|
|
| Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard (1577812) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 5 |
||
|
| (1578156) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 14 14:08:11 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Jun 14 13:42:20 2021. Yes, we do. |
|
|
| (1578163) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Jun 14 15:04:50 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 08:43:03 2021. In your example, it would be doubtful that you would wait longer for the bus on the "excellent" corridor you had to walk farther to. Thus, in the case of longer walking, that bus should definitely come in 5 minutes, if both of the buses in the less-walking scenario would also have come that fast.That brings the maximum trip time in the more-walking scenario down to 45 minutes, and that's really only if your origin and destination are both in such low-demand areas that I wouldn't expect to "convert" too many people who already use cars for such trips anyway. If, meanwhile, more people who live closer to the excellent corridors start using the bus, it could be worth it. |
|
|
| (1578166) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Jun 14 15:15:28 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 08:45:42 2021. Because people powering their own vehicles in the elements shouldn't be forced to take more difficult and circuitous routes (with stop signs, and dead ends, that Grand Concourse doesn't have) than the people in climate-controlled motorized vehicles. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1578170) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 15:46:49 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by AlM on Mon Jun 14 10:30:55 2021. He can dismount or go into the street. Many times in these areas it is much safer for the cyclist on the sidewalk than in the street which is why I proposed it. Another problem is that sometimes these sidewalks are so poorly maintained they are not usable for pedestrians or cyclists, but that should never be.And what is the big inconvenience for cyclists to dismount? The city believes that believes that pedestrians have the right to cross a major thoroughfare on one traffic signal without having to stop in the median. But if a motorist has to wait for two or three green signals to cross an intersection or make a left turn, no one gives a second thought about that. Why is it that we must never inconvenience a pedestrian or a cyclist, but motorists have no rights and don’t matter? |
|
|
| (1578171) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 15:49:11 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Jun 14 15:04:50 2021. But what about the people who can’t walk a half mile to or from the bus or don’t believe it is worth a fare for a trip where two thirds of the time is spent walking? |
|
|
| (1578172) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 15:51:04 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Jun 14 15:15:28 2021. So bicycles shouldn’t have to stop at stop signs because that is too much of an inconvenience for them. I suppose stopping at red lights is just as inconvenient. |
|
|
| (1578173) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Jun 14 16:00:11 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 15:51:04 2021. No. Stop signs require everyone to stop. But by booting a category of traffic off of Grand Concourse, you force that traffic to lose the luxury of long green signals and instead have to deal with every cross street individually.Think of it this way. If the policy was for Grand Concourse to be bikes only, but motorists were allowed on every other street in the area with the promise that they wouldn't ever have to deal with any bikes on those other streets, would the motorists be happy? |
|
|
| (1578175) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 16:04:21 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 14 13:35:04 2021. It’s a little too late for both because there has been too much development. I was always against the Midtown Manhattan Expressway until I saw one of the versions att a Moses exhibit about ten years ago.It was actually brilliant. Remember, when it was proposed, none of the buildings between 32 and 33 Street where I believe it was proposed was higher than six stories and none were architecturally significant. Moses proposed to tear everything down and replace the entire corridor with skyscrapers at least 20 stories high, but with the expressway on the second story. I believe the only exit westbound was at Second Avenue and maybe one at 11th. Similar story in the other direction. Any through vehicle from Queens to New Jersey would never enter a Manhattan Street and all those skyscrapers would have generated tons of tax revenue, more than enough to pay for the project. And once Moses was out of the picture, the taxes could have been diverted to mass transit. There would have been much reduced congestion. But now of course there are too many high rises in the way. A missed opportunity. A similar proposal for Lower Manhattan may have also worked, but was never proposed. I don’t think three lanes each way was enough to relieve any traffic congestion and I saw one version with five lanes each way deep tunneled under all the subways. Can’t even imagine how expensive that would have been or if it would have accomplished anything. |
|
|
| (1578176) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Jun 14 16:04:44 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 15:49:11 2021. It's the nature of a paradigm shift. Some people and some beliefs will not be represented. Like any policy, it naturally assumes drawbacks. That's not to say whether it's good on the whole, or bad on the whole, for the general public. |
|
|
| (1578177) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 16:06:17 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jun 13 21:27:31 2021. The morning rush is like 6 to 11, and the evening rush is 3 to 8. That’s 10 out of 24 hours with heavy traffic, not 4 hours like it used to be. |
