[HN Gopher] Riding transit takes almost twice as long as driving...
___________________________________________________________________
Riding transit takes almost twice as long as driving (2017)
Author : trothamel
Score : 117 points
Date : 2022-07-31 14:35 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.governing.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.governing.com)
| yababa_y wrote:
| Checks out. There were a few commutes from my room in the Mission
| of San Francisco that were equal time lyft, bike, or take train.
| Of course this relies on timing the muni/bart appropriately. I
| never had my own car in a city, it is surely a diffetent way to
| experience a place. I figure if it was only OK in SF, it sucks
| everywhere else in the US.
| dukeofdoom wrote:
| Plus you can't speed up if you are running late. I missed a train
| by 5 minutes in Chicago, than I was told the next one was sold
| out. If I had been in a car I could have made that time up. The
| other problem was late because I was waiting in a long line at
| the airport to buy metro pas, only to complete a transaction for
| weekly pass for some confused Italian couple. Then seeing some
| guy get arrested at the Greyhound station for seemingly asking
| the wrong question, and getting told I was bamboozled for asking
| if I could still catch the bus home. Seeing other people getting
| treated horribly there. Then ended that miserable experience
| sitting 5 hours on the Megabus wheel well on an over night bus to
| get home. No thanks. I'd rather a root canal. People advocating
| for no cars, often ignore how terrible public transportation can
| be.
| a-dub wrote:
| in my personal experience (with both transit and non-transit
| friendly locales):
|
| within NYC: bikes are the absolute fastest for short distances,
| the subway is comparable but generally fastest overall once
| things stretch out a bit, cars get hampered by "conditions"
| including traffic and parking; so they're ok if you hire a car
| late at night, but otherwise pretty slow and likely to get stuck
| in traffic.
|
| in the dense burbs (silicon valley, southern ca, hillsdale, long
| island): bikes are a mix but generally slower, cars are the
| fastest, transit takes 2-3x as much time, except during
| congestion where grade separated modalities often come in about
| on par with car travel time.
|
| in the rural burbs: cars win. transit takes 2-3x as much time.
| grade separation is rare, schedules are light and traffic is
| rarely an issue.
|
| i would want to see how these averages are being calculated. i'm
| guessing they're probably just doing a flat average over all
| zipcodes. this seems wrong to me, instead if you want to come up
| with a summary stat (which i think is probably a bad idea, as
| there are so many different types of cities with different
| behaviors for this sort of comparison) you'd probably want to
| weight by population. to say that the national average is 2-3x
| probably overweights all the rural transit systems where this is
| true.
| wefarrell wrote:
| Outside of Manhattan cars are generally faster than the subway,
| significantly so outside of rush hour.
| a-dub wrote:
| sometimes? depends on how close to the train the stops are
| and if the bqe is involved/randomly backed up (which it
| appears to be right now). right this minute i'm seeing
| comparable drive times to the g train for north brooklyn to
| carroll gardens.
|
| i think what you say is definitely true as you move further
| out from the urban core (within the outer boroughs).
| bonyt wrote:
| > For New York metro residents who take public transportation, a
| door-to-door commute averages about 51 minutes. That's much
| longer than the 29 minutes typically spent by those who drive
| alone.
|
| I mean, is this really an apples to apples comparison that is at
| all meaningful? The NY metro area includes NYC with its subway,
| but also suburbs in long island, New Jersey, and Connecticut with
| long commuter rail trips where you go to a different city, and
| short car commutes where you don't.
| crazylogger wrote:
| Or it could simply be that users of public transport tend to be
| poorer, and therefore live farther from work for lower rent.
| donohoe wrote:
| This.
|
| I came here to say this. When you bundle NYC (which is one of
| the largest systems in itself between subway and bus) that
| represents a skewed average.
|
| As a NYC resident of 20 years I can assure you public
| transportation much much faster than a car in most cases.
|
| Don't even get me started about the time it takes to find
| parking in this city... I am guessing that that time
| consideration is not in this study.
| UIUC_06 wrote:
| I've never lived in NYC, but I've both driven and taken
| subways there. Not real recently, though, so this could be
| out of date.
|
| On "finding parking": it's all a question of $$$. If you're
| willing to pay through the nose for a commercial lot, it's
| reasonably quick. If you insist on cheap parking... well,
| you'll be hunting for a while.
| btrettel wrote:
| > Don't even get me started about the time it takes to find
| parking in this city... I am guessing that that time
| consideration is not in this study.
|
| For a while when I lived in Austin, cycling to work from
| where I lived would be comparable to driving in terms of
| time. That's despite the fact that I was only going roughly
| 15 mph when in motion. I'd often catch up to drivers at stop
| lights, and I could park directly in front of my building. No
| time spent finding parking and walking to the building. Some
| drivers are quite arrogant about the advantages of driving
| and are quick to dismiss the time spent parking, but time
| spent parking is a significant factor in many places.
| duncan-donuts wrote:
| I've had a similar experience in Minneapolis. Biking to
| work was the fastest way to go for me. An additional factor
| was very little walking once I got there. With the bus or
| driving I may need to walk several blocks to get to my
| office and if I bike I can lock up at the building. The
| actual time door to door wasn't much different for all
| three modes but biking was the simplest and as a result
| fastest.
| briandear wrote:
| And being covered in sweat in a 100 degree day? Cars have
| air conditioning.
| btrettel wrote:
| I regularly rode when it was over 100 degrees. It
| honestly was not a problem. I know a lot of drivers find
| this hard to believe, but it's true.
|
| - Being in good shape reduced how much I sweat in the
| first place. If an average driver started cycling, they'd
| see a reduction in how much they sweat from getting in
| better shape alone.
|
| - I would wear lightweight clothes for my commute and
| change when I got to work.
|
| - On hotter days, I would wet down my shirt and a
| stocking I wore on my head. That water would evaporate,
| making sweating unnecessary. If the water evaporated
| prematurely, I found that a small spray bottle would work
| great to add back water and avoid sweating. (If it's too
| humid, this won't work, obviously, but I didn't find the
| humidity in Austin to be a problem.)
|
| - Don't ride too fast.
|
| - My ride wasn't longer than 15 minutes. Obviously, the
| longer the ride, the more sweat. I found that even on
| 100+ degree days, I would only slightly sweat given the
| other things I did.
|
| - If I did sweat, I'd wipe the sweat off with a bandana
| or rag and then splash water on myself to freshen up. If
| you do splash water on yourself, dry yourself off before
| going to see coworkers as some assumed that I was
| sweating profusely when I wasn't.
|
| - A bike commute naturally places going to work at a
| cooler part of the day, the morning. I don't care if I'm
| sweaty when I get back home.
|
| - Also, getting a little sweaty isn't that bad. A lot of
| people seem to think that sweating automatically makes
| you smell terrible. But that hasn't been my experience.
| Yes, getting extremely sweaty can smell terrible and feel
| grimy too, but mild sweat is pretty normal and happens to
| people who are walking outside for a few minutes when
| it's hot.
| parkingrift wrote:
| >As a NYC resident of 20 years I can assure you public
| transportation much much faster than a car in most cases.
|
| Surely you jest. Even in Manhattan this is rarely true.
| Outside of Manhattan it is practically never true. In some
| circumstances in Manhattan the subway can indeed be faster,
| but it's really only true for traveling north/south along an
| express line during peak traffic.
|
| For instance I can get from 96th to Chambers in about 25
| minutes on a subway if I'm lucky with my timing. That's
| faster than a car during peak traffic, but slower than a car
| during any other time of day. But if I need to get from 96th
| to basically anywhere else that isn't on the 1/2/3 there is
| no way the subway will ever win, much less by any significant
| margin.
|
| Even the idea that subway is "much much faster" defies basic
| logic. If that were universally true few people would ever
| take a ride share or taxi.
|
| And this ignores the almost comical problems and lack of
| reliability with the subway system in NYC. I cannot count the
| number of times I've had to give up, exit the subway station,
| and hail a cab. I imagine for many people it's happened one
| too many times and they've exclusively switched to
| rideshare/taxi.
