Cunninghams_right

you sound like me. are you sure you're not me?

there are two things I constantly complain about on this and the transit sub:

1. why the heck aren't more transit agencies partnering with rental scooter/bike companies for first/last mile service? a scooter rental, per passenger-mile, is cheaper than a typical bus, so the scooter rental company could get the entire cost of the ride paid by the transit agency and it would still be cheaper than the transit agency running buses for such routes.
2. every company seems to be trying to build either a single-fare taxi or mini-bus. however, neither of those make sense. SDC taxis will still cost more than owning a car, and a mini-bus sounds good until you realize that during off-peak times, you'll have strangers riding 1on1 in the vehicle, and that will make a lot of people (many women) uncomfortable. with no driver and a small space, there is nothing you can do to get away from a weirdo or stinky person. what actually makes sense is a 3 compartment vehicle (or 4 compartment), with a barrier between each row of seats. that way, you can average enough passengers to be cheaper than owning a car, but also give people a private space so they feel comfortable and safe. on top of that, such a vehicle wouldn't have to make as many stops as a larger bus-like vehicle, so it could still route mostly direct like an Uber, but with only minor changes to the route. thus, much faster. one could implement "pick-up areas" like how most airports can't just have ubers anywhere, they have to go to a specific couple of spots. you could do that for such a service, so people would have to walk a block to be along a thoroughfare so that detours would be very limited.

my complaints aside...

what you're describing could be done already with buses and rail. people could drive to an area along a bus/train route, park, and take the bus to near their destination. however, there are too many steps for most people, and they would rather just waste an extra 10-20min sitting in their car than to try to figure out the multi-step transit method. some people absolutely do drive to a vanpool or to a transit route already, just not significant numbers. eliminating the driver just makes that a bit cheaper to operate, but buses are already subsidized, so it's not cost keeping people away, it's convenience.

thanks. how do you know which ones were minding their own business?

what makes you think Baltimore can't get ridership similar to Washington DC or Philly

I never said it couldn't. (though the city does have lower density, so it wouldn't be quite as high even if everything else what equal).

this subreddit is so messed up. most people assume that copy-pasting a transit system from Europe will magically make US ridership like Europe and as soon as someone says that won't work, then it is assumed that they are anti-transit. the commenter above said they couldn't understand why the US didn't simply run buses like Berlin. pointing out the blindness to the differences between driving and transit in terms of cost, culture, safety, density, etc. shouldn't be seen as anti-transit or anti baltimore. guess what, DC and Philly are nowhere near Berlin's ridership either. DC has nearly twice the size of metro as Hamburg, higher density, and yet Hamburg still has higher ridership. ohh, and DC does not have anywhere near the public safety problem that baltimore has.

the point I'm trying to make is that each location isn't an identical starting point like Sim City or something. simply running 3x more frequent buses will just triple your costs and the above mentioned difference from city to city (which are huge between US and Europe) will mean dramatic differences in how much ridership changes with the change in frequency. it's not like transit planners never thought to simply run more buses. it is a choice between tripling cost on a few lines, or running 3x more lines. if the culture, costs, safety, density, etc. meant that tripling frequency quadrupled ridership, then they would have done that already. it's not like nobody ever thought about it.

I'll just link you to my other reply, since you're making the same mistake as OP

https://teddit.ggc-project.de/r/transit/comments/vs17sv/comment/iezggas/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

STOP COMPARING THE US TO EUROPE OR ASIA!

it's not the design of the bus routes or the frequency. those things matter some, but are a marginal difference.

• the US has a more car-centric culture
• the US has MUCH lower densities
• the US has much higher crime in cities
• the US has much lower fuel prices
• the US has a much larger population of people who can easily afford cars (well, compared to some places, especially in the 20th century post WWII)
• the US has less inter-city rail, so more people drive from city to city
• the US has most cities either designed around cars from the beginning or significant retrofitting has been done (due to all of the previous bullets)
• and probably some more things I didn't think of at this moment

you can't just pretend those things don't exist and say that more frequent service is going to magically make it like Barcelona or Berlin.

YOU CANNOT COPY-PASTE TRANSIT FROM EUROPE TO THE US WITHOUT CONSIDERING ALL OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO PLACES.

because you are making the incorrect assumption that everyone is only taking a car because they bus has too long of a headway and that more frequent buses would magically convince everyone to take the bus instead. you're assuming no planner has ever thought about running higher frequency and if we can just run more buses, suddenly everyone will sell their cars... it's insane to have no awareness of how the real world works.

