take the '301' take the lrt...or a different bus! not every bus is a spa to ride on. i don't really know what would be that wrong with a bus route that would make it worse than driving but ok.

Your saying transit is relaxing - there is nothing relaxing about being stuffed standing room only on a loud sweltering bus or train without functioning air conditioning for 45 minutes.

I have also never had my car drive past multiple times without stopping due to being full. If I am going to be stuck in the same traffic, I would rather be stuck in my own air conditioned car with comfy seats and satellite radio.

[JMancuso]

i've ridden my fair share of public transit systems around the world and it's not exactly a relaxing experience especially during rush hour. though, that would not me discourage from using it if i lived in a city with an adequate transit system.

[Strange Meat]

I also love how outlier type situations are used to justify car ownership. I.e, the notion that most parking is free (really, honestly, that's hardly true in any major city outside of the residential neighborhoods, and even then I know a lot that require permits for street parking, or cost for a spot in a lot), or that the car is paid off, or that insurance is cheap, etc, when the fact is that few people have their cars paid off, insurance prices can vary widely depending on age, location, driving record, etc, and parking can be quite expensive as well as gas and other maintenance costs.

In my situation, for example, the cost of car ownership is astronomical compared to transit, however, I don't use my situation (as a student, I get a free, unlimited transit pass) as an example of why people should dump their cars...

[MonkeyRonin]

i've ridden my fair share of public transit systems around the world and it's not exactly a relaxing experience especially during rush hour. though, that would not me discourage from using it if i lived in a city with an adequate transit system.

Your saying transit is relaxing - there is nothing relaxing about being stuffed standing room only on a loud sweltering bus or train without functioning air conditioning for 45 minutes.

I don't see how fighting through rush hour traffic could be any more "relaxing" than being packed onto a train.

[edmontonenthusiast]

Your saying transit is relaxing - there is nothing relaxing about being stuffed standing room only on a loud sweltering bus or train without functioning air conditioning for 45 minutes.

I have also never had my car drive past multiple times without stopping due to being full. If I am going to be stuck in the same traffic, I would rather be stuck in my own air conditioned car with comfy seats and satellite radio.

Yes, crowded buses are not the funnest thing in the world. I've been on them, they're really warm, you get tired, blah blah. Calgary and Edmonton both have lots of different bus routes, why not just use different combinations of transfers and buses? It may take a little longer, but you seem to be all for comfort and stuff.

You can continue wasting energy through your energy because it's too warm because of the pollution you create and wasting space in a car with 1 person in it, but I still think the positives of a form of public transit system completely OUTWEIGH the negatives of a crowded bus.

[Policy Wonk]

Calgary and Edmonton both have lots of different bus routes, why not just use different combinations of transfers and buses? It may take a little longer, but you seem to be all for comfort and stuff.

That just wastes more time and it wouldn't take much longer to just drive all the way instead of driving to the nearest LRT station to hop on another crowded train.

You can continue wasting energy through your energy because it's too warm because of the pollution you create and wasting space in a car with 1 person in it, but I still think the positives of a form of public transit system completely OUTWEIGH the negatives of a crowded bus.

I'm not debating that - it was suggested that somehow riding the bus is a relaxing and practical alternative for other forms of leisure time provided a book or mobile internet and that seems laughable - unless your a mosh pit enthusiast.

[Policy Wonk]

I don't see how fighting through rush hour traffic could be any more "relaxing" than being packed onto a train.

Well lets see, I am guaranteed a seat in my car, I can set a comfortable temperature in my car, I can listen to what I choose in my car and not the latest Chingy album blaring out of a kids iPod, I am not subjected to the stench of teenagers going for the Axe in lieu of regular bathing strategy in my car. I can be reasonably confident of my time or arrival in my car since I don't have to wait for an unknown number of full buses to go by without stopping.

An extreme example, but I have never been attacked by an intoxicated vagrant in my car as I was on the bus a while back.

All things considered, that seems much more relaxing.

[edmontonenthusiast]

^It's called diversity. Get used to it.

Also it's been a while since I've heard 'Chingy'.

That just wastes more time and it wouldn't take much longer to just drive all the way instead of driving to the nearest LRT station to hop on another crowded train.