|
| For me personally I've switched to electric bike. I gave up
| on the subway earlier this year after one too many negative
| encounters with vagrants and criminals. A good question to
| ask is how visitors feel about the NYC subway system. When
| friends or family come to visit, what do they think about it?
| I don't know about you, but for me it's a healthy combo of
| amazement at the scale of the system, and amazement at how
| atrocious and disgusting it's become.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > For instance I can get from 96th to Chambers in about 25
| minutes on a subway if I'm lucky with my timing. That's
| faster than a car during peak traffic, but slower than a
| car during any other time of day.
|
| Google Maps says both trips should take the same amount of
| time in the absolute dead of night.
|
| https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.7154695,-74.0091386/40.7
| 9...
|
| https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.7154695,-74.0091386/40.7
| 9...
|
| Admittedly, both ends of this trip are right by a subway
| station, but they're also both near the FDR Drive highway.
| And we're leaving out the time it takes to park your car,
| and it's the dead of night.
| thecompilr wrote:
| I travel from JC, and I can get to almost any point in
| Manhattan faster by PATH+subway/walking than by
| car+parking.
| jagger27 wrote:
| As an outsider of New York it's pretty bleak to compare the
| shininess and opulence of all the new billionaire's row
| towers to the decay and grime of the subway.
|
| It doesn't have to be like this.
| etc-hosts wrote:
| It's because the state of New York controls funding for
| the NYC subway, instead of the city of NYC.
| woodruffw wrote:
| This doesn't comport with my experience on the UWS: the
| subway was almost always faster for me, rush or not. The
| only exceptions were cross-town and _way_ out on the 7,
| e.g. Flushing. My commute from Harlem (when I lived there)
| to the financial district was 25 minutes by train; a
| similar car commute would have been around 40 (and I would
| have needed to find parking).
|
| People take ride shares and taxis because of separate
| pressures, including very reasonable ones like needing to
| haul something bulky to a specific address or trying to get
| to their airport (I will freely acknowledge that the subway
| connections to LGA and JFK are pitiful).
| guardiangod wrote:
| That's because you live in UWS (that's where I live too).
|
| I used to live in Jamaica and trying to get anywhere
| that's not Manhattan is a chore. For example going to
| Flushing would take twice as long because you have to get
| close to Manhatten before you can switch from F line to
| 7.
|
| Bus in this case works fine most of the time though. But
| you still need to walk to a bus station.
| woodruffw wrote:
| I grew up on the UWS (technically not, but it's now
| called that because of neighborhood creep), but I
| currently live in Brooklyn.
|
| That's a fair point -- there are a couple of pathological
| routes in the subway system, and traveling between
| Jamaica and Flushing is definitely one of them. But yeah
| -- IME the bus tends to cover those gaps relatively well;
| the MTA's priority (for better or worse) is high-traffic
| routes, meaning routes between the outer boroughs and
| Manhattan.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| I mean, yes, I think it's fairly well-known that the
| further out from Manhattan you are, the worse NYC public
| transit is. At the most extreme end, if you live in
| Statin Island you're gonna have a bad time. Not
| coincidentally, many people there have cars.
|
| IMO, the key idea here is that public transit is slower
| in places that have bad public transit. To find examples
| of _really_ good public transit, you have to look outside
| the United States.
| kareemsabri wrote:
| I don't have this experience at all. I have a car in NYC
| and am a daily subway rider. Regularly comparing estimated
| time via Google Maps (which doesn't even include parking)
| the subway is almost always faster, certainly during hours
| when there is congestion (which is obviously when most
| people tend to travel).
| a-dub wrote:
| the subway is fine. visitors are always taken aback by the
| general grittiness of new york. traffic in the city is
| unpredictable and cars often spend a lot of time sitting at
| lights. parking is a nightmare. post pandemic reliability
| has reduced, but it's still pretty stellar. vagrants and
| criminals are an internet mirage, like when you start a new
| job and everyone is just parroting shit they read on
| glassdoor.
| panarky wrote:
| Also, the average bicycle trip is shorter than the average
| airplane trip, therefore bikes are faster than airplanes.
| conanbatt wrote:
| Certainly faster to bike to many places than taking a plane
| there
| rob74 wrote:
| Well no, but you could definitely spin that into the headline
| "Flying takes almost ten times as long as riding a
| bicycle"...
| dominotw wrote:
| Taking public transit/CTA in chicago has become unbearable.
|
| Trains don't follow any schedules, they keep announcing on
| overhead speakers that next train is not coming because of
| covid related labor shortages.
|
| My 15 min train ride has taken me anywhere between 15mins - 2
| hrs in past 2 months. So i have to plan to be somewhere 1 hr in
| advance of my appointment so i don't miss it due to 'covid
| related labor shortages'.
|
| I suspect most of the commenters here that come out in support
| of public transit everytime don't actually use public transit.
| They are wfhers in suburbs who like the idea of compact cities
| packed to the brim, where cars are banned, take public tansit
| or better yet bike through blistering cold with kids in tow.
| teddyh wrote:
| > _I suspect most of the commenters here that come out in
| support of public transit everytime don 't actually use
| public transit._
|
| Or, a bit more charitably, maybe they live where public
| transport actually mostly works. I.e. not in the US (by all
| accounts).
| tootie wrote:
| It takes me at least 29 minutes to park in NYC. Taking a taxi
| is usually faster but it depends on the route.
| Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote:
| Also does this include trying to find a parking space?
| rst wrote:
| See also, from the article: "Commuter rail passengers spend an
| average of 69 minutes traveling to work, far longer than those
| taking bus or light rail." Gee, could that be because they're
| traveling longer? (It's certainly not because commuter rail
| trains travel slower than a typical New York City bus!)
| ItsMonkk wrote:
| This is also a natural result of how much more pleasant
| taking rail is compared to driving. Sort of a induced demand
| and Jevon's paradox effect going on here.
|
| Since you don't need to actively pay attention to the road
| you can multi-task, and that means that you can buy a house
| farther away. If there is no way to commute by rail, the
| house that you will select will need to be closer to your
| work, and will therefore likely be more expensive.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| As someone who used nyc transit for years you could often walk
| faster given the number of delays and issues. Driving is
| definitely faster throughout the city unless things are
| gridlocked. Parking is the problem. I moved to seattle for work
| but also to escape the hell of logistics in nyc. To go anywhere
| outside immediate walking distance was a 40+ minute affair each
| way, making things like dropping down to buy a pair of pants a
| half day affair. On the way you'll probably get to see someone
| assaulted on the subway, an insane person squeezing feces down
| their pant legs onto the floor (true story!), or any number of
| other mildly traumatic experiences folks from outside nyc never
| fully believe or understand.
|
| But the transit system is also the beating heart of the city. I
| wish every city had their transit system.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| I wish every city had a _better_ transit system, because it
| 's clear we can do much better than NYC transit.
| woodruffw wrote:
| I'm sorry that you had to see those things, but the idea that
| the average person will "probably" see them is a persistent
| myth. I've lived here my entire life, the entire time riding
| subways and buses for school and work, and I've never once
| seen an assault or someone defecate themselves.
|
| I _have_ seen lots of homeless people, most of whom were
| sleeping or minding their own business, and I _have_ seen
| people urinate in subway stations (but not since I moved to
| Brooklyn). But both are a far cry from the mental image of
| general mishegaas that assaults and defecation projects.
| redandblack wrote:
| Long time NJ to Midtown commuter - 1 hr 50 mins each way for
| almost 18 years. Now, with hybrid and office barely 20 mins
| away - my stress level has dropped off so much
| coffee_beqn wrote:
| Impressive. I could only do a 2 hour commute for a few months
| before moving. And this was mainly by rail which was quite
| empty in the evening
| sva_ wrote:
| I think a large reason of why people don't want to use public
| transit, which is often overlooked, is the social aspect: If you
| regularly use public transit, you're bound to have encounters
| with antisocial people who basically ruin it for everyone.
