[sustran] Bicycles - Improving the image

[Obwon]

I'll take the jitney part to answer.  Truly as you say people hate to
change vehicles.

 But it also occurs to me that most people waiting for busses aren't
usually encumbered with packages/baggage etc.  Which of course suggests
that it's jitney design that creates the problem by allowing people to
get comfortable for what should only be a short connecting ride to a
longer distance mass transit stop.  Then there's the matter of fare
splitting, since people hate paying too fares as well.


  Okay, let's attempt to attack these two problems. 

 1.  Suppose we make the jitney's 'flatbed' covered standee only
vehicles? 

  We could have them built with lockable fold down seats which could be
used between rush hours.  During the rush hours the seats would be
folded down and people would step on stand for a short mile or 1/2 mile
trip and be glad to get off and tranfer to the more comfortable long
distance vehicle.

 2.  Today we have electronic fare collection card systems available, so
fare splitting wouldn't be the nightmare of accounting it could be. The
jitney segement of the trip could be recorded by the passenger simply
dipping or swiping their fare cards on a small even hand held unit
provided by the TA (Transit Authority) for which the jitney operator
could have use of with a sufficient deposit. 

  In exchange for providing the needed connectivity/passenger gathering
service during rush hours they would gain the right to operate during
the off hours providing local or what other service they found
profitable. Probably even leaving the TA to be able to cut back on
attempting to maintain certain levels of service during unprofitable off
peak hours. 

  The portion of the fares that the jitney operator needs from
passengers traveling during peak times would be very low considering the
volume. He'd probably rely on such revenue to meet a portion of his
basic expenses, since he is likely to make more money on his off peak
fares where he puts his seat up and services entire trips or routes
himself.

 Naturally such a system only accounts for the greatest bulk of
travelers. But with them more profitably and efficently served it's easy
to turn to the errant variables.  Handicapped commuters, can be provided
for in any of a number of ways. First their locations could be
identified and their routine travel needs examined to seek what the best
way of handling their need on a regular basis would be.  A jitney or two
could be 'pulled' out of rush hour service and assigned to address their
routine needs on a regular basis.  

  I don't see this as too much of a problem if the system is saving
money and allowed to operate more efficienly there should be profits to
deploy on solutions.  As it is now, TA's are required to give back rush
hour profits to provide off peak service with the same costly apparatus
that should more reasonably be shut.  

  In or under this grossly over simplified model (I'm sure <g>) busses
run faster and travel full and trains are less expensive to reach since
commuters don't have to maintain cars to reach them and still keep their
convienent door-to-door service. They get off the train coming home and
they've got a 'free' ride to their door as an extension of their TA
fare. If they dally to shop in the commercial areas usually found
adjacent to train stations and bus depots, then they know that after the
rush hour expires, they'll have only to pay the jitney's regular fare to
get home.

  But they'll have a seat and options of traveling to places other than
being required to go directly home.  People expect to pay for optional
services so that shouldn't impact the plan much at all negatively, but
it allows the jitneys to make up the rest of what they need to survive
and prosper.  Now... before I paint a picture of commuters waxing
euphoric and smiling through their day's in pastel colored
gingerbread/storybook neighborhoods.  I'll let you guy tear it apart.
<g>

  Obwon