I'm not debating that - it was suggested that somehow riding the bus is a relaxing and practical alternative for other forms of leisure time provided a book or mobile internet and that seems laughable - unless your a mosh pit enthusiast.

It doesn't waste time. It takes extra time. People seem so rushed to get every ounce of every millisecond into their day. Taking the time and effort to being able to have an enjoyable bus or other transit experience is much better than getting all fed up over being late for work because you're stuck on some road.

Using a bus IS a practical alternative. Maybe not in Green Grove or Hamlet Heights, but in urban areas, as well as major suburban corridors, yes, it is. Is a bus always 100% the best experience in all of the land? No, it is not. But like I've said already the positives DEFINITELY outweigh that of being on a crowded bus.

I ride buses lots, and really other than the busy peak hours in morning and afternoon, they are a peaceful ride to talk with friends, read a book, just relax, enjoy the scenery on the route, or listen to some newly downloaded music. So yes, other than 2 hours out of the day which you don't like at all, they are practical, and realistic, and I'd argue even in those two hours they are. You still get jammed up in a kilometre of traffic either way in a rush hr, at least this way you'll probably be preoccupied with something, rather than building up anger, because you're the one in the control of the vehicle when you're driving a car. Does that make sense? I may have worded that last point a little funny.

And besides, you can bus to a Light Rail station, then even if the bus is crowded, you aren't on it for that long, and because they don't adhere to lights and have a ROW, you can beat the traffic and have more of that precious time you savour.

[Strange Meat]

I used to take one of 4 different lines at the evening rush depending on which bus came, when, how full, limited or local, etc.

Flexibility is key. That and being smart enough to figure out that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

[edmontonenthusiast]

:previous:

Exactly! One just needs to sit down for an evening and plan ahead and find different routes, it comes in handy greatly.

[Policy Wonk]

Using a bus IS a practical alternative. Maybe not in Green Grove or Hamlet Heights, but in urban areas, as well as major suburban corridors, yes, it is. Is a bus always 100% the best experience in all of the land? No, it is not. But like I've said already the positives DEFINITELY outweigh that of being on a crowded bus.

The reason I have basically given up on transit is that I didn't have the good fortune many days of "being" on the crowded bus, rather standing around for half an hour or more watching crowded buses zoom by without stopping.

I ride buses lots, and really other than the busy peak hours in morning and afternoon...

That is like saying if you don't like the lines at Wal-Mart try shopping there at 3AM instead. It is completely outside the scope of how people live their lives. I don't need to go anywhere at 2AM or 2PM.

And besides, you can bus to a Light Rail station, then even if the bus is crowded, you aren't on it for that long, and because they don't adhere to lights and have a ROW, you can beat the traffic and have more of that precious time you savour.

That wouldn't save me a nanosecond, indeed it would probably add a solid hour to the trip each way.

[Strange Meat]

:previous:

Exactly! One just needs to sit down for an evening and plan ahead and find different routes, it comes in handy greatly.

Yeah.

I found that the 15L, even if it was always busy, was the best bet in the morning, taken to the lightrail, which is also frequent in the morning, and only needed to go two stops down.

In the evening, I could catch a 15 local at campus, but that'd take like 50 minutes. I could also hop on the light rail, which was closer to my building anyway, take that two stops north, and either catch the 15 or 15L (still quicker for the local at that point) or the 10 (best bet, as it was less crowded, and depending on the time, had far less traffic on the road it takes parallel to Colfax, but I might also have to wait a few more minutes for one). I've also done it where I took the 12 to bypass the Broadway/Colfax cluster fuck and hooked up with the 15L at downing.

The longer you do it, the more you figure out the system and how to work it.

I can do the same with light rail, too, though it's less likely to work out. Always catch the first southbound train (going to my new location) and see if I can connect to a train coming from union at the first transfer stop. Sometimes it doesn't work out, sometimes it does.

[edmontonenthusiast]

^^Your putting words in my mouth. Did I ever say I never ride buses at peak hours? No. Did I ever say that's exactly what you need to do? No. I'm just saying THERE ARE times when transit is less crowded. Actually I'd prefer a bus that's crowded than empty, that means people are using it. But please don't jump to the conclusions of it always being crowded.

Again, pre planning can save you. Like others have said, and I agree with, find and use different routes. So what if you have to transfer one more time?

