please empty your brain below
I've been saying for a long time (CBAtofindalinktothelasttimeIsaidit) that a reliable scheme to enable motorists to safely pick up people wanting a lift somewhere should be thought about. As I travel around in my car (absolutely no choice - other than not going at all - where I live), I'd be more than happy to pick up people carrying lift-share scheme photoID, from designated pick-up points, and more than happy to have similar myself to show people I may stop for that I was a genuine lift-giving person.
OK, such a scheme is fraught with potential problems, but not impossible, especially in more rural areas.
And I'm with Alan too: more trains on a better network, please.
I'm also a bit cynical about (this particular) car-sharing: if it's only optional, surely no-one would bother to do it? Certainly not to save only eight minutes off one's journey, anyway.
But if, on the other hand, the government made it illegal for any vehicles with less than two occupants entering (for example) zones 1 & 2 of London (or another city centre) between 6-9am and 4-7pm, I would support that: we have - even with the Congestion Charge - far too much city commuter traffic and most of it could easily be replaced with a better public transport system IMHO.
Me on the other hand? I generally don't even know where I'll be working until 2 days beforehand, and even then the plan invariably changes. But I'm sure there are enough people out there who could carpool with a little thought - and I bet they'd enjoy a less stressful existence if they did.
That takes more trains, new trams, more (and much better) buses, and most importantly, a single ticket for all of them along with reliable integration of services (like buses feeding into trains). I'm sure the government will realise this (possibly by looking at several mainland European countries where it works almost perfectly) as soon as they realise that all the schemes they waste their money on right now fail. Give it a decade or two...
2. Public transport is fine if it's viable. When I say viable I mean having a system that doesn't require you to spend three hours each day, negotiating the system. Wait for a bus here, wait for a train there. There needs to be an understanding that whilst people will compromise to some degree the point where they think "bugger this" and head back to their car needs to be taken into consideration. I don't think a prescriptive method will solve this problem.
3. BW's idea is a good one, maybe we can use the new ID cards to run it... *ducks*
Whilst I fully support public transport improvements for accessing urban centres... in some places it would be extremely difficult to provide appropriate public transport. The M25 for example has scattered residents and their employers across the south east in a manner that can't be undone, and the only way to solve the congestion problems for M25 users is the oh-so-unpopular road user charging.
The concept of car-sharing is a great idea, but in our commercial world where people are asked - or even expected - to work late on a moment's notice, then it just won't work.
When I worked in London I did use the train to commute, but while I might have gone to work at the same time every day, my return journey could vary by as much as 5 hours (i.e. anywhere between 5 and 10pm) so a car-share would have been completely unfeasible.
But then, I'm about to leave the bay area for London...
Commuter lanes only make sense when they are used as bus lanes. So the HOV lanes in Seattle actually increase peak carrying capacity because they are used by lots of buses whereas almost all Bay Area commuter lanes reduce carrying capacity at peak hours because they reduce the number of lanes by 20\\% - 25\\% without any real increase in bus traffic.
Most Bay Area Commuter lanes would be removed if it was a simple matter of traffic flows rather than politics.
My favorite is 101N through Marin county. 5 mins before the commuter lane kicks in at 3 p.m traffic is heavy but moving, 5 mins after the commuter lane kicks in traffic is stop and go - and the commuter lanes is almost empty...
vote me for mayor, you know it makes sense.
Another thing which carshare lanes will fail to address is those aggravating big business types who have a chauffeur-driven vehicle who would qualify for free lane use, but whose gas-guzzling monster only has one working occupier.
My email address is a remnant of a group of odd friends I had back home about 10 years ago, it is my paedophile name.
Here in Leeds we already have a car pool lane on one of the major routes into the city, it was reported last week that it was massively under used, probably for the reasons that you've stated, ie civil servants can't comprehend that not everyone travels to the same point of work every day at the same time of day, and then repeats the process in the evening - yes we all know civil servants do but out here in the real world ?
We were really suprised that Darling dared show his face up here yesterday after he shafted us on our supertram scheme last year - "Public transport ? No you can't have £300million for supertram but heres £2.5 million for some more paint on a few hundred yards of the M606, I'm off back to that London now"
Tax the polluting (rich) fuckers.
That is all.
On the other hand, you need at least some space to make it worthwhile. Turning one of three lanes into a limited use lane isn't helping the majority of your tax paying citizens get home at night. LA usually has three or four normal lanes to every HOV lane.
On one side you have the point that, after all, an adult driving with a two year-old baby is not reducing congestion as the two year-old obviously wouldn't be driving themselves to wherever they're going.
On the other side is the almost solid wall of suburban parents adamant about keeping this little benefit.
TridentScan | Privacy Policy