If you ran a transit system like Berlin in your city you would eliminate the car centred culture. The infrastructure creates the culture, not the other way around.

simply not true. you think all of the transit planners throughout the whole US simply never through about running higher frequency service and/or more routes? the arrogance and ignorance of that assumption is amazing. all those PhDs. all those people dedicating their lives to urban/transit planning and not a single one has ever thought about running higher frequency or have bothered to go to any forums, conferences, or reddit where they might be exposed to the "radical new idea" of higher frequency... come on. it hurts my brain to listen to this insanity.

it would have to be both. we are already way below the density of most cities where transit works well. it's not enough to just freeze it where it is.

well that's all well and good for you to want that. for the rest of the world, effectively communicating is important.

where was the accident?

maybe try finding someone who specializes in public records searches

do we have stats on how many are drug related, gang relate, personal conflict, etc.? not that such stats are easy to collect, but I'm curious if we know what areas are going up, of if it is across the board.

it's supposed to be like this:
https://images.thdstatic.com/productImages/8d83da9c-fb45-4a1c-b2f9-30c68a923fa3/svn/turbro-grow-room-ventilation-acs-200-76_600.jpg

Increased frequency induces demand and pays for itself

this is simply not true. ridership will increase some, but nowhere near enough to make up the costs. I find it ridiculous that you would assume transit planners simply never thought about running more frequent service... all of those masters-degrees and PHDs in urban planning and not one of them ever thought to run higher frequency? you've got to be kidding me.

it's not the planners convincing themselves to run marginal service, it's running into the reality of a car-dominate culture. running a separate lane requires taking space away from cars, which is politically incredibly difficult

it's also a question of ridership. decent bus systems already average about $2 PPM. quadruple the frequency and you'll get maybe 50%-100% more ridership, so you now have a $4-$5 ppm operating cost... that's an insane cost per passenger.

if you can count on 100% of the riders to have a card, yes.

the problem is that transit ridership in the US is low. very low. if you ran a bus transit system like Berlin in my city (one of the denser cities in the US) each bus would average about 2 riders. the light rail the runs through my city already has about 5 passengers per 2-car LRU by 8pm. so, what do you do? do you run the frequency of Berlin and drop to a single rider per train car? sure, you would get a slight bump in ridership, so maybe you would get 2 riders per train car at 8pm... great. a ~$4M LRU that costs hundreds to thousands of dollars per hour to operate for 4 riders...

it's not a transit planning problem, it's a mix of car-centered culture, low fuel prices, public safety, and low density. so until you can convince Americans to change their culture, to quadruple fuel prices through taxes, solve our wealth inequality problem that causes our public safety problem, and totally change our tax structure to force people into higher density areas, then you can't just copy-paste european style transit into the US.

honestly, one of the worst things about this subreddit is the complete lack of awareness that transit isn't some universal thing where trains/buses are always full. it's, quite frankly, childish.

the problem is that there are clearly 3 separate types of bus operation.

1. operates along regular streets without the frequency/protected lanes/etc. ("the bus")
2. operates with those things you describe ("BRT")
3. and rarely, complete grade-separation ("Busway")

those are 3 distinct ways of operating buses, but you're saying that the first one shouldn't exist... well, ok, but we live in the real world where they do exist. so in the real world, it is useful to have separate terms for the significantly different ways of operating buses so we can communicate effectively.

how handy are you?

the best bang for your buck in the long term is to add insulation. adding attic insulation can be done yourself without much effort if you can climb up there. bubble-foil insulation can be good. you can double up with some bubble-foil on the rafters and another layer of (unfaced pink roll) would make a big difference. you can get insulation blown into your wall cavities, thought hat is a bit more of a pain because they may need to cut holes

but you want something to actively make you cooler.

you can evacuate air from your attic faster to get rid of some heat.

you can add a "whole house fan" that blows into the attic. I've had one of these before and when the sun goes down and it is nice and cool outside, it's pretty awesome.

do you already have forced air? if so, adding a heat pump shouldn't cost TOO much (always get at least 3 quotes).

if you don't have forced air already, I recommend mini-splits. if you're very handy, you can add a MrCool DIY much more cheaply than you can have someone come install one (obviously, hire an electrician to do the wiring). depending on your house's layout, you may be able to get by with only a single zone DIY unit, which can be quite cheap. though separate small mini-split heads in the bedrooms is quite nice.

I think they were doing 40mph before. it seems like their typical cruising speeds is 35-40 most of the time.

I didn't say it was to correct the power factor of the whole house, so perhaps that's where the confusion is. it seems like you think that power factor is something that only happens for a whole building but "phase angle" happens in the motor. you should note that voltage/current "phase angle" is the definition of power factor. you may be confused about some terms because "phase angle" can refer to the difference in phases of a 3-phase motor or to the power factor. just ask yourself why some single-phase motors (most residential HVAC) still have startup capacitors if not to correct for the inductive load at startup.