And really Light Rail should take just as much time as a car...or less. I'm sure you're car ride is more or less an hour too, then.

Or maybe you just live too far out in the oblivion's of suburbia. Cause really an hour long commute is dumb, and I know if you aren't 15 km away ore more from the core it shouldn't take that long.

If that's the case, what are you doing whining about the transit service? You get what you asked for, when you live in a place like that. Of course transit service is gonna be terrible, infrequent and crowded to or in X suburb because there's no reason for it to be anything but. And of course it's gonna take you a heckoffa lot of time.

Snodrifter, yes I've had similar experiences. You've just got to play around with certain schedules. Agreed about light rail though, but really it's already quick and frequent enough outside of late night (at least here) so there really isn't much need for different schedulings/.

[SlickFranky]

This article was analyzing cost, not comfort. Whether you prefer riding or driving is a matter of personal preference, and depends hugely on the transit and road networks in your city.

As far as travel time goes...I sold my car and used some of the savings to move into a nicer place, closer to where I work. My walking commute is quicker, more pleasant, and less stressful. Though some February mornings I do miss my car.

And just to clarify...parking is almost NEVER* free. The giant 'free' parking lot at the mall? That thing costs the developers a fortune in land, grading, drainage, paving, lighting, painting, repaving, etc. Those massive expenses are passed on to the merchants, then swiftly passed on to you. 'Free' parking at work? Same deal...that comes right out of your employer's margins, and means either 1)higher cost to consumers 2)less money to pay to you. So basically, my walking/biking/transit-riding ass is subsidizing your 'free' parking. But your gas-guzzling gut is subsidizing my transit, so I guess we're even.



*The only exception I can think of is streetside offpeak parking, where those lanes are required for driving during peak

[dchan]

So basically, my walking/biking/transit-riding ass is subsidizing your 'free' parking. But your gas-guzzling gut is subsidizing my transit, so I guess we're even.

I'd hardly call it even. I mean, drivers hardly directly pay for anything they drive on, outside of tolls and parking. Drivers and transit users alike both pay taxes, and taxes go towards subsidizing the building and maintaining of roads and bridges as well as building and maintaining of transit systems.

Yet, many pro-automobile advocates will argue that drivers are subsidizing transit users without even giving a second thought to how much it costs to build and maintain those 'free' roads they're driving on. And it's all because of that "only a small fraction of people use transit, while everybody uses a road - why should we pay for transit?" mentality that seems so pervasive and so persuasive in large swaths of America.

[glowrock]

Wow, this thread just gave me a freaking migraine! "Cars are horrible!", "Cars are great!", "Transit's the best!", "Transit's too expensive!", "Cars are so expensive!", "Dump your car, you'll be healthier, happier, and have a better sex life!", etc... etc... My god, this crap doesn't end! :hell:

Can't we all agree that additional public transit options are a VERY GOOD THING in our cities and suburbs, while realizing that it's just NOT FEASIBLE for many people to dump their cars outright? That's the whole damn problem here! The people without cars all live either in extremely car-unfriendly cities (SF, NYC, Chicago (central parts at least), Boston, Philly), or live in the absolutely most dense part of other cities (ie: Snodrifter in Denver's Capitol Hill)... Fine, I freaking get that being car-free is possible in situations like that! However, the minute a family comes into play, the minute having to work odd hours comes into play, the minute you want to leave the city comes into play, everything falls apart!

Again, I make my point. It's a laudable goal to reduce overall car ownership and an overall reduction in vehicle miles travelled. However, don't act like everyone (hell, even 10% of the population!) can just go ahead and dump their cars for a transit lifestyle immediately and easily.

I swear, the car/no car debate here is just as inane and downright frustrating as evolution/creationism and pro-life/pro-choice debates! :eek:


Aaron (Glowrock)

[Policy Wonk]

And really Light Rail should take just as much time as a car...or less. I'm sure you're car ride is more or less an hour too, then.

I live in North Central Calgary, the only LRT station that is conveniently accessed by bus is downtown - and those are the buses that zip by my stop packed full. The earliest I can catch my bus and actually be confident I will get through the doors is about 8:40 in the morning which gets me downtown at about 9:25 or 9:35. I want to be in my office no later than 8:30 most days.

