Mass transit a good thing — especially for riders whose fares are subsidized

[RCDC]

Originally Posted by JManc

Park-and-rides already remove a lot of cars from heavily congested areas. Here in Houston, there are dozens of commuter buses are coming and going all the time, eliminating thousands of cars from downtown.

I do believe this validates that picture. Before Metro the rush hour roads were becoming gridlocked, including the massive amounts of busses. And with bicycle infrastructure suburban stations have taken cars off the roads to those as well.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by RCDC

I do believe this validates that picture. Before Metro the rush hour roads were becoming gridlocked, including the massive amounts of busses. And with bicycle infrastructure suburban stations have taken cars off the roads to those as well.

Bikes will always serve as a niche transit option. They will replace cars for those already inclined to ride not the average commuter who travels by car or bus. First of all, you have to be psychically able to ride a bike and then have a reasonable commute. I work 30 miles from home. No way am I riding my bike that distance. It also helps to have infrastructure in place to protect you from being run down by a 17 year-old Face Timing in her Jeep Liberty.

[lrt's friend]

A white line on the pavement is ample protection, isn't it?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

A white line on the pavement is ample protection, isn't it?

Unless that white line has special properties to repel a car from careening into the bike lane then that would be a no.

[llamaorama]

But nobody is forcing you to ride a bike, this discussion is about loosening the monopoly that auto travel has on all transportation spending decisions. Cars may always be the predominant mode but if we are going to subsidize infrastructure it should reflect the public good by taking other users into consideration and neighborhood-level circumstances.

Vast parts of Houston consist of a grid of low-traffic neighborhood streets lined with small houses on narrow lots, multistory townhomes, dingbat office buildings, etc and are actually pretty dense. The frequency of buses on major thoroughfares tends to be pretty good too, you could almost rely on the bus in the right areas. The only thing lacking is the street itself. There are too many areas with extremely narrow blacktop laneways with culverts and utility poles next to them.

IMO the next step now that transit has been greatly upgraded(relative) in the last 15 years or so is to go in and improve "the last mile" with sidewalks, off street bike paths(those green painted ones), just improved streets in general. While streets are being torn up would be a great time to expand storm sewers and lay down fiber internet too.

At the rate infill is being built, the area inside the loop could be a totally different kind of city in 20 years. Comparing it to the past, it already is. It would be a missed opportunity to not take advantage of this.

From SSP I've learned of Los Angeles' transformation. A couple decades ago it was like Houston, a rapidly growing sprawling city with a suburban mindset and a long list of urban problems. But then it embraced building upwards and transit and it has greatly improved once blighted neighborhoods. DTLA used to be a lot like downtown Houston - a field of asphalt parking lots full of roaming homeless with some supertall PoMo office towers hermetically sealed from the world below.

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Also affordability issues.

A restaurant cook is not going to live in the same building as a techbro in North Beach.

People have to commute from affordable areas to areas with zero housing supply.

But a restaurant cook might live in the East Bay and ride BART. North Beach has no direct rapid transit yet.

I don't think affordability in the central part of San Francisco is a realistic goal in the long term, because like lower and midtown Manhattan or central London or Paris it is a elite hub of global commerce. The real challenge is that the Bay Area doesn't have affordable areas tens of miles from the cores, but that is a more complex, different sort of issue and transit helps, not hurts when it comes to that.

I've seen this pic countless times. It's a simplistic take on a complex issue. That's assuming all those people live near one another, in town, going in the same direction and live/ work near a bus stop or subway station. What if someone has a cross town appointment and are on a time constraint? Unless point A and point B are along the same bus/ subway line, a car will be faster.

Actually it is simple. Not all cities are as low density as American ones, being more or less centralized may not matter than much. If you look at metro maps of cities around the world, many have a grid topology with suburb-suburb loop lines instead of a hub-and-spoke radiating from downtown.

