Metros around the world... to-scale

[Keith F. Lynch]

Keith F. Lynch <***@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> You have to be willing to do *some* walking. Even motorists have
> to, just to cross those gigantic parking lots.

greg byshenk <***@byshenk.net> wrote:
> Yes, _some_ walking, but there are reasonable limits for the average
> person.

> And the problem in many suburban/exurban areas is that, one can
> place one or perhaps two buildings at reasonable walking distance
> from a station/stop, and there isn't sufficient demand at these
> buildings to merit a stop, while the "nearby" buildings are not
> sufficiently nearby to increase demand.

One or perhaps two buildings?? Sure, if you demand door-to-door
service. As I said, you have to be willing to do *some* walking.
Say, a mile at each end. That's fifteen to twenty minutes. A one
mile radius covers over *300* average city blocks. I think there
will be sufficient demand.

Yes, there are some people physically unable to walk a mile. Isn't
that what the short buses are for?

> Of course, one could try a rail line that stops at every building,
> but (apart from the matter of insufficient demand already noted),
> this would require a perverse route, and would be painfully slow.

Indeed it would. Someone should tell DC's Metro. There seems to have
been two designers, who worked at cross purposes. In DC and the inner
suburbs the stations are so close together you can often *see* one
station from another, and travel is, as you said, painfully slow. In
the outlying suburbs, on the other hand, the stations are so far apart
that the designer apparently figured most people don't mind walking
six miles or so. (Six miles is the distance from the Vienna/Fairfax/
GMU station to the GMU campus which it supposedly serves.)

Both extremes are unreasonable. The ideal would be something like a
grid, where every point in the region is within a mile of a station,
and no station is less than a mile from any other station.

> Here you run into a chicken-and-egg problem. "Enough" people won't
> use transit unless it is already practical and convenient, and it
> won't be practical and convenient until _after_ such changes are made.

How did cars catch on? Who would buy a car before there were paved
roads and gas stations? And who would build paved roads and gas
stations before there were lots of cars in use? How did they get
around that paradox?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

[greg byshenk]

[followups trimmed - again! - unless the only group you get is
dc.urban-planning, then this doesn't really belong there, as it is
in no way specific to DC - and dc.driving seems to be right out]

Keith F. Lynch <***@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> greg byshenk <***@byshenk.net> wrote:
> > Keith F. Lynch <***@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

> > You have to be willing to do *some* walking. Even motorists have
> > to, just to cross those gigantic parking lots.

> > Yes, _some_ walking, but there are reasonable limits for the average
> > person.

> > And the problem in many suburban/exurban areas is that, one can
> > place one or perhaps two buildings at reasonable walking distance
> > from a station/stop, and there isn't sufficient demand at these
> > buildings to merit a stop, while the "nearby" buildings are not
> > sufficiently nearby to increase demand.

> One or perhaps two buildings?? Sure, if you demand door-to-door
> service. As I said, you have to be willing to do *some* walking.
> Say, a mile at each end. That's fifteen to twenty minutes. A one
> mile radius covers over *300* average city blocks. I think there
> will be sufficient demand.

No, I mean one or perhaps two buildings. The number of "city blocks"
is wholly irrelevant in case such as this, as there are _no_ "city
blocks" present. I am talking about situations where a single office
park may occupy a large part of a square mile, with a handful of
buildings surrounded by vast areas of lawns and parking lots.

> Yes, there are some people physically unable to walk a mile. Isn't
> that what the short buses are for?

And if you want to make transit practical and convenient to users,
then one mile from the destination is at the very limit, if not
already beyond it. Sure, some people will walk a mile to their
destination, but many will not. Add in bad weather (heat, rain,
cold, snow, etc.) and the number of people willing to walk a mile
to and from work every day (after what may be a long transit ride)
plummets.


> > Of course, one could try a rail line that stops at every building,
> > but (apart from the matter of insufficient demand already noted),
> > this would require a perverse route, and would be painfully slow.

[DC-specific complaint deleted]

> Both extremes are unreasonable. The ideal would be something like a
> grid, where every point in the region is within a mile of a station,
> and no station is less than a mile from any other station.

I'm not entirely certain that such is ideal, but that is rather
beside the point, as there is zero chance of any such thing
happening in the USA in the forseeable future.