|
|
| (1578178) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Jun 14 16:07:16 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 15:46:49 2021. As I see it, motorists are constantly inconveniencing pedestrians to the extent that they create the need for crosswalks and signalized intersections to begin with. |
|
|
| (1578179) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jun 14 16:07:43 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 15:46:49 2021. And what is the big inconvenience for cyclists to dismount?I don't know. All I know is that they don't do it. |
|
|
| (1578180) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jun 14 16:08:40 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Jun 14 16:07:16 2021. Not to mention frequently inconveniencing them by threatening their life and health when they do cross in a crosswalk with a walk light. |
|
|
| (1578181) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Jun 14 16:11:27 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 14 13:35:04 2021. What would be your opinion on tolls, if you have one, and if these roadways existed today? |
|
|
| (1578182) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 14 16:11:50 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 15:51:04 2021. Actually, that is the motivation behind the Idaho Stop, which is a good idea. |
|
|
| (1578183) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 14 16:15:38 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Jun 14 16:11:27 2021. I would be in favor of tolling the bridges in exchange for building these roads, BUT the road would not have an additional toll in order to disincentivize people continuing to use streets. |
|
|
| (1578185) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Jun 14 16:25:20 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 15:46:49 2021. because exactly zero peds or cyclists run down cars destroying them and the occupants while motorists account for as many deaths per year as all of the murderers. |
|
|
| (1578197) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by George Foelschow on Mon Jun 14 21:30:24 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by AlM on Mon Jun 14 16:07:43 2021. How comforting to know that all Democrats are hazards on the road and Republicans are all angelic, non-sinful former altar boys or nuns. |
|
|
| (1578199) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jun 14 22:21:41 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by George Foelschow on Mon Jun 14 21:30:24 2021. Nonsequitur. |
|
|
| (1578200) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jun 14 22:22:46 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Jun 14 16:25:20 2021. Red herring. How many cars run into trucks and destroy the truck? |
|
|
| (1578203) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by George Foelschow on Mon Jun 14 23:57:51 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jun 14 22:21:41 2021. A non sequitur is a false conclusion reached logically from the premise(s). My statement posed no argument; it was intended as sarcasm. |
|
|
| (1578208) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jun 15 01:22:05 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Jun 14 07:37:10 2021. California seems to disprove that since many of its cities went car crazy over the years and now like LA have returned to light rail and even subways. |
|
|
| (1578220) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Jun 15 07:25:54 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by randyo on Tue Jun 15 01:22:05 2021. Yeah I still think rail is ultimately the way to go. If/when a city has its back against the wall and is just plain out of space and still needs to move people, there would be no more efficient way than with rail (of whatever type). |
|
|
| (1578222) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 08:33:15 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Jun 14 16:00:11 2021. Of course they wouldn't be happy because there is not enough capacity on the parallel streets so even if you could synchronize the lights on those streets, there would still be gridlock while the Grand Concourse would appear virtually empty because there could never be enough bikes to fill it. No disrespect, but if it were to come to pass, it would be one of the dumbest ideas ever. |
|
|
| (1578223) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 08:33:55 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jun 14 16:11:50 2021. What is the Idaho stop? |
|
|
| (1578224) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 08:37:02 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Jun 14 16:07:16 2021. And pedestrians don't inconvenience motorists in midtown Manhattan that by the time all of them finish crossing the street, there is only time for one or two cars to make a right turn and you have to wait for three red lights lights just trying to make one right turn? Why do you only look at it from one point of view? |
|
|
| (1578225) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 08:37:41 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by George Foelschow on Mon Jun 14 21:30:24 2021. No one ever said that. |
|
|
| (1578226) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 08:39:44 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by George Foelschow on Mon Jun 14 23:57:51 2021. It also us not true and served no purpose. Also, that headline was the editor's not mine. But when most of the Democratic candidates all have the same anti-car policy, it makes that statement true. |
|
|
| (1578227) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 08:41:09 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Jun 14 16:25:20 2021. What about all the pedestrians killed by bikes and ebikes? While only a fraction of those killed by cars, it is rising and not to be ignored. |
|
|
