Traffic signals to be obsolete by 2030 :(

[jeffandnicole]

Many transit departments publish forecasts for construction projects that go out about 10 years.  If traffic lights were to be obsolete in 15 years, you would see a vastly different construction project forecast for 10 years from now.

[bzakharin]

I remember the Sim-City brochure mentioned that in the future roads will be obsolete and trains will take over, so the player should emphasize railroads over roads. It still seems more doable than 100% driverless cars. Maybe many roads can be converted to bus only less expensively than building an extensive rail network, but same idea. Then those buses can probably be driverless. Eventually all roads will be bus only and you'd just walk to the bus. This can be achieved, but probably won't be, at least in the US, due to the love affair with the car.

[Brandon]

^^ It has less to do with a "love affair with the car" than pure logistics.  Buses won't work very well for small rural areas, unless you propose moving everyone into a very dense city, at least as dense as Chicago.

The whole Americans (and Americans alone) having a love affair with the car is a myth.  Most areas that have cars like them, even dense Europe.  Try prying a BMW from a German's hands.

[jakeroot]

The whole Americans (and Americans alone) having a love affair with the car is a myth.  Most areas that have cars like them, even dense Europe.  Try prying a BMW from a German's hands.

The difference is that, usually, they don't have to drive their cars to work or to the shops if they don't want to. Ultimately, most American suburbs have zero transit infrastructure, so folks are forced to either drive or ride their bike. Most countries like their cars, of course, but America has a certain obsession with them. I think it's a forced obsession, though. We really don't have any choice, in most parts of the country, but to love our cars -- it's our only way out of suburbia.

^^ It has less to do with a "love affair with the car" than pure logistics.  Buses won't work very well for small rural areas, unless you propose moving everyone into a very dense city, at least as dense as Chicago.

Rural bus service, at the very least, does serve the oldest of the population incapable of operating a motor vehicle, who often have no choice but to ride a bus.

[bzakharin]

The whole Americans (and Americans alone) having a love affair with the car is a myth.  Most areas that have cars like them, even dense Europe.  Try prying a BMW from a German's hands.

The difference is that, usually, they don't have to drive their cars to work or to the shops if they don't want to. Ultimately, most American suburbs have zero transit infrastructure, so folks are forced to either drive or ride their bike. Most countries like their cars, of course, but America has a certain obsession with them. I think it's a forced obsession, though. We really don't have any choice, in most parts of the country, but to love our cars -- it's our only way out of suburbia.

^^ It has less to do with a "love affair with the car" than pure logistics.  Buses won't work very well for small rural areas, unless you propose moving everyone into a very dense city, at least as dense as Chicago.

Rural bus service, at the very least, does serve the oldest of the population incapable of operating a motor vehicle, who often have no choice but to ride a bus.

The love affair with the car is absolutely real. Many bus routes are closing due to low ridership. People who can afford a car feel riding the bus is beneath them (trains are a bit different, but also a lot more expensive). You don't need for everyone to be in Chicago to provide sufficient bus service. You've got major freeways. Have a park and ride at every service area or every X miles, and frequent bus service that stops at every one. Have feeder buses from each park and ride through the neighborhoods.

[Brandon]

The whole Americans (and Americans alone) having a love affair with the car is a myth.  Most areas that have cars like them, even dense Europe.  Try prying a BMW from a German's hands.

The difference is that, usually, they don't have to drive their cars to work or to the shops if they don't want to. Ultimately, most American suburbs have zero transit infrastructure, so folks are forced to either drive or ride their bike. Most countries like their cars, of course, but America has a certain obsession with them. I think it's a forced obsession, though. We really don't have any choice, in most parts of the country, but to love our cars -- it's our only way out of suburbia.

^^ It has less to do with a "love affair with the car" than pure logistics.  Buses won't work very well for small rural areas, unless you propose moving everyone into a very dense city, at least as dense as Chicago.

Rural bus service, at the very least, does serve the oldest of the population incapable of operating a motor vehicle, who often have no choice but to ride a bus.