> > Here you run into a chicken-and-egg problem. "Enough" people won't
> > use transit unless it is already practical and convenient, and it
> > won't be practical and convenient until _after_ such changes are made.

> How did cars catch on? Who would buy a car before there were paved
> roads and gas stations? And who would build paved roads and gas
> stations before there were lots of cars in use? How did they get
> around that paradox?

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say, here.

"Paved roads" existed long before automobiles.

And _any_ people bought cars before paved roads and gas stations
were common. This is a historical fact. Further, there are many
people now who drive their cars far away from paved roads and gas
stations.

As for gas stations, I don't know who opened the first ones, but
I suspect that they were opened by those selling or servicing
automobiles. And if one is not planning on driving cross-country,
one doesn't need a whole string of gas stations; one is enough.
I know many people even now who almost always buy gas at the same
station.

In short, your supposed "paradox" does not exist.


--
greg byshenk - ***@byshenk.net - Leiden, NL

[Bill Bolton]

***@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> I don't know any commuter system with one driver per thousand
> passengers, but that's a quibble.

Since a single 8 car Sydney CityRail double deck train can swallow
2000 passengers at full crush load, I'd be quite surprised if there
aren't numerous urban rail transit operations that can easily top the
1000 passengers per train mark.

Cheers,

Bill


Bill Bolton
Sydney, Australia

[greg byshenk]

[followups trimmed]

Bill Bolton <billbolton@*remove*computer.org> wrote:
> ***@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> > I don't know any commuter system with one driver per thousand
> > passengers, but that's a quibble.

> Since a single 8 car Sydney CityRail double deck train can swallow
> 2000 passengers at full crush load, I'd be quite surprised if there
> aren't numerous urban rail transit operations that can easily top the
> 1000 passengers per train mark.

I don't know the exact figures, but I believe that the RER double deck
trains in Paris have a capacity similar to that of Sydney (if not even
higher). And an 8 car bi-level Metra (Chicago) train will easily
carry 1000 people.


--
greg byshenk - ***@byshenk.net - Leiden, NL

[Matthew Russotto]

In article <***@4ax.com>,
Bill Bolton <billbolton@*remove*computer.org> wrote:
>***@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>> I don't know any commuter system with one driver per thousand
>> passengers, but that's a quibble.
>
>Since a single 8 car Sydney CityRail double deck train can swallow
>2000 passengers at full crush load, I'd be quite surprised if there
>aren't numerous urban rail transit operations that can easily top the
>1000 passengers per train mark.

With only one employee?
--
Matthew T. Russotto ***@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Bill Bolton <billbolton@*remove*computer.org> wrote:
> Since a single 8 car Sydney CityRail double deck train can swallow
> 2000 passengers at full crush load, I'd be quite surprised if there
> aren't numerous urban rail transit operations that can easily top
> the 1000 passengers per train mark.

Matthew Russotto <***@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
> With only one employee?

I don't know about Sydney, but in the DC Metro, each train normally
contains only one employee, the driver.

Unless you count all the police, who are present mostly because of
fear of terrorism. But this is an unfair double standard. If there
was a Madrid style attack -- 190 dead -- once every WEEK on the DC
Metro, Metro would STILL be safer than driving a car!
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>
> Bill Bolton <billbolton@*remove*computer.org> wrote:
> > Since a single 8 car Sydney CityRail double deck train can swallow
> > 2000 passengers at full crush load, I'd be quite surprised if there
> > aren't numerous urban rail transit operations that can easily top
> > the 1000 passengers per train mark.
>
> Matthew Russotto <***@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
> > With only one employee?
>
> I don't know about Sydney, but in the DC Metro, each train normally
> contains only one employee, the driver.
>
> Unless you count all the police, who are present mostly because of
> fear of terrorism. But this is an unfair double standard. If there
> was a Madrid style attack -- 190 dead -- once every WEEK on the DC
> Metro, Metro would STILL be safer than driving a car!

You just said there are nearly 200 traffic deaths per week in
Washington, DC.

You're an idiot.
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net

[Keith F. Lynch]

"Keith F. Lynch" <***@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Unless you count all the police, who are present mostly because of
> fear of terrorism. But this is an unfair double standard. If there
> was a Madrid style attack -- 190 dead -- once every WEEK on the DC
> Metro, Metro would STILL be safer than driving a car!