| (1578228) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 08:41:30 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jun 14 22:22:46 2021. Exactly. |
|
|
| (1578229) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Jsun21 on Tue Jun 15 09:12:54 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 08:33:55 2021. Traffic rules are 'one step' up for bikes in Idaho. So it would mean treating a stop sign as a yield. |
|
|
| (1578232) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 15 09:56:34 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 08:33:55 2021. Bikes treat red lights as stop signs and stop signs as yield signs. |
|
|
| (1578233) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 15 09:59:44 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 08:41:09 2021. And will only rise if there are to be more bikes. |
|
|
| (1578238) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Jun 15 11:43:10 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 08:37:41 2021. The thread title says that. |
|
|
| (1578242) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 15 12:55:32 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by AlM on Tue Jun 15 11:43:10 2021. No, it doesn’t. Do I have to explain? |
|
|
| (1578244) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 13:30:13 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 09:11:09 2021. No it wouldn't. Making them less vehicle friendly would ony work with significant improvements to mass transit. That means new rapid transit lines and doubling the frequency of buses and network redesign to better serve the people and eliminating double fares. NONE OF THAT IS ON THE TABLE.Making the streets less vehicle friendly without these improvements will only accelerate middle class flight. No one is arguing that making streets car-friendly in and of itself is the solution, but rather an effective solution when done in tandem with increasing public transportation. The problem is that politicians are too afraid to put any real investment into improving our public transportation because of the amount of tax revenue that the auto industry generates as well as the baffling prevalence of anti-public transit NIMBYs in this city where the majority of residents don't own a car. 🤔 Streetcars weren't taken out of service because they couldn't compete with autos. They were removed because of the huge conspiracy by oil companies and auto companies. Almost every major city in America used to have a streetcar, and they were without a doubt a fast and efficient way to get around town before the automobile. Once the automobile was invented, streetcars that were able to carry dozens of passengers were jilted for automobiles that took up ~100 square feet for each driver who used to get around by streetcar. All of those automobiles of course meant traffic, and once all of the roads were gridlocked by traffic, streetcars became too slow to effective and had to be taken out of commission, leaving cars as the only way to get around, and forcing once walkable cities to build around cars, tearing down homes and businesses to build large concrete plots where your car can sleep for 8 1/2 hours a day. Walkable cities built around public transit is a great idea. But unfortunately we don't have that here. If you want some to be built where there is vacant land, I have no problem with that. But we have what we have and we have to deal with it effectively. Thinking that everyone should, could and would ride a bike by destroying your option to use your personal vehicle is not the right path and will have detrimental results including higher fatalities and devastating effects on the economy as the middle class seeks greener pastures. As I explained above, the personal automobile is the least efficient mode of transportation, and in an ideal world would be prioritized as such. It's less about screwing over drivers and more about being able to move the maximum amount of people in a fast and efficient manner, something that the personal automobile just can't do. As has already been mentioned, it looks like the problem isn't Anti-car democrats, but rather Anti-public transit politicians who are misled by their misinformed constituents. I'm waiting for the day when the city says enough is enough and finally puts some real investment into the public transportation system, vocal minority NIMBYs be damned. Sure, it would suck for some people near 31st Street/Astoria Blvd to lose their homes and businesses, but the Astoria line needs to be extended to LGA already to give an example. |
|
|
| (1578245) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Jun 15 13:37:37 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 15 12:55:32 2021. A potential interpretation of the thread title is that all Democrats are anti-car. It is not the only interpretation, of course. |
|
|
| (1578246) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 13:39:44 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Jun 14 07:37:10 2021. All good points, but also wanted to add that buses are more flexible too. If there is a bad accident on a streetcar line, that streetcar is waiting until it clears up, while a bus can easily detour down another street around it.In my ideal public transportation world, fully electric buses would have their own busways/physically separated bus lanes that they can travel down in tandem with fully grade separated rail rapid transit. |
|
|
| (1578248) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jun 15 13:42:14 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 08:41:09 2021. peds killed by cyclists? how many per year? |
|
|
| (1578251) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 15 14:18:02 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by AlM on Tue Jun 15 13:37:37 2021. The thread title, even if interpreted that way, says nothing about Republicans. |
|
|
