back to article Buses? PAH. Begone with your filthy peasant-wagons

A bus is a fantastically efficient way to move a large number of people. Buses however are not. They are a dreadful system for getting people to work. The difference is not as subtle as that sentence may make it seem. What lies behind it is that when you want to move a large number of people from one place to another all at …

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Has the author not heard of TFLs Live Bus Arrivals?

    "Then you have to wait for the bus. If I walk down to my nearest bus stop and a bus arrives as I get there I think it’s a fantastic, special happening. If I walk out of my house and my car is there I think “that’s normal”."

    http://countdown.tfl.gov.uk/#/

    I sit in my chair at home/work/pub and keep an eye on what time the bus will arrive and time my departure to meet the arrival of the bus I want. The bus arriving a minute or two after my getting to the bus stop is absolutely normal for me.

    Yes, that is a London only solution, but the author does live in London.

    1. Charles 9

      Re: Has the author not heard of TFLs Live Bus Arrivals?

      Does little good for you, though, if you have to make a connection that never coincides...

    2. Jes.e

      Re: Has the author not heard of TFLs Live Bus Arrivals?

      "Then you have to wait for the bus. If I walk down to my nearest bus stop and a bus arrives as I get there I think it’s a fantastic, special happening. If I walk out of my house and my car is there I think “that’s normal”.

      There's also an app for that.

      I found a couple of applications for my smart phone- "One Bus Away" and "Transit".

      Both will work with our local bus systems bus tracking services so you get updated live as to arrival times.

      Check application, set a timer on the phone, walk out door, meet bus.. Profit!

      Pretty life changing actually.

      1. wdmot

        Re: Has the author not heard of TFLs Live Bus Arrivals?

        Quite often for me, using One Bus Away, it says the bus is running 5 minutes late, and then suddenly it's 5 minutes early and I still have a 3 minute walk to the bus stop. How the bus gains 10 minutes in just a few minutes I have no idea. Methinks the bus location data is not accurate...

    3. Red Bren

      Re: Has the author not heard of TFLs Live Bus Arrivals?

      You can get "live" departure information for bus stops in West Yorkshire, but where the system falls down is it's inability to tell you that there's a problem, at which point, it defaults to telling you the scheduled departure time for the service. It does this if your bus has broke down, or been cancelled, but it also does this if your bus is delayed by more than about 15 minutes. So you have no way of knowing if you should make other arrangements.

      I've tried on numerous occasions to persuade the local transport authority to include a cancelled flag but been told it can't be done as the existing system is designed to support SMS and there are no spare characters. Oddly enough, the system will append the characters "LF" to the time to tell you if the bus has a low floor for wheelchair users. So there's no way of knowing if your bus won't to turn up, but at least if you're disabled, you can feel satisfied knowing whether the bus that's left you stranded could you carry you or not.

      There's also no protection against bus drivers gaming the system. I've been left stranded on more than one occasion where the bus is alleged 5, 4, 3, 2 minutes away, then suddenly disappears off the face of the earth, usually when it's the last service of the day, running a bit late and the driver obviously wants to clock off early. I've been assured this can't happen, that drivers can't interfere with the system, but unless the transponders have an independent power source, the drivers can disable it because THEY HAVE THE FECKIN KEYS!!!

      1. Richard 12 Silver badge
        Boffin

        Re: Has the author not heard of TFLs Live Bus Arrivals?

        Most buses don't have keys, just an "OFF/ON/START" switch.

        And a clearly-marked battery isolator.

      2. Charles 9

        Re: Has the author not heard of TFLs Live Bus Arrivals?

        "Oddly enough, the system will append the characters "LF" to the time to tell you if the bus has a low floor for wheelchair users."

        IINM, THAT flag can't be helped because of disability accommodation laws. In America, we have the Americans with Disabilities Act. I believe England has something of the like.

        Have you tried telling the bus people to adapt existing parts of the SMS to multitask. The only way they can REALLY be out of letters is if all SMS-valid characters for the entire length of the text is spoken for. Under those conditions, I don't think they can REALLY say that, and I would think they can find SOME way to cram in more indicators in existing text locations.

      3. Obitim
        FAIL

        Re: Has the author not heard of TFLs Live Bus Arrivals?

        Upvote from me!