This problem is supposed to be relieved by dedicated school routes, but the kids take the regular bus anyways because they have more opportunities to catch it near the start.

Catching the train at an outlying station such as Lions Park would require me taking THREE buses on top of the LRT. That is completely impractical and extremely time consuming. Actually I could do it in two - but the scenic tour of NE Industrial parks is longer than the three buses to Lions Park.

[Steely Dan]

I swear, the car/no car debate here is just as inane and downright frustrating as evolution/creationism and pro-life/pro-choice debates! :eek:


then let's switch it up by offering a 3rd path.

cars: horrible for the planet, horrible for cities, horrible for you
transit: slow and inconvenient

the answer: bikes! bikes! bikes!

anyone who doesn't ride a bike as their main mode of transportation is an idiot as far as i'm concerned. ;)

save money. lose weight. ride a bike.



i also use my kayak for tranportation sometimes as well, but that can be more limiting because chicago ain't venice; the river only goes through certain neighborhoods.so i have to be headed somewhere along the river. like this friday, i'm going to a july 4th party up in wilmette and i'm gonna paddle the 16 miles there instead of biking it because the river puts me within 4 blocks of the party, so the kayak wins!

[vid]

There are some houses up the street from me that have docks. Our river isn't as cool though. No skyscrapers. :(

[FREKI]

@Steely Dan - I like bikes, but they don't come without problems..

You are exposed to the elements and very vulnerable compared to other means of transportation, not to mention that your speed on one is a great deal slower then the alternatives..

As an urban transportation tool it works very great, but it is more an alternative transportation option rather than a primary one..

[Steely Dan]

but it is more an alternative transportation option rather than a primary one..
not for me, my bike is definitely my primary mode of transportation. i put ~7,500 miles on my bike last year.



not to mention that your speed on one is a great deal slower then the alternatives..

not true at all in chicago at rush hour. i routinely ride faster in the bike lane than the cars stuck in traffic next to me. as an example, every thursday i head from my job in evanston to my friend's house over in jeff park for game night. i bike it in 45 minutes. i've also driven the same route at rush hour and it takes anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour. in many cases during rush hour, biking is faster than driving in chicago because the traffic is so horrible for cars while the bike lines are WIDE open. and on a bike i can also cross against the signal at red lights and shit like that while all the cars have to stop and wait.

[dchan]

@Steely Dan - I like bikes, but they don't come without problems..

You are exposed to the elements and very vulnerable compared to other means of transportation, not to mention that your speed on one is a great deal slower then the alternatives..

As an urban transportation tool it works very great, but it is more an alternative transportation option rather than a primary one..

With most American cities, it is definitely more of an alternative transportation option rather than a primary one....but mostly because most cities have been designed for cars. But we've seen cities that have incorporated more bike-friendly amenities and features, and bikes, obviously, do very well in these environments.

But if we're talking about cities that have 8 lane highways, strip malls galore, and cars traveling at highway speeds left and right, bikes are obviously not a great tool to use there.

[dchan]

not true at all in chicago at rush hour. i routinely ride faster in the bike lane than the cars stuck in traffic next to me. as an example, every thursday i head from my job in evanston to my friend's house in over in jeff park for game night. i bike it in 45 minutes. i've also driven the same route at rush hour and it takes anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour. in many cases during rush hour, biking is faster than driving in chicago because the traffic is so horrible for cars while the bike lines are WIDE open. and on a bike i can also cross against the signal at red lights and shit like that while all the cars have to stop and wait.

The New York Times did a test between a bike, a car, and public transit to see which was fastest traveling on a typical workday between a point in Brooklyn (I have forgotten where) and Union Square in Manhattan.

The bike won handily, mostly because it didn't have to follow traffic rules and could squeeze in between gridlocked cars. The car was the next fastest, while the subway was the slowest.

[miketoronto]

With most American cities, it is definitely more of an alternative transportation option rather than a primary one....but mostly because most cities have been designed for cars. But we've seen cities that have incorporated more bike-friendly amenities and features, and bikes, obviously, do very well in these environments.

But if we're talking about cities that have 8 lane highways, strip malls galore, and cars traveling at highway speeds left and right, bikes are obviously not a great tool to use there.

