|
You know, if self-driving cars get stymied by lovely lane markings, that's not a good sign for any place that gets snow.
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:08 |
|
|
Cicero posted:I'm sure they'll figure it out roughly the same way humans do: guess at where the lanes should be based on the size of the road and where other cars currently are. Easier said than done. If they can't handle marginal road markings, how are they going to do that?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
The city of Edmonton just decided to cut service to the bone on routes where they were effectively subsidizing fares to the tune of $10/person, to increase capacity on routes that are overcrowded. Intuitively, it seems like a good idea to me, but I'm curious what people with more expertise think. Arguably, it could result in suburbanites having an even dimmer view of transit.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Maybe if your primary market aged 60+ had loving walked more during their life, they would still be able to climb stairs. Say what? I know lots of people who busted their rear end in extremely physical jobs their whole life who are probably going to have trouble climbing stairs come retirement age, just because their joints are shot. If you're physically unable to move your corpulent husk up a flight of stairs due to size constraints of the stairwell, that's a different matter.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:This, but unironically. I think they're starting to come around though, judging by my parents at least. They have a deposit on a downtown condo and they basically can't wait to downsize, and have close access to a whole bunch of restaurants and cultural things, and a food store within walking distance, the ease of travelling when you don't have to get your lawn mowed or snow shovelled, etc. They haven't lived in an apartment since they were in their early 20s, but are looking forward to this all of a sudden. I think there's hope.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
On the subject of bikeshares, I still haven't seen a good solution to the fact that there's no infrastructure to provide helmet rentals (which would be gross anyway). Maybe I'm taking the indoctrination of my childhood too seriously, but that seems like an irresponsible thing. That issue actually kept me from using the bikeshare in Montreal unless I was drunk enough to not care, because I was/am retarded.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Helmets are generally seen as necessary in America because our bike infrastructure is horrible. If you look at places with high bike rates like Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Munich, etc. practically nobody wears helmets and it's fine. I don't think it really has to do with the bike infrastructure. Even with good infrastructure, accidents happen. I ended up with a concussion when I was a kid, due to another cyclist basically crashing into me as I was stopped. I can't remember if I was wearing a helmet, but I was either lucky to have been wearing a helmet (because I would've got much worse than a concussion) or I should've been wearing a helmet, to prevent the concussion. Most people who don't wear seatbelts are fine, too, right up until they aren't fine any more.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
My city is in the planning stage of a new LRT line, and I just saw an interview with one of our councillors talking about how they don't want an elevated track in the downtown area. As a resident of the downtown area, I would prefer an elevated line to a street-level line (although an underground line would be my preference), to keep the streets and sidewalks clear for normal traffic and business, etc. Could someone with more experience/information than me explain what, apart from cost, is the disadvantage of an elevated line that I'm not considering?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
That's cool and good, I have no idea why YUL doesn't have a train connection to downtown in a city that has, otherwise, very good rail transit. Every airport in a major city should be reachable by metro or light rail, in my opinion. Buses are especially intimidating and unpleasant for people who don't know exactly where they're going, which describes every tourist/visitor. Also, they often can't use google maps to use transit, because of international data roaming fees.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Look, I understand this. You understand this. How the gently caress do you effectively communicate this to the commercial establishment owner in a downtown that their business is dying because of too much parking and not enough residents immediately surrounding their location, without them just bitching about the weather? I think the problem is there's too much long-stay parking and too few loading zones for couriers or people who are picking something up. Ultimately, there are businesses that sell certain products which are difficult to carry on foot or on a bicycle or on transit -- liquor stores come to mind -- but they don't need huge parking lots, they just need a loading zone nearby that can hold two or three vehicles. We need more loading zones and 1-Hour spaces at the expense of long-stay spots.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Believe you me --- a motivated drinker will find a way. Take a backpack with ya, and those 4 bottles of scotch become that much easier to carry. Four bottles is easy as pie. I'm thinking a case of wine -- that's a prick to carry over a kilometre or so. Most of the liquor stores around here have delivery services for such things, which is good (because a large delivery van can make multiple pickups and dropoffs in a single trip, increasing efficiency) but it does require loading zone availability to be efficient on both ends. Long-term parking fucks everything up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Cicero posted:A case of wine doesn't sound too hard to carry on bike with a large basket, or a rack with cables. Lots of people in bike-friendly cities do grocery shopping on bikes. A very large basket indeed, assuming you have a case of 12 bottles. And it doesn't scale, whereas a delivery van can carry tens of cases of wine. I do grocery shopping on foot and carry everything home on a regular basis. A case of wine is way heavier and more awkward than a few bags of groceries. Besides which, my original point was about the fact there's good reasons for loading zones to exist when compared with parking spots in general, just like commercial vehicles are often granted access to streets that are otherwise restricted. Sometimes a motor vehicle really is the best tool for the job, and by removing personal motor vehicles as a common means of just getting from point A to point B and staying for a while, we can make those other motor vehicles even more efficient.