Driving Peeves: SUV's & Turn Signals

[Evo]

http://www.uncc.edu/bgraves/City/lectures/Subover.htm
This indicates that suburb-to-suburb commuting actually composed twice as much commuting as suburb-to-city commuting in 1994. Also, "Suburbs to central city has not been dominant since 1970." So it seems that suburb-to-city commuting does not compose the greatest amount of transportation. Nevertheless, when you consider the 40 million workers in suburbs, it is definitely a significant problem, accounting for about six million people.

That's the problem BT, these workers in the suburbs aren't going to any specific area, they're going all over the place, which is why buses aren't feasible.

 

[Moonbear]

http://www.uncc.edu/bgraves/City/lectures/Subover.htm
This indicates that suburb-to-suburb commuting actually composed twice as much commuting as suburb-to-city commuting in 1994. Also, "Suburbs to central city has not been dominant since 1970." So it seems that suburb-to-city commuting does not compose the greatest amount of transportation. Nevertheless, when you consider the 40 million workers in suburbs, it is definitely a significant problem, accounting for about six million people.

Nobody said it's not a problem, they're saying that putting more buses on the roads isn't necessarily the right solution. In some places it might be, but not everywhere.

 

[chroot]

This indicates that suburb-to-suburb commuting actually composed twice as much commuting as suburb-to-city commuting in 1994. Also, "Suburbs to central city has not been dominant since 1970." So it seems that suburb-to-city commuting does not compose the greatest amount of transportation. Nevertheless, when you consider the 40 million workers in suburbs, it is definitely a significant problem, accounting for about six million people.

As I've been saying since page one of this thread:

Gettting people back and forth from large cities to suburbs is essentially a solved problem with regards to public transportation. If you commute from suburbs to a major city, you almost certainly already have at least one kind of public transportation available to you. The major problem, again -- for the last time I'll say it tonight -- is the suburb-to-suburb commuters, by far the largest portion of the commuting public. There are many different places to work, and many different places to live, and there is no clear way to make public transportation work in those situations.

You sure do seem to think you have all the answers, BicycleTree -- that's surprising to me, since you don't even have a real understanding of the problem.

- Warren

 

[BicycleTree]

All of the reasons I've been telling you more buses is not the solution. There are already LOTS of buses heading from suburbs to major cities, where congestion is a problem. Did you read the blurb about the XBL lanes through the Lincoln Tunnel? They've already maxed out the capacity of the exclusive bus lanes to the point where adding more buses isn't feasible. If the buses are going to sit in traffic as long as the cars will, then people will drive their own cars rather than sit on a crowded bus. When the bus lanes are just as congested as the car lanes because there are so many buses, more buses just make the problem worse. There are huge volumes of people moving in and out of cities at rush hour.

So to decide whether buses help or hurt, consider: if the people taking buses took cars instead, would congestion increase or decrease?

It would increase.

If the buses must sit in traffic because of too many cars, causing people to take cars instead, thus causing more congestion, then which is the problem: cars, or buses?

Cars.

The fact is that the more people you can put in cars and HOV's as opposed to SOV's, the fewer vehicles are on the road and the less congestion there is.


Please state again the reasons that you think apply to this specific situation of park-and-rides. I have presented counter-arguments to much of what you said, and not all of the things you said would apply to park-and-rides.

Here in Cincinnati, there isn't much "suburban" space and everything opens up pretty quickly into rural areas where public transportation isn't at all feasible. Some of the larger corporations have instead taken a different approach to alleviating congestion on the interstates by staggering their shift start and end times. Some start the day at 7:30 and end at 4:30, others 8 to 5, others 8:30 to 5:30. It keeps everyone from spilling out at exactly the same time. But we only have a few large corporations like that. In a bigger city, like NY or Boston, that's not feasible either.

In many places, buses will not help. In many places, buses will help.

Don't change the subject away from park-and-rides.

 

[Moonbear]

* Private Vehicle Boom--All alternatives to driving alone to work by private vehicle declined between 1980 and 1990. In fact, the increase in the number of commuters in single occupant vehicles (SOV) exceeded the total increase in commuters. This means, in effect, that not only did all new workers choose to drive alone, but also a few million persons not new to the labor force also switched from other modes to SOV's. Only working at home (telecommuting) showed growth. Will this trend continue? Although it is difficult to predict the future, it is expected that continued growth in jobs and population in the suburbs will foster private vehicle use. Also, continued low costs of fuel and continued pressures of time on multiworker households will keep single occupant vehicle commuting an attractive mode.

