Mass Transit

[editec]

Oh boy, that's a riot. So now, public transport is a more healthy lifestyle.
Bwahahahahaha.

Brilliant! Make public transit a matter of good health. People will buy it, they'll buy anything!

Not feeling up to snuff?
Ride the bus!​

Cardiocascular system got you down?
Ride the subway across town.​

Feelin' low, feeling blue?
Public transit will pull you through.​

(in San Francisco)
I was FAT till I rode BAT​

(In Boston)
Why exercise every day?
Just take the MTA!​

 

[Diuretic]

Oh boy, that's a riot. So now, public transport is a more healthy lifestyle.
Bwahahahahaha.

No laughing matter, it's actually right. If you have to walk from home to public transport and then walk to your destination from there then you get much more incidental exercise than if you get in your car having walked to the garage or driveway from your living room, sit on your arse for the journey and then emerge in the car park and take the elevator to your office. I like to get off a stop ahead of the stop that is about three blocks from my work location and then just enjoy the walk. Added bonus, no dealing with dickheads who can't drive, the bus operator does that.

 

[alan1]

No laughing matter, it's actually right. If you have to walk from home to public transport and then walk to your destination from there then you get much more incidental exercise than if you get in your car having walked to the garage or driveway from your living room, sit on your arse for the journey and then emerge in the car park and take the elevator to your office. I like to get off a stop ahead of the stop that is about three blocks from my work location and then just enjoy the walk. Added bonus, no dealing with dickheads who can't drive, the bus operator does that.

Feel free to take the bus all you want.
Now, how about paying for it without my tax dollars.

 

[alan1]

Fat isn't an actual weight-height ratio like so many think. The fatty content of your body can be high without you weighing a lot, while it can be VERY low while weighing a lot. Being lazy will increase the fatty content and decrease muscle mass.

Being lazy doesn't cause that, being sedentary does.
I said I was lazy, not sedentary.

 

[Andrew2382]

I took the bus and train everyday when I lived in NYC, I rarely use anything down here in Miami though

 

[michiganFats]

I live right on the edge of the mass transit coverage in my metropolitan area, so I can't go anywhere on the bus except East, and I'm so far out from downtown that it just isn't worth it . If we had better coverage of the suburbs here I'd give up the car. When I was in the service I was in Monterey,CA for 3 years, and they had an awesome bus system. For $1.50, I could go anywhere from Monterey/Carmel all the way up through Santa Cruz, and for a few cents extra I could go all the way to San Francisco. I wish my area had the same commitment to public transportation that they have out in the Bay Area.

 

[alan1]

I live right on the edge of the mass transit coverage in my metropolitan area, so I can't go anywhere on the bus except East, and I'm so far out from downtown that it just isn't worth it . If we had better coverage of the suburbs here I'd give up the car. When I was in the service I was in Monterey,CA for 3 years, and they had an awesome bus system. For $1.50, I could go anywhere from Monterey/Carmel all the way up through Santa Cruz, and for a few cents extra I could go all the way to San Francisco. I wish my area had the same commitment to public transportation that they have out in the Bay Area.

Did you try and pick up chicks at the Santa Cruz beach boardwalk?

 

[Diuretic]

Feel free to take the bus all you want.
Now, how about paying for it without my tax dollars.

I pay for it with my tax dollars, if you you want to chip in though I'll have a word to the state government and they'll be in touch

 

[michiganFats]

Did you try and pick up chicks at the Santa Cruz beach boardwalk?

Actually, when I went to Santa Cruz, I spent way too much time in the head shops.

 

[DiveCon]

I think we ought to slowly get rid of all cars and create a light magnetic levitation rail system to replace autos altogether.

The investment to do this would be enormous, but the energy savings would more than pay for it.

We have more than enough rights of way to build these light rail systems, and I doubt they're cost much more per mile than building most roads.

Mag lev rail light rail systems can easily reach speeds of 200 - MPH and the whole thing can be run by computer.

You walk a block or two to your local station and transfer to intercity systems if your trip is longer than local.

We also ought to be creating pedestrian bike paths that give every person FREE passage from anyplace in America to any other place.

The cost of those people paths would be nominal, but I swear to God, if we built them, people WOULD use them, too. I can actually envision a whole way of life developing (for some Americans) based on not using (or using only minimally) those advanced transporation sytems I'm envisioning, too.

I'd ride bikes all the time if I had a SAFE PATH to take from place to place. AT 10 or 15 MPH even a trip of thirty or 40 miles is NBD

Seriously, instead of saving the AUTO INDUSTRY we really ought to be completely rethinking transportation in America entirely.

All transportation ought to be electric powered, 99% of the land transportation ought to be by rail including shipping material and people.

We ought to get rid of Jets' too.

They're incredibly wasteful, horribly polluting and they're not really all that much quicker, than serious modern light rail, either.

The FRENCH and Japanese have rails in service that do over 200 MPH in service now.

The USA can't do the same?

Sure it can.

And it should, too.