Peter T. Daniels <***@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> You just said there are nearly 200 traffic deaths per week in
> Washington, DC.

> You're an idiot.

According to Metro's website, 328.7 million trips were taken on Metro
in 2002. (Probably even more in 2003, but it doesn't say.) That's 6.3
million trips per week. If 190 of those 6.3 million trips ended in
death, that's one death every 33,000 trips. That's safer than cars.

This implies that there are 200 traffic deaths per week in Washington,
DC -- or rather in the area covered by the DC Metro system, which is
many times the size of Washington DC -- only if as many trips are
taken by car as by Metro. Metro's website also says 41 percent
commute via mass transit. Since many commute by bike or on foot,
that probably leaves cars with less than 41 percent of all commuters.

In fact, as far as I know there have only been six passenger deaths on
Metro in the 28 year history of the system. None in the past 22 years.
(Not counting death from natural causes.)
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>
> "Keith F. Lynch" <***@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> > Unless you count all the police, who are present mostly because of
> > fear of terrorism. But this is an unfair double standard. If there
> > was a Madrid style attack -- 190 dead -- once every WEEK on the DC
> > Metro, Metro would STILL be safer than driving a car!
>
> Peter T. Daniels <***@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > You just said there are nearly 200 traffic deaths per week in
> > Washington, DC.
>
> > You're an idiot.
>
> According to Metro's website, 328.7 million trips were taken on Metro
> in 2002. (Probably even more in 2003, but it doesn't say.) That's 6.3
> million trips per week. If 190 of those 6.3 million trips ended in
> death, that's one death every 33,000 trips. That's safer than cars.
>
> This implies that there are 200 traffic deaths per week in Washington,
> DC -- or rather in the area covered by the DC Metro system, which is
> many times the size of Washington DC -- only if as many trips are
> taken by car as by Metro. Metro's website also says 41 percent
> commute via mass transit. Since many commute by bike or on foot,
> that probably leaves cars with less than 41 percent of all commuters.
>
> In fact, as far as I know there have only been six passenger deaths on
> Metro in the 28 year history of the system. None in the past 22 years.
> (Not counting death from natural causes.)

How many traffic deaths are there each year in DC?
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net

[Bill Bolton]

***@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> In article <***@4ax.com>,
> Bill Bolton <billbolton@*remove*computer.org> wrote:
> >***@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> >
> >> I don't know any commuter system with one driver per thousand
> >> passengers, but that's a quibble.
> >
> >Since a single 8 car Sydney CityRail double deck train can swallow
> >2000 passengers at full crush load, I'd be quite surprised if there
> >aren't numerous urban rail transit operations that can easily top the
> >1000 passengers per train mark.
>
> With only one employee?

Hmmm.... changing the criteria when the answer is inconvenient. Cute!

Bill


Bill Bolton
Sydney, Australia

[Matthew Russotto]

In article <***@4ax.com>,
Bill Bolton <billbolton@*remove*computer.org> wrote:
>***@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>> In article <***@4ax.com>,
>> Bill Bolton <billbolton@*remove*computer.org> wrote:
>> >***@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>> >
>> >> I don't know any commuter system with one driver per thousand
>> >> passengers, but that's a quibble.
>> >
>> >Since a single 8 car Sydney CityRail double deck train can swallow
>> >2000 passengers at full crush load, I'd be quite surprised if there
>> >aren't numerous urban rail transit operations that can easily top the
>> >1000 passengers per train mark.
>>
>> With only one employee?
>
>Hmmm.... changing the criteria when the answer is inconvenient. Cute!

Not exactly. The "advantage" was supposed to be that you needed only one
trained driver per 1000 people with public transit whereas you need
one driver per person with the private single-occupant automobile. If
you can get away with one driver per 1000 people on transit but you
need 2 brakemen, 3 firemen, a best boy grip, 3 engineers, 6
conductors, and 200 ticket collectors, that advantage is not nearly as
great is it looks.
--
Matthew T. Russotto ***@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

[Keith F. Lynch]

Matthew Russotto <***@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
> The "advantage" was supposed to be that you needed only one trained
> driver per 1000 people with public transit whereas you need one
> driver per person with the private single-occupant automobile. If
> you can get away with one driver per 1000 people on transit but
> you need 2 brakemen, 3 firemen, a best boy grip, 3 engineers, 6
> conductors, and 200 ticket collectors, that advantage is not nearly
> as great is it looks.