|
| The encounters I had on some regional transit made me think its
| probably better to just eat the extra bills for the car, rather
| than getting stabbed by some crackhead who turned the train
| (station) into their new home to escape the cold of winter.
| euos wrote:
| Transit can not be successful in low-density residential build.
| American life style is lifestyle of rich people - single family
| houses and cars.
| uoaei wrote:
| Many of the comments seem to have reached a conaensus about the
| purported issue: public transit is slow because where people are
| and where they want to be are not connected by public transit. It
| seems impossible to judge the speed of "riding transit" in an
| unqualified sense when _where we build the places people want to
| be and how close that is to existing public transit_ is no part
| of the conversation.
| [deleted]
| rtanks wrote:
| sbf501 wrote:
| FTA: "The revamped bus network, which required just a 4 percent
| budget increase, launched in August 2015. The results so far are
| encouraging: Weekday ridership has stabilized after declining for
| years, and is up about 10 percent on Saturdays and more than 30
| percent on Sundays."
|
| In other news water is wet. The catch-22 with transit has been
| known for half a century. Declining riders = fewer $$$ = fewer
| routes = declining riders. The only way to stop this is with
| investment to increase schedules. Yet riders are blamed for not
| using it.
| O__________O wrote:
| At least for America, which was the country cited in the article,
| transit might take twice as long as driving, but driving costs
| many more times than using buses, plus there's no up front cost,
| random major repairs, etc; related links below.
|
| Beyond that, American cities are largely designed for cars, which
| makes mass transit less viable. Not aware of any city in America
| designed for mass transit first, driving second; if it was,
| driving would likely take longer.
|
| ___
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/990891/us-average-monthl...
|
| https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/auto-loans/total-co...
| armchairhacker wrote:
| It really depends on the place. This article focuses on New York
| which has a really bad subway system. In Boston they would reach
| a similar conclusion as well. But if they were focusing on Prague
| or Spain or Japan or Singapore or any system which isn't decades-
| old and falling apart, they would find riding transit is much
| faster than driving.
|
| Ik it's a dumb spin but if anything, this is reason to _improve_
| New York 's subway system. Trains _should be_ faster for any non-
| negligible distance, even counting walking and waiting for the
| train, as they can go a lot faster and don 't have to deal with
| stoplights or traffic. And trains (even the ones in NY) are much
| better in terms of efficiency, productivity (can read or work on
| the train), and climate. The issue is, that trains are a huge
| long-term investment, and a lot of these broken railway systems
| need huge renovations. We need someone to put billions into this,
| of course it will save billions in the coming decades, but I
| don't see that happening anytime soon.
| juve1996 wrote:
| The few times I visited Boston I thought the subways were
| fantastic - got me almost everywhere in the city close enough
| to walk.
|
| Was it faster A to B than a car? Maybe not in drive times. But
| I didn't need to find parking, which can be very time consuming
| (or extremely expensive.)
| acdha wrote:
| Also the stress levels are wildly different: get on the T,
| open a book and relax versus dealing with confused tourists
| and crazed Uber drivers against a backdrop of shoddily-
| patched roads and indifferent signage.
| MiddleEndian wrote:
| >In Boston they would reach a similar conclusion as well
|
| Really depends where you're going to and from, if you take into
| account parking+walking afterwards (not taken into account by
| google maps), traffic, etc.
|
| The subway can be a lot faster than driving. Buses and/or
| commuter rail, usually not so much. Lots of room (and some
| plans) for improvements there.
| upbeat_general wrote:
| Isn't NY one of the best subway systems in the US? I'm not
| saying it's good but it's certainly better than most other US
| cities meaning it's close to the best transit vs driving
| comparison in the US.
| thrown_22 wrote:
| Yes, by far. It is still one of the worst large systems in
| the world. Kiev's was more reliable than NYC's (and cleaner)
| before the war, make of that what you will.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| Is there a direct link somewhere, or is this just _that_ gated?
| jeffbee wrote:
| Yeah of course it does. Everything about the built environment is
| designed to ensure this is true.
|
| Even places you think would be transit oriented in America are
| not. Here in Berkeley we have a transit-priority signal installed
| at a few key intersections along the busiest bus route but the
| public works department refuses to turn them on, because although
| they save minutes for the bus riders they cost a few seconds for
| the drivers.
|
| We also refused to put in bus lanes on Telegraph Avenue because
| it would have necessitated the removal of either a parking lane
| or a car travel lane (four exist today). So the bus just lumbers
| along in traffic and it's impossible to be faster than cars that
| way because the bus has to make its stops.
| Finnucane wrote:
| When I lived in Brooklyn, driving in nyc was a nightmare
| experience to be avoided at all costs. Parking could take as long
| as driving.
|
| Where I live now I could drive to work in less time than taking
| the subway. But it is about the same time as riding my bike.
| molszanski wrote:
| ... and the water is wet.
|
| We have invested x50 times more in cars infrastructure compared
| to shared transport.
|
| Why are we surprised that cars produce better results?
| abeppu wrote:
| It's unclear whether their 1.9x times include time dealing with
| parking. In some urban neighborhoods, finding parking close to
| one's destination can be challenging, inefficient, and highly
| variable. If the closest parking you find is a ways away from
| your destination, then it adds time to _two_ trips.
| erentz wrote:
| Even when we spend billions on transit we build it badly. US
| obsession with turning Light Rail into a Frankenstein that tries
| to fill all roles (eg commuter light rail). The resistance to
| electrification and reliance on slow loco hauled trains. Billions
| thrown at beautiful but not functionally helpful stations (cough
| Moynihan or Transbay). Not aligning new transit with development
| and not implementing station area land use changes. Etc. And of
| course top it off with how little we get for the money in terms
| of track miles. It's tragic really.
| woodruffw wrote:
| First: I agree with the overall conclusion of the article. We
| absolutely should invest to make public transport faster, and
| thereby attract more riders.
|
| Second: At least for NYC, some of this data is slightly
| misleading. NYC has (at least) three public transport networks:
| the bus and subway within the city's borders, and commuter rail
| between the city, Long Island, and the rest of NY/NJ/CT. It would
| probably be most interesting (and correct) to compare car
| commuters that _could_ take each; my intuition is that the subway
| generally outperforms driving _within_ the city, the bus slightly
| underperforms versus driving (since it gets stuck in traffic, and
| there's no meaningful enforcement of bus lanes). I don't have an
| intuition for the commuter rails.
| pantojax45 wrote:
| We should invest in making public transit more _consistent_ and
| _frequent_ rather than faster. If something comes every 5
| minutes... you don't need to worry about schedule and the
| expected wait time from end of task until end of transit is
| lower.
|
| Plus if you have transfers, it really drives down the time.
|
| If the segment is really fast but only happens hourly, now you
| have to plan :( If it only happens hourly AND the timing is
| inconsistent or segments get cancelled, now you just have to
| possibly wait for hours.
| hackernewds wrote:
| This is complicated by the physical reality that different
| trains can't occupy the same physical space concurrently. One
| line coming more frequently displaces another.
|
| There is a fair deal of complexity to this, that the common
| populace seems to assume isn't being implemented already.
| Transit is a very complicated prediction/optimization problem
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > We absolutely should invest to make public transport faster,
| and thereby attract more riders.
|
| People don't use public transport because it is faster, but
| because it is consistent, it is cheaper than many other options
| and it reduces the stress of commuting. Being a passenger is
| much more relaxing than being the driver. Not having to find a
| parking spot is liberating for your mind. Not getting fines is
| good for your finances.
|
| Public transport doesn't attract more people because almost
| everywhere is at peak.
|
| NY subway, for example, moves 5.5 million people a day (the
| peak capacity is slightly above 6) but it is harder to make new
| lines or increase the number of rides, while with cars you just
| ride yours to the highway and stay stuck there in traffic for
| as long as needed. You can't stack trains like that or the
| delay of a single ride will cascade to the entire rail line
| possibly for many hours.
|
| People who prefer cars IMO are either outside of the public
| transport coverage, bad at planning or anxious.