        I live in West Yorkshire and hate this...how hard is it to show a different symbol for cancelled? Really?

  2. WylieCoyoteUK

    TWM has one too......

    http://www.networkwestmidlands.com/Apps/phone_app.aspx

    It works very well, and the bus connections usually work well too.

    As someone who has to use a car to get to work on the days when I am not able to work form home, (25 miles away and no direct bus or train service)

    I was pleasantly surprised how much things have changed since I used to be a commuter.

    I regularly use it now to visit the town centre for restaurants and theatres etc.

  3. Rol

    Driverless. It's the future don't you know.

    Driverless cars are the answer, or rather will be the answer in a decade or so.

    They could be owned by municipal authorities, businesses or individuals and be allocated to customers based on the nearest available and not the next in line.For that matter, the likes of Ford could decide never to sell a car ever again, but to rent them by the journey.

    So, basically, a driverless taxi. Without a family and mortgage to support the cost should plummet.

    The booking system would allow the vehicle to be shareable on request and thus lower the cost to the commuter even more by accepting the car will divert to get more customers who are going in your general direction.

    With such a responsive and cheap service on hand, the need to own your own car would be negated. The need to fill the road and pavement outside your house with parked cars will be gone, along with the obligatory car park that consumes four fifths of retail sites and the like.

    Also, as an individual car no longer has a need to keep going to the end of the day, an electric model with the most pathetic of batteries could do whatever it can manage before heading off to recharge thus making electric cars a very practical option. We could even see motorway services becoming shuttle stops as commuters continue their extended journey in a fully charged car, leaving the one that had got them thus far to recharge.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Driverless. It's the future don't you know.

      "an electric model with the most pathetic of batteries could do whatever it can manage before heading off to recharge"

      Probably right in the middle of someone's journey.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      If you are going to describe a future, make it aspirational.

      I like driving most of the time which makes your driverless cars a no no.

      I want to personalise my space so communal ownership is a no no.

      How about I get to drive my car when I want but can put it on autopilot when I want (or am required to by city limits).

      Cars on autopilot can entrain with other autopilotted cars going in the same direction.

      Entrained cars could travel at a higher average speed and a higher density than manual cars.

      Entrained share a connection, one of the vehicles could be an inline mobile charging station.

      The incentive of faster and cheaper journey times will lead people to choose freely to entrain where available.

      Because my car can do both modes I still keep the freedom to choose between community transport and individual transport as needs be.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: If you are going to describe a future, make it aspirational.

        "Cars on autopilot can entrain with other autopilotted cars going in the same direction."

        IIRC this was envisaged and trialled on closed test tracks at least 30 years ago.

        I like the idea of an in-train charging vehicle though. On motorways and main trunk roads, multiple "trains" could be running all day the full length of the road as cars join and leave. With route planning, solar cells on the car roofs could supplement and distribute power to those in the train with the least charge or who are due to leave the train soon too.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: If you are going to describe a future, make it aspirational.

          'On motorways and main trunk roads, multiple "trains" could be running all day the full length of the road as cars join and leave.'

          You could have charging trams entraining for a section of road with a high power cable above to boost in car charging.

          In jouney refuelling (at a price), no more standing on a cold windswept forecourt pumping smelly diesel.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: If you are going to describe a future, make it aspirational.

          Motorway trains were proposed by an engineering lecturer at Cambridge circa 1971, but I forget his name. He was envisaging something like the automatic couplings on OO gauge trains, because this was before technology came to mean electronics + software.

        3. Gary Bickford

          Re: If you are going to describe a future, make it aspirational.

          ""Cars on autopilot can entrain with other autopilotted cars going in the same direction."

          IIRC this was envisaged and trialled on closed test tracks at least 30 years ago."

          Yep, that's about right. I just learned it's called "platooning". A special section of Interstate15 was set up to allow about 20 specially equipped cars, buses and trucks to drive all together down the road. The project started in 1991, funded by USDOT, cancelled in 1999. And I got to watch Red Whittaker's (CMU Robotics Institute) huge van drive around the park in Pittsburgh in 1989-1991 time period, completely autonomously - at a slow walking speed. Back then it took 15,000 lbs. of sensors, cameras, and computers packed into an overloaded box truck, along with generators and air conditioners.

