Re: The insane progress nobody is talking about

On 6/23/2024 9:12 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 11:07:21 -0600, John Savard
<quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:
 

On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 09:15:56 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>

Kind of like Rapid Transit, which promises that, in 30 years, there
will be 30% fewer cars on the road /than there would be without it/,
not 30% fewer than there are today.

>
Here in Edmonton, a couple of years ago we had a massive change to all
our bus routes.
>
The main upshot for the inner city is that the routes have been
"optimized", but their frequency of service has been reduced in many
instances, meaning a bus trip needs to be planned ahead, not done on
impulse. (This makes it easier to comply with the single-use bag
bylaw!)
>
This was done to free up resources to increase bus service to the
suburbs. The hope was that this would result in the people whoi live
there, who pretty much all have cars, taking the bus more often.
>
It is a good intention, since reducing carbon emissions is important,
but expecting people with cars to start taking the bus? Anyone who
lived in the real world would have known this was ludicrous. So they
just ruined the bus service for people who need the bus for no reason.

 I will start using the bus service when it takes me from where I am to
where I want to go, and picks me up when I have my coat on, no sooner
and not much later.
 Doesn't matter, since this town has no bus service -- and can't have
any.  Mass transit works only when masses want to transit.

For someone who already has a car to switch to public transit would
require the PT to be *substantially* cheaper, faster, or more
convenient.
It can happen, but, for example, a commute to my last workplace by
PT would take over 4.5 hours, vs 45 minutes to an hour by car. It
would include about 20 minutes of walking, commuter rail, Boston T,
and a bus.
It would be hard to persuade me to do that.
pt