That is why cities have to retrofit their suburbs for bikes. Toronto is doing this now, and here is the new bike lane in my neighbourhood. One of many new lanes to be opened in the suburbs, including one along the entire stretch of one of the largest and most congested major roads in the suburban area, Lawrence Ave.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3635/3598821023_7beb93a42e_b.jpg

This is my alternative transport option for areas its hard to get to with transit. Atleast in the summer :) The E-BIKE. Totally electric.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3368/3580707442_b0070817e3_o.jpg

[FREKI]

With most American cities, it is definitely more of an alternative transportation option rather than a primary one....but mostly because most cities have been designed for cars. But we've seen cities that have incorporated more bike-friendly amenities and features, and bikes, obviously, do very well in these environments.I myself comes from a city where nearly 40% use bikes for their daily commute and for people living close to their work it works very well.. however for cities of certain sizes ( my own included ) when you get more than a couple km's distance it loses it's use..

[Steely Dan]

when you get more than a couple km's distance it loses it's use..
how so?

i live 15 miles (~24 km) from my job and i bike commute everyday, it's not a big deal.

[FREKI]

how so?

i live 15 miles from my job and i bike commute everyday, it's not a big deal.
It may be fine for you in your current shape and with your current daily schedule - but for all compared to options like f.ex cars or buses then surely you can agree biking 30 miles daily year round in all sorts of weather isn't the optimal transportation solution..

[vid]

The better designed suburban neighbourhoods in North America (at least my city) are designed to give bikes an advantage. Recreation trails are typically the most direct route between point A and point B. Bike use here decreases quite sharply in winter but in summer it is very popular. It isn't a replacement for cars and buses (which have bike racks), it supplements them.

[Steely Dan]

It may be fine for you in your current shape and with your current daily schedule - but for all compared to options like f.ex cars or buses then surely you can agree biking 30 miles daily year round in all sorts of weather isn't the optimal transportation solution..
i certainly don't agree. biking is the absolute optimal transportartion solution for me because it made me lose 70 pounds and now i'm fit and healthy instead of an obese fat-ass. what i don't do is bike during the winter. from about mid december to mid-februaury i was riding the train to work everday. it would still not be worth it for me to own a car for just those 2 months of the year when i'm not biking because i'd have to pay 250 bucks a month just to park the damn thing in my building, and that would be a year round cost. no thanks. as i said at the beginning of this thread i could not afford my current downtown chicago lifestyle if i owned a car. i could certainly move to a cheaper neighborhood with free parking and get a car, but i like living where i do far too much. and for the rare times when i do need a car, taxis and car-sharing fit the bill just perfectly. i'm not completely against cars in all situations, there's just no good reason for me to own one.

by the way, what is a f.ex car?

and you didn't answer my question. how does a bicycle lose its use after a couple of kilometers?

[FREKI]

I'm not denying the usefulness of bikes, nor that it's not be really suited for you.. what I am saying is that it's not perfect for all..

You yourself mention winter where you take the train, but there are many other factors.. not all are healthy enough for it with bad backs or other factors preventingthem, not all have changing facilities at work when they arrive, not all have the infrastructure and even if they had not all have the extra time it takes..

and you didn't answer my question. how does a bicycle lose its use after a couple of kilometers? Well how many on a bike can rival the speed of a car or train over large distances?

How many would take the bike when they were going to visit Aunt Helen for the holidays on the other side of the state/nation?

Shopping for groceries, transporting kids, time, distance etc.. bikes like on foot may be able to get you around and do stuff, but it's rarely the optimal way of doing it.. so IMO it's a great alternative, but not a primary solution for the planet.

The freedom that a car brings doesn't come cheap - but to many it's well worth it..

[Steely Dan]

I'm not denying the usefulness of bikes, nor that it's not be really suited for you.. what I am saying is that it's not perfect for all..

but that's only because everyone else is stupid. i'm the only intelligent being that our species has yet produced. well, me and maybe einstein. i wonder how much he biked. ;)





You yourself mention winter where you take the train, but there are many other factors.. not all are healthy enough for it with bad backs or other factors preventingthem, not all have changing facilities at work when they arrive, not all have the infrastructure and even if they had not all have the extra time it takes..

sucks for those losers because biking rules!





