Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm going to have to stick to my original statement. Saying that people don't become more aggressive when it gets more crowded flies in the face of just about every scientific experiment out there. A quick Google search of the phrase "crowding causes aggression" reveals a whole wealth of articles that have been written on the subject. Here's one, which accurately states that crowding is a major factor (but not the only one) that causes it.
And here's the link they cited on crowding causing aggression: link
Maybe it's more accurate to conclude that crowding does not automatically cause aggression in each individual case. However, crowding could be the spark that ignites the fire, in a case where the ingredients to fuel the fire all happen to be there.
Maybe it's more accurate to conclude that crowding does not automatically cause aggression in each individual case. However, crowding could be the spark that ignites the fire, in a case where the ingredients to fuel the fire all happen to be there.
I still think it's inaccurate to come to this conclusion. In the two videos that were presented as evidence of overcrowding creating violence, neither bus was very crowded. Additionally in the first video the violence was not perpetrated by a person on the bus.
Overcrowding is unpleasant, but most of the time when I'm on a bus that's too full people sort of work together to make sure everyone fits. I don't know if it would be like that everywhere but there are unwritten rules of etiquette to riding the bus here.
The rare fight does occur (though I've never seen one), and it makes youtube and the evening news, and thus the conclusion is reached that buses are dangerous and its users are trash. Fatal car accidents have to be so exceptional to even the make the news; they are that common.
I was just thinking about this as I was reviewing a thread about some planned development. Some people though the development was OK in the location because "there's a bus." But I realize, when you mostly you drive, you don't quite understand the logistics.
When a friend who doesn't drive was looking for a place to live in my area, I pointed her to a few resources (and neighborhoods) based on a couple of things:
1. access to trunk transit lines that run every day of the week, at least every 15 minutes, all day (6-midnight roughly at least)
2. places with decent foot traffic in the surrounding streets
3. areas with well lit streets
4. areas with a fully resourced commercial corridor
5. Relatively safe areas
I can recall, at the time she was looking, people recommended other areas, some of them because "they have a bus stop" or other places that are marginally safe. You know the places you may be OK walking from your secure garage to your door, but not the surrounding streets. Or areas well served by commuter buses, but not much else.
I think when you drive, you can take the safety of the streets for granted. And you don't need to think about the frequency of bus service or the number of bus lines.
So what do you think, can a person who drives as their primary transit node, understand what makes for "good transit access?"
Yes, I drive and I understand transit. I live one block from a 24 hr. a day bus line. Great convenient bus service, but it can take two plus hours to get to places that I could drive to in a half hour. Because it runs 24/7, late at night it's mostly homeless people riding the bus. There are some future planes to upgrade it to bus rapid transit.
I'm also about one mile away from a light rail and a commuter rail line. The light rail line is totally worthless. It a stupid low ridership route, thats way slower then the above mentioned bus line. The commuter line is a fast convenient way to get into the city. But its pretty expensive compared to driving, and not much faster.
My neighborhood has moderate to light foot traffic. It's not very well lit at night, but is 100% safe to walk in the day time. 95% safe late at night. As for a commercial corridor, it could be better. The city is working on improving that though.
I've never really worried about safety either. I haven't really lived in any higher risk places though, mostly a college town and middle and upper-middle class suburbs, with the occasional trip to downtown Toronto - which is pretty busy and well lit at night, not to mention Canada is generally safer than the US. I'm also a young male, so not a likely target. Most women don't seem too concerned with safety around here either, I've seen them walk in poorly lit ravines in the dark (though not too often), and certainly they don't seem deterred from walking around campus and side streets.
I could see it being a concern in other places though. Another factor would probably be a neighbourhood watch culture, in dangerous neighbourhoods, there's a greater likelihood that someone won't report if they hear or see someone in danger, whereas in a typical middle class neighbourhood here, it's almost certain they'd call 911.
Regarding not seeing a bus route, that depends on how a transit system is set up. The Toronto area is set up pretty well, in that the major routes follow straight arterials for most of their length and after which they're named. In my college town, it's still pretty good, although you have to know which routes leave the road they're named to go to the university.
Toronto is probably the second safest city (after Tokyo) for walking, that I have ever visited. Its also the best transit city, after Tokyo. Safety wise Toronto is probably equal to a small town in the US.
I think that most drivers are well aware of the infrequency of the bus service. That's why they drive. When I was a kid we had every half hour bus service; that seemed sufficient for my mom as a home-maker. Someone on this board who is a PT advocate said she didn't think that was frequent enough.
It's sad when people think that half hour bus service is good, or even acceptable. With that level of service, it means that if your bus doesn't show up, you'll waste 30 minutes of your life standing on the sidewalk waiting for the next bus. If you are on you way to work, you will probably be late. Not a good way to impress your employer.
There are places in the world where 2 - 3 min. transit service is the norm. Hell, there was a time (before my time) when even Denver had two minute service on streets like Broadway and Colfax.
Here is my personal opinion
2 - 5 min. - good service.
10 - 20 min. acceptable service.
30+ min. unacceptable service.
I think that what non-riders don't understand is the importance of frequency. They'll look at the map or at the existence of a bus stop and assume that's enough. But if the line only runs once an hour it's pretty well useless. It's hard to explain this to people who only drive, who can go when they want. One version of explaining it is "Suppose there were a gate across your driveway and it only opened once every 30 minutes ... "
Or worse yet, if that bus stop is served by just two or three bus in the morning and even rush hours, and no mid day service what so ever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
