What's wrong with LYNX?

[prahaboheme]

But to acknowledge that bikes and buses move more slowly than cars is to acknowledge that cars get folks to work more quickly than at least two generally lauded forms of 'alternative transit'.

Just thought I'd point that out.

[Dale]

Though not faster than commuter rail.  It is, hands down, a faster ride everywhere I have used it.  As for subways/lightrails, travel times really depend on the system, but I suppose there is a philosophy behind mass transit that exists in dense, urban cities that doesn't exist in sprawling ones (in regards to car travel time vs. alternative mode travel time).  I prefer mass transit to my own car, but I understand that most Floridians do not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, commuter rail is fast. And it looks like we're going to get at least that much.

Thanks to Crotty. B)

[bic]

Not to mention the fact that Las Vegas has a network of casino owners who have a lot of pull in the city's politics. Orlando basically has Disney and to a lesser extend Universal, only the major player in Disney does everything in its power to discourage people from leaving its property and to thwart any sort of effort that could benefit its competitors (light/high-speed rail). Las Vegas' casino owners understand that increasing the number of ways people can get to Vegas and move around the city can only help their business.

Unfortunately, here in Central Florida we have the City of Orlando and Orange County constantly bickering; Disney in battle with Universal, SeaWorld, and I-Drive; and municipal government kissing Disney's ass...and so it takes forever for anything to get down around here, if at all. Also, on on the high-speed rail subject, it didn't help that our governor decided he didn't like the idea that was voted into the constitution and manipulated the system to have voters repeal the amendment.

[prahaboheme]

Yes, commuter rail is fast. And it looks like we're going to get at least that much.

Thanks to Crotty.  B)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean thanks to Mica. He is the visionary.

[Dale]

You mean thanks to Mica.  He is the visionary.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, yeah. Him too.

[Dale]

Did everyone notice the Sentinel's grudging comendation of Crotty's newfound enthusiasm for the rail project ?

[prahaboheme]

Did everyone notice the Sentinel's grudging comendation of Crotty's newfound enthusiasm for the rail project ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No.

[bande_originale]

But to acknowledge that bikes and buses move more slowly than cars is to acknowledge that cars get folks to work more quickly than at least two generally lauded forms of 'alternative transit'.

Just thought I'd point that out. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shaving a few minutes off of your time getting to work is worth up to three times the cost (if you use my Chicago example)? What about pollution, space occupied, and everything else that concerns people who care about cities?

The City of San Francisco was planning to spend $15.9M to develop a 226-space parking structure in North Beach a few years ago. Someone from the SF Bike Coalition brought it to the city's attention that if they bought $200 bikes to use in a bike-sharing program, a la Davis, they could purchase 79,500 of them, disperse them all over the city, and let them be used for free. That's more than one bike for every 10 San Franciscans, and a back-of-the-envelope estimate for auto trips saved was somewhere between 2 and 2.5 million a year (which is something like each of those bikes getting used only twice a month by a would-be motorist: a conservative estimate by all means). By contrast, the parking structure alternative would have provided approximately one parking space for every 3,435 San Franciscans and geographically dispersing the facilities would not be possible.

The economic impacts of accommodating cars as the first priority are going to eat American society alive. It's worth noting that if the costs to society begin to impact the economy through lost jobs, a few minutes off the commute won't matter too much.

Just thought I'd point that out.

[Dale]

Shaving a few minutes off of your time getting to work is worth up to three times the cost (if you use my Chicago example)?  What about pollution, space occupied, and everything else that concerns people who care about cities? 

The City of San Francisco was planning to spend $15.9M to develop a 226-space parking structure in North Beach a few years ago.  Someone from the SF Bike Coalition brought it to the city's attention that if they bought $200 bikes to use in a bike-sharing program, a la Davis, they could purchase 79,500 of them, disperse them all over the city, and let them be used for free.  That's more than one bike for every 10 San Franciscans, and a back-of-the-envelope estimate for auto trips saved was somewhere between 2 and 2.5 million a year (which is something like each of those bikes getting used only twice a month by a would-be motorist: a conservative estimate by all means).  By contrast, the parking structure alternative would have provided approximately one parking space for every 3,435 San Franciscans and geographically dispersing the facilities would not be possible.

The economic impacts of accommodating cars as the first priority are going to eat American society alive.  It's worth noting that if the costs to society begin to impact the economy through lost jobs, a few minutes off the commute won't matter too much.

Just thought I'd point that out. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Very witty.

Now I'll be really impressed if you're able to come up with a way I can run my sales route on bike, without experiencing overtraining syndrome, and without my having to write home to my family.

[bic]

Very witty.

Now I'll be really impressed if you're able to come up with a way I can run my sales route on bike, without experiencing overtraining syndrome, and without my having to write home to my family. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the case of that San Francisco story, the theory would be that with so many people using bicycles for their short routes rather than cars, there would be less traffic congestion in the city and therefore less demand for vehicular parking. Obviously people won't commute from Palo Alto to downtown San Francisco on a bike, but because there would be so many people in the city's core using bicycles instead of cars for their short hops, those commuters would experience less traffic and find parking more easily once they got to downtown. There would be less demand for new parking garages, and those people who still have to use their cars for whatever reasons (i.e. sales routes) can do so with much less congestion. Not to mention that would save you time, gas, and money.

Mind you this is all in theory.

[bic]

Source - Metroplan Mobility Report 2005

[bande_originale]

Notice that in these figures the large metro areas are seemingly having less effect in curbing delay time than the very large areas. If I had to guess I would say this is because more of them are high-growth areas with nascent transit systems; thus they're finding it harder to develop alternatives. To do so takes time and money; many of the very large areas already have good systems and expansion of those (combined with more transit-supportive development patterns in recent years) might account for the reductions in delay time seen in those cases. Or maybe not.

It's going to be hard to give up private transportation; I'll give you that. Transportation planners know and appreciate this. I imagine it would in fact be hard to do a sales route on a bicycle. I travel to Philadelphia for work every so often and I would love being able to take the SEPTA R1 from the airport and bus and subway everywhere else I need to go. Technically I could, but the lost time (which I have to bill to clients) is too expensive to make it feasible. It bothers me that the economics of business keep me from practicing what I preach, but until transit coverage is universal and regular it will be difficult to rely on it completely.

But back in little Orlando I do not drive to work. I work downtown and parking fees range from $40 to $90 a month. I live a 20-minute walk from my office (8 minutes on a bike), so it seems a no-brainer to me. I'll get exercise, not pollute, and save myself up to $1000 a year. Cars are damn practical for some things: if we were to ever get an IKEA in Orlando I don't see that biking there would always be feasible. They do a good job condensing space when they pack their stuff, but not *that* good.

My big argument is that the playing field is not level. This thread originated from a question on why LYNX seems to be so persistently unattractive as an option. The greatest single problem that can be identified is that automobiles drive far too many decisions for development to occur in a way that supports a public good like transit.

[Jaybee]

I think the problem is a combination of design and density. Orange County is built at about 3-5 units to the acre. For decent BRT-LRT transit to work, you need entire corridors of 40 units to the acre, designed well to complement transit. Commuter rail is good for long-distance travel to outlying areas, especially when there are limited stops and low densities. The trick is to get circulators or streetcars to your final desitination in areas where there are high-concentrated employement centers. We do have that in Downtown Orlando and at the Hospitals north and south of Downtown. To a lesser extent, we have that in Maitland. Hopefully cities will start to plan to create destinations around their proposed transit stops as well as feeder lines that people will want to ride to their final destination.