| mjevans wrote:
| It still has to be fast enough. It also needs to evolve
| beyond just the hub and spoke model that expects everyone to
| commute to the big city from the suburbs.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > It still has to be fast enough
|
| Fast enough is relative.
|
| I'm European and don't know the USA situation very well,
| but IMO consistency beats speed every time.
|
| The route between the city of Monza and Milan in Lombardy
| takes 10 minutes by train and 40 by car (not including
| parking)
|
| People take the car because that train line is not reliable
| and trains are often canceled last minute.
|
| In theory the train is much faster, in practice it's a
| Russian roulette.
| Ekaros wrote:
| There is need for lot more circular routes. Connecting the
| spokes to each other.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| I had the opportunity to compare the posted schedules for a light
| rail train and a bus, between the same two points. This is the
| Bay Area.
|
| The points were the Winchester light rail station (in Campbell)
| and the Lockheed campus, near Moffett. There's a bus that goes
| the same places with a vastly longer route, and of course _many_
| more stops. The times were the same: about an hour. If you were
| driving, you 'd take freeways, and even in rush hour traffic it
| would be less than an hour.
|
| San Jose light rail is, by nearly all metrics, the worst in the
| country, so you can see why: it's terrible.
| librish wrote:
| Isn't this just showing that people prefer public transit if the
| travel time is on average twice as long (but not longer)? There's
| a selection bias in that people who choose to drive probably did
| so because it's significantly faster.
| IronWolve wrote:
| When I was growing up, I'd take the city bus across town and it
| would take 2 hours, vs 25 minutes by car. It showed me I needed
| car for work, or I'd be spending 4 hours just on buses.
|
| 30 years later, When I was working downtown, park and ride was
| nice mix of getting there early, free parking, and I just a short
| walk.
|
| Now lets talk about those HOV lanes that now opened up for paying
| people, we literally made limo lanes that clogged up and made the
| buses slower.
|
| No new roads, and its just going to keep getting worse, so much
| worse. I've seen it get continually worse over 30 years.
| muglug wrote:
| As others have said, this does not hold for the majority of
| commuters in New York City, where finding a parking space and
| navigating rush-hour traffic often makes commuting by car slower.
|
| In London they've chosen a different approach, making driving
| more painful: congestion charging and strictly-enforced 20-mile-
| an-hour speed limits on some of the main arteries in the centre
| of the city.
| orwin wrote:
| By the way, the rational for putting speed limits is quite
| solid and i know one engineer who worked on that who told me
| the average speed in Paris around and during rush hour actually
| increase (by roughly 5 km/h) despite lowering the speed limit
| by 10 km/h. Outside those hours the speed limit setup did
| decrease the average speed (shocking!), but for commuters (who
| felt strongly against this new limitation) the overall change
| was actually a net positive (less hour stuck in traffic), and
| for car-owning residents (who where split on this) it was a net
| negative.
| mjhay wrote:
| As the other reply pointed out, those speed limits are pretty
| aspirational. The average trip time in central London decreased
| 30% [0] quite a bit after introduction of the charge, but
| things have slowed down again for various other reasons
| apparently.
|
| I don't think the congestion charge is unreasonable considering
| the negative externalities the vehicles cause. Aside from work
| or delivery vehicles, it seems bizarre to drive into central
| London by choice.
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge#Traff...
| boygobbo wrote:
| The speed limit is a bit of a red herring. The average speed of
| traffic in central London is about 9 miles/hour & inner London
| about 12. The average speed in the suburbs (outer London) is
| about 20 mph, even though the speed limit is 30 mph.
|
| Average traffic speed in London:
| https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/sites/default/files/0832...
|
| London speed limits: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/london-digital-
| speed-limit-map.pd...
| enragedcacti wrote:
| I was interested in the company publishing this and found that
| governing.com is operated by e.Republic, a media company founded,
| owned, and operated by scientologists [1]. It's founder is Dennis
| McKenna (not the brother of Terence) who was a spokesperson for
| the Church of Scientology during Operation Freakout [2], "a
| Church of Scientology covert plan intended to have the U.S.
| author and journalist Paulette Cooper imprisoned or committed to
| a psychiatric hospital."
|
| Given past events [3], I find the idea of a scientology media
| company trying to get the ear of state and local governments to
| be very concerning.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.Republic
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freakout
|
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
| sofixa wrote:
| > Given past events [3], I find the idea of a scientology media
| company trying to get the ear of state and local governments to
| be very concerning.
|
| Same goes for any religious group IMHO. Separation of church
| and state.
| hammock wrote:
| Is the purpose of public transit to get you there Quicker, or to
| get you there Cheaper? Transit allows me to avoid owning a car,
| and the monthly parking charge at home, daily parking by work,
| etc costs that come with-- that's the principal benefit as a city
| dweller.
|
| I live in Chicago (city) and the 2-1 time ratio is what I use to
| decide whether I take a cab or not. I look up the time to my
| destination -a store, friends house, the beach, whatever- and if
| it's twice as long or quicker to take the train/bus then I will.
| (That's not totally true, I use shared bikes to get most places
| these days.) When I was poorer, I used 3-1.
|
| For my office, when I go, it's about 2-1, and has been for any of
| the half-dozen different places I've lived here. I consider that
| a sign of Well-Done Transit, not the opposite.
|
| It's not surprising to me that transit takes longer, because you
| have to walk to a transit stop and then walk from a transit stop.
| Why would you expect it to be faster?
|
| If you want it to be faster than driving, you have to eliminate
| all parking minimums.
| agumonkey wrote:
| In dense urban area, granted there's just a bit of bike lanes..
| bike will get you faster anywhere. I was shocked to see it took
| me less than by car.
| dashundchen wrote:
| I live in a Rust Belt city and bike everywhere. One of my
| common rides is five miles one way.
|
| It's very common for me to be riding along the same cars from
| my house to destination, with a little back and forth
| leapfrogging. Turns out their average speed is similar to
| cycling.
| agumonkey wrote:
| With traffic lights, jams, bus stops, etc.. it does slow
| them down tremendously. Of course bikes can go through jams
| and lights willy nilly.
|
| My job was 6 miles from home by car and 45min (some quite
| stressful), I actually took a longer path (7miles) by bike
| to enjoy a river path, took me 40min to arrive.
| throwaheyy wrote:
| This really depends on the topography of the particular city.
| Even some small hills can kill any time advantage very
| quickly.
| pastage wrote:
| I used to dread hills even as an avid bicyclist, but as
| soon as I had three big ones on my daily route my body just
| adapted. So yes topography does affect your choices less
| people will cycle there, but it does not affect time that
| much.
| wizofaus wrote:
| Initially, perhaps, but riding such hills regularly is a
| pretty good way to build up leg strength (and confidence
| descending) to the point small hills aren't really going to
| slow you down much. Traffic (+ stop lights) is far and away
| the biggest thing that slows me down on a bike - I can
| average 5 k/h faster once away from heavily congested areas
| with frequent stops required. In my city at least those
| less congested areas are the hillier ones!
| ItsMonkk wrote:
| It's always important in these conversations to take into
| account the Downs-Thomson paradox[0]. If public transit gets
| stuck in traffic and takes longer than taking a car, people
| will take a car. And since taking a car is the least efficient
| way to use a lane, things will continue to get worse and worse
| as more people decide to use a car. You need to ensure that
| your public transit is not getting stuck in traffic.
|
| [0]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs%E2%80%93Thomson_paradox
| hammock wrote:
| That is why I proposed to eliminate parking minimums (I might
| add to tear down existing parking garages). Even a free-
| market equilibrium under the Downs Thomson would have less
| cars than what we have now
| pornel wrote:
| False dichotomy. In dense cities it exists to move people
| efficiently, because roads physically can't accommodate
| everyone.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_capacity#/media/File%3...
| nicoburns wrote:
| In London it's not uncommon for transit to be 2:1 faster than
| driving. It's only ever really faster going from suburb to
| suburb without going through the center. It all depends on what
| kind of infrastructure you have.