* Suburban Commuting Boom--Overall, the suburbanization of population and jobs is not only continuing, but its rate of growth has accelerated. Fifty percent of the nation's commuters live in the suburbs, and 42 percent of the jobs are located there. Of the 19 million new jobs created between 1980 and 1990, 70 percent were located in the suburbs. Suburb-to-suburb commuting accounted for 44 percent of metropolitan commuting flows in 1990 and reverse commuting (central city-to-suburb) accounted for 12 percent. At the same time, the traditional suburb-to-central city commute decreased its share of growth.

* Travel Time Implications--Surprisingly, even though single occupant vehicle usage increased for the work trip, average travel time to work increased only by 40 seconds, from 21.7 minutes in 1980 to 22.4 minutes in 1990. The commuting patterns described above help explain this phenomena--there is a time advantage of suburb-to-suburb commuting over suburb-to-central city commuting.

Another explanation for the very small increase in travel time is due to the shift from slower modes to faster modes (e.g. transit to carpooling, or carpooling to SOV). This will not continue in the future--the transportation system will not be able to absorb much more mode shift to the SOV.

http://www.commuter-register.org/crtrends.html

 

[BicycleTree]

As I've been saying since page one of this thread:

Gettting people back and forth from large cities to suburbs is essentially a solved problem with regards to public transportation. If you commute from suburbs to a major city, you almost certainly already have at least one kind of public transportation available to you. The major problem, again -- for the last time I'll say it tonight -- is the suburb-to-suburb commuters, by far the largest portion of the commuting public. There are many different places to work, and many different places to live, and there is no clear way to make public transportation work in those situations.

In these situations, perhaps, buses would not be practical. Nevertheless, I am only concerned with one problem at the moment, since this thread is about driving pet peeves, and my peeve is the traffic situation on the southeast expressway into Boston, and by extension similar situations in other cities. What I see when commuting on that road is people in traffic jams that don't need to exist. People who could take buses or park-and-rides. But who don't.

 

[Evo]

The reason park n rides haven't solved traffic problems are:

1)They go into the city, if you don't work in the city, you can't take them.

2)Not conveniently located from many suburbs

3)A nuisance - The lots for these things are over crowded, there are lines into and out of the parking area, you have to wait for the bus, you're exposed to the elements while waiting and while walking long distances to and from your car.

4)Not practical - if you need to work late, you could miss the last bus and not be able to get home.

 

[BicycleTree]

Getting back to that, instead of the argument, here's why I think they don't: They like the comfort and luxury of their own car, the psychological concept of "protected space." They like getting to work slightly faster selfishly at the expense of the traffic situation overall, which causes everyone to be slower.

 

[Evo]

In these situations, perhaps, buses would not be practical. Nevertheless, I am only concerned with one problem at the moment, since this thread is about driving pet peeves, and my peeve is the traffic situation on the southeast expressway into Boston, and by extension similar situations in other cities. What I see when commuting on that road is people in traffic jams that don't need to exist. People who could take buses or park-and-rides. But who don't.

In many cases buses wouldn't work because the people need transportation once they get there. Boston may not be their final destination, it's more likely that they are destined for the suburbs, which means the bus won't work.

You keep changing your subject.

 

[BicycleTree]

The reason park n rides haven't solved traffic problems are:

1)They go into the city, if you don't work in the city, you can't take them.

2)Not conveniently located from many suburbs

3)A nuisance - The lots for these things are over crowded, there are lines into and out of the parking area, you have to wait for the bus, you're exposed to the elements while waiting and while walking long distances to and from your car.

4)Not practical - if you need to work late, you could miss the last bus and not be able to get home.

They are overcrowded? You know what the solution to that is... have more of them.

1 is not relevant because I am only concerned with suburb-to-city commuting.

I don't understand what you mean by 2. If they are located at on-ramps to roads you would take anyway, how much more convenience do you need?

4--well, as I said you need later buses.

 

[BicycleTree]

In many cases buses wouldn't work because the people need transportation once they get there. Boston may not be their final destination, it's more likely that they are destined for the suburbs, which means the bus won't work.

No, believe me, Boston is their final destination. If you'd seen the traffic I've seen there would be no debate here. If they were going somewhere else they would take a different road. As for transportation once they get to the city, the same consideration applies to the car, which must be parked (not an easy task) and then one must go from the car into the place of employment.

No, I am not changing any subject. There are several things going on here and I am replying to several different people at once. I'm not always going to be talking about the same thing you're talking about, but I'm always in the same general region.