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Eh, I carry my four year old on my road bike and it's not so bad, he probably weighs a similar amount to a case of wine. Yes, but he's an usually convenient shape for carrying on a bicycle, almost as if bicycles were designed for carrying people. Weight isn't the only concern: cases that are packed 2x6 horizontally instead of 4x3 vertically would be somewhat more difficult to carry, for example. But ultimately it doesn't matter. There's also dry-cleaning, delivering equipment to a business/home, etc. My Imaginary GF posted:So make a friend and have them help you. Bring a radio flyer with you to pull back. Make two trips. Hire an Uber, but for alcohol. All of those make more money for everyone in accord with the evidence-based best-practices for community development. And where will the Uber for alcohol park as he is picking things up and dropping things off? I agree 100% that courier services are the better way to go, which is precisely why I want more loading zones to allow them to do their job efficiently. My Imaginary GF posted:Yes, there are great reasons for loading zones. I think the issue is that businesses want a 40" semi to be able to back up to their front door, when their delivery takes up only 16 cubic feet. Oh yeah, that's dumb. I'm thinking a courier fleet with Transit vans, or in particularly congested areas, Transit Connect-sized vehicles. The loading zones could be exactly like on-street parking is right now (in fact, this is how they work in my city), except if you linger there like a bad fart, they fine you or tow your vehicle. I'm looking at it as more of a way to do more with fewer spaces by encouraging/mandating those spaces to turn over on an extremely regular basis. That way, you could take a street that has parking on both sides, and put a bike lane in on one side (eliminating the parking) and still have sufficient space for people to go about their business. That's basically what they did in my city, but they kept the parking on the other side as a 2-hour zone, so it's nearly goddamn impossible to find a parking spot when you just need to do a pick-up or drop-off of something awkward, large or heavy. EDIT: Also, I think congestion charging in city centres and toll roads in general would be a good thing. You want the convenience of a car? Good, then you can drat well pay for it. EDIT 2: To simply as much as possible: motor vehicles should be used almost exclusively for moving goods. Transit systems, bikes and walking should be used to move people. PT6A fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Apr 26, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Are you paying the transporter to park, or to deliver the goods? Well, I don't want him to throw it out the window as he drives by, nor accept the pickup by having it unceremoniously hurled into his trunk, so I consider parking (twice!) to be a necessary part of the delivery of goods. Do you have a way of avoiding this problem?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Yes. I inspect the goods upon arrival and pay for them when they are undamaged. How are they delivering things to you without stopping their vehicle somewhere, though? How are they picking the goods up without stopping their vehicle somewhere? I guess you're correct that, technically, the delivery of the goods is the important part, but I fail to see how it can be accomplished without stopping the vehicle for a time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Eskaton posted:How loving often are you guys buying cases of wine? Jesus, what a dumb point to goon about. Not frequently at all, but occasionally. That's exactly why an infrastructure that supports primarily goods handling via motor vehicle and people-moving by transit is the best system, instead of using private motor vehicles as a primary means of transportation for people. My point is that this could be easily accomplished by removing on-street parking and replacing it with short-term loading zones.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Eskaton posted:Most good new parking policy aims to eliminate cruising like that. Don't you see, though? Apparently we are trying to micromanage delivery people by providing them convenient ways to complete their job, or some such thing. MIGF's proposed system of "having kids in the car to get out while the driver cruises" also suffers from the fact that, in the absence of parking, you have to stop in the middle of the street to load the kids and the cargo, which is a bad thing. But, I will concede to him, it is possible and we shouldn't mandate that couriers do things one way or the other 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Ah yes, but if moving violations and parking tickets become a "cost of doing business" for couriers, then the costs will be passed on to the consumer, decreasing the attractiveness of using a delivery service compared to driving one's personal car and finding/paying for parking.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Lol, what revenue streams? The ones they sold to private enterprise for 75 years? Fines. See also: red-light cameras, speed-on-green cameras, speed traps in general, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
redscare posted:Oh, shake-downs. Definitely how we want to fund infrastructure. I think it's a horrible idea, I'm just pointing out that's what MIGF was talking about. Fame Douglas posted:There's always the option of not breaking traffic law to escape the "shakedown". The problem with fixed cameras is they don't discourage breaking traffic laws in general, only in the specific places where practically everyone knows they are. God bless my city for embracing them wholeheartedly, it's made it possible for me to speed almost everywhere and never get a speeding ticket.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Personally speaking, I'd rather walk an extra 600m to get to a bus stop and not have to stop every 20 seconds thereafter, rather than having bus stops every 400m instead of every kilometre. Regardless of actual efficiency, I simply loathe feeling like I'm not making any forward progress at a given time. It sounds pretty stupid when I type it out, though.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:Absolutely loads of them. On those busy urban corridors, is it best to have 4-5 stops per mile on separate routes (which may overlap significantly), or 4-5 stops per mile on the same route? If it's all on the same route, that would drive me bonkers, but if there are 5 different bus routes that all use the same street for a significant distance (not at all uncommon in many urban areas), then having each bus route with 2 stops every mile or something would make a lot of sense to me. For example, in Calgary, most of the bus routes will use either 7th Avenue (2-way, with LRT), or 6th/9th Ave (each one-way) in downtown, and then go wherever else. In that case, it makes a lot of sense to have a bus stop on every block, but that doesn't mean that every bus route will have a stop every block.