| (1578252) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 14:25:44 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 08:56:06 2021. To run down the medians, you would need buses with doors on both sides.That would be the plan. When Grand Concourse was first built, streetcars used to run down the median of the main road and I believe the medians are still wide at various intersections because of that. Would one of the service roads even be wide enough for a bidirectional roadway? The Queens Boulevard service roads became hopelessly clogged when it was decided to take one of the lanes and concert it into parking. At some intersections the sidewalk expands a bit into the street so that would have to be addressed, but the service roads are definitely wide enough for bidirectional traffic. The city caused the buses to run slow in the first place, and to correct the problem they caused, they want to gridlock the street for all other traffic. As I explained before, automobiles caused buses and streetcars to run slow. As the population of New York City grew, traffic grew, but public transportation didn't grow with it including the bus system where you have routes like the B43 which awkwardly and abruptly turns down Empire Boulevard in Lefferts Gardens because of a baseball stadium that has been gone for over 6 decades. |
|
|
| (1578253) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 14:33:19 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jun 14 08:45:42 2021. The idea is to make the city more walkable and more friendly to non-automobile users since automobiles gridlock streets, are unsafe, are a detriment to our environment, and inefficient at moving people. Forcing bikes to travel down side streets that are parallel to the streets that want to go to naturally obstructs that objective. |
|
|
| (1578254) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Jun 15 14:36:59 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jun 13 16:14:07 2021. Are you serious.?Stop playing DEVILS ADVOCATE. He doesn't need or want a lawyer? |
|
|
| (1578255) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Jun 15 14:37:21 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Sun Jun 13 16:14:07 2021. Are you serious.?Stop playing DEVILS ADVOCATE. He doesn't need or want a lawyer. |
|
|
| (1578256) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Jun 15 14:38:09 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Jun 15 08:37:02 2021. Pedestrians inconvenience motorists at times. But it's not even close to equal.In NYC and surrounding areas, pretty much every walk a non-jaywalking pedestrian takes, unless it's exclusively in a park, will be significantly detoured or delayed because of accommodations for motor vehicles. That occasionally a car has to wait a couple of cycles to make a turn because of tons of pedestrians is small potatoes relative to the idea of pedestrians expected to automatically wait two cycles outdoors to cross a street whether or not there is a lot of cross traffic, just so the cross traffic gets more green time. Divisions and signaling of the road in general always benefit motorists first. With no division or signaling, pedestrians walk at their regular walking speed and motor vehicles move slowly so as not to hit them, while with division and signaling, pedestrians move less than their walking speed (they have to wait at don't-walk signs and detour toward crosswalks) while motor vehicles move much faster, even with whatever red lights they encounter. Not to mention all of the places where motor vehicles are allowed but pedestrians just aren't. (Freeways, etc.) There's no way that law-abiding pedestrians of today inconvenience motorists anywhere near as much as the other way around. |
|
|
| (1578258) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Jun 15 14:45:27 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 15 14:18:02 2021. Meh.The emphasis on Democrats suggests Republicans are different. Of course, since it actually said democrats without a capital d, that might or might not make a difference. |
|
|
| (1578259) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Jun 15 14:46:30 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jun 15 13:42:14 2021. Not many in total numbers, but enough to be concerned about. |
|
|
| (1578260) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 14:47:04 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Jun 14 03:03:10 2021. America is so anti-rail that buses often substitute for rail rapid transit and streetcars. A lot of buses conversely are also direct descendants of streetcars and make the same amount of frequent stops as the streetcars, the only problem is that those streetcars operated before automobiles clogged up our roads and didn't have to merge into traffic. A modern "local" bus should stop around every quarter mile while a "rapid" bus stops around every mile with those stops being at bus bulbs that don't require the bus to merge into traffic, and with the advent of smart phones and mobile payment, you should be able to board and exit using all doors on the bus by installing fare scanners at the rear door of all buses. |
|
|
| (1578261) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jun 15 14:49:52 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 14:47:04 2021. America is not anti-rail. The politicians are; that's why they forced it out of the private sector to control how much is available to the public. |
|
|
| (1578263) | |
Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Jun 15 14:53:51 2021, in response to Re: Anti-car democrats are a road hazard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Tue Jun 15 14:47:04 2021. Bus-stop spacing should probably be based on the existence of adjacent corridors. If there's another bus corridor parallel, a short walk to either side, then you can get away with the spacing you suggest. But if there isn't, and many riders will have already walked a half mile or so just to get to the corridor, then you should probably have more closely-spaced stops (especially if demand isn't too high yet). |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 5 |
||