True. However, on each DC Metro train, there are no brakemen,
firemen, best boy grips, engineers, conductors, or ticket collectors.
There's just one driver, and no other employees. Except sometimes
policemen.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

[Matthew Russotto]

In article <c5d283$8d1$***@panix2.panix.com>,
Keith F. Lynch <***@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto <***@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> The "advantage" was supposed to be that you needed only one trained
>> driver per 1000 people with public transit whereas you need one
>> driver per person with the private single-occupant automobile. If
>> you can get away with one driver per 1000 people on transit but
>> you need 2 brakemen, 3 firemen, a best boy grip, 3 engineers, 6
>> conductors, and 200 ticket collectors, that advantage is not nearly
>> as great is it looks.
>
>True. However, on each DC Metro train, there are no brakemen,
>firemen, best boy grips, engineers, conductors, or ticket collectors.

DC Metro doesn't carry 1000 people per train either.



--
Matthew T. Russotto ***@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

[John R Cambron]

Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
> In article <c5d283$8d1$***@panix2.panix.com>,
> Keith F. Lynch <***@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >Matthew Russotto <***@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >> The "advantage" was supposed to be that you needed only one trained
> >> driver per 1000 people with public transit whereas you need one
> >> driver per person with the private single-occupant automobile. If
> >> you can get away with one driver per 1000 people on transit but
> >> you need 2 brakemen, 3 firemen, a best boy grip, 3 engineers, 6
> >> conductors, and 200 ticket collectors, that advantage is not nearly
> >> as great is it looks.
> >
> >True. However, on each DC Metro train, there are no brakemen,
> >firemen, best boy grips, engineers, conductors, or ticket collectors.
>
> DC Metro doesn't carry 1000 people per train either.

Mind you not every train would have 1000 people on it. However,
with a full standing load a 6 car train will carry over 1100
people. Add another 325 and you will have over 1400 on an 8 car
train when WMATA get around to having enough cars to run 8 car
trains.

--
======================================================================
Ever wanted one of these John R Cambron
http://205.130.220.18/~cambronj/wmata/ or >>>Hebron<<< MD USA
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/ ***@chesapeake.net
======================================================================

[Lee Ratner]

Hank Tiffany <***@cet.com> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.21.0403300952060.458-***@davidt>...
> On 29 Mar 2004, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>
>
> > I think most commuters would rather pay one thousandth (or one
> > hundredth, or whatever) of the wages of a professional driver for
> > the duration of their commute than have to work as an unpaid driver
> > themselves for the duration of their commute.
>
> Most people, in my admittedly limited to the western section of
> the USofA, experience do not look at it that way. They think
> driving makes them free, not that it is a burden. I happen to
> think they've been brainwashed (and starched & ironed in most cases)
> but that is the way they think. Heck, most of them think they have
> a Constitutional Right to a drivers license, no matter how many laws
> they break.
>
People in other sections of the USA view driving the same way, a
car equals freedom. The Japanese, at least those in major urban
centers, view car driving as a luxury that should only be done on
weekends, holidays, or when necessary, When I was in Japan, most
people I knew who had a car only drove it once a week to keep it in
shape.

[Jack May]

"Keith F. Lynch" <***@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
news:c3tm7l$iso$***@panix2.panix.com...
> Jack May <***@comcast.net> wrote:
> > We need transportation systems that works while costing the same or
> > less per passenger mile than roads.
>
> It would be nice, but why is that the most important measure? Even if
> roads were the cheapest transportation system (which I doubt),

The data is abundant that real rail, not your fairy tale rail is tens of
times more expensive to get a person out of a car than to support additional
capacity with roads.

>they
> have several serious limitations. They can't move as many people in
> as narrow a corridor as quickly, as safely, or with as little energy,
> as rail. Also, car drivers (and bike riders) can't read or work while
> traveling; they have to give their full attention to the road.

What do you call books on tape that a lot of people use while commuting.
They also listen to talk radio, the news, and listen to music. They also
do a lot of things like eat, shave, put on make-up, read, make business
calls on the cell phone, even though it is certainly not recommended.

Anyone that actually commutes, and is not some dumb kid like you are
apparently, knows this.

