<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Making public transit work]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by GreenEngineer</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/is-the-skytrain-the-limit/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2007 09:56:46 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/is-the-skytrain-the-limit/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Skytrain</strong></p><p>I agree with your main point: urban design trumps transit technology decisions. &nbsp;But, having ridden the Skytrain on a trip to Vancouver, I must say that it is really nice. &nbsp;Fast, smooth, automated, and nearly silent. &nbsp;Getting on the BART after that was like stepping into the 19th Century.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Skytrain</strong></p><p>I agree with your main point: urban design trumps transit technology decisions. &nbsp;But, having ridden the Skytrain on a trip to Vancouver, I must say that it is really nice. &nbsp;Fast, smooth, automated, and nearly silent. &nbsp;Getting on the BART after that was like stepping into the 19th Century.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by publictransit</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/is-the-skytrain-the-limit/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2007 10:47:17 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/is-the-skytrain-the-limit/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Why is Vancouver Transit Heavily Used?<p>Actually, transit service policy trumps transit technology and urban form, in approximately that order.<p>
Unlike most U.S. cities, Vancouver follows the transit planning and service delivery principles generally followed in Europe, as summarized in a 1975 slide lecture </p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Why is Vancouver Transit Heavily Used?<p>Actually, transit service policy trumps transit technology and urban form, in approximately that order.<p>
Unlike most U.S. cities, Vancouver follows the transit planning and service delivery principles generally followed in Europe, as summarized in a 1975 slide lecture </p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #3 by SustainableGreen</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/is-the-skytrain-the-limit/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2007 10:54:44 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/is-the-skytrain-the-limit/3</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Politics, Public Attitude, and Cities on the Bay</strong></p><p>Hey, all:</p><p>
This is a very interesting description of two cultures and political systems, and I think the explanation actually goes beyond mere urban design. &nbsp;</p><p>
It appears that many major cities in the U.S. have mass transit systems of some sort and extent, but it is major old cities mostly in the East, which have systems that have the significant use. &nbsp;A history and traditional acceptance of mass transit is important here. &nbsp;It would seem that in the U.S. if the city does not have that tradition, acceptance is much less assured. Ridership suffers.</p><p>
On top of this we have the political domination of the U.S. by the corporate oligarchy, and all the resultant developments. &nbsp;Prime example: Detroit, the oil companies, and the tire industry were practically found guilty in the 1950s in their conspiracy to buy up and shut down mass transit systems in many cities, to their own economic benefit. &nbsp;They still rule, and BushCo.'s regressive retrograde stance on AGW is proof. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>
So yes, urban design is important but it follows political and public will. &nbsp;Canada has the proper will, the U.S. does not. </p><p>
Interesting topic.</p><p>
David<br>
Sustainability For Life</p><p>
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun! </br></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Politics, Public Attitude, and Cities on the Bay</strong></p><p>Hey, all:</p><p>
This is a very interesting description of two cultures and political systems, and I think the explanation actually goes beyond mere urban design. &nbsp;</p><p>
It appears that many major cities in the U.S. have mass transit systems of some sort and extent, but it is major old cities mostly in the East, which have systems that have the significant use. &nbsp;A history and traditional acceptance of mass transit is important here. &nbsp;It would seem that in the U.S. if the city does not have that tradition, acceptance is much less assured. Ridership suffers.</p><p>
On top of this we have the political domination of the U.S. by the corporate oligarchy, and all the resultant developments. &nbsp;Prime example: Detroit, the oil companies, and the tire industry were practically found guilty in the 1950s in their conspiracy to buy up and shut down mass transit systems in many cities, to their own economic benefit. &nbsp;They still rule, and BushCo.'s regressive retrograde stance on AGW is proof. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p><p>
So yes, urban design is important but it follows political and public will. &nbsp;Canada has the proper will, the U.S. does not. </p><p>
Interesting topic.</p><p>
David<br>
Sustainability For Life</p><p>
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun! </br></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #4 by Dawn Pillsbury</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/is-the-skytrain-the-limit/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2007 10:57:22 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/is-the-skytrain-the-limit/4</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Skytrain rocks<p>Well, it's actually a very smooth ride.<p>
We rode Skytrain during a trip to Vancouver and, despite it being a day containing a freak snowstorm, the service was quicker, smoother and more reliable than BART. The conducters were very friendly and knowledgable.<p>
Being able to ride Skytrain regularly would be nearly enough motivation for me to move to Vancouver if I was <a href="http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2006/05/map_of_projecte.html" rel="nofollow">prepared to grow gills.</a></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Skytrain rocks<p>Well, it's actually a very smooth ride.<p>