ROFLMAO

yeah, fat chance you'll EVER see something like that here in Maine
the cost would far outweigh the benefit

 

[Angel Heart]

It will never completely replace personal autos. I need a van or horses and a cart to get my life done... What one do you think causes more environmental damage?

http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/15389

Shift Happens

It’s estimated that each horse produced 15-30 pounds of manure per day. Remember, the horse population in New York City was about 170,000 in the 1880s. That means there were 3-4 million pounds of manure piling onto city streets each day.

In 1894, the Times of London estimated that every street in the city would be buried 9 feet deep in horse manure by 1950. A New York editorial estimated that horse manure would rival the height of Manhattan’s 30-story buildings by 1930. Also, each horse produced about a quart of urine daily. That makes about 40,000 gallons per day in New York and Brooklyn.

Thankfully, change was on the way. The first international Urban Planning Conference was held in New York in 1898. The topic of the conference: how to deal with horse pollution. Luckily for them, the automobile was beginning to usurp the horse’s role for transportation. Though experimental motor cars had been around for quite some time, the cities had previously banned them or limited their use for reasons varying from cars frightening children and horses, to cars being “rich men’s deadly toys.” The most well known regulation was Britain’s Red Flag law, which required all cars to be preceded by a man of foot carrying a red flag.

 

[editec]

ROFLMAO

yeah, fat chance you'll EVER see something like that here in Maine
the cost would far outweigh the benefit

You mean like our roads do now?

I quite agree.

 

[DiveCon]

You mean like our roads do now?

I quite agree.

ROADS!!!!!!, you have ROADS!?!?!?!?!?

 

[DiveCon]

actually, i mean the number of potential riders vs the actual cost of operation wouldnt be cost effective

 

[editec]

actually, i mean the number of potential riders vs the actual cost of operation wouldnt be cost effective

Me, too.

There is nothing inherently cost effective about gas powered one ton machines moving down a surface carrying a 110 lb woman on a surface road, either.

But, if as I am informed, rail is so much more energy efficient than autos, then the energy saving will more than make up for the additionall infrastructure costs of building it.

 

[Againsheila]

In Western Washington we have one of the best public transportation systems available, you can get anywhere by bus, and $2.00 at the most. I use it because it's economically more beneficial and safer than cars. The sad thing is that there are just too many motorists and most people who have cars do NOT actually own them, they are borrowing them from the bank. I can walk where a bus doesn't go, really, if you can't walk a mile at least to get somewhere then you are lazier than me.

I also live in Western Washington and unless you are traveling to or from Seattle, forget it. If I'd wanted to take a bus when I worked for United in Kent (I live in Federal Way), I would have had to take four buses on weekdays and five on Sunday. Travel time would have been from an hour and 1/2 to 2 and 1/2 hours by bus and it took 20 minutes by car.

We could learn a lot from Japan's mass transit system. Oh, and due to the hours I worked, forget getting a bus home at midnight at all.

When I worked for the Air Force at Boeing Plant II, I took the bus all the time, it was convenient, and a lot cheaper than a car, but as I said, unless you are going to Seattle, or from Seattle, forget it. It has gotten better over the last couple of years since we put in the transit center in Federal Way, but then again, it hasn't been here that long and there's already been two murders at the transit center, I'm not sure it's a fair trade.

 

[DiveCon]

Me, too.

There is nothing inherently cost effective about gas powered one ton machines moving down a surface carrying a 110 lb woman on a surface road, either.

But, if as I am informed, rail is so much more energy efficient than autos, then the energy saving will more than make up for the additionall infrastructure costs of building it.

ridership wouldnt be high enough to even cover the operational cost
thats why it will never work
hell, even in NYC the fares dont cover the actual costs of operation, it has to be subsidized

 

[alan1]

ridership wouldnt be high enough to even cover the operational cost
thats why it will never work
hell, even in NYC the fares dont cover the actual costs of operation, it has to be subsidized

That was kind of my point earlier in this thread.
Mass transit only works with taxpayer subsidies from other sources.
At least roads are built from the gasoline taxes from the actual users.

 

[DiveCon]

That was kind of my point earlier in this thread.
Mass transit only works with taxpayer subsidies from other sources.
At least roads are built from the gasoline taxes from the actual users.

exactly
they take money out of road funds to subsidize the rail, but if they dont have those funds because they tell everyone to stop driving, then they will have to get those funds from something else

 

[editec]

ridership wouldnt be high enough to even cover the operational cost
thats why it will never work
hell, even in NYC the fares dont cover the actual costs of operation, it has to be subsidized

Ridership isn't high enough to justify the building of many roads, but they're built nevertheless, DC.

Do remember, that the original question was the cost of building a rail infrastruture v the cost of bu8ilding a road infrastructure we're debating here.

If we want to include all the operational costs of rails, then we must compare all operational costs of the proposed rail transit system against all cost of all roads and ALL the costs of all the cars using those roads to make a truly fair comparison.

Gas powered vehicular travel are probably the least efficient system (in terms of miles of service V cost per passenger mile) of any transporation system we have.