Well how many on a bike can rival the speed of a car or train over large distances?

well, now you're changing what you said. you initially said that bikes lose their use after a couple of kilometers, now you're talking about large distances. 5 kilometers is not a "large distance" to me, but i suppose everything is relative.





How many would take the bike when they were going to visit Aunt Helen for the holidays on the other side of the state/nation?

other side of state - rental car or amtrak.
other side of nation - plane






Shopping for groceries, transporting kids, time, distance etc.. bikes like on foot may be able to get you around and do stuff, but it's rarely the optimal way of doing it.. so IMO it's a great alternative, but not a primary solution for the planet.

groceries? - i walk to the grocery store
kids? - uhhhhhhh, no thanks.

since the vast majority of what most people do in their day to day lives is within easy biking distance, bikes can definitely be an optimal form of primary transportation, supplemented with transit, cabs and car sharing/rental. it can be a primary solution for the planet, but most people are just too stupid and/or lazy.

[FREKI]

To each his own.. :)

I biked for many years - now I enjoy the comfort and freedom a car brings..

[glowrock]

then let's switch it up by offering a 3rd path.

cars: horrible for the planet, horrible for cities, horrible for you
transit: slow and inconvenient

the answer: bikes! bikes! bikes!

anyone who doesn't ride a bike as their main mode of transportation is an idiot as far as i'm concerned. ;)

save money. lose weight. ride a bike.




Whatever, Steely Dan. Replace on partially-viable mode of transit with one that's completely untenable for most people, myself included!

Sorry, but I don't want to be traipsing around for miles on a bike in the middle of the summer heat in Bakersfield... :)

Aaron (Glowrock)

[glowrock]

i certainly don't agree. biking is the absolute optimal transportartion solution for me because it made me lose 70 pounds and now i'm fit and healthy instead of an obese fat-ass. what i don't do is bike during the winter. from about mid december to mid-februaury i was riding the train to work everday. it would still not be worth it for me to own a car for just those 2 months of the year when i'm not biking because i'd have to pay 250 bucks a month just to park the damn thing in my building, and that would be a year round cost. no thanks. as i said at the beginning of this thread i could not afford my current downtown chicago lifestyle if i owned a car. i could certainly move to a cheaper neighborhood with free parking and get a car, but i like living where i do far too much. and for the rare times when i do need a car, taxis and car-sharing fit the bill just perfectly. i'm not completely against cars in all situations, there's just no good reason for me to own one.

by the way, what is a f.ex car?

and you didn't answer my question. how does a bicycle lose its use after a couple of kilometers?

Holy shit Steely, you're coming a bike-commie! :hell:

I mean, it's awesome that biking helped you attain your health goals and the like, and it's great that you don't mind/like 15 mile commutes each way by bike! But damn, now you're sounding like a complete elitist prick! Now everyone who doesn't ride a bike as a transportation option is an obese fat-ass? Give me a freaking break!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Steely Dan]

Sorry, but I don't want to be traipsing around for miles on a bike in the middle of the summer heat in Bakersfield... :)

well there's you're problem right there, you're living in bakersfield. you should be taking the appropriate steps necessary to rectify that situation ;)



But damn, now you're sounding like a complete elitist prick!

you say that like it's a bad thing.

in all seriousness i'm just a total bike nazi. biking is pretty much one of the best things in the world, in fact i think the entire meaning of our existance in this univers can be boiled down to sex, eating, and biking.


biking was good enough for the son of god for christ's sake!
http://imgsrv.kluc.com/image/kluc2/UserFiles/Image/jesus_bicycle.jpg
source: http://www.kluc.com/pages/2567962.php



bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, bikes, i like bikes!

[Strange Meat]

One of my favorite modes...

http://images.ifguk.co.uk/products/2069/2069-zoom.jpg
neversummer.com

[Steely Dan]

but did jesus ride a skateboard?


apparently he did:
http://scotteriology.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/skateboarding-jesus.jpg
source: http://scotteriology.wordpress.com/2007/08/20/the-fashion-of-the-christ/

[dchan]

I'm sure you can get a figure of "Jesus driving a Hummer" if you searched hard enough.

EDIT:

I found it on the second page of Google images:

http://splendidmarbles.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/jesus_speeds4.png

http://splendidmarbles.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/jesus_speeds4.png

[glowrock]

Steely, I HOPE you're being more than a little sarcastic in your comments, bud...