Presumably someone who has a special appointment takes a taxi or gets a ride and it's not like families don't have cars.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by JManc

Bikes will always serve as a niche transit option. They will replace cars for those already inclined to ride not the average commuter who travels by car or bus. First of all, you have to be psychically able to ride a bike and then have a reasonable commute. I work 30 miles from home. No way am I riding my bike that distance. It also helps to have infrastructure in place to protect you from being run down by a 17 year-old Face Timing in her Jeep Liberty.

One aspect of the discussion that's often missing from the "bikes will always be a niche" is that it's based on the assumption that we're talking about only the transportation modes within a society whose other development and movement patterns will remain static. Transportation is inherently woven into development and settlement patterns - whether intentionally or unintentionally. If you have streets that are designed primarily for the convenience and safety of active transportation users, the result is that not only will active transportation be more desirable, but automobile movement is also slower and less desirable. For instance, major corridors that have room claimed by bike lanes have less space for car driving or parking lanes. Arterial streets that have lower speed limits and more frequent crosswalks and intersections for added pedestrian safety are also less desirable as commuter routes since this adds to vehicular travel times. And a key way to make active transportation more desirable is for municipalities to encourage mixed uses allowing more services, employment and amenities to be closer to where more people live, which also encourages greater overall density.

The take away is that over time, it wouldn't be as common for people to live large distances from employment, shopping, and services and that when neighbourhoods change in these ways, it naturally becomes easier to walk, bike, or take transit as a portion of daily trips in this type of setting. If we recognize that these changes work together in a synergy, then it isn't hard to imagine that many more people would find active transportation to be the more convenient option. But if we're thinking that the goal is for transportation modal split to change significantly as an isolated variable, then of course that isn't likely. And I agree that not everyone will ever be willing to walk or bike, but I would argue that anyone who isn't capable of using any alternative to a car (wheelchair, mobility scooter, walker, transit, etc.) is probably not going to be able to use a car either. There are probably as many - or more - people who can't use cars as there are people who cant use bikes (too young, too poor, reduced vision, etc). Automation will address some of this, but not all.

But I agree that there will always be people who simply love cars and insist on using them because they find it enjoyable even if it were much less convenient, just as there is always a fringe who loves biking and insist on doing it even when inconvenient. But that doesn't mean the rates of each can't change significantly in conjunction with other societal changes.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by mhays

In my bus-focused city, an increasing number of buses are double-deckers. Just avoid old overpasses.

Two-level trains are possible only if they're in large-bore tunnels (i.e. freight etc.) or on the surface. You can't realistically retrofit existing tunnels to be taller.

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Subways tend not to have double-decker trains (due to height constraints), but commuter rail trains are usually double decker in my experience.

A big part of this is also dwell times. Commuter rail tends to have double-deckers since they usually make longer distance trips at lower frequency so people need a place to sit down for the long trip durations and fewer people are getting on and off at each stop. When you have stops that see very frequent departures, its hard for two levels of passengers to squeeze through doors on a single level during a short stop. Paris address this somewhat by having three extra-wide doors per side on RER A (busiest) and having two split level sections per car. But generally, double deckers wouldn't actually increase capacity metro lines since the greater number of people per train would be counteracted by platforms being able to handle fewer trains per hour.

[RCDC]

Originally Posted by JManc

Bikes will always serve as a niche transit option. They will replace cars for those already inclined to ride not the average commuter who travels by car or bus. First of all, you have to be psychically able to ride a bike and then have a reasonable commute. I work 30 miles from home. No way am I riding my bike that distance. It also helps to have infrastructure in place to protect you from being run down by a 17 year-old Face Timing in her Jeep Liberty.

Those are bikes that people ride to the metro station which they then commute into the city. Meaning less people driving to the park and ride. Biking infrastructure is a big reason why.

I thought that was made clear but I guess I was wrong.

[RCDC]

Originally Posted by JManc

Unless that white line has special properties to repel a car from careening into the bike lane then that would be a no.

So motorists are allowed to drive incompetently without repercussion and everyone else needs to stay the hell out of their way.