The love affair with the car is absolutely real. Many bus routes are closing due to low ridership. People who can afford a car feel riding the bus is beneath them (trains are a bit different, but also a lot more expensive). You don't need for everyone to be in Chicago to provide sufficient bus service. You've got major freeways. Have a park and ride at every service area or every X miles, and frequent bus service that stops at every one. Have feeder buses from each park and ride through the neighborhoods.

Maybe it's because buses don't go where people need to go and when they need to go.  They do cost a lot to run, and run empty.

[1995hoo]

Buses are also a problem for people who can't count on leaving work at exactly the same time every day.

[jakeroot]

Buses are also a problem for people who can't count on leaving work at exactly the same time every day.

If we expanded the bus routes to reach the far-reaching parts of suburbia, and ran the buses 24-hours, I could see ridership going up. Obviously that costs money, but a transit system that people actually enjoy don't mind using has a higher chance of being better funded (if I had to guess).

[AlexandriaVA]

Buses are also a problem for people who can't count on leaving work at exactly the same time every day.

I've always thought that for city transit/commuting buses, either run the buses frequently (every 15-20 minutes per hour off peak, and every 10 minutes peak) or don't run them at all. These once-an-hour buses that run in the outer suburbs of DC don't do anyone any favors really.

I always thought it was curious that one of the purported benefits of buses (according to anti-Metrorail or streetcar advocates) is their relative cheapness (you don't need to build a right-of-way! save m/billions!) Yet I never see many serious proposals for the headways I mentioned.

Rural bus service is different of course, with lower population density and customer base.

[jbnv]

The "love affair with the car" is very simple to explain. Freedom of choice and movement. Freedom to live wherever you want and to work wherever you want. Freedom to go do whatever you please at any time of the day. Freedom to buy all the groceries you need at one time, not just what you can carry. The car, or more precisely the car that any working person can afford, gives you that freedom. Bus lines do not.

You want me to use a bus? Fine. Have it show up at my house in tiny Independence and deliver me to the front door of my job in Hammond. Or Baton Rouge. Or New Orleans. Don't make me rely on changing buses once or more along the way. And you better be on time. The first day that I am late for my job because you were late picking me up is the last day that I use you. On second thought, forget all that. It's not going to happen.

[jeffandnicole]

The point was mentioned above: In order to serve rural areas, you have to run buses a lot...no less than every 1/2 hour.  And you have to run them in all sorts of directions.  If I need to grab a few items from a few different stores, what are the chances a bus - or a series of buses - will pick me up and drop me off at each of those individual stores, located miles apart?  And how long am I going to be waiting for those buses?  I could drive to a store, get what I want and leave within a few minutes, but with a bus I may have to wait a considerable amount of time.

And what if I want to go to a friend's house in the rural area?  What are the chances a bus is going to happen to go by both my house and that other house?

Buses are great for heavy density areas.  But the more rural the area, the less likely they will be of any assistance.  And buses are expensive to run.  A bus with 40 people in it costs just about the same as a bus with just a single passenger...or no passengers at all!

[AlexandriaVA]

I don't think anyone is realistically anticipating a mass mode shift from autos to buses in rural areas, such as Louisiana. The math just doesn't add up.

I think that cities, however, should make a point to either run buses well, or not run them at all and just subsidize a taxi service for the poor/disabled/elderly. I understand that in many parts of the country, municipal bus service is just that - transportation for the poor/disabled/elderly. It would probably be cheaper just to subsidize taxi service than deal with the overhead of running a transit system.

It would also help if retail and groceries were within walking distance of your house. But that's another debate for another forum.

[jeffandnicole]

I don't think anyone is realistically anticipating a mass mode shift from autos to buses in rural areas, such as Louisiana. The math just doesn't add up.

I think that cities, however, should make a point to either run buses well, or not run them at all and just subsidize a taxi service for the poor/disabled/elderly. I understand that in many parts of the country, municipal bus service is just that - transportation for the poor/disabled/elderly. It would probably be cheaper just to subsidize taxi service than deal with the overhead of running a transit system.

It would also help if retail and groceries were within walking distance of your house. But that's another debate for another forum.

Really, it would be helpful if your workplace was located within walking distance of your house, since that's the place more frequented.

[jbnv]

Really, it would be helpful if your workplace was located within walking distance of your house, since that's the place more frequented.