| harvey9 wrote:
| I check Google maps for any journey where I have a choice of
| driving or riding in London. The variability is pretty wide.
| But agree with your point about suburb to suburb: in a choice
| of car vs bus (because there's no rail option for the
| journey) the car inevitably wins.
| orwin wrote:
| It is the same for Paris, mostly (they are a few exception
| with light rail, especially towards economic centers), but
| i think next year it should be better, with an automated
| subway line going around paris.
| sofixa wrote:
| 2025, but yes, the Grand Paris Express will drastically
| improve connectivity between the suburbs. There are
| already 10+ trams doing the same at a smaller scale, but
| an automated metro with high capacity and frequency will
| be a game changer.
| kevincox wrote:
| In the other hand in Dublin Ireland I only once saw a trip
| that was more that 10min faster by bus than _walking_
| (according to Google Maps and I walk faster than Google Maps
| predicts).
|
| The exception is the DART train which speeds things up if you
| happen to be going in the right direction but all of the
| other public transit is rubbish.
| TinkersW wrote:
| When I lived in Chicago, biking was the fastest way to get
| around by far.
|
| Chicago has "good" public transport by US standards and it is
| still dog ass slow & often very crowded and unpleasant.
| throwaways85989 wrote:
| Train boarding at least could be decoupled from slowing down and
| stopping. Just have a "Shuttle Wagon" depart pre arrival from the
| train with those who want to get out and another one speeding up
| with new passengers after the train as it passes through the
| station. Under ideal circumstances, a train would actually not
| even have to slow down for this. Con is that there is always a
| Shuttle in the station.
| rhodorhoades wrote:
| But then you might as well go for the 'Teslas in tunnels'
| approach like the boring company.
| BeetleB wrote:
| This has been true for me wherever I've lived. If you just happen
| to live near a major bus line or subway station, and just happen
| to go somewhere where a transfer is not needed, then _maybe_
| public transit is faster. Otherwise, not a chance.
|
| From my previous apartment it would take about 2 hours to get to
| the airport using public transit, because I had to transfer twice
| - that's waiting three times. By car it would take 30 minutes
| without traffic, and the _worst_ time with a car would be just
| under 2 hours.
|
| From my current residence it takes about 8 minutes just to walk
| to the bus stop.
|
| It takes 10 minutes to drive to work (fairly close). It takes 30
| minutes by public transit (walk to stop, transfer somewhere).
|
| Whenever I talk to someone who doesn't own a car and really touts
| public transit, and I dig into the details, I always find that
| this person has a limited number of places he goes, with the rest
| being inconvenient to get to.
|
| The only real benefit of public transit is you can read during
| the commute.
| adrian_b wrote:
| Which of public transit or driving is faster depends on the
| city, i.e. it depends on how congested the streets available
| for private cars are, in comparison with what is available for
| public transit.
|
| I live in a city with subway and going by subway to any place
| that is not too close (so that the time to walk to a subway
| station is not a too large fraction of the total time) is much
| faster than driving a car, with the possible exception of late
| in the night, when the streets might be empty. In most cities
| with subways where I have been, this was also true, because
| they also had congested street traffic.
|
| I have also been in several cities where the buses had their
| own street lanes, which were forbidden for private cars. In
| such cities, I have also seen frequently cases when going by
| bus was faster than driving.
| raffraffraff wrote:
| It's a mixed bag. I don't drive, so whenever I have to go
| somewhere I don't really consider how long it would take to
| drive there. But whenever I do get there by car (eg: friend or
| family member) it's amazing how much extra time goes into stuff
| that i never have to think about. Like where to park, how much
| the parking costs, what if we meander half a mile shopping and
| grab lunch? Now we have to walk back to the car instead of
| having a bus straight home.
| listenallyall wrote:
| I guess you have the transit map, and all the schedules,
| memorized? Because for most people, getting to an unfamiliar
| location at a specific time by public transit alone is quite
| a project. And then if you "meander half a mile", does the
| bus change its route to come get you?
| pastage wrote:
| Bring up your phone assitant and say "I want to take public
| transport to the meat packning district" and it will
| probbly work. My seven year old did it, and paid, on her
| own.
|
| GTFS is published by most public transport these days, so
| you have all the routes described months ahead of time. You
| can actually have all the schedules offline.
| flemhans wrote:
| You just take a car-sharing car back to your car.
|
| If there's no car-sharing car nearby, you can take an
| e-scooter to the car-sharing car, and then go to your car.
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| Yep.
|
| I live close to a tube station.
|
| If I'm going somewhere on the network (~50% of journeys) it's
| great. Primarily because of traffic congestion, mind - in the
| early morning travel time is about the same by both methods.
|
| If I'm going anywhere else? Car hands down.
|
| The main problem is that the entire network of places is
| available by car by definition. Worst case is car and then the
| rest by foot (e.g. into a national park).
|
| By contrast public transport just doesn't serve the majority of
| places at all. Every train station has a road, not every road
| has a train station.
| tgv wrote:
| It does take longer for most destinations, but not for my work
| commute. The traffic between work and home is quite bad, so
| public transport is equally fast, or faster.
| cercatrova wrote:
| > _The only real benefit of public transit is you can read
| during the commute._
|
| I use audiobooks so it works out for driving or taking public
| transit. The only difference is the noise level is higher in
| general with public transit.
| virtualritz wrote:
| That. Most cars today contain one person - the driver.
|
| Until we have full autonomy, they have to keep their focus on
| the road.
|
| I read about four books/month. Whenever I used public transport
| to commute that number doubled.
|
| Not so when I commuted by car.
|
| And don't tell me I can listen to audio books. This doesn't
| compare in reading speed. And it is also is a dangerous
| distraction for most driving situations that are not an empty
| highway or a traffic jam.
| drevil-v2 wrote:
| Same for me. It is approximately 5.8kms from my apartment to
| work.
|
| I have walked it before during a bus driver strike, took just
| over an hour at a leisurely pace - 11mins per km.
|
| Normal days - it takes me around 6 to 8 minutes to walk to the
| bus stop. There is a waiting period for the bus to arrive since
| you want to get to the bus stop before the scheduled stop -
| sometimes the bus is early.
|
| Then it takes nearly 30minutes to get to work - frequent stops
| along the way, 5 minutes waiting at the bus/rail interchange
| etc.
|
| Finally 7 minute walk to the office from the bus stop.
|
| Total of usually 50 minutes door to door via public transport
| and it costs $8 both ways.
|
| If I took my car, it would take me 15 minutes and $17 parking
| fee.
| pja wrote:
| Perfect cycling distance. In a sane country the bike would be
| the obvious mode of transport for most trips of this kind of
| distance.
| ajb wrote:
| In a lot of places, if _everyone_ using public transport were
| to use a car instead, they definitely wouldn 't be faster than
| before; most likely much slower.
|
| In London, you often see from route planning apps that the time
| for using a car (including waiting for an uber) would be less -
| except during the rush hours, which is when most people need
| to.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| It depends. In most places in the US, bas transit shares the
| same road space as cars. If almost all bus users switched to
| cars, not only would driving be slower, but riding the bus
| would also be made slower as well. So driving would still end
| up faster than taking the bus.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Or phrasing that differently, the more people take public
| transport the faster everyone goes. Which is basically the
| whole point of it, greater efficiency in moving people
| around.
| D13Fd wrote:
| I used to love taking the bus when I lived a block away from a
| major bus line. It took maybe 25-50% longer overall but I could
| actually use that time rather than driving and sitting in rush
| hour traffic.
|
| Honestly I'm not sure why anyone is surprised that public
| transit takes around twice as long. It's self selected. The
| people who are going to use it live close and us it because
| that worthwhile. So on average it makes sense that it would be
| some multiple of the time it takes to drive.
| michael1999 wrote:
| Sounds like biking distance, but you can't really read on a
| bike.
| woodruffw wrote:
| > I always find that this person has a limited number of places
| he goes, with the rest being inconvenient to get to.