 

[Moonbear]

5. The short-distance, suburb-to-suburb commute is the
segment of the commute market that is expanding most
rapidly. Suburb-to-suburb commuting has increased
congestion on suburban freeways without a corresponding
increase in the average worker's travel times. This is
because the typical suburb-to-suburb commuter uses the
freeway system for relatively short trips that are not
subject to prolonged delays.

6. The reverse commute is another growth segment of the
commute market. Reverse commuting has made "efficient"
use of lightly used highway and transit capacity.

7. Commuters have saved time by adjusting their arrival
and departure times-thus avoiding the peak of the rush
hour crush. Staggered working hours have extended the
duration of the peak period congestion but increased the
mobility that commuters can secure from the transportation
system.

8. Working mothers account for an increasing proportion of
the workforce. To balance their roles at home and in the
workplace, many working mothers make shopping and childcare
trips on their way to and from work. Coupling trips
together during commute hours has saved time, but added to
peak-period congestion.

http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/ipm.html

 

[BicycleTree]

I notice you excise #4, the reference to how the Bay Area Rapid Transit improves the situation. Also, most of that is not terribly relevant.

 

[BicycleTree]

Now, let's make this interesting. Obviously, some of the commuters could use buses and thereby improve the traffic situation, and if there were such a demand, more buses could be put into production to accommodate those people.

So the question is, what percentage of those people in SOV's on the southeast expressway would it be practical to accommodate by bus if they so had the mind? I'm going to guess 60%.

 

[Moonbear]

I notice you excise #4, the reference to how the Bay Area Rapid Transit improves the situation. Also, most of that is not terribly relevant.

Nope, #4 refers to commuters into the cities of San Francisco and Oakland, not the suburb-to-suburb commute, which is discussed beginning with point #5.

And it is relevant. It shows why people are in cars and not on buses. It also shows that the congestion does not necessarily mean longer commute times. And lastly, it shows that part of the cause of the congestion is NOT the commuters from the cities to suburbs, as you claim, but that suburb-to-suburb commuters are hopping on and off freeways for shorter spans, who you were claiming would take alternative routes.

 

[BicycleTree]

Moonbear, suburb to suburb commuting is not under consideration. It is not relevant. Suburb to city commuting is the only kind of commuting that at the moment I am claiming would be greatly improved by more buses, the reason for that being, it is the only kind of commuting which I have had direct experience of and noted the number of SOV's. Suburb-to-city commuting is the only kind of commuting that my peeve concerns.

 

[Moonbear]

Now, let's make this interesting. Obviously, some of the commuters could use buses and thereby improve the traffic situation, and if there were such a demand, more buses could be put into production to accommodate those people.

So the question is, what percentage of those people in SOV's on the southeast expressway would it be practical to accommodate by bus if they so had the mind? I'm going to guess 60%.

Why guess 60%? I can pull any number out of my butt, but it doesn't make it meaningful. If you want to establish an argument, go do your research and give us a figure that is based on some evidence.

Some might be accommodated by buses between suburbs, I don't know what percentage, but, as soon as you alleviate some of that congestion with buses, people will move further away because they can live further from the loud city without any longer of a commute, and gradually congestion builds up again.

 

[BicycleTree]

This is something I have said many times.

 

[Evo]

No, believe me, Boston is their final destination.

I don't know how you can say this with any certainty. I've lived in DC & upstate NY & Philadelphia and driven to the Boston "area" many times, but Boston itself was never my final destination.

 

[BicycleTree]

Why guess 60%? I can pull any number out of my butt, but it doesn't make it meaningful. If you want to establish an argument, go do your research and give us a figure that is based on some evidence.

Some might be accommodated by buses between suburbs, I don't know what percentage, but, as soon as you alleviate some of that congestion with buses, people will move further away because they can live further from the loud city without any longer of a commute, and gradually congestion builds up again.

I guessed 60% as a starting point, basically a wild guess. If you want to argue it is much higher or lower, make such an argument.

 

[Moonbear]

Moonbear, suburb to suburb commuting is not under consideration. It is not relevant. Suburb to city commuting is the only kind of commuting that at the moment I am claiming would be greatly improved by more buses, the reason for that being, it is the only kind of commuting which I have had direct experience of and noted the number of SOV's. Suburb-to-city commuting is the only kind of commuting that my peeve concerns.

It IS relevant, because those suburb-to-suburb commuters are on the SAME highways/interstates/freeways as the city-to-suburb commuters, and ALL contribute to the congestion.

 

[BicycleTree]

I don't know how you can say this with any certainty. I've lived in DC & upstate NY & Philadelphia and driven to the Boston "area" many times, but Boston itself was never my final destination.

Did you use the southeast expressway going into boston during rush hour, just casually, and knowing what you were getting into?

Did you use any direct arteries to Boston during rush hour? (you know it's rush hour because you're doing 10 mph on the freeway). If you did, did you know what you were getting into?

 

[Moonbear]

I guessed 60% as a starting point, basically a wild guess. If you want to argue it is much higher or lower, make such an argument.

Nope, it's your argument, you can do your own research. If you don't want to substantiate your numbers, then I don't have to give your argument any credibility.

 

[BicycleTree]

It IS relevant, because those suburb-to-suburb commuters are on the SAME highways/interstates/freeways as the city-to-suburb commuters, and ALL contribute to the congestion.

There are off-ramps along the southeast expressway. Very few people use them.

 

[Evo]

BT, many people that commute from suburb to city do so for all the reasons that have been mentioned, the need to work odd hours, the need to come and go during the work day, the need to go places other than directly home after work. Of course there will be some that do it for convenience, but probably not that many.

 

[BicycleTree]

Nope, it's your argument, you can do your own research. If you don't want to substantiate your numbers, then I don't have to give your argument any credibility.

I'm trying to start a discussion here, I'm not trying to make an argument. 60% seems like a nice middle-of-the-line value. What do you think? You must have some figure in mind, seeing as how you've been arguing about it for so long.

 

[Evo]

There are off-ramps along the southeast expressway. Very few people use them.

Probably because they don't need to stop before they hit Boston.

 

[Moonbear]

Did you use the southeast expressway going into boston during rush hour, just casually, and knowing what you were getting into?

Did you use any direct arteries to Boston during rush hour? (you know it's rush hour because you're doing 10 mph on the freeway). If you did, did you know what you were getting into?

It happens. Travelers using the interstates don't always manage to plan their trip to avoid rush hour, especially if you're trying to plan a trip along the East coast that includes passing through or near DC, NYC and Boston. You're bound to hit one of them smack dab in the middle of rush hour no matter how hard you try to avoid it.

 

[Huckleberry]

I don't know how you can say this with any certainty. I've lived in DC & upstate NY & Philadelphia and driven to the Boston "area" many times, but Boston itself was never my final destination.

I'd agree with BT on this one. It is usually easier to go around Boston on 495 than go through it if it isn't your destination. And when I watch the news in the morning Boston traffic is always horrible. I assume that this is from people going to work and the same for the afternoon when they are returning home. Many people don't carpool.

 

[Evo]

I'm trying to start a discussion here, I'm not trying to make an argument. 60% seems like a nice middle-of-the-line value. What do you think? You must have some figure in mind, seeing as how you've been arguing about it for so long.

I say it's 1%, come up with published figures so that there can be a realistic discussion.

 

[BicycleTree]

BT, many people that commute from suburb to city do so for all the reasons that have been mentioned, the need to work odd hours, the need to come and go during the work day, the need to go places other than directly home after work. Of course there will be some that do it for convenience, but probably not that many.

So what would your guess be as to the percentage that could use a bus without much trouble, if buses were put into service wherever they could get a fair bunch of people assuming those who can are willing?

Edit: it's not 1%. Come up with a rational guess. I'm pretty sure there are no published figures.

 

[Moonbear]

Probably because they don't need to stop before they hit Boston.

Or they don't know enough about alternate routes, so stick with the main road even if it means sitting in traffic.

 

[Evo]

So what would your guess be as to the percentage that could use a bus without much trouble, if buses were put into service wherever they could get a fair bunch of people assuming those who can are willing?

Guessing is pointless.

 

[BicycleTree]

What travellers without regional knowledge do with respect to the arteries leading into Boston is not relevant because travellers from other regions do not constitute a significant amount of the load during rush hour.

Evo, if you have no guess, then what have you been arguing for the past hour or two? You don't know whether 90% or 10% could be helped by more buses, but you still think buses are a bad idea?

 

[Moonbear]

So what would your guess be as to the percentage that could use a bus without much trouble, if buses were put into service wherever they could get a fair bunch of people assuming those who can are willing?

Edit: it's not 1%. Come up with a rational guess. I'm pretty sure there are no published figures.

And I say it's not 60%; come up with a rational guess. 1% sounds more reasonable to me, especially given your assumptions. Please clarify what you mean by:
1) without much trouble
2) a fair bunch of people