          Related links:

          http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1997-08-07/news/9708060541_1_bus-driver-san-diego-edmonson

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_autonomous_car

          1. Charles 9

            Re: If you are going to describe a future, make it aspirational.

            So I wonder. Why was the project canceled? Too difficult to implement or too many ways for Murphy to mess it up (thinking a blowout at one of the lead car or a sudden road obstruction creating a chain reaction)?

        4. Suricou Raven

          Re: If you are going to describe a future, make it aspirational.

          Solar cells on a car roof will make no significant contribution to the power. Physics is against you here. Wrong inclination, for a start. Plus you've got the extra weight to haul around. Far more efficient to put them beside the road.

          The only use I can see for solar power on a car would be for camping. The car's huge battery would be great for running a caravan, with a solar panel to keep it topped up.

          1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: If you are going to describe a future, make it aspirational.

            "Solar cells on a car roof will make no significant contribution to the power. Physics is against you here. Wrong inclination, for a start. Plus you've got the extra weight to haul around. Far more efficient to put them beside the road."

            I accept that in terms of current production technology. But then there's this on the horizon or any one of a number of current research avenues as well as others we've not thought of yet.

            The problem with fixed power generation is getting the power to a moving vehicle. Wireless power transmission is still significantly lossy and with solar PV we're already currently only at 25% efficiency. I accept that will probably improve too, as may wireless power transmission. Using a "charging car" in a "train" on the motorway might mean we need a standard mechanical method for the vehicles to connect while in the train. A standard as ubiquitous as the "fifth wheel" on lorries.

            It's good to think about this stuff :-)

      2. DavCrav

        Re: If you are going to describe a future, make it aspirational.

        "I like driving most of the time which makes your driverless cars a no no."

        Then don't enter into a rental system. Nobody is forcing you, yet. Of course, once the car parks are gone, you might have trouble parking there, but then hey, sucks to be you then.

        "I want to personalise my space so communal ownership is a no no."

        OK then, but you'll pay much higher rental rates than everyone else if Ford, etc., refuse to sell you a car. And the car sales market will be much smaller if you want to buy one.

        "Because my car can do both modes I still keep the freedom to choose between community transport and individual transport as needs be."

        I would be highly surprised if, as long as you were alive and capable of driving, driverless cars don't have a manual override.

    3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Driverless. It's the future don't you know.

      "the need to own your own car would be negated."

      Along with the freedom to "just go" at the weekend or during holidays. You'll have to plan it all out well in advance to make sure there's a range extended JohnnyCab available with manual override on routing so you can just go where you feel like going as the mood takes you.

      That's a major part of freedom. Doing what you want, not being limited by what the computer programmer has decided for you. I'd expect the sort of people who read here to understand that.

      1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

        Re: Driverless. It's the future don't you know.

        There are a fair number of two-car households in the UK that could meet your "freedom" requirement with one car and a reliable driverless taxi service. There are also a fair number of households who fly to their holiday destinations and hire a car there because they prefer to have their holidays further away than a reasonable drive.

        I accept the freedom argument, but I don't think it is a clincher.

    4. Suricou Raven

      Re: Driverless. It's the future don't you know.

      The technology isn't ready. It may be ready one day, but it's at least ten years away - and that's if it all goes smoothly. It's not just a matter of making a car drive-itsself safely. There are other aspects to deal with too. The issue of vandalism, and the mess left after a drunk passanger. Who'd order a self-driving taxi pod if they risked the previous passanger being a group of four on the way back from a pub crawl leaving the floor a sea of alcoholic vomit? You'd need to design dirt-detection capability as well so they know when cleaning is required. The legal issues will take another decade to work through - when a self-driving taxi gets in an accident, who is liable? You can't just pin it on the driver, and there will be accidents.

      It's also going to be impossible for the taxis to handle anything out of the ordinary, like roads blocked by accidents, people standing in the road arguing, outdated maps, some idiot redrawing road markings to keep their driveway clear, etc. The obvious approach is to have a 'call center' of drivers who can be called upon to remotely direct a taxi via cell-net whenever they encounter something beyond their programming.

    5. Obitim

      Re: Driverless. It's the future don't you know.

      And what if the last 'customer' has left it full of their crap?