|
| This is just a description of traffic patterns in the US, in
| general. You presumably don't cruise through random suburbs on
| the other side of your city on your way to work, or while
| running errands, or really for any reason other than needing
| to.
|
| Where I live, it's both faster and cheaper for me to not own a
| car. It hasn't hurt my traveling much, either, although you'll
| have to take my word for that (until I figure out how to
| anonymize all the location data I collect for myself).
| rayiner wrote:
| > This is just a description of traffic patterns in the US,
| in general. You presumably don't cruise through random
| suburbs on the other side of your city on your way to work
|
| That's the normal traffic pattern in many parts of the
| country. For example, in the DC metro area, 90% of the jobs
| are outside the city. It's routine to live in one suburb,
| commute to another suburb, and have a spouse commute to a
| third suburb.
| woodruffw wrote:
| This doesn't refute the central point: those are needs-
| driven destinations, not random choices for a pleasure
| cruise.
| voisin wrote:
| > The only real benefit of public transit is you can read
| during the commute.
|
| I think there is more to it than this. When driving, your
| nervous system is continually activated as your attention is
| (should be!) focused on everything going on around you for the
| entire time. 10x this when stuck in bumper to bumper traffic,
| making thousands of micro-decisions about when to break, how
| fast to speed up, how much room to leave ahead of you. The
| difference between 30-45 minutes of this and 1.5 hours of
| sitting peacefully on public transit is dramatic.
|
| But on all your other points I fully agree. The answer though
| is not to throw out public transit because of these pitfalls -
| it is to massively double down on improving public transit to
| mitigate these pitfalls.
| briandear wrote:
| I ride motorcycles and that intense focus for me is
| meditative. I feel more engaged and alert after a 30 minute
| motorcycle ride than I do riding an Uber. The motorcycle
| riding has a similar counterintuitive effect (for me) as
| Ritalin. (Ritalin is a stimulant used to treat ADHD.)
|
| When I ride public transport or have a driver -- I feel
| relatively more lethargic than when I ride the motorcycle
| (and to a lesser extend driving a car.)
|
| > it is to massively double down on improving public transit
|
| Why? Private transport represents freedom, public transit
| represents control. Furthermore, getting public transit to a
| level of perfect will cost tens of billions of dollars and
| for what benefit? To have cities and towns shut down each
| time there is a transit strike, a superstorm, or the
| government decides we should stay home?
|
| Cars, motorcycles, bicycles, scooters -- those work. Let's
| make that better. I definitely don't like spending my time
| sitting next to strangers of an indeterminate mental status
| in a temperature that isn't of my own choosing going to a
| destination that isn't necessarily the precise place I want
| to go. I want to interact with strangers as little as
| possible.
|
| Raise the fares to $20 (and enforce it) and perhaps I'd
| consider riding public transit. But after my experiences with
| the BART and piss-soaked, rat infested NYC subway stations,
| no thank you. If I want thrills hanging out with a bunch of
| psychotics waiting for an excuse to push you onto the tracks,
| I'd rather BASE jump the Met Life building instead.
|
| For a young single person carrying nothing more than their
| Manhattan Portage satchel to some hipster haunt in Brooklyn,
| public transport can be great. For people with stuff to
| carry, small kids, wheelchairs, or mobility issues, or tight
| schedules, not so much. Add the safety aspects to it and
| public transport becomes less attractive -- unless of course
| they start allowing those with firearms permits to carry on
| public transport. But even then, not sure why people would
| want to give up point to point freedom for public options.
| cycomanic wrote:
| The issue is that you are banking on everyone else to
| subsidise your motorways (construction and maintance is
| paid to 50% from income/state taxes), and let's not even
| talk about the externalities, or the cost of the land
| occupied by those roads.
|
| Moreover what you call freedom is only freedom for those
| with enough money. Instead of heavily subsidising car/motor
| travel we should invest that money into making it possible
| for the next generations to continue living on this planet.
| That's not going to happen with more and more cars.
| mancerayder wrote:
| >Raise the fares to $20 (and enforce it) and perhaps I'd
| consider riding public transit. But after my experiences
| with the BART and piss-soaked, rat infested NYC subway
| stations, no thank you. If I want thrills hanging out with
| a bunch of psychotics waiting for an excuse to push you
| onto the tracks, I'd rather BASE jump the Met Life building
| instead.
|
| It doesn't have to be like this. It didn't used to be like
| this. It might take a few years, but eventually the new
| generation/ Progressive experimentation with 're-imagining'
| criminal justice will come to an end. At the moment, those
| unhinged folks (where I saw an almost aggression just days
| ago at 845 am) aren't behind bars, a few years ago serial
| criminals would be either in jail in and out, or in prison
| being punished for a crime. Today they're.. just about
| everywhere but.
|
| That's just a fact of the situation. Now we can discuss the
| morality of putting people behind bars, etc. And have a
| reasonable conversation. Meanwhile the cities are unsafe,
| and NYC has an unemployment rate of 8 percent because
| office workers would rather be remote, and that hurts the
| economy.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Imagine you're a person who occasionally needs to use a
| bathroom, or has anxiety about roads/traffic/driving, or
| claustrophobia from the idea of being stuck in traffic. I
| know people with all of these issues. Well-designed public
| transit like trains addresses them _far_ better than
| personal vehicles.
|
| I'm also not sure what personal freedoms you think don't
| exist in Europe or Asia where such well-designed transit
| networks exist. You can still have a car, you just don't
| _need_ to have one.
| idlehand wrote:
| A functional public transport system also means that
| people who are too young or old to drive, or have vision
| problems, or need to take medication which makes it
| unsafe to operate a vehicle, have the freedom to leave
| their homes and go where they need to go.
| patrick451 wrote:
| cbdumas wrote:
| > Private transport represents freedom, public transit
| represents control.
|
| I think you have this backwards. Public transport gives
| freedom to many many people who are unable to drive (can't
| afford a car, too young to drive, too old to drive, etc.).
| In the US if you can't afford to drive your freedom is
| vastly curtailed precisely because we do not have effective
| public transport in most cities.
| powerhour wrote:
| > Private transport represents freedom, public transit
| represents control.
|
| I feel the opposite. If I need to get somewhere then
| private transport feels like control: I have to own and
| maintain a car, pay insurance, watch the road carefully,
| etc. Public transport, in contrast, feels like freedom. But
| I know this is not the common belief.
| pastage wrote:
| This is the only reason I do not like riding a bicycle
| (or other private transport), you have to take care of
| it, park it and return to it. Just being able to walk and
| hop on public transport is a great feeling.
|
| I guess it's something cagers just learn to live with.
| Skunkleton wrote:
| > 1.5 hours of sitting peacefully on public transit is
| dramatic
|
| Sitting peacefully isn't really possible on a lot of public
| transit, especially during rush hours.
| _whiteCaps_ wrote:
| Commuting from certain suburbs into downtown Vancouver is
| great - a real train with many sections having tables and
| power outlets. Pretty much everyone gets a seat.
|
| But if you're in other areas, getting into Vancouver is
| like you described. There's options for more light rail
| around here but no political will to get it done.
| toxik wrote:
| To me, that sounds like your public transportation can't
| handle peak demand properly. I think that's actually
| solvable by building more transportation and scheduling
| more trains, busses, etc.
|
| There will of course always be a trade off between peak
| capacity and spending, but this isn't any less true for
| cars.
| coffee_beqn wrote:
| Even that is assuming the public transit has enough capacity
| and safety. I remember the Seattle E-line before the pandemic
| for example. Packed in like sardines so you have to stand and
| maybe be able to hold on to something. Almost always someone
| at least yelling incoherently or starting a fight with an
| unlucky passenger. It was certainly not a relaxing reading
| nook. Not to mention having to often wait for 2 or more buses
| to fit inside at all. In many EU countries public transit is
| excellent even in the suburbs/exurbs. But it's an order of
| magnitude difference in funding that I don't see the US
| really ever doing.