>
> Many of the costs of roads are offloaded onto the users, or onto the
> businesses reachable by roads. What is the cost of vast acreages of
> parking lots?

It is a very small percentage of the land and significantly less than the
area taken per real passenger mile on rail, again not your fairy tale rail
which does not exist. In urban areas we are seeing rail take up about
three lanes to carry a fraction of a single lane on normal freeway traffic.

Or of having to tear down homes and businesses to widen
> a highway? Or of sundering neighborhoods, keeping people from being
> able to walk to their neighbors or to the local store?

Oh where are they doing that? Its very rare these days because it is also
extremely expensive.

> How will technology do that? Roads are slower now, at least during
> rush hour, than fifty years ago. And the only way any road's capacity
> is ever increased is by widening it, which is very expensive. Or by
> making it a double decker, which is even more expensive.

Using technology to allow cars to drive closer together under computer
control giving all the flexibility of roads such as taking different routes
than others while greatly increasing capacity at a very low cost. An
overhead picture of a freeway at rush hour shows that only 10% of the space
is taken by cars.

By increasing that to 30%, which is not difficult, then the capacity is
tripled. The cost is around 10,000 times cheaper to add the technology to
an existing road than it is to build a lane of light rail.

As technology advances, solutions can be envisioned that bump that figure up
to about a 15 to 20 to one improvement with much smaller vehicles designed
to take advantage of the technology.

The car companies have a large demand for this since people want to commute
without driving their car so they can do a lot more thing while having all
the advantages of a car and none of the commuter hostile characteristics of
trains that they in general hate so much as we see in polls.

[Baxter]

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Jack May" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fGqec.16476$***@attbi_s54...
>
> "Keith F. Lynch" <***@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
> news:c3tm7l$iso$***@panix2.panix.com...
> > Jack May <***@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > We need transportation systems that works while costing the same or
> > > less per passenger mile than roads.
> >
> > It would be nice, but why is that the most important measure? Even if
> > roads were the cheapest transportation system (which I doubt),
>
> The data is abundant that real rail, not your fairy tale rail is tens of
> times more expensive to get a person out of a car than to support
additional
> capacity with roads.

Can anyone say $5/gal gasoline?

[Keith F. Lynch]

Jack May <***@comcast.net> wrote:
> The data is abundant that real rail, not your fairy tale rail is
> tens of times more expensive to get a person out of a car than to
> support additional capacity with roads.

You're assuming that the person is *in* a car. Not everyone can or
should drive, and not everyone who can drive owns a car, so roads
meant for cars are a poor and partial substitute for transit.

> [Drivers] also do a lot of things like eat, shave, put on make-up,
> read, make business calls on the cell phone, even though it is
> certainly not recommended.

Which is part of why commuting in a car is enormously more dangerous
than commuting in a train or a large bus.

> Anyone that actually commutes, and is not some dumb kid like you are
> apparently, knows this.

"Kid"? I've been commuting, to work or to school, for over forty
years. How about you?

>> Or of having to tear down homes and businesses to widen a highway?
>> Or of sundering neighborhoods, keeping people from being able to
>> walk to their neighbors or to the local store?

> Oh where are they doing that? Its very rare these days because it
> is also extremely expensive.

Keep your eye on Arlington Virginia.

For years most Arlingtonians opposed extension of I-66 through their
county, while folks from DC's outer suburbs regarded Arlington as a
speedbump directly in their path. Finally, they compromised. I-66
was extended, vast numbers of homes and businesses were torn down, and
neighborhoods were split in two, but all with the understanding that
I-66 would never be widened.

It turns out that "never" isn't very long at all. There's increasing
pressure to tear down more homes and businesses to widen I-66. And
yes, it will be extremely expensive. I should know, I'm one of the
people who's going to have to pay for it, even though I don't drive,
and never use that highway.

> Using technology to allow cars to drive closer together under
> computer control giving all the flexibility of roads such as taking
> different routes than others while greatly increasing capacity at a
> very low cost.

You heard about the robot car race earlier this year? Even though
millions of dollars were spent, NOT ONE of the computer controlled
cars was able to complete the course. Not even at walking speed.
Even though, unlike in real life, they didn't have to deal with heavy
traffic. Or with any traffic at all.