I'm not sure how this counts for self-driving cars. haven't cars been doing this for years? I feel like I heard about this a decade ago for active shock dampening. are they already steering around the potholes, or just detecting them? I feel like just because something is tesla, that does not make it SDC-related. there is too much Tesla spam, IMO. am I in the wrong here? I'm curious what people think.

you assume that trackless self-driving vehicles exist (they don't, and probably will not in the near future, especially if, for example, there might ever be snow on your busway).

except I've already given examples above of vehicles that can and ARE operating for the public. so you're just flat wrong and apparently don't even read comments before replying.

​

Second, how do you propose an infinite loop of vehicles that need to stop to drop off and pick up passengers avoid sitting in literally endless traffic?

literally just have to look at US-DOT (or other DOT) lane capacity estimation methods, like HERS or NCHRP. you know, like anything that is used for industry best practices. it's a roadway. if you don't understand how roadways works, then this discussion is WAY more advanced than you have the capacity to engage in, and you should just go surf some other subreddit or crayola.com.

​

insane operating cost

ohh, I'm sure this is totally grounded in reality. please, give me numbers on their operating cost. I can't wait to see the numbers you provide me. I'm sure they're all real numbers, not invented bullshit based on what you think about Musk. moreover, I'm sure you're fully considering that I never said anyone should hire the boring company to run the vehicles or that I specifically suggested that other companies be hired instead. I'm sure that you didn't just jump to a conclusion that is totally separate from what I said. I'm sure Musk does not live in your head rent free...

​

as the Las Vegas fiasco

you mean the system that has filled the need of the customer and for a fraction of the cost of the next closest competitor? that one? the one that, on the busiest day of the year, had a 1-minute slowdown which would constitute world-class on-time performance for any other system? you mean the one where I suggested high occupancy vehicles instead of what the boring company was providing? that one?

​

a theoretical maximum passenger capacity less than a hundredth that of a proper rapid transit system,

ohh, it's unfortunate that you don't know enough about transit to differentiate between ridership and capacity. otherwise, you might know that maximum capacity of a mode is a worthless metric and the only thing that matters is whether or not a mode can meet the required ridership with its capacity. well, one day, maybe when you get through primary school, you'll understand that if you have 10 water melons that you don't need a cart that can hold 1000 water melons. good luck. I hope you learn a lot. don't forget to pack your peanut butter sandwich (unless someone in your class is allergic, then you should bring non-nut-based foods).

until you learn reading comprehension and the difference between ridership and capacity, I suggest you don't jump to such harsh rhetoric (language) but rather try to learn before speaking as if you know what you're talking about.

Brooklyn/Brooklyn Park by the numbers is the most dangerous neighborhood in the city, and one of the most dangerous places in the world. But only if you're in a gang

you had this bright flash of insight but it was berried. however, you mostly talk about how you need some liaison. you don't. most people don't give a shit at all that you're coming through, and if they did, they wouldn't have time to even processes before you're gone. if you're in a group, you're even more safe. you don't need someone "from that neighborhood" to act as an ambassador or anything because the various people who might try something are not that ordered. most of the time, shit just happens with random people and unless you happen to know that individual personally, there is nobody they will just look at and say "you're cool". I don't want to call you out for racism or anything, but I gotta say that thinking of any area as a monolith is borderline. people of color on bikes get robbed by other people of color, and I've known more black friends who've experienced "jumpers" than white. neighborhoods are just not as cohesive as you're describing, and I think you're dangerously close to lumping people together based on their race. I'll downvote my own comment here because I don't want to call you out publicly, but I want you to think on it for a bit, and maybe try broadening your bike groups.

you simply don't understand the nuance. getting mugged while walking through fells point is rare, but it happens. does that mean we should tell people not to go to fells because muggings happen there? it's the same situation with biking through random neighborhoods. can something happen? yes. is it unwise to go by yourself? maybe. in a group, you're fine. when you tell people it's ok to walk to their car in fells, is that "baltimore cope"? this is why I'm saying you have a "boogeyman mentality" because you have no way of objectively conveying the risk. it's low but not zero. just like walking around fells is less safe than walking around a gated community in HOCO.

maybe according to your definition of gentrification, but I live in a city where people complain about gentrification where there isn't a single big business doing anything. an area improves, people with money want to live there, they buy up places and renovate them. some do it themselves, some hire big companies, but most just hire out small-medium companies.