U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-13-2014, 05:28 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,171 posts, read 29,692,971 times
Reputation: 26671

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948 View Post
it is intended to reduce crowding. unfortunately the elephant in the living room is that the streets have become dangerous---something nobody wants to talk about. so then public transport is also dangerous. its hard to mug someone going 70 mph in a steel box called a ford.
Actually the danger on the streets is caused by speeding cars, not buses full of imaginary hooligans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-13-2014, 05:37 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,072 posts, read 16,098,416 times
Reputation: 12647
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Well over 80% of bay area commuters drive alone to work. Where is this 1.55 number coming from? Most people drive alone most of the time.

Silicon Valley commuters are more car addicted than L.A. drivers - Silicon Valley Business Journal
Federal government.

Commuting to work usually has more single-occupant drivers and social/recreational fewer. It averages them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2014, 06:08 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,120,354 times
Reputation: 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Well over 80% of bay area commuters drive alone to work. Where is this 1.55 number coming from? Most people drive alone most of the time.

Silicon Valley commuters are more car addicted than L.A. drivers - Silicon Valley Business Journal
A little off-topic, but this line from the article is a real head-scratcher:

Quote:
Hobson added that L.A. has been ahead of Santa Clara in implementing a bus rapid transit, or BRT, system.
“They recognize they have a pretty spread-out population that isn’t best served by subways or light rails,” he said.
Sure we have an expanding BRT system, but it is dwarfed by our LRT and subway system.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2014, 06:14 PM
 
Location: Nashville, TN
5,746 posts, read 3,210,620 times
Reputation: 7205
Oh, OP, you little devil, you! Are you trying to start something?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2014, 06:19 PM
 
Location: Nashville, TN
5,746 posts, read 3,210,620 times
Reputation: 7205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline View Post
About 1/3 of Americans do not drive; too old, too young, too poor, disabled or not interested.
Smart cities also realize that fossil fuel single occupancy vehicles are not in our future (or past) and are planning ahead.
Yes. And I'd say that another 1/3 SHOULD NOT drive: too old, too immature, too distracted, too reckless, too nervous, too likely to make poor judgments, etc.

Our almost complete reliance on private vehicles isn't good for ANYONE.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2014, 06:23 PM
 
Location: Nashville, TN
5,746 posts, read 3,210,620 times
Reputation: 7205
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
really no more than public roads

just different transit options

am ok with calling it welfare as long as everyone can also call roads welfare

Yes I drive more often than take PT but you cant call one welfare without calling the other as well
Exactly!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2014, 06:34 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 24 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,016 posts, read 102,649,686 times
Reputation: 33083
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55 View Post
First of all, it is usually not cities but regional transit agencies that provide it. A form of welfare? No, welfare is normally for the poor, but on commuter trains you will find many with family income over $100K who may have a BMW or two in the garage. The answer is to facilitate travel and keep the city and region strong. It is common in cities with weak public transportation to have nothing downtown but government offices and the media.
Yes, transit is usually regional. That's something 'real urbanists' don't seem to get when they say "there is no transit in the suburbs". Whether you call it welfare or something else, it's subsidized. And yes, I'm well aware roads are subsidized too, including the roads the buses use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2014, 06:35 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area (recent MN transplant...go gophers)
148 posts, read 122,246 times
Reputation: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Not many buses are getting 5 mpg, that's even high for the new diesel hybrids, and the average bus does not have "just 10 people."
I'd like to see that stats for that. I couldn't find any myself, so I just made my own.

Let's look back to Metro Transit in the Twin Cities, which is the 11th best in the country with approximately 230,000 riders per weekday. Now, they have 123 bus lines running every single day, but they don't tell me how many runs these 123 bus lines do as a whole, so I'd have to find out by clicking on every route page and counting the number of trips each route takes. Because I'm lazy, I'll do you a favor...I'll take one of the busiest lines (Route 16) with one of the most trips per day, and treat it as though it's the perfect average.

Metro Transit - Online Schedules

Route 16 has 116 trips per day. If it were the mean for all routes (and it's not...it's far more), that would mean the Metro Transit buses as a whole take 14,268 trips per day. Divide 230,000 daily riders by the 14268 trips, and you get...16.1 riders per trip.

Granted, this is obviously only one metropolitan area, and I'm not sure if Sacremento is as good at the Twin Cities at surveying and changing their number of routes and trips based on route ridership. That being said, I got 160% of your 10, and that's when I fudged the numbers in your favor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2014, 07:47 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,072 posts, read 16,098,416 times
Reputation: 12647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Dempsey's Left Foot View Post
I'd like to see that stats for that. I couldn't find any myself, so I just made my own.

Let's look back to Metro Transit in the Twin Cities, which is the 11th best in the country with approximately 230,000 riders per weekday. Now, they have 123 bus lines running every single day, but they don't tell me how many runs these 123 bus lines do as a whole, so I'd have to find out by clicking on every route page and counting the number of trips each route takes. Because I'm lazy, I'll do you a favor...I'll take one of the busiest lines (Route 16) with one of the most trips per day, and treat it as though it's the perfect average.

Metro Transit - Online Schedules

Route 16 has 116 trips per day. If it were the mean for all routes (and it's not...it's far more), that would mean the Metro Transit buses as a whole take 14,268 trips per day. Divide 230,000 daily riders by the 14268 trips, and you get...16.1 riders per trip.

Granted, this is obviously only one metropolitan area, and I'm not sure if Sacremento is as good at the Twin Cities at surveying and changing their number of routes and trips based on route ridership. That being said, I got 160% of your 10, and that's when I fudged the numbers in your favor.
16 trips per run doesn't seem contradictory at all with 8-9 passengers, seems about right. Most people aren't going to ride the bus for the entire route, after all.

Fuel Story - Metro Transit - City of Madison, Wisconsin
Again, that's better than most places. Seattle was getting about 3 mpg. More urban service, of course, usually does worse since there's more starting and stopping which requires a lot of energy in heavy bus even if some of it can be recuperated through regenerative braking.

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb33/Edition33_Chapter02.pdf
Table 2.12.

Average bus mile results in 9.2 passenger miles. Average bus gets 3.49 mpg (diesel has 129,500 BTU per gallon).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2014, 07:48 PM
 
2,941 posts, read 3,862,208 times
Reputation: 1439
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Well over 80% of bay area commuters drive alone to work. Where is this 1.55 number coming from? Most people drive alone most of the time.

Silicon Valley commuters are more car addicted than L.A. drivers - Silicon Valley Business Journal
err not quite. A few families and kids will push the average up and lots of people drop their kids off before going to work. Not to mention lack(or cost) of baby sitting so you drive your kids to shopping and other things too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top