      Not a such a pleasant journey then

  4. Glen 1

    Some points

    For many people, it is more cost effective to get the bus.

    The bus only needs to have ~5 people on it for it to be space effective (vs 5 cars)

    point to point bus service is called ring and ride.

    Some sums:

    Price of bus pass for my area: £51 /cal month (£612/yr)

    vs

    £1000 car spread over 3 years: ~£333.34 (rounded up)

    Insurance: min £1000 for 1st year insurance: £1000+

    (as e reference my 72 yr old Dad pays £553.90/yr fully comp for his 4yr old fabia)

    Tax: ~£140

    MOT:~£50

    = over £1500 not including petrol/service/repairs

    (less for no claims, more for more expensive car)

    Sooo... I can spend £800 on taxis/delivery fees and still be ahead

    even something as simple as:

    Parking in city centre = £4.80 for 4 hours

    Daysaver = £4

    I'm a single guy living on the outskirts of a major city, so YMMV.

    There are logical reasons for having/using a car, but its suprising how many people think of a car as something your *supposed* to have without really thinking it through. They think anyone who doesn't have one is a weirdo.

    Fuck those people.

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: Some points

      Buses can be cheaper, but there's a price for that, of course. In my car I can travel when I want, with whom I want and with my choice of temperature and music. I can change my plans at the last minute. I can also use it for long journeys where bus/train simply isn't fast or convenient enough.

      Of course I'll take the train when it is more convenient, it's all down to personal choice. I certainly don't consider not having a car as weird, many of my family members don't drive, but personally I couldn't imagine not having a car.

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Some points

      "I'm a single guy living on the outskirts of a major city, so YMMV."

      And I'd guess you have a direct bus route reasonably convenient to work from home.

      At my last gig I had a car commute of about 40-45 minutes all being well. Once I tried to work out if I could do the trip easily by public transport. The best I could come up with was a three leg journey by bus. It was, of course, much less direct than my car journey. Between the first two legs there was a 20 minute wait. Between the last two there was a 4 minute gap which could have been tricky as the intermediate leg included the transpennine section of the M62 which couldn't be relied on for such critical timing. It worked out that I'd have had to leave home at about 6.25 to get to the client site at just after 9.00 if everything went well. I didn't bother working out the return journey.

      1. Glen 1

        Re: Some points

        @ Doctor Syntax

        I do indeed, and fair enough, a convoluted commute would have me thinking twice about not driving.

        You've thought it through and made a decision, and at least have a contingency if the car is off the road due to Reasons.

        At my previous job, when the subject came up, I was spoken to as if there was something wrong with me for not wanting a car, ('You'll never have a girlfriend unless you get a car' etc).

        But then, that was the same job where my 'Team Leader' didn't know what a tsunami was, and believed bisexual people didn't exist (that they were either gay or straight and just confused).

        Sufficed to say, I don't work there anymore.

    3. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Some points

      "I'm a single guy living on the outskirts of a major city, so YMMV."

      <snicker>, I assume that was an unintentional pun?

    4. Gary Bickford

      Re: Some points

      I don't see where you included the cost of your time. Let's assume that the bus is free, and the car costs (using US IRS expense rules for 2014) $0.56 per mile, and it's a 20 mile drive/ride. The car averages 30mi/hr, costs $11.20, and takes 40 minutes. The bus averages 15 mi/hr and takes 90 minutes. Both involve incidentals, like tolls and parking for the car, the time waiting for the bus, having to take the bus at a particular time, etc. The difference is 50 minutes and $11.20. So unless your take home pay is less than $14.40/hour (60/50 * $11.20) you are losing money on the bus. (The incidentals can get complicated, are subject to judgment calls and greatly depend on the particular situation, so there's no point in trying to decipher all of the possibilities.)

      But I've _never_ had a situation where the time I spent on the bus wasn't more costly, even at near-minimum wage, than driving if I had a car, which I didn't. I take it back - when I went back to college (early 2000s) I lived right on a bus line that went almost straight to my school, and ran every 11 minutes. My bus pass was $45/month.

      I had a job once where I had to take the bus, my job started at 2AM. The last bus I could take to town was a combined route, so I had a one mile walk to get to the nearest stop. I had to catch the bus at 12:05 AM, and it got to town quickly, about 12:25AM. I then had one and one-half hours to kill downtown before I could go to my job. I would very much have loved having a car then!