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Steely Dan]

Steely, I HOPE you're being more than a little sarcastic in your comments, bud...

Aaron (Glowrock)

don't sweat it, i'm clearly just goofing around.

except for the bike-nut part. that's all true, i've become obsessed with biking and now i'm like some evangelical christian fundamentalist and i feel the need to spread the gospel of bikes throughout the universe. i've seen the light and now i want to force everyone else to see it too. look at the light. do it. just look at the goddamn light.


have you accepted biking into your life as your personal savior? i can show you how.

i have a book that i think you should read:

http://www.bike-trike.info/images/bicycling-guide-front-cover.jpg
source: http://www.bike-trike.info/bicycle-maintenance-and-repair.html


bikes be with you, my brother, may you go in peace to serve the bike.

[glowrock]

Holy crap, Steely. You're over the edge!! :)

Aaron (Glowrock)

[glowrock]

I'm sure you can get a figure of "Jesus driving a Hummer" if you searched hard enough.

EDIT:

I found it on the second page of Google images:

http://splendidmarbles.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/jesus_speeds4.png

http://splendidmarbles.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/jesus_speeds4.png

Best part of that cartoon: WWID!! Hahahaha

Aaron (Glowrock)

[JMancuso]

my 40 y/o brother lost is license due unpaid tickets and is now forced to ride around on a mountain bike.

[dchan]

my 40 y/o brother lost is license due unpaid tickets and is now forced to ride around on a mountain bike.

Forced? Or freed? ;)

[glowrock]

Forced? Or freed? ;)

Depends on the weather. Can't wait for his brother to use his mountain bike in the dead of winter in Upstate New York! :haha:

Aaron (Glowrock)

[vid]

I've used my bike in winter. You have to be very strong to push a bike through six inches of snow. Then the chain rusts.

[Attrill]

Biking is definitely a viable transportation mode - but there are plenty of days in Chicago where it doesn't work. I got caught in a thunderstorm a couple of weeks ago and had to pull off the road and wait it out. Ice and snow make it very difficult on many days as well. I am also far too drunk to bike or drive on many occasions, so public transit and walking are my primary methods of transportation (with some driving for running errands and going out of town).

I think walking is VERY underrated. I usually walk about 5 miles into work twice a week and people think I'm a little weird for that. But if I drove for 15 minutes to go to a gym and walk on a treadmill for an hour, and then drove into work - that would be normal

[The Chemist]

This is my alternative transport option for areas its hard to get to with transit. Atleast in the summer :) The E-BIKE. Totally electric.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3368/3580707442_b0070817e3_o.jpg

That must be a Chinese make - those things are everywhere here, but I didn't know they actually sold them in Canada. Are they really street legal there?

I just bought my own electric scooter last week. It's great - faster than the bus and subway to a lot of places, as long as they're not too far away (maximum range of mine is about 60-70km, and it doesn't have pedals).

[pip]

Much of the argument we're all having is apples and oranges - there's really no totally right or wrong answer.


For the pro-transit people (not the absolute, "give me transit, or give me death" crowd, but you get get the idea):
- The key to your argument is total cost saved as well as time not spent driving. Total cost saved is a pretty easy to deduce, since owning a car costs so much - that's the cost of purchasing a new car, the cost of maintaining it, the cost of repairs, the cost of insurance, the cost of gasoline/diesel, and the cost of parking and tolls. Those costs add up to quite a bit, and the real cost of owning a car no longer seems so cheap.

But the "time not spent driving" side of the argument can be hard to grasp. One of the key arguments of pro-car is that cars save so much time over transit. Here in Bethlehem, going to the Lehigh Valley Mall takes 15 minutes by car, 45 minutes by bus. So I can definitely understand that argument.

But there's the other side of the argument. That is, that the time spend driving the car is spent on driving the car alone. You really can't do anything else, and I condemn cell-phone users or texters who believe they can multi-task behind the wheel. Really: driving is a task that requires all of your attention.

Whereas, you can read, catch up on work, take a nap, or do other things while taking transit.....provided the situation is comfortable enough. And for those commuters living in the Lehigh Valley who are crazy enough to work in New York City, the buses offer a comfortable enough environment to do those things. Plus, the time savings by driving a car aren't much: the savings is typically 30 minutes, compared with the 1.5 to 2.5 hour trip, depending on traffic.