It would also be helpful if my mother and mother-in-law lived within walking distance of my house. And my stepson's biological father, who has visitation rights.

What's your plan for dealing with those realities? My plan for dealing with them is owning a car.

[1995hoo]

I sometimes hear "live where you work" from the so-called "smart growth" crowd. It's a nice idea in theory that doesn't account for a lot of real-world realities. I'm not trying to post an exhaustive list here, but a few things that commonly factor into the decision where to live might include:

–Housing prices (people often can't afford to live closer to work or right near the subway)
–Did your job location change? Moving just because your workplace moved is often unrealistic.
–Did you change jobs? Same comment from previous question applies (though perhaps you didn't need to take that job if the commute is awful)
–Two-earner households where they have jobs in different locations/directions (my parents, who are now retired, were a good example–Dad worked downtown and Mom worked in Centreville, and they lived (still live) just east of Fairfax City, which was roughly halfway between the two....though the main reason they chose that house is addressed in the following comment)
–For people who have kids, do not underestimate the importance of which schools the kids will attend. At least in my area, a lot of parents are willing to subject themselves to a miserable commute if it means their kids will attend better schools, and I can't blame them for that.

[AlexandriaVA]

With commuting, you are locked into the fact that you have to commute to your employer, regardless of proximity. Thus ideally, major employers are located on major transportation networks (highways, rail lines, and high-capacity bus lines). That way you get network and volume benefits from many people using high-capacity networks.

For non-commuting, such as groceries and retail, you can get much more generic - people will generally shop at the closest locations which provides the goods and services they want. I picture a situation where those services are very close to where people live.

[AlexandriaVA]

I sometimes hear "live where you work" from the so-called "smart growth" crowd. It's a nice idea in theory that doesn't account for a lot of real-world realities. I'm not trying to post an exhaustive list here, but a few things that commonly factor into the decision where to live might include:

–Housing prices (people often can't afford to live closer to work or right near the subway)

Probably the biggest factor. Although I would argue that the "Metro Premium" on housing prices simply means that there isn't enough subway-proximate housing. Recent trends allow for greater density near Metro stations in the DC area, which is a good approach.

–Did your job location change? Moving just because your workplace moved is often unrealistic.
–Did you change jobs? Same comment from previous question applies (though perhaps you didn't need to take that job if the commute is awful)
–Two-earner households where they have jobs in different locations/directions (my parents, who are now retired, were a good example–Dad worked downtown and Mom worked in Centreville, and they lived (still live) just east of Fairfax City, which was roughly halfway between the two....though the main reason they chose that house is addressed in the following comment)

This are game-changing phenomena which old planning models have a hard time addressing. Namely, husband and wife both working professional jobs, along with the more transient nature of work these days. In years past, usually the wife wouldn't work, or would work a generic non-skilled job which could be worked at the nearest grocery store/department store/etc. That, along with the fact that guaranteed employment for the extent of your career with a single employer is basically a thing of the past (although the Federal Government is a holdover).

–For people who have kids, do not underestimate the importance of which schools the kids will attend. At least in my area, a lot of parents are willing to subject themselves to a miserable commute if it means their kids will attend better schools, and I can't blame them for that.

This is one of these topics which I understand why people do it, but I don't have too much patience for it either. I've found in the DC area that when people talk about wanting "good" or "family-friendly" schools, they're employing code which really means that they want a school where the population is 75+% white and Asian. What they may not realize is that a "bad" school in FCPS or Arlington is still ridiculously off the charts nationally. I went to what a lot of the whispering housewives in FCPS considered to be a "bad" school and I performed better in college than many kids I knew who went to "better" high schools. It ultimately came down to my work ethic and intellectual curiosity, which I had and they didn't.

[MikeTheActuary]

The point was mentioned above: In order to serve rural areas, you have to run buses a lot...no less than every 1/2 hour.  And you have to run them in all sorts of directions.  If I need to grab a few items from a few different stores, what are the chances a bus - or a series of buses - will pick me up and drop me off at each of those individual stores, located miles apart?  And how long am I going to be waiting for those buses?  I could drive to a store, get what I want and leave within a few minutes, but with a bus I may have to wait a considerable amount of time.