      I'll just add one more tidbit. Back a couple of decades the London bus drivers went on strike. For the duration of the strike, average traffic speeds in London increased by more than 50%.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
        Thumb Down

        Re: Some points

        "So unless your take home pay is less than $14.40/hour (60/50 * $11.20) you are losing money on the bus."

        That presumes that the person can work unlimited overtime such that travel time is eating into work/earnings time. For the vast majority of us, travel times eats into personal time, not work time. I'd have been with you if you'd used a quality of life argument rather than time=money argument.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Some points

          "That presumes that the person can work unlimited overtime such that travel time is eating into work/earnings time. For the vast majority of us, travel times eats into personal time, not work time. I'd have been with you if you'd used a quality of life argument rather than time=money argument."

          Many people forget there's another time besides work time and personal time: household duty time, such as running to the store for necessities, paying bills, handling household chores, etc. It's not work time since you're not at work yet it's not personal time since you're not eating, relaxing, etc. For many people it's as arduous and necessary as work time yet you don't get paid for it. So for many people true personal time is precious since it's so little. Long commutes and so may reduce the time all the way to zero, leading to "dull boy" syndrome (meaning you cram stolen moments in when you can which can actually raise stress) if not signs of delinquency (as assorted necessary household duties get overlooked because you lost the time needed to do them).

          1. DocJames
            Pint

            Re: Some points

            Thinking about travel time as an opportunity cost for earning is reasonable. However, bus travel time allows reading, thinking, writing, aimlessly doodling, etc. Car travel time shouldn't (although does - back to the discussion at the top about bad drivers...). Bus/train travel is better than car travel as no concentration is required. (This is one aspect where cycling is also not great, but at least it's enjoyable rather than being part of the rat race.)

            And as to whether it is best to commute by bus/train/metro or car, I suggest walking. For those who live too far away, I would revisit your priorities. I (admittedly I'm lucky) live 30 mins walk from my work deliberately. This meant buying a house that was smaller, needed more work etc than one that was nicer but would impact on my life every prolonged expensive life-sucking commute to work. It also saves me hours, if you wish to calculate money, on avoiding conversations about the price of petrol.

            My best commute was 45 minutes by bike (20km). Much more enjoyable than the alternative 30 minute drive in heavy traffic. Once you shower/breakfast at the other end, it was 60 minutes and I only actually got up 10 minutes earlier as I didn't need to breakfast etc before leaving. I would also get home each day having ridden 40km, feeling great about doing the washing up/house work as I felt I'd had my "me time" for the day.

            Icon: another advantage of travel by public transport.

  5. Primus Secundus Tertius

    Buses are slow

    When I used to cycle to school, we boasted of slipstreaming the buses. Sometimes they were too fast for us, but not often.

  6. disgruntled yank

    "Unless you live by a bus stop, in which case you have the kinds of people who hang around bus stops hanging around your house, you’ll have to walk to it."

    The people hanging around the bus stop are in fact the people hanging around my house, which is to say, my neighbors. I have met some troubling people at the terminals of inter-city buses (Greyhound and Continental Trailways), but in 30+ years of riding city buses in a couple of metropolitan areas, I have met remarkably few head cases.

    1. Queasy Rider

      Agreed, in all my years of bus commuting i never encountered a lowlife hanging around my stop (in a residential neighborhood) at 5:30 to 6: in the morning.

      1. kraut

        The whole point of being a criminal is NOT having to get up that early in the morning.

  7. ratfox

    A taxi goes directly from point to point and tries to avoid running when empty, seeking out the likely places for fares. A bus has to run empty as part of providing the service.

    I guess that taxis would magically avoid the problem that everybody wants to travel one way in the morning, and the other way in the evening…? This problem, which you used to demonstrate the inefficiency of buses, would of course not apply to taxis.

  8. Simon Rockman

    There is no "best" form of transport

    The article is really aimed at people who think the bus is the best way to get around and other forms of transport should cede to buses. What's needed is a co-operative integrated system.

    For instance we need much, much better parking at tube stations. But parking is seen as encouraging cars, and cars are bad.