| kijin wrote:
| Totally agreed. I would much rather sit in stop-and-go
| traffic for an hour than stand in a crowded bus or subway
| for the same hour.
|
| Especially with all the sensors and smart safety features
| that modern cars come with, I don't feel that driving is
| any more stressful than having to balance myself on a
| constantly shaking bus while holding onto a crappy rubber
| handle, for example.
|
| A reserved seat in an actual train, though, would be a
| different story.
| wizofaus wrote:
| I took a train for the first time in a while yesterday
| (normally I ride everywhere where feasible, though still end
| up driving more often than I'd like), and was struck by how
| peaceful and relaxing it was. I honestly didn't care how slow
| it might be - I had a book, and took pleasure in just
| watching the world scroll past. If all PT journeys could be
| like that one suspects they'd be a lot more popular. But
| service interruptions, poorly connected routes, infrequent
| services and random overcrowding are the main reality most PT
| users in many cities around the world have to deal with every
| day. I don't blame many for preferring to pay eye-watering
| petrol prices to sit in gridlock instead.
| listenallyall wrote:
| > I honestly didn't care how slow it might be
|
| which means your experience was not similar to a
| commuter's, at all
| wizofaus wrote:
| No - but if we _could_ aim to make commuting by PT a
| similarly relaxing and comfortable experience then
| slowness mightn 't be seen as such a bad thing.
| bioemerl wrote:
| You're cutting into people's family time with this.
| wizofaus wrote:
| Perhaps but it's hard to see how a little more enforced
| meditative "alone" time would make anyone a worse parent.
|
| (Further, where did I say I was suggesting PT should be
| slower than it is now?)
| listenallyall wrote:
| The point of a commuter train is to get to work. On time.
| Reliably. People freak the fuck out when they're going to
| be 5-10 minutes late due to any kind of service issue,
| because even if they know it wasn't their fault, their
| boss will assume it was (and most people who take public
| transit have bosses). You can outfit the trains with fine
| linens and couches instead of seats but being late to
| work in the morning will never be "relaxing" or
| "comfortable."
| wizofaus wrote:
| PT being regularly late is definitely a reason people
| avoid it, hence my suggesting we focus on service
| reliability and comfort. I'm not proposing we make PT
| slower than it already is - just that the focus needn't
| be on mean travel time. So the average PT consumer _may_
| need to leave their house a little earlier but would
| virtually always get where they 're going on time
| (stress-free and in comfort), vs the current situation
| where you might fairly often be considerably late.
| Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote:
| You must live in Japan because you would never relax on the
| public transport around here, except for the bus before it
| gets to town and after it leaves.
| TimPC wrote:
| I think this is only really true for subway routes. The stop
| and go nature of buses slows a commute down and you don't have
| a traffic-free route to make up for it. Subways are so much
| faster between stops that you can make up for the delays due to
| stopping.
|
| In general, I feel once you make the conscious decision to
| build for cars and allocate vast amounts of space to parking
| everywhere then you're going to generally do better with a car.
| Transit will only be more in line as you drive the % of drivers
| down and reduce the resource allocations for cars.
| rob74 wrote:
| There are of course several stages of improvement possible
| between "bus sharing the road with cars" and "fully grade
| separated rail": dedicated bus lanes up to "bus rapid
| transit" lines, tram/light rail with more or less separation
| from other traffic, etc.
| BeetleB wrote:
| > Subways are so much faster between stops that you can make
| up for the delays due to stopping.
|
| That 2 hour trip to the airport? At least 1.5 hours of that
| is subway/train.
| Skunkleton wrote:
| I'm not sure where this idea that subways are fast comes
| from. The average speed of the NY subway system for example
| is ~20mph. High speed rail is a different story of course.
| tuukkah wrote:
| NY subway is not the best example as it's the oldest and
| slowest: https://ggwash.org/view/4524/average-schedule-
| speed-how-does...
| Skunkleton wrote:
| NY had one of the most extensive systems. Compared to
| other places, like my home in the Bay Area, even at 20mph
| the subway is effectively faster.
| tuukkah wrote:
| Indeed, the average speed of the subway isn't very
| meaningful for comparison as the bigger win is being able
| to skip the traffic jams where the car speed depends
| highly on the exact route and time of day.
| UIUC_06 wrote:
| > High speed rail is a different story of course.
|
| You must be talking about Japan or Europe.
|
| The California "bullet train" was / is going to take 4
| hours to go SF - LA. Less than driving, but about the
| same as flying, even when you factor in getting to & from
| the airports and waiting in the departure lounge.
|
| And of course, the train stations are not "everywhere"
| either. You have to factor in getting to & from them,
| too. Especially in LA where you hardly ever want to go
| downtown.
| kareemsabri wrote:
| NY subway for virtually any destination is faster than
| driving, during busy hours.
| boh wrote:
| Take a car to the airport. Take a subway to work.
|
| Try driving into midtown at 8:30 AM vs the subway. You will
| not get there faster and then you'll have to find a parking
| space.
| tpmoney wrote:
| Many years ago when I was sharing a single car with someone who
| worked the complete opposite direction of me, I looked into the
| public transit thing. I lived in the west side of one city,
| worked in the east side of another. By car, it was 20-40
| minutes depending on if you were in rush hour or not. While I
| would have hated it, 2x time commute by public transport would
| have been fine. But it wasn't even close.
|
| I would need to walk a little over 2 miles to get to the
| nearest bus stop by my apartment, then I would need to take
| that bus into the downtown area, transfer to another bus to the
| central bus depot. From there I could pick up an "express
| commuter bus to a massive office park about half way between
| the two cities, where I would need to pick up another "express"
| bus to get to the next city. From there I would have to pick up
| another bus, which would take me luckily directly to my work
| place.
|
| The problem was, none of these schedules were well coordinated.
| If I left around the time I would normally have to leave to
| make my shift on time, I would make it to my work place 6 hours
| later after accounting for all the waiting and transfer times.
| If I was willing to leave much earlier and arrive an hour
| before my shift (and if doing so met with the more frequent bus
| scheduling) I could get there in just 4 hours.
|
| If you aren't directly on, and going almost exactly point to
| point for public transport outside big cities like NY, it can
| be so much worse than even "twice as long". I hated the wear
| and tear going all the way one way and then completely back
| across the cities the other way doing the shared commute
| required. I hated the sometimes hour or two wait before or
| after a shift to make the commute work with the other person.
| But using public transport was effectively impossible.
| goldtownjac wrote:
| That's definitely frustrating, but what did you expect? You
| lived in one city and worked in another. The "simple"
| solution to this is to live and work in the same city.
| LesZedCB wrote:
| plus you know the massive personal and societal cost savings of
| reduced fuel consumption
| briandear wrote:
| Perhaps we should instead be researching how to get more fuel
| cheaper. Much of the "cost" is self inflicted. Gasoline could
| be almost as cheap as bottled water if we wanted it to be.
| muti wrote:
| Cost also includes negative environmental effects
| reddog wrote:
| Its a commonly held belief that private cars are less energy
| efficient and are less environmentally friendly per passenger
| mile than mass transit. But that's a myth. On average the
| American passenger car is more energy efficient than mass
| transit. In fact, there are only two mass transit systems in
| the US more efficient (in cost, energy and carbon) than
| driving a Prius.
|
| https://theicct.org/planes-trains-and-automobiles-
| counting-c...
|
| https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa-615.pd.
| ..
