LogFAQs > #913004724

wwinterj25 posted...

For a person like myself it's rather pointless having my own for of transport.

Again, that's because you live somewhere that wasn't designed around having a car. European cities don't have the same degree of urban sprawl that most North American cities do because it's cars that enable that sprawl. New York is a notable exception because the islandy nature of Manhattan meant the city's core grew to be extremely dense, rather than sprawling. If everyone in Manhattan drove, nobody could ever get anywhere, so effective public transportation exists.

LinkPizza posted...

That depends on what kind of bus you have. The ones in my city hold 31. The newer ones hold 32-33. But those number are in only ambulatory people got on...

So long as there are more than 2-3 people on the bus, it's still going to be an improvement over having them all in their own cars. Here's a gif that illustrates just how inefficient cars are: https://imgur.com/gallery/sCvRIEd

That's more than a little idealized, since it assumes that every one of those drivers/passengers would be on the same bus/train, but the fact of the matter is that car traffic takes up an absolutely massive amount of space compared to the alternatives. So many more people could be moved around cities if public transit and active transportation options were made more viable, rather than continuing to rely on cars and develop cities accordingly.

LinkPizza posted...

The problem would most likely be getting people to want to do that. And the money to get it started. Especially everywhere...

Yeah, public transit falls prey to a vicious cycle: It sucks, so people don't use it, so the demand isn't there to justify further investment/provide capital, so it keeps sucking. It's one of those problems where the only way to solve it would be a massive, up-front investment to make a really good system in the hopes that people would use it. Of course, there's also the option of adopting a congestion charge like London does to discourage people from driving in areas where transit is a viable option, helping to offset that investment while also ensuring the investment will be more worthwhile, but that's not going to be an easy thing to get past the voter base.

Revelation34 posted...

Also the passes would be much more since they'd be able to get away with it.

Not necessarily. If the majority of a city's occupants rely on public transit, reducing the cost of transit passes is an absolutely fantastic platform for a mayoral candidate to run on. Provided the city has some control over that, rather than outsourcing it entirely to a private company that would only adjust prices if competition existed, prices could be kept reasonable.

Alternatively, contract two or more companies to do it so they end up competing with each other. Public transit isn't necessarily a natural monopoly, so provided appropriate anti-collusion measures are in place to prevent the sort of oligopoly situation we currently see with telecoms, it could work.

Revelation34 posted...

Also even if you use a system like that a s***load of bus stops are not even close to homes. You would still need a car to get there.

Realistically, a 5-minute walk to get to the nearest stop is a reasonable standard, especially if you've got a system with buses that show up frequently and reliably (so you don't need to be there 20 minutes early to ensure you'll catch one that won't show up again for half an hour +/- 20 minutes). When that isn't feasible, there's always the option of park-and-ride stops with express buses for suburbs.Those are an easy option that would make a huge difference without much investment, but for whatever reason aren't nearly common enough.
---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.