News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.4K     0 

The forgotten art of hitchhiking — and why it disappeared


From link.

shutterstock_244451992.0.0.jpg

In 1950, Pete Koltnow had just graduated college and needed to get from New York to Yuma, Arizona, where he was due to start a new job. He had no car, so he hitchhiked nearly 2,500 miles, flagging ride after ride from total strangers.

"Back to bumpy seats and the open road," he wrote to his girlfriend Dot Witter from Villa Ridge, Missouri. "Trucks are kindest to me."
Koltnow ultimately got to Yuma in a few days. Years later, the series of postcards he sent to Witter became part of a Smithsonian exhibition on transportation history. But that's not because his trip was at all unusual — it's because the postcards are a remarkably detailed record of a once-routine transportation mode that has essentially vanished.

Nowadays, hitchhiking is perceived as dangerous, and few drivers are willing to pick someone up. Police departments discourage it, and many states explicitly ban it. Most hitchhikers have no other options, and do so as a last resort.

"Dating back to the Depression and World War II, it used to be very normal to see someone sticking their thumb out and pick them up," says Alan Pisarski, a transportation researcher. "We lost that somewhere along the way."

For people too young to remember the age of hitchhiking, it brings up a perplexing question: what happened?
Most experts agree that one of the biggest factors in the decline of hitchhiking has nothing to do with fear of crime. "Probably the most important thing is the huge growth we've seen in car ownership," says David Smith, a British sociologist who's studied hitchhiking trends.

Since the 1960s, the percentage of US households that own cars has steadily increased — and the proportion of those with multiple cars has grown even faster:
Screen%20Shot%202015-06-05%20at%2012.09.42%20PM.png

Over the past couple of decades, as cars have lasted longer and gotten cheaper, this trend has extended to lower-income families.

It all adds up to a much smaller percentage of the population needing to hitchhike in the first place. In many developing countries, on the other hand, far fewer people own cars, and hitchhiking is still commonplace.
Screen%20Shot%202015-06-05%20at%2012.59.25%20PM.png
 
Looked at Greyhound London Terminal today before catching a VIA train to Oakville. Odd seeing a fence off terminal with nothing there.

It was my first train ride on VIA in over 20 years plus. Found GO seats better than VIA.

I would say about 20 riders got on the 71 to Windsor and only a few got off the 72. look like about 30 got on the 72 and saw a few seat turn over to maintain window seating only. A few couples sitting together. About 6 got off in Oakville and did not count the ones getting on as I need to catch GO to Port Credit.

As one who did some hitchhiking in my young day, wouldn't do it today as well being illegal. Seen OPP stop hitchhiking on various roads and very rare to see it in the states. Some stand at the top of the on ramp looking for a ride.

Cars has kill a lot of intercity travel as they became cheaper to buy than wait for that 2am bus that came once a day to a town/city. Buses were not meeting riders needs or time like the RR before COVID. I look at the Sarnia train and its a joke for people who may have to work in Toronto these days as there is nothing in their area. All the person is doing weekly is take the train to/from Toronto and go to bed when they get home in Sarnia.

There is a need for intercity travel and may only apply to various routes. Going coast to coast will be very hard to do without changing to various systems. Even the US has issues doing coast to coast.

It maybe cheaper to use VIA, but a 6 hour trip from door to door using 2 bus systems, GO Transit is not fun compare to a 2 hour drive even if cost $250 more in rental fees for a week or an extra $40 a day .
 
Cross post.

In a discussion paper released by the Province, some future bus lines noted.


1625002224117.png
 


* cross post w/Mx catch-all thread*

********

This could be comparatively innocuous, to see if there are ways to extend small scale services to outlying, more rural areas, such as through van-sized transport, or even integration with taxis.

OR

It could be a step towards the wholesale privatization of bus services seen in London, UK.

I'm open to the former, but would assertively oppose the latter.
 
"Previously, one carrier was given a licence to operate a certain route for a particular destination or city. Effective July 1, carriers do not need a license to operate a new route and multiple carriers may offer service along the same or complimentary routes, helping to improve travel options for Ontarians."

I do appreciate the Conservatives removing this kind of red tape.
 
It makes sense but they should use a provincial booking system with oversight based on refunds for cancelled trips and such.

What about routes that nobody wants to operate?
 
One million square feet - Wow. If you compare that size to existing studios owned by hackman that is crazy, as well as to the 800,000 sq ft studio city in Markham. As a film buff I am going crazy.

Do we want free enterprise or publicly funded? Or a combination of both? We can't expect for-profit companies to operate without. If a route is seen as needed and no private carrier is willing to take it, then perhaps some version of GO/ONTC.

I'm not sure what a common booking system involving private carriers brings to the table other than inter-line convenience, but at what cost? No doubt the carriers would want the province to pay for it. With the province clearly wanting out of regulating the industry, this would seem like getting back in.
 
Do we want free enterprise or publicly funded? Or a combination of both? We can't expect for-profit companies to operate without. If a route is seen as needed and no private carrier is willing to take it, then perhaps some version of GO/ONTC.

I'm not sure what a common booking system involving private carriers brings to the table other than inter-line convenience, but at what cost? No doubt the carriers would want the province to pay for it. With the province clearly wanting out of regulating the industry, this would seem like getting back in.
The private companies can pay a small fee per ticket to use the system. That monies can be used to help Interline ticketing to allow seamless transfers between carriers, and subsidy for routes that require it.

ONR already uses a booking system so require the carriers to use that system. Metrolinx and VIA rail have a he ability to do it now, which makes it convenient.
 
The private companies can pay a small fee per ticket to use the system. That monies can be used to help Interline ticketing to allow seamless transfers between carriers, and subsidy for routes that require it.

ONR already uses a booking system so require the carriers to use that system. Metrolinx and VIA rail have a he ability to do it now, which makes it convenient.
So would it be a fee or a subsidy? Why should a private carrier subsidize another private carrier? If I'm a local operator with a majority of passengers who don't interline; travel to a larger centre to shop, etc. then return home, what's in for me?

I'm not even sure the ONTC system talks to the GO system.

And we all know how well provincially-developed fare systems work out.
 
Orleans Express will start operating between Gatineau, Ottawa, and Montreal this Thursday, with two buses a day in each direction. It will join Ontario Northland and Rider Express at the VIA Rail Station.

It's good that the buses are using the VIA Station in one way - it has the LRT stop, indoor waiting area, washrooms, etc., and VIA gets a small cut. But unlike Ontario Northland, the other two companies are competitors, rather than connectors.

I've heard Rider Express will soon open up a Toronto-London-Windsor route.
 

Back
Top