Actually, given modern communications and navigation possibilities, I wonder if a service somewhere between Uber/Lyft and conventional bus service could be developed.

In areas with high density population and established ridership patterns, you have conventional scheduled mass transit routes.   But for less dense / less predictable areas, have some kind of demand service, where a bus route is dynamically created as riders call/schedule pickups, either ferrying them within those zone, transporting them to/from a transfer to a conventional route, or taking them directly to/from a commercial hub.

It wouldn't be good for impromptu trips, but if the service were good and not too outrageously priced, I could see it fitting into the commuting mix in some metro areas.

Of course, given improvements in technology, I have to imagine that the proportion of workers who telecommute will continue to grow, potentially reducing some of those transportation stresses.

[AlexandriaVA]

The point was mentioned above: In order to serve rural areas, you have to run buses a lot...no less than every 1/2 hour.  And you have to run them in all sorts of directions.  If I need to grab a few items from a few different stores, what are the chances a bus - or a series of buses - will pick me up and drop me off at each of those individual stores, located miles apart?  And how long am I going to be waiting for those buses?  I could drive to a store, get what I want and leave within a few minutes, but with a bus I may have to wait a considerable amount of time.

Actually, given modern communications and navigation possibilities, I wonder if a service somewhere between Uber/Lyft and conventional bus service could be developed.

In areas with high density population and established ridership patterns, you have conventional scheduled mass transit routes.   But for less dense / less predictable areas, have some kind of demand service, where a bus route is dynamically created as riders call/schedule pickups, either ferrying them within those zone, transporting them to/from a transfer to a conventional route, or taking them directly to/from a commercial hub.

It wouldn't be good for impromptu trips, but if the service were good and not too outrageously priced, I could see it fitting into the commuting mix in some metro areas.

Of course, given improvements in technology, I have to imagine that the proportion of workers who telecommute will continue to grow, potentially reducing some of those transportation stresses.

Maybe when you get to the bus stop, you press a button (similar to a flag stop on the railroad), and a computer can plot the most efficient route to pick up everyone who has called for a ride.

[jeffandnicole]

To be clear, I live 41 miles away from my workplace.

Due to the road network, many people that live within 10 or 15 miles of the workplace here can take 30 minute or so to get to/from work.  I live 3x-4x the distance, and I can get to work, or get home, in about 40 - 60 minutes, depending on traffic.  A lot further distance mileage-wise, but not all that much further time-wise.

One annoying remark from the pro-train crowd is when a new train line, light-rail line, or train station is built, promoters will often say that you can now purchase a house near the train line and never have to drive to work.  Which is true...if you are always going to work at a location accessed by that train line.  And if you and your spouse/significant other/other drivers in the family all can commute via train line as well.  But we all know that's generally not the case! 

So in the end, it adds some significant use to the road system, which didn't get improved because the money was spent on a rail line, which in order to create use spurred the development that is overloading the road system!

[GaryV]

It would also be helpful if my mother and mother-in-law lived within walking distance of my house. And my stepson's biological father, who has visitation rights.

Why?       

[Bruce]

To be clear, I live 41 miles away from my workplace.

Due to the road network, many people that live within 10 or 15 miles of the workplace here can take 30 minute or so to get to/from work.  I live 3x-4x the distance, and I can get to work, or get home, in about 40 - 60 minutes, depending on traffic.  A lot further distance mileage-wise, but not all that much further time-wise.

One annoying remark from the pro-train crowd is when a new train line, light-rail line, or train station is built, promoters will often say that you can now purchase a house near the train line and never have to drive to work.  Which is true...if you are always going to work at a location accessed by that train line.  And if you and your spouse/significant other/other drivers in the family all can commute via train line as well.  But we all know that's generally not the case! 

So in the end, it adds some significant use to the road system, which didn't get improved because the money was spent on a rail line, which in order to create use spurred the development that is overloading the road system!

A good light rail system will have tons of bus connections feeding into every station, so someone living near transit-oriented development will be able to use the train for the bulk of their total commute. It seems to work pretty well, with the number of car-less households being very high near light rail stations in some areas (Portland and Seattle to name a few).