They're barely able to make it work on Mars. With *no* traffic, with
hundreds of millions of dollars, and with the speed of a turtle.
And, oh yes, with a room full of people keeping an eye on things,
and rebooting when necessary. Which is pretty often.

It's a hard problem. I'd love to see robot drivers. But I don't
expect to see them before I retire.

> An overhead picture of a freeway at rush hour shows that only 10%
> of the space is taken by cars.

Sure, if traffic is light, and moving quickly. Around here during
rush hour it's closer to 90%, as traffic speeds vary from zero up to
at most about the speed of a bicycle. Robot drivers wouldn't speed
things up, but they could free commuters to spend their commuting time
doing other things. Someday. Or we could simply hire a bus driver
for every hundred passengers, or a train driver for every thousand
passengers, and combine speed, economy, safety, and convenience, with
no need for speculative new technologies. And with no need for every
commuter to make a major investment, and for every home and business
to set aside vast amounts of space to store those expensive single-user
vehicles, most of which are idle most of the time.

Bringing a car with you to a crowded city makes about as much sense as
bringing your oven with you when you go to a restaurant. Yes, ovens
are useful in restaurants, but there's a better way.

> The cost is around 10,000 times cheaper to add the technology to an
> existing road than it is to build a lane of light rail.

Sure. With Moore's law, in another century or so a robot driver will
cost one dollar (not counting the cost of the car, or the road, or the
parking space, or the fuel for the car, etc.), while a railroad will
still cost at least ten thousand. But what about in *this* century?

> As technology advances, solutions can be envisioned that bump that
> figure up to about a 15 to 20 to one improvement with much smaller
> vehicles designed to take advantage of the technology.

Yes, it *could* happen. And someone could invent Star Trek style
transporter beams, too. Wouldn't that make commuting easy! But
that's not useful *today*.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

[Jack May]

"Keith F. Lynch" <***@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
news:c5fl5q$k9p$***@panix3.panix.com...
> Jack May <***@comcast.net> wrote:
> > The data is abundant that real rail, not your fairy tale rail is
> > tens of times more expensive to get a person out of a car than to
> > support additional capacity with roads.
>
> You're assuming that the person is *in* a car. Not everyone can or
> should drive, and not everyone who can drive owns a car, so roads
> meant for cars are a poor and partial substitute for transit.

And there is no way we can afford the cost of get the land for separate new
transit corridors. Talking about an optimal design that can't be built is
a waste of time.
>
> > [Drivers] also do a lot of things like eat, shave, put on make-up,
> > read, make business calls on the cell phone, even though it is
> > certainly not recommended.
>
> Which is part of why commuting in a car is enormously more dangerous
> than commuting in a train or a large bus.

If you are inside the bus or train yes. If you include people outside bus
or train, then the car and transit rates are in the same ball park with
significant variations from system to system

It is also the reason car companies are spending lots of money on automobile
technology development. Safety sells and car companies will be providing
it. A very good approach.

>
> > Anyone that actually commutes, and is not some dumb kid like you are
> > apparently, knows this.
>
> "Kid"? I've been commuting, to work or to school, for over forty
> years. How about you?

Then why are you so dumb about the real world?
>
> >> Or of having to tear down homes and businesses to widen a highway?
> >> Or of sundering neighborhoods, keeping people from being able to
> >> walk to their neighbors or to the local store?
>
> > Oh where are they doing that? Its very rare these days because it
> > is also extremely expensive.
>
> Keep your eye on Arlington Virginia.

I am often there. I doubt they are going to pay for all those large tall
building and pull them down to widen streets. Arlington is one of those
areas where they way over spent on transit and are now paying horrible price
for past bad decision.
>
> For years most Arlingtonians opposed extension of I-66 through their
> county, while folks from DC's outer suburbs regarded Arlington as a
> speedbump directly in their path. Finally, they compromised. I-66
> was extended, vast numbers of homes and businesses were torn down, and
> neighborhoods were split in two, but all with the understanding that
> I-66 would never be widened.
>
> It turns out that "never" isn't very long at all. There's increasing
> pressure to tear down more homes and businesses to widen I-66. And
> yes, it will be extremely expensive. I should know, I'm one of the
> people who's going to have to pay for it, even though I don't drive,
> and never use that highway.
>
> > Using technology to allow cars to drive closer together under
> > computer control giving all the flexibility of roads such as taking
> > different routes than others while greatly increasing capacity at a
> > very low cost.
>
> You heard about the robot car race earlier this year? Even though
> millions of dollars were spent, NOT ONE of the computer controlled
> cars was able to complete the course. Not even at walking speed.
> Even though, unlike in real life, they didn't have to deal with heavy
> traffic. Or with any traffic at all.