For the pro-car people (again, not the "you can pry my car out of my cold dead hands" crowd):
- The problem with the "you can read, catch up on work, take a nap, etc." argument is that it counts in only a few transit situations - subways, commuter trains, and long distance buses or express buses. Those are the only transit modes comfortable enough or with few enough stops to make those activities possible. (Commuter trains, such as the LIRR, and especially if they're express trains, are easily the most comfortable by a wide margin)

Remember the Bethlehem to LV Mall trip I mentioned above? The buses around here are so noisy, so slow, so herky-jerky uncomfortable, and so friggin' loud that it's virtually impossible to do anything but sit and take in how uncomfortable and long the trip is. Reading will make you feel queasy, a nap is out of the question (unless you have one of those noise-canceling headphones), and the bus is filled with poor people and old people almost exclusively. Is it worth the extra 30 minutes to save a few bucks? Personally, I'd rather just ride my bike out there to save a few bucks, and the mall's like 10 miles away with some pretty nasty hills in between.

So your "more free time" argument holds up pretty well, depending on the type of transit taken as well as the the trip's overall distance and time.

And the other part of your argument is that most people already own already own cars, save for a good chunk of big city residents. So if you already own a car anyway for whatever reason, how can people claim your new car costs and other monthly fixed costs (minus extra gasoline, extra wear-and-tear, and extra depreciation costs) in their arguments on costs when they try to convince you to take transit? As far as I can tell, the car's fixed costs are already sunk costs in these situations.


So here's my experience with transit, at least from my home in Fresh Meadows in Queens, NY.

My familty doesn't 'need' a car - my mother can take the bus to work, and my father has retired. But it's pretty damn convenient. Consider how many times a week my parents drive to Flushing to eat or shop for groceries. And then consider that the Q17 bus takes 45 minutes to reach Flushing and come back, compared with the 10-15 minutes it takes by car. Consider how many groceries they bring back each time - it's quite a bit. The bus is certainly available, but certainly not convenient by any means.

Back in high school, it took me about 1 hour or so to get to my school in Lower Manhattan by subway and car (one of my parents usually drove me to the subway stop). If I had taken a bus to reach the subway stop, it would have taken me about 1 hour and 20 minutes. But if I had paid an extra $1.50, I could have taken an express bus and reached Lower Manhattan in 30 minutes, and my school in 40 minutes.

When I sprained my ankle severely a few days before 9/11, I could barely walk. My father had to drive me to school that day, and luckily, my ankle loosened up enough that I was able to walk at more than a snail's pace. I believe it took him 30 minutes to reach my school.

But had he parked and stayed the whole day, like some commuters might who drive to the city to work, he would have paid $30 or more for parking in a parking garage. That's how expensive parking is here in NYC, and that's just those "early-bird specials" meant to attract commuters (who would probably go for the monthly rate, which is about $500 or so) or somebody visiting for the day - think about those who have to park during the prime evening hours.

The fact is that parking is free or almost free in Queens, the Subway system is nearly nonexistent, the buses are decent but take too long, and the borough as a whole was built around the automobile. But whenever I take my mother on a weekend day-trip into Manhattan (mostly Central Park), we would drive to the subway stop (there's plenty of parking to be found near 179th Street Station) and then hop on the Subway. We would spend the afternoon walking around Central Park or somewhere else, hop on the Subway to go to her favorite restaurant in Chinatown, and ride the Subway back to 179th St. Station, and take our car home. Honestly, it's the best of both worlds. :)

just to add one more point. What if all your friends live in areas where parking is next to impossible? Sure I know a couple of people that live on the fringe where a car would be easier to get there with and parking won't be that difficult but that's their problem as they are always coming in as oppossed to us going out there.

[dchan]

just to add one more point. What if all your friends live in areas where parking is next to impossible? Sure I know a couple of people that live on the fringe where a car would be easier to get there with and parking won't be that difficult but that's their problem as they are always coming in as oppossed to us going out there.

It took me three times to understand what you wrote. Some commas and periods are in order there. :)

My answer: there's a reason why more people visit cities than they visit the sticks and the 'fringe'. And there's a reason why densely populated places, with "next to impossible" parking, can support a thriving transit network.