Re: The insane progress nobody is talking about

Paul S Person wrote:

On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 20:29:30 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
 

The Horny Goat wrote:

On 27 Jun 2024 22:06:45 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>

My case is a clear no go - there's a commuter rail station about a
mile away, but the Boston commuter system as designed with the
assumption that everyone wanted to go to the city center - my last work
place was about 8 miles out, but NW of town, while I live W of town.

>
Boston and DC both have systems built that way, with no rings at all, and
it is increasingly limiting their usefulness as fewer and fewer people are
working in the city center.   In the case of Boston the commuter rail is
actually a lot better than the subway, but the subway is a major problem.
In the case of DC there is talk about adding some rings in the future
and there is a good chance of the purple line happening but it's really
too little and too late.
--scott

>
So does Vancouver - I had to go to the pharmacy yesterday (I'm
temporarily unable to drive due to recent eye surgery) and had to bus
it and had to take 2 buses - both of which eventually went or had come
from downtown simply to go what is generally a 10-15 minute drive for
me. Given the outside temperature (high 80s / low 90s) I was not
amused at having a 15-20 minute wait at my transfer point (which was
far away from the straight line path from home to pharmacy)
>
It was unnecessarily getting up from the bus stop and walking around
constantly simply to get some air flow....

>
I was preemptively getting  ready to vent some ire at the Toronto
Transit commission today, but the scheming rascals preempted my
preemption by giving me a smooth and timely trip. Some people!
>
But yes, bus-to-bus transfers are always a heart attack waiting to happen.
>
Still, by law I have to complain about something, so I will.  All bus
stops need benches.  If we stopped renaming things to appease the
ill-informed we could use the money for that.

 Provided the transit system owns the rights to the space required.
"Owns" here may be literal (leased from a private owner) or, more
likely, may mean that the land was designated for their use by the
gummint (who owns it). Other complications are possible.
 Anyhoo, a when King County took over Seattle Transit, Seattle paid
them for a "free ride zone" downtown. This allowed shoppers and those
we now call "the homeless" could ride about as needed for free. This
was implemented by collecting the fare (on inbound trips) when the bus
was entered and (on outbound trips) when the bus was exited.
 Which meant that, except for downtown, everybody exited and entered
(in that order) the bus at the front.
 Which meant that the bus stops outside the ride-free area were not
bus-length because they didn't have to be, no doubt saving money and
making more spaces available.
 Well, that changed. Everybody paid when the got on. And, except for
those who needed the "kneeling bus" feature (available only at the
front), everybody got off at the rear. Which could be:
 1. a shrubbery (with associated tripping hazard)
2. a driveway (adding 3" to the drop from bus to ground)
3. a few inches away (for articulated buses that were swung slightly
away from the curb in back, adding inches to the space to be traversed
in a single step unless you wanted to step down into the street, a
good 3" below the curb)
 The first two, of course, illustrate why some of the new bus stops
/had/ to be so short: a stop capable of accomodating a long
(articulated) bus -- or in some cases even a short bus -- would not
have been practical, particularly if it collided with a driveway.

That's a lot of problems we just don't have.  Possibly due to greater municipal powers.
Buses are now accessible by a debit card or, if you wish, a special transit card.  For two hours after you pay all rides are free.  So yesterday I could go downtown to BMV bookstore, take he subway  to a grocery store for items not available here in the hinterland, get a good
coffee ditto, then take subway and bus back here, all for one fare.
Back in the dim and terrible past of transit zones, that would have been four fares.  Another example of progress!

 As to renaming things -- well, sometimes that is clearly a good idea.
Other times it may not be so clear.

As I said, uninformed. If informed, great.  I would be all for  renaming King Leopold II square, if such existed, and from books like "Bury the Chains" one can find the names of dozens of largely unrecognized heroes whose names would adorn any public area.  And who are largely forgotten today.
I would even go for naming something after Wilberforce, despite the shame the bishop brought to the family.
William Hyde