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.
If by "the old days" you mean "all of recorded human history up until the 20th century," there was never any period when most people commuted to work using a horse and buggy or riding on horseback. The percentage of the population who owned a horse, let alone a carriage, for personal transportation was very small. Most people in cities got to work by walking, or their house was located on the same property as their workplace. People living in rural communities didn't generally commute to work either--if you were a farmer, you lived on your farm or worked a field nearby, and you walked there. Wagons were primarily for moving products to market, not people--they didn't travel much faster than walking speed.
Most people today do not own a motor vehicles, for personal use or otherwise. It's a privilege generally afforded only to the developed countries or the wealthy.
If by "the old days" you mean "all of recorded human history up until the 20th century," there was never any period when most people commuted to work using a horse and buggy or riding on horseback. The percentage of the population who owned a horse, let alone a carriage, for personal transportation was very small. Most people in cities got to work by walking, or their house was located on the same property as their workplace. People living in rural communities didn't generally commute to work either--if you were a farmer, you lived on your farm or worked a field nearby, and you walked there. Wagons were primarily for moving products to market, not people--they didn't travel much faster than walking speed.
Oh, I think they did! Groundhog Day alert, we've talked about this before. My mom, b. 1921, grew up on a farm. In her early years, her family did not have a car, and they took the horse and carriage (I dare you to correct me) to town to shop, go to church, etc.
"Normal speeds for horse-drawn buggies range between five and eight miles per hour." Amish Safety
Oh, I think they did! Groundhog Day alert, we've talked about this before. My mom, b. 1921, grew up on a farm. In her early years, her family did not have a car, and they took the horse and carriage (I dare you to correct me) to town to shop, go to church, etc.
"Normal speeds for horse-drawn buggies range between five and eight miles per hour." Amish Safety
But buggies were often too expensive for the working class, and horses required an extensive amount of care that was too time-consuming and expensive for anyone but the upper echelons of society. Were horses and buggies used for transport? Absolutely! But they weren't used by the average individual on a regular basis.
But buggies were often too expensive for the working class, and horses required an extensive amount of care that was too time-consuming and expensive for anyone but the upper echelons of society. Were horses and buggies used for transport? Absolutely! But they weren't used by the average individual on a regular basis.
Farmers used them for transportation. Knowing my grandfather, he probably built his own buggy.
It makes little sense to me, none of the route looks that built up excluding downtown San Jose. There's already rail service to San Francisco, and I doubt there's much demand just to go back and forth on East Bay.
Except are bus riders the wrong demographic? Bus riders are poorer in lower density places with poor transit coverage and transit does badly compared, but not necessarily in San Francisco. The Richmond District isn't poor, and those workers downtown driving is an inconvient option due to parking. And grade separated rail might support from more, though I'd guess mostly attract existing transit riders. But the Geary St. subway sounds like a route that would encourage people to leave their cars, unlike the San Jose BART, which has too many last mile issues. This link claims buses transport roughly the same amount of people on Geary as cars:
There should at least be a bus only lane, cars can go elsewhere, while the buses could all just stick that one route.
No, there really shouldn't. There aren't that many buses on Geary. For a lot of it, it's one route. There's the 38, 38L, and 38(A/B)X which runs only at limited times. So at most you're going to have four buses in a five minute window, and that's rarely, usually more like 2-3 at peak times, just the way the schedules overlap. It doesn't make sense to to have a bus-only lane for four buses. 48 and 92 don't really follow Geary for long.
Unless Katiana's father was named "Adam" and her mother "Eve," it's safe to assume that her parents did not represent 100% of the world's population. So saying "my father did X" doesn't alter or invalidate the fact that most people prior to the 20th century walked to work, because her father is not representative of the entire population.
The automobile (and paved, public-subsidized roads) represented something unique in human history--a far more accessible means of transportation, that allowed greater mobility to many people. But that accessibility and mobility aren't free, and as time goes on, it's getting more and more visibly expensive.
And no, I don't want to hear "it's not practical to go that fast!!!!" Yes, it is. It's all about saving time. Sitting on a train for an hour is NOT saving time, and in fact is making the situation worse because it's driving people to the roads. That's what people don't get. Freeway congestion isn't caused by "building more lanes", it's caused because there are no viable alternatives to controlling time. Make a system that gets people to their jobs as fast as possible, and you'll see less people bothering to drive. As long as the current systems are dirt slow and inefficient, it'll just drive more people to cars.
If I knew I could get from Lynnwood, WA to Seattle, WA in 10-15 minutes by train, I'd do it. But I can't. Instead, you're forced to sit on a bus for over an hour. Why, when a car ride takes 30-40 minutes on average? It doesn't make sense.
No, there really shouldn't. There aren't that many buses on Geary. For a lot of it, it's one route. There's the 38, 38L, and 38(A/B)X which runs only at limited times. So at most you're going to have four buses in a five minute window, and that's rarely, usually more like 2-3 at peak times, just the way the schedules overlap. It doesn't make sense to to have a bus-only lane for four buses. 48 and 92 don't really follow Geary for long.
From the glimpse of Geary I got, it looked like a lot of buses and rather congested ( and it was just before rush hour)
50,000 people is among the highest bus ridersip in the nation for one route, if that doesn't merit at least brt I'm not sure what does. With a segregated lane on a congested road, you'll get much less useful transit and less riders. The link I showed says by people moved, at least half of the people are on transit, so it's not a waste of road space. The cars can also go an alternate route.
Geary deserves some type of grade separated rail, at least if it can be done for a non-astronomical cost (but there's money for San Jose Bart), but in many other spots that consider light rail a segregated bus lane with signal proriority would do just as well for far less money. But that would annoy drivers
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.