    Simon

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: There is no "best" form of transport

      "But parking is seen as encouraging cars, and cars are bad."

      Seen by whom? By the self-same planners who've spent the last 60+ years carefully constructing this mess!

    2. kraut

      Re: There is no "best" form of transport

      Name a tube station where there's actually space for more car parking that isn't actually used (for parking or housing). There may be some, but I can't think of one.

      There should be more parking at tube stations. But bike parking, not car parking.

  9. Shadow Systems

    Damn you people are boring...

    If I'm commuting solo then I simply slip on my patented MagicalRainbowRocketToeSocks and leap into the sky to fly where I want to go.

    If I've got passengers or need to transport a load, I wake up my WingedMonkeyMinions, point them to the Litter, and make them earn their feed.

    If the weather is too bad for my 'Socks, then I take the Litter which has the added benefit of letting me work while I commute. (This is not suggested while using your 'Socks as failure to watch where you're flying tends to result in slamming face-first into buildings, busses, the girl's locker room of the local athletic's club, etc.)

    *Cough*

    Now if you'll excuse me, weekend or not I have to get to work.

    Go Go Rocket Socks! AWAAAA-

    AAAGH! Fire! Fire! Help! I'm on Fire!

    =-)p

  10. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    Bus lanes

    "Indeed the only thing I’d have reservations on allowing in bus lanes would be buses."

    The stop-start pattern of buses is so different from that which other road users are trying to achieve that it makes sense to segregate them in their own lanes. If only the damned things would stay in them!

    1. druck Silver badge
      Mushroom

      Re: Bus lanes

      If taking the bus wasn't a shitty enough experience, in the few places where there is a bus lane to avoid the gridlock, there is some twat cycling along at under 15mph, at least we know who it is now.

  11. skeptical i

    some comments

    - Many older cities have street layouts that can best be described as a cluster-f*ck (while the reasons they came to be likely entirely make sense, an outsider presented with a map of a typical older city center will only see overlapping spider webs), so surface transit (buses, streetcar) may not be the most efficient mode. Subways that can simply go under the whole mess will have a better time of it, as will bicyclists and pedestrians.

    - After WWII, at least in 'Merka, world+dog embraced The Car as the new Light and Way, and city planners laid out burgs accordingly (with more than a little help from the automotive, real estate development, and other parasitic interests): offices here, commercial there, industrial way over there, and residential in protected glops separate from anything vaguely noisy (as commercial areas are wont to be). Since, the assumption goes, everyone has a car, what's the problem? Now we know that this deeply segregated style of planning is not the most efficient way to lay out cities (while keeping heavy industrial away from neighborhoods is probably a good idea, residential can generally co-exist with office, retail, and other light commercial usages as many older cities can proudly attest), and forcing citizens to own, feed, and maintain vehicles (meaning this money can not be put elsewhere into the local economy) SOLELY to get around because the city is not laid out to be pedestrian- or bicyclist- friendly is not sustainable.

    - Some cities are trying to undo or mitigate this damage (infill residential development, repurposing former commercial space for live+work, laying down bike lanes on main thoroughfares or designating parallel side streets as bike routes, running "high frequency grid" bus routes so folks can have more efficient transit trips), but not all burgs will be able to do everything.

    - I haven't heard anyone griping that the three lanes of road out of downtown are woefully unused in the morning and what dumb bunny put down "too much" roadway, or that since the roads are virtually empty between midnight and early ack emma some of the lanes should be torn up and replaced with sidewalks and trees. Why the kvetching when buses are running "too much"? Sure, there is probably room for efficiencies in ANY city's transit system, but a knee-jerk "empty bus= wasted funds" reflex is not helpful.

    - Cars are just one mode of travel, among transit, bicycling, and walking. For many years, one mode (the car) has been exalted to the detriment of the others, and we now see some cities trying to undo the damage and better facilitate transport for all.

  12. Queasy Rider

    Not quite done it all,

    Not having used commuter trains, horses, donkeys, camels, llamas, dogsleds or any other form of lower animal transport, I still feel as qualified as any of the above commenters to share an opinion. Having lived in various locales over the years, I have experimented with most modes of transportation, each for extended periods of at least a half a year or more. I have walked and hitch-hiked to work, bicycled, electric bicycled, rode a moped, motorcycled (two wheels and trikes), taxied (easiest but most expensive by far), drove a car, drove a pick-up truck and motor-boated (best commute ever). I am no stranger to public transit either, having used buses, subways, light-rail systems and streetcars in various combinations. As a tradesman working in construction I bounced around from jobs just down the street to sites hundreds of miles away.