We rode Skytrain during a trip to Vancouver and, despite it being a day containing a freak snowstorm, the service was quicker, smoother and more reliable than BART. The conducters were very friendly and knowledgable.<p>
Being able to ride Skytrain regularly would be nearly enough motivation for me to move to Vancouver if I was <a href="http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2006/05/map_of_projecte.html" rel="nofollow">prepared to grow gills.</a></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #5 by ken1</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/is-the-skytrain-the-limit/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2007 08:23:35 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/is-the-skytrain-the-limit/5</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Dude<p>This is good news for Vancouver--but everyone knows that Vancouver has best-in-world transit systems!<p>
It also begs comparison with Calgary's "Ride the wind" CTrain -- don't forget to compare Vancouver to the rest of Canada. <p>
However, as others point out, the main advantage is city planning. Dense urban infill development of a peninsula (like SF, NYC). Vancouver has NO freeways running into it either, and there are active plans for reducing further auto use by citizens.<p>
Check out Vancouver's sustainability site here:<p>
And while you're at it, check out how major US cities fare compared to Seattle and Portland -- here! <a href="http://www.sustainlane.com/us-city-rankings/" rel="nofollow">http://www.sustainlane.com/us-city-rankings/<p>
You can rate how your own city is doing at sustainlane.com (it's not officially built in, but add your city as a "local business/ngo" and later they should make the category)<p>
For instance, Oakland:<br>
<a href="http://www.sustainlane.com/listing/D4QZMPDIVS4BC8QUTFUP8SJVR9JZ" rel="nofollow">http://www.sustainlane.com/listing/D4QZMPDIVS4BC8QUTFUP8S ...<p>
Enjoy!</p></a></br></p></p></a></p></p></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Dude<p>This is good news for Vancouver--but everyone knows that Vancouver has best-in-world transit systems!<p>
It also begs comparison with Calgary's "Ride the wind" CTrain -- don't forget to compare Vancouver to the rest of Canada. <p>
However, as others point out, the main advantage is city planning. Dense urban infill development of a peninsula (like SF, NYC). Vancouver has NO freeways running into it either, and there are active plans for reducing further auto use by citizens.<p>
Check out Vancouver's sustainability site here:<p>
And while you're at it, check out how major US cities fare compared to Seattle and Portland -- here! <a href="http://www.sustainlane.com/us-city-rankings/" rel="nofollow">http://www.sustainlane.com/us-city-rankings/<p>
You can rate how your own city is doing at sustainlane.com (it's not officially built in, but add your city as a "local business/ngo" and later they should make the category)<p>
For instance, Oakland:<br>
<a href="http://www.sustainlane.com/listing/D4QZMPDIVS4BC8QUTFUP8SJVR9JZ" rel="nofollow">http://www.sustainlane.com/listing/D4QZMPDIVS4BC8QUTFUP8S ...<p>
Enjoy!</p></a></br></p></p></a></p></p></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #6 by ken1</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/is-the-skytrain-the-limit/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2007 08:30:40 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/is-the-skytrain-the-limit/6</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>er<p>here: <a href="http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/sustainability/" rel="nofollow">http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/sustainability/ </a></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>er<p>here: <a href="http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/sustainability/" rel="nofollow">http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/sustainability/ </a></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #7 by Delay And Deny</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/is-the-skytrain-the-limit/</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2007 01:50:38 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/is-the-skytrain-the-limit/7</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Density, Density, Density<p><br>
mostly from its comparatively compact urban form.<p>
Have you ever been to Vancouver? &nbsp; It's very densely packed...and when the city ends, it's mostly country -- no endless suburban sprawl. &nbsp; Note that there are no "Interstates" dissecting their city. &nbsp; A highway gradually gives way to a boulevard and other city streets....so there is no impetus for people to seek cheaper homes far from the city center and "commute" by car.<p>
The only measure for the success of mass transit is population density. &nbsp;In Seattle, there is only one area that would meet the threshold for traditional mass transit to be successful: Lower Queen Anne. &nbsp;<p>
In other words, the route of the old monorail, with it's two station route, is the only viable mass transit.

<p>John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"<br>
<a href="http://you-read-it-here-first.com" rel="nofollow">You Read It Here First</a></br></p></p></p></p></br></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Density, Density, Density<p><br>
mostly from its comparatively compact urban form.<p>
Have you ever been to Vancouver? &nbsp; It's very densely packed...and when the city ends, it's mostly country -- no endless suburban sprawl. &nbsp; Note that there are no "Interstates" dissecting their city. &nbsp; A highway gradually gives way to a boulevard and other city streets....so there is no impetus for people to seek cheaper homes far from the city center and "commute" by car.<p>
The only measure for the success of mass transit is population density. &nbsp;In Seattle, there is only one area that would meet the threshold for traditional mass transit to be successful: Lower Queen Anne. &nbsp;<p>
In other words, the route of the old monorail, with it's two station route, is the only viable mass transit.

<p>John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"<br>
<a href="http://you-read-it-here-first.com" rel="nofollow">You Read It Here First</a></br></p></p></p></p></br></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #8 by Ausgewandert</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/is-the-skytrain-the-limit/</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2007 05:27:06 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/is-the-skytrain-the-limit/8</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Good for there, Bad else</strong></p><p>Having lived in Vancouver for 2 years, I can say that the transit works. But it's certainly nowhere near "best-in-the-world" as far as transit systems go. Maybe North America. </p><p>
Almost a year ago now I came over to Europe, since then I've been in 3 cities (Hamburg, Berlin and London). I live in Berlin. In comparison, Vancouver's transit system is horribly ineffective and slow. While I lived there, I always preferred to take a car because it was so much faster. I suppose that if you live in Burnaby or New Westminster, that it might be quicker, but Richmond(until the new line is done) and the more further out regions, hah, good luck. The buses run every 30 minutes and they are often late/stuck in traffic on the highway like everyone in their cars, except the bus takes a longer route in the end. </p><p>
I'm not saying Vancouver is wrong, and I give kudos for them being better than their southern neighbours. But don't kid yourselves into thinking that it can hold a candle to Europe, its not even a match.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Good for there, Bad else</strong></p><p>Having lived in Vancouver for 2 years, I can say that the transit works. But it's certainly nowhere near "best-in-the-world" as far as transit systems go. Maybe North America. </p><p>
Almost a year ago now I came over to Europe, since then I've been in 3 cities (Hamburg, Berlin and London). I live in Berlin. In comparison, Vancouver's transit system is horribly ineffective and slow. While I lived there, I always preferred to take a car because it was so much faster. I suppose that if you live in Burnaby or New Westminster, that it might be quicker, but Richmond(until the new line is done) and the more further out regions, hah, good luck. The buses run every 30 minutes and they are often late/stuck in traffic on the highway like everyone in their cars, except the bus takes a longer route in the end. </p><p>
I'm not saying Vancouver is wrong, and I give kudos for them being better than their southern neighbours. But don't kid yourselves into thinking that it can hold a candle to Europe, its not even a match.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #9 by Werdna</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/is-the-skytrain-the-limit/</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2007 15:56:47 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/is-the-skytrain-the-limit/9</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Simple reasons for increased public transit<p>Ooops...originally posted this in the wrong place (<a href="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/5/18/12579/3294/#9" rel="nofollow">http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/5/18/12579/3294/#9).<p>
There are some simple reasons why Vancouver's seeing a jump in public transit, but other cities aren't.<p>
<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;  Transit in Vancouver proper is already pretty good, so most people who live here and don't use it to get to work are either lazy or bike.<p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Prices here are the most expensive in Canada, which are as a rule more expensive than the US. &nbsp;Currently, we are paying about $1.30CAD/L &nbsp;(maybe about $4.00 USD/Gallon). &nbsp;Three months ago, it was about $1.00CAD/L.<p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;  Translink (the transporation authority) has recently added about 50 brand spanking new electric buses all with bike racks, making riding a lot nicer.<p>
So, what I am saying is that in Vancouver, there is the potential for lots of increase (already good transit), there is an impetus to do so (cost), and doing so isn't so bad (new infrastructure).<p>
However, the outlying suburbs are incredibly under-served by transit. &nbsp;And this is an entirely different issue.

<p>Andrew Eisenberg
<br>The gateway project is wrong---http://www.livableregion.ca/blog/blogs/index.php/</br></p></p></p></p></p></br></p></p></a></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>Simple reasons for increased public transit<p>Ooops...originally posted this in the wrong place (<a href="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/5/18/12579/3294/#9" rel="nofollow">http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/5/18/12579/3294/#9).<p>
There are some simple reasons why Vancouver's seeing a jump in public transit, but other cities aren't.<p>
<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;  Transit in Vancouver proper is already pretty good, so most people who live here and don't use it to get to work are either lazy or bike.<p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Prices here are the most expensive in Canada, which are as a rule more expensive than the US. &nbsp;Currently, we are paying about $1.30CAD/L &nbsp;(maybe about $4.00 USD/Gallon). &nbsp;Three months ago, it was about $1.00CAD/L.<p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;  Translink (the transporation authority) has recently added about 50 brand spanking new electric buses all with bike racks, making riding a lot nicer.<p>
So, what I am saying is that in Vancouver, there is the potential for lots of increase (already good transit), there is an impetus to do so (cost), and doing so isn't so bad (new infrastructure).<p>
However, the outlying suburbs are incredibly under-served by transit. &nbsp;And this is an entirely different issue.

<p>Andrew Eisenberg
<br>The gateway project is wrong---http://www.livableregion.ca/blog/blogs/index.php/</br></p></p></p></p></p></br></p></p></a></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>