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:Ahahahaha. The American standard is 7-10 stops per mile on the same bus route. Good lord, the bus must spend more time stopped than moving. All to save 200m walking? EDIT: Obviously they wouldn't stop at every stop all the time, but during a high-demand period like rush hour that just seems so completely inefficient.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:I believe optimal locations are simply prioritized over optimal spacing in many cases. That makes sense, I suppose. I'm not entirely clear about why there'd be that quantity of optimal locations, mind you. What I'd really like to see are bus systems that announce every stop so I don't need to obsessively follow my progress on Google Maps if I'm going to an area I'm unfamiliar with. We're halfway there, because now the buses will automatically announce some stops, but having stops announced at random isn't particularly helpful.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
less than three posted:Those systems exist! You just need to leave your little bubble in Calgary. I know, I've used them in other cities and countries. I should've said: I would like to see all bus systems work that way, because there's absolutely no reason they shouldn't.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
I just wanted to pop in and say I've been in Madrid for three days and I forgot just how much I love and appreciate the metro. Seriously, let's build this poo poo in every major city, it makes my life so much better.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:There are these things called "taxis" And if you live in the middle of nowhere, they're expensive and they take forever to arrive. I'm with MIGF on this one.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Hmm maybe don't live in a bumfuck shithole then. I don't. I live in a walkable urban area with passable transit for when it's needed, and short cab rides if I want to save some time. I wouldn't have it any other way; I'm just pointing out that the existence of taxis hardly makes the misery of living in suburbia any better. Also, mixed-use buildings/developments are awesome because it means there's tonnes of restaurants and shops and offices all close to where I or other people are living. I don't need to walk a long way or drive to access whatever I need.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
Also worth noting: there are places where you can rent parking out for more than you could an apartment, square foot-wise. Covered climate-controlled parking in downtown Calgary was going for $625/month and there was a waiting list until the price of oil collapsed. Now there's no waiting list, but I doubt prices have gone down hugely.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2016 09:19
|
|
|
Gold and a Pager posted:I think it's more like in that part of Canada it gets so cold that you need a engine block heater running overnight or else your car won't start, not that you might have to sweat for 5 minutes before the A/C kicks in. Also the parkades can be connected via +15 so you don't have to go outside, not do you ever have to scrape ice off. They are never air conditioned, mind you. That would be silly. Mind you, they are covered, and therefore do not become ovens in the summer.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Trip report: buses that announce all stops, and accurate real-time trackers, make taking buses much less awful. God knows why these things continue to baffle Calgary Transit so much... It's not like A Coruņa is some huge metropolis with a giant economy.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
Curvature of Earth posted:The only real-time tracking my rinky-dink local bus system uses is you calling the transit department and them in turn calling the bus driver's work cell. It was the only way I could find out whether the bus skipped my stop or it was just really, really late the last time it snowed. (It skipped my stop and I was late to classes that day It's really sad. I was watching BBC and I saw a story about how they're installing tap cards on buses in Kigali, Rwanda, and yet we still can't get a working system in a first-world city of over 1,000,000 people after three expensive failed attempts. I mean, it boggles my loving mind how they managed to screw up this many times. We have a system on some buses that announces stops, too, but it doesn't announce every stop so it's literally worse than having nothing at all, because you can't rely on it. And our "real-time tracking system" has shown me buses that don't ever show up, not to mention the boards at train stations which seem to display the times of upcoming trains with no reference to reality at all. Were we just unlucky or did we hire incompetent people or what? How did this many things get hosed up when it seems like every other place can manage it?
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2016 22:08
|
|
)
|
HorseLord posted:Typically any large scale IT project like this is farmed out to private companies, who get the contract written up as lax as possible while technically-not-bribing the other party into accepting it. So they can drag their asses on developing it for as long as possible so they get paid more, deliver a dogshit product, and then get to provide extortionately priced "support" for many more years. The local government feller who got their proposal accepted then gets a cushy position at the company when their term expires. That still doesn't explain why other cities, which probably follow this same process, manage to emerge with a functioning system at the end of it. Three attempts over the last decade and we still don't have it.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Living in one of those 8 metro areas with 24/7 (though only barely, of Minneapolis/St Paul's two rail lines, one runs hourly overnight) I will say that occasionally the rail system just gets shut down for a weekend and replaced with buses. We've also got enough crossovers that a section of track can be closed and run single tracked. That only works because of our comparatively low frequencies though, 10 minutes normally, and they would have to 15 minute or something to run single track. Calgary lacks both 24-hour service, and the train gets shut down all the time over weekends. The worst of all worlds!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:08 |
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Speaking at least for myself, I think a lot of folks think of cars as both a necessity and a sunk cost, so that diminishes the appeal of transit. I think part of the issue is that, as soon as you need a car for even one thing, you have that car for everything and you only consider the marginal cost of using it for something where it wouldn't be necessary.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 04:37
|
|