    People, you need to get off your high horses about this subject. At one time or another any the above modes were either ideal for the situation, or sometime impossible to implement. Take public trans for instance. I once lived just inside the limits of a large city (then over 2 million pop). My bus stop was third from the end of the line, but because the line fed into the subway system, the number of people boarding at that stop would often fill the bus to standing room only and down the line the bus was so full that it was forced to skip the last few stops entirely, leaving frustrated commuters at the stops hoping the next bus in line had room for them. Some mornings my stop would be so crowded that I would walk a block up the line to the previous stop so that I would be certain of a seat.

    Why take the bus when my car would get me downtown in half the time? I could relax on the bus, do the daily crossword or catnap. The monthly pass was convenient and I didn't have to deal with the rush hour traffic every morning and afternoon (saving my already frayed nerves). I could go for drinks with the lads after work and not worry about the consequences. Wear and tear on the car was reduced and insurance and maintenance costs too. I even grocery shopped, using my buggy which I also used when walking or biking. Still, the car was convenient, and necessary for out of town jobs and for transporting tools and materials. When a car wasn't available those jobs were turned down, not a problem when jobs were plentiful, but bad news during hard times.

    There is no ideal solution, but my fingers are crossed that the Elio makes it to market. Promised price-$6,800 (unlikely). Promised mileage-84 mpg (even less likely). Promised available date 2015 (also unlikely, if ever) but if they do come, I'm there. I'll slap a trailer hitch on that puppy and I'll be grinning from ear to ear cause it is the answer to my dreams, cheap to buy, cheap to run, cheap to insure(it's a motorcycle trike but has an enclosed cabin, capacity of two), compact and efficient. And you naysayers can snort yourselves all the way to financial and moral bankruptcy. Jeremy Clarkson be damned if he should rule against. It's not a Robin. And I'll be richer for it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Not quite done it all,

      "My bus stop was third from the end of the line, but because the line fed into the subway system, the number of people boarding at that stop would often fill the bus to standing room only and down the line the bus was so full that it was forced to skip the last few stops entirely, leaving frustrated commuters at the stops hoping the next bus in line had room for them. Some mornings my stop would be so crowded that I would walk a block up the line to the previous stop so that I would be certain of a seat."

      Meaning what happened next was probably everyone else started hiking to the previous stops to avoid getting shut out, with the ultimate effect that everyone crowded around the first stop in the line, and each bus that arrived got filled to capacity from the go, causing pushing and shoving as late passengers got left out and so on...

  13. ScottME
    Holmes

    Some problems are just hard

    Where I live there is a once-per hour bus service between 9am and 5pm that typically arrives anything up to 50 minutes adrift from its published timetable. The large 55-seater single-decker buses that run the route typically carry no more than five passengers and I'd guess that on average four of them will be travelling on senior-citizen bus passes and the other is of student age. The remaining non-car options for getting to town are walk (five miles), cycle (on a *very* busy main road, no thanks), or call a taxi, typically £10-15 one way (the bus costs £3 ffs). This is why the average household round here has 2+ cars and part of the reason why the main road is so busy. I really wish there was a better solution, but I can't think what it would be.

    1. kraut

      Re: Some problems are just hard

      That isn't a hard problem at all. The political will simply isn't there to do it:

      Put in dedicated, segregated bike lanes. Dutch-style. That can easily take 30% of the local traffic off the road. If the cycle paths are good enough, and fully segregated, then kids can cycle to school, too, alleviating the dreaded school-run traffic.

      1. Charles 9
        Devil

        Re: Some problems are just hard

        Oh, great, force cyclists used to whole lanes into a narrow space, making them a target for vengeful motorists...

        On a rainy day when you need to ride 25 miles each way to the big-box with no way to carry the groceries home except perhaps a backback...

        IOW, it's not just a political issue but a safety issue, too. Especially when cities aren't geared around short-range travel and have a natural tendency against it, wanting to cluster the same kinds of things together.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon