Yes, we do want to tweak our bus system in ways that will reduce--not increase--car dependence. Park'n'rides can be gathering places for more than cars: people who walk and bike can--and do--use them. But there are still far too few of them in Tompkins County (and beyond).
And there should be a shelter too, so people aren't sitting in their cars with the engine idling while they run the heat or the AC. But that's also a good reason for having relatively predictable schedules. Plus five minutes is OK; being off by 30= minutes is NOT. And I heard one driver say that she was running so far behind one day she just started telling people she was a few minutes early. (just missing a bus and then having to wait 2 hours for next one is not a good system--and I know people that has happened to with TCAT.) There's no point in having buses run on time, but mostly empty, so yes, we do need some flag stops under some circumstances. However they do need to have some limits. The more people who get on at the same stop, the more efficient the system is. I did hear that one reason some (all?) of the rural buses are no longer running as often is because--with more riders and more flag stops--the routes get too long (in terms of time). As often as possible, shelters should be existing buildings--just perhaps with a bike shed added to the side. This is not a new idea: rural bus stops used to be diners, or gas stations, or general stores. Socializing at the bus stops is part of how public transport builds community, just as riding a bus is. If new shelters do need to get built plexiglas has fantastic solar gain: a windproof, unheated shelter with plexi walls facing south could get quite comfortable during MOST days. My plexi solar porch is warm today and the sun has barely peeped through the clouds. Margaret PS: I would love to hear more from people like Simon who are actually trying to use TCAT from rural areas. On Oct 29, 2008, at 1:18 PM, Jon Bosak wrote: > Putting in park-and-ride lots makes sense, but eliminating flag > stops would essentially kill rural bus service. The rural lines > currently serve everyone who lives on a major highway or can walk > to a major highway. If flag stops were eliminated, the only > people the buses would serve would be those who could drive to a > park-and-ride lot -- a big step backward in providing an > alternative to cars. > > If stopping to pick people up or drop them off regularly puts a > TCAT bus behind schedule, then that schedule should be adjusted. > I hadn't heard before that this was a major problem. > > Jon > > Margaret McCasland wrote: >> Sorry for the late reply. I think Rob Morache's earlier post >> contains >> the kernel of a major solution: more park'n'rides. >> >> I agree there should be less "flag stops;" they are amazingly time >> consuming. I had an unbelievably long bus ride to and from T-burg >> last >> month which ended up way over schedule. (Perhaps flag stops could be >> allowed only during "off-peak" hours). >> >> However there should be many more "park and rides" to serve outlying >> AND not so far out areas. You can have parking nodes that cluster >> cars without having to build housing nodes and/or abandon existing >> housing stock (especially if they are in areas with farm stands or >> minimarts where people may also want to shop after work). >> >> If some park and rides are near town, people who need to do errands >> after work can take the bus back to their car and then go to the >> grocery store or--gasp--the mall without going all the way home first >> to get their car. Existing "side roads could be feeders to the bus >> system, so the only infrastructure change would be creating the >> parking areas. This would keep cars out of downtown, off the >> campuses, and help keep rural areas rural. >> >> And they don't have to be paved; Enfield is a great example. But we >> also need them closer in--say on the land the County owns near the >> hospital and the Health Department's current location (hmm; could the >> existing parking there turn into a park and ride once the Health Dept >> moves?) >> >> I think ALL the major routes into town need park and rides far out, >> part way into town, and then close in. >> >> To use 96 B as an example: say, South Danby, the hamlet of Danby, and >> then around the Danby-Town of Ithaca line. 96 North of Ithaca >> already >> has one in T'burg, but needs one further south in Ulysses and then >> again in the Town of Ithaca near CMC (where people from Iradell and >> Hayts Rd and the Dubois Rd areas could feed into the system). I live >> on Hayts Rd, and I know there is a LOT of interest in being able to >> take the bus to the colleges and downtown. >> >> I know park and rides require a lot of inter-municipal and >> interagency >> cooperation, but cooperation is generally a good thing to do. >> >> Margaret > > _______________________________________________ > For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County > area, please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ > > RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: > [email protected] > http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins > free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org _______________________________________________ For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
