Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As for dragging that 40lb bag of cat litter home on a hand cart... better you than me.
There are many high-tech solutions to these problems. In this case, the invention is called "the wheel." You don't have to drag the bag of cat litter home, because wheels roll. If you have to drag the cart, it's not a cart, it's a sled--which might actually make things easier if you're picking up kitty litter in a winter climate. It's a five-block walk, not a big deal--one of the pluses of a "walkable" neighborhood is proximity to businesses. In fact, there's a dog-washing/pet-food store that is even closer, sells my cat's preferred brand, and both are on my walk home from work.
For example, there is talk to build a Geary subway in SF. They are working on BRT and it'll likely not get separate lanes and will open in like 2022.
There are a few bus lines, a mix of local an express on the route (The 38 buses) and they have 50k passengers a day. It also takes 1 hour on the bus to get to downtown on that route. (meanwhile only 20 minutes for me in Oakland).
Can anyone explain how a route that has 50k passengers daily on the bus can't get priority for a subway? Oops, the bus riders are the wrong demographic. But hey we've $5B for hopefully 22k riders (BART has notoriously way overestimated their projections in the past.) on an unproven corridor.
That's the kind of stuff that annoys me to no end. There is a route that is literally bursting at the seams, and they are still looking for funding for the $230M they need for BRT, while BART somehow gets $5B to serve 22k people, and another $500M for the Oakland Airport Connector that is projected to serve 5k daily riders.
If SF Muni operated at the efficiency of BART (66%) instead of 22%, they'd be able to fund a measly $230M in a little under six months. Not that hard to understand. There's no money left after subsidizing Muni to the tune of $900 billion a year.
BART extensions aren't $5B unless you include either Livermore or San Jose. They aren't even close to $5B without those projects. There's a reason both of those aren't funded. No money. The complete SV loop to the Caltrain station had much higher projected ridership than 22k. It also wasn't funded.
The last time I rode the bus, the man behind me started a fight with the lady across the aisle from me because he didn't like her cussing. "Watch your mouth lady, there are kids on this bus!" (my kids) They stood in the aisle face to face and it almost came to blows. Yes, because kids would be better off seeing a fist fight between a man and a woman on a bus then hearing an occasional F-Bomb. There are always weird people on the bus, but these two took it a level where I no longer ride the bus. Other factors are that the bus is not often convenient and since I have a car and already pay for insurance, gas and maintenance, riding the bus is not cost efficient.
There are some job centers. But if you have a car, and you can park for free at your job, then what's the point? You would have to be the type of person who really wants to ride transit bad and most people don't fall into that category. The 15-20 minutes it may take you to get to a station and then on the platform could have been better spent in a car.
Transit is rarely faster than the car. However it can be cheaper and for some that is an good thing. It can mean that instead of needing a car for husband and wife, you just need one car. I think some urbanists don't see the full level of complexity. It all breaks down to public transit good, car baad...
People will use transit when it makes sense and transit does get some people off the roads alleviating traffic. It also increases mobility for the poor and elderly and make it possible for the low income to travel or deal with an broken down beater. It allows for say teenagers to get around town again reducing the need for a car. What you can not expect is for most or all people to use transit that is not realistic.
For the people say 20 mins. and under from the station it can make sense to use it if the trip is longer distance and traffic will slow you such that the train will take about the same amount of time or less than driving. I took a commuter train to the burbs once because I worked a job that I could walk to the station from. Also, the job also had an shuttle to the station and the train had a better route into town than the road and was about as fast as I could drive and also was cheaper. I also worked a job that was compatible with transit(not much unexpected overtime or need to arrive very early).
Where I live both the trains and the roads are full of people rush hour but not everyone on the expressway is heading downtown to the CBD. Many people head all over the city for work. The train helps put the people who need to go downtown off the road so that people who are going elsewhere, or have no choice but to drive can do so with less traffic. It also helps people without cars get to work/school.
Phoenix,AZ. Hot as hell during the summer, nothing is central. People avoid downtown besides basketball and baseball games. Even the football and soccer games are in the middle of no where. I ride my bicycle, but come July, it will be a weird choice. Either ride 15 min in 115 - 120 degree summer and stink when you get there or drive the car for 5 min in 115-120 degree. Obviously the choice is clear.
I am sure many more people would take public transit if cities were planned better with a central entertainment district, central business district, and central living district. You could easily design a city like this without involving any specific city in an area, but make it a neutral area. But noooo, let's cluster F everything in randomness.
Well, really, almost everyone does have *access* to a car. **Nationwide, roughly 8 percent of the U.S. population resides in a household with no access to an automobile.** https://www.google.com/search?q=hous...en-US:official
The problem with this stat, is it doesn't account for people who can't actually drive the car. About 10% of adults do not have licenses. 20% of the population is under driving age. Some people have aged out if driving. And there is another percentage of people who temporarily do not have access to license. And of course the people who might have access to a car but can't afford to put gas in it or get insurance etc. And people with disabilities that do not allow them to drive.
That adds up to quite a few people who can't actually drive (in a practical sense).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are always weird people on the bus, but these two took it a level where I no longer ride the bus. Other factors are that the bus is not often convenient and since I have a car and already pay for insurance, gas and maintenance, riding the bus is not cost efficient.