Oh, all progress stopped with 19th century choo choo trains and we can never
solve problems now? >

> They're barely able to make it work on Mars. With *no* traffic, with
> hundreds of millions of dollars, and with the speed of a turtle.
> And, oh yes, with a room full of people keeping an eye on things,
> and rebooting when necessary. Which is pretty often.
>
> It's a hard problem. I'd love to see robot drivers. But I don't
> expect to see them before I retire.
>
> > An overhead picture of a freeway at rush hour shows that only 10%
> > of the space is taken by cars.
>
> Sure, if traffic is light, and moving quickly. Around here during
> rush hour it's closer to 90%, as traffic speeds vary from zero up to
> at most about the speed of a bicycle. Robot drivers wouldn't speed
> things up, but they could free commuters to spend their commuting time
> doing other things. Someday. Or we could simply hire a bus driver
> for every hundred passengers, or a train driver for every thousand
> passengers, and combine speed, economy, safety, and convenience, with
> no need for speculative new technologies. And with no need for every
> commuter to make a major investment, and for every home and business
> to set aside vast amounts of space to store those expensive single-user
> vehicles, most of which are idle most of the time.
>
> Bringing a car with you to a crowded city makes about as much sense as
> bringing your oven with you when you go to a restaurant. Yes, ovens
> are useful in restaurants, but there's a better way.
>
> > The cost is around 10,000 times cheaper to add the technology to an
> > existing road than it is to build a lane of light rail.
>
> Sure. With Moore's law, in another century or so a robot driver will
> cost one dollar (not counting the cost of the car, or the road, or the
> parking space, or the fuel for the car, etc.), while a railroad will
> still cost at least ten thousand. But what about in *this* century?

Just like tube computers, rail systems are extremely ineffective is solving
transportation problems. You are not talking about this century, you are
wanting to live in the 19th century. Still thinking like a dumb kid.

>
> > As technology advances, solutions can be envisioned that bump that
> > figure up to about a 15 to 20 to one improvement with much smaller
> > vehicles designed to take advantage of the technology.
>
> Yes, it *could* happen. And someone could invent Star Trek style
> transporter beams, too. Wouldn't that make commuting easy! But
> that's not useful *today*.

Give up, you are just sprouting illiterate gibberish.

[George Conklin]

"Keith F. Lynch" <***@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
news:c5fl5q$k9p$***@panix3.panix.com...
> Jack May <***@comcast.net> wrote:
> > The data is abundant that real rail, not your fairy tale rail is
> > tens of times more expensive to get a person out of a car than to
> > support additional capacity with roads.
>
> You're assuming that the person is *in* a car. Not everyone can or
> should drive, and not everyone who can drive owns a car, so roads
> meant for cars are a poor and partial substitute for transit.
>
The only reason why cars run around with just the driver is quite simple:
the law dictates you cannot pick up somene and transport them for a fee you
both agree upon unless you are a licensed taxi. This suits car manufactuers
and transit operators. It hurts the public and clean air...but what the
heck...it is politically correct. Car pools are set up to fail on purpose.

[mark]

George Conklin wrote:

>
> "Keith F. Lynch" <***@KeithLynch.net> wrote in message
> news:c5fl5q$k9p$***@panix3.panix.com...
>> Jack May <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > The data is abundant that real rail, not your fairy tale rail is
>> > tens of times more expensive to get a person out of a car than to
>> > support additional capacity with roads.
>>
>> You're assuming that the person is *in* a car. Not everyone can or
>> should drive, and not everyone who can drive owns a car, so roads
>> meant for cars are a poor and partial substitute for transit.
>>
> The only reason why cars run around with just the driver is quite
> simple:
> the law dictates you cannot pick up somene and transport them for a fee
> you
> both agree upon unless you are a licensed taxi. This suits car
> manufactuers
> and transit operators. It hurts the public and clean air...but what the
> heck...it is politically correct.

Sorry, even if it was legal, I still wouldn't pick up hitchhikers. I suspect
most people are like me in this respect.