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Your first link doesn't support your point.
|
| It's talking about 300-500 mile trips (where you might be
| choosing plane vs train vs car vs bus) and it assumed 2.2
| people in the car, and the bus still gets about 3x the
| efficiency.
|
| I'm not going to waste my time on some Cato nonsense.
| wyre wrote:
| I don't see either of your sources showing public transit
| is more fuel intensive than a car. The first report assumes
| 2.2 people in a car which I don't think is an actual
| average and a greyhound bus was 4x more efficient than the
| car.
| dehrmann wrote:
| > a greyhound bus was 4x more efficient than the car
|
| That's a good scenario for buses because Grayhound can
| size buses appropriately and change the frequency. The
| number for buses within a city is trickier because you
| have some packed commute buses, and some with 3
| passengers at 10 PM.
| LesZedCB wrote:
| haha what city do you live in where a prius is the average
| commuter car?
|
| i live in seattle and joke about always being able to see
| at least one tesla. and _still_ there are at least as many
| if not more SUVs than fuel efficient commuter cars.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| Single data point, but I see a lot of cars around
| Cincinnati. I'm guaranteed to see another Prius and at
| least two Teslas every trip more than a few miles from my
| house.
| boh wrote:
| There's also less people that have to own cars. If NYC didn't
| have subways it would be unlivable given the density.
|
| Also for what you've described to be true, you likely lived in
| a high income area since they provide easier access to where
| most offices are situated. If you're commuting in from the
| outer boroughs into Manhattan, driving is way slower given the
| traffic (and way more stressful, and then there's the parking
| situation).
| doktorhladnjak wrote:
| If NYC did not have subways, it wouldn't be as dense. It
| would be a totally different city with respect to culture and
| who lives there.
|
| Something that is often overlooked in the transit vs private
| car debate is that modes of transportation affect urban
| design and ultimately different ways of living.
|
| Driving in a transit oriented city is totally different than
| riding transit in an auto oriented city.
| shawabawa3 wrote:
| You just haven't lived in a city with good public transport
|
| In e.g. London or Paris public transport is almost always the
| fastest way to get from A to B
| sneak wrote:
| This is also true in Berlin, but mostly because it is
| relatively slow to drive most long distances in the city.
| flemhans wrote:
| Public transit is 1.5-2x slower in Berlin too.
|
| Once I started using ShareNow I never looked back
| elashri wrote:
| You are describing people living in the majority if not all
| of US cities.
| userabchn wrote:
| I do not think discussions about transportation environmental
| cost usually sufficiently consider the productivity lost
| because of how long it takes to get places by public transport.
| We get a number of hours of productive work from each person
| every day, and so that productivity required all of the
| resources that the person consumed in a day. An extra hour of
| commuting every day, because I need to go from A to B, but
| because I take public transport I need to go A to C and then C
| to B and along the way need to make lots of stops, means that
| an extra fraction of the resources I consumed for that day will
| not be used for productivity.
|
| Also, the diagrams showing public transport being more space
| efficient often seem to assume that the public transport will
| be at capacity. On my 30 minute bus ride, to/from a major
| downtown, I am not infrequently the only passenger on the whole
| bus.
| jjj123 wrote:
| If you include second order effects beyond your individual
| experience the benefits are plenty:
|
| - better for the environment
|
| - safer (especially for pedestrians)
|
| - more people can move using less space, resulting in less
| traffic/higher throughput
|
| - if public transportation was prioritized over cars, city
| layouts could be dramatically overhauled, with more streets
| used for pedestrian/bike traffic instead of cars
|
| These are the reasons I take public transportation instead of
| driving. I'd rather contribute in some small way to the society
| I want instead of settling for a local maximum of convenience.
|
| Edited for clarity
| m463 wrote:
| theoretically.
|
| there are plenty of ways to lose efficiency.
|
| for instance, what if your whole society is n% less
| efficient?
| kazinator wrote:
| Most public transit vehicles don't have seat belts, and often
| force people to stand.
| emeraldd wrote:
| > - safer (especially for pedestrians)
|
| This is arguably not true. It's not uncommon to find yourself
| on foot and alone in situation/places where it is not a good
| idea to be either.
| mtrpcic wrote:
| I think this statement is more geared towards those
| commuters who are walking either way, not those that are
| deciding between driving and public transit. With fewer
| cars on the road, there is a lower likelihood of those
| walking being hit by one.
| wisnoskij wrote:
| This is true in a minority of cases.
|
| Like delivery works as their are a small number starting
| locations and no one cares about the max travel time.
|
| Or transporting people between a small number of hub
| locations and not caring that much about how long it takes.
|
| But public transit that transports every address to every
| other address is almost infinitely less efficient than just
| giving everyone a car.
| pluc wrote:
| Isn't that common sense? Public transit takes you everywhere
| _and_ where you need to go. Driving just takes you where you need
| to go.
| _dain_ wrote:
| No, there's no a priori reason why public transport should be
| slower. There are cities where it isn't the case, London for
| example.
|
| Cars get stuck in traffic (because they _are_ traffic). Trains
| don 't, and can reach higher speeds. Buses have (or should
| have) their own lanes, and priority at traffic lights, so that
| they don't get stuck behind cars. A single bus lane can have
| more passenger throughput than several car lanes; it's an
| absurdity that a bus should be delayed by single-occupancy
| vehicles hogging the space.
|
| If public transport is slower than driving, your city is doing
| it wrong.
| fallingknife wrote:
| There is. You have to get to and from the station / stop
| twice every trip. This makes it slower unless you are in an
| area where the density is so high that the space constraints
| make cars prohibitive.
| _dain_ wrote:
| >You have to get to and from the station / stop twice every
| trip.
|
| And you have to get to and from your parking spot.
|
| >an area where the density is so high that the space
| constraints make cars prohibitive.
|
| Yes, these areas are called "cities".
|
| ---
|
| There are a lot of factors that go into determining the
| relative speeds of public transport vs private motor
| vehicles. Here are some of them (for buses):
|
| - street network topology: grid, spaghetti, cul-de-sacs?
|
| - are there highways slicing through the city, or is it
| mostly smaller roads?
|
| - speed limits on those roads
|
| - is there a congestion charge?
|
| - are there dedicated bus lanes?
|
| - is there priority for buses at intersections?
|
| - spacing of stops
|
| - boarding, payment, disembarking procedure
|
| - frequency of rides
|
| - directness of the route
|
| - viability of other non-car transport modes e.g. cycling
|
| Different answers to these questions give different journey
| times. Whether transit is faster than driving is the net
| result of all these questions. And most of them are
| political in nature. It's a choice, not some iron law.
|
| Plus, there's the obvious existence proof of fast public
| transit: airlines.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > No, there's no a priori reason why public transport should
| be slower.
|
| Public transit usually isn't a direct run from where you get
| on to where you get off, and it usually stops several times
| along the way too.
| tootie wrote:
| Trains have no traffic. At least, when they're run properly
| vel0city wrote:
| I live in an exurb in the US. Transit tries to serve a lot of
| single family homes. That said, I've got two bus routes nearby
| which connect to the light rail to go deeper into the metro area
| and out to the airport. Despite there being a bus stop close to
| my door I still take my car most of the time.
|
| I could _get by_ with living an only public transit lifestyle,
| and that 's a part of why I chose to live here as opposed to
| elsewhere. But in the end this really limits my choices. Yeah,
| there is a daycare a few stops away, but that wasn't the one we
| wanted to send our child to. There is a grocery store, but it's
| not the ones we like to shop at. There are places I could work,
| but the place I want to work is a less than 10 minute drive but a
| 45 minute bus ride. To get to the places we do want to go, it's
| easily 2-5x as long of a travel.
|
| Just the other day a friend invited me to dinner. The restaurant
| was on the same bus line as one of the lines just outside my
| house. A great chance for transit, I wouldn't even have to change
| busses. It was a less than 20 minute car ride and a few dollars
| of tolls each way. Or a little over an hour on the bus each way.
| Sure, riding the bus would have been cheaper than the cost of my
| car, assuming my time is valued at $0 and everything is devoid of
| scheduling conflicts. But I value my time quite highly, and I
| often have pretty tight schedules.
| beej71 wrote:
| Time alone isn't a good measure. Minute-dollars is probably a
| better one. But value of time or money doesn't add linearly in
| people's minds, so even this could be improved.
|
| When I lived in the Bay area, rough numbers:
|
| Job 1, car: 3600 minute-dollars per day.
|
| Job 1, public transit: 800 minute-dollars
|
| Job 2, car: 2700 minute-dollars
|
| Job 2, public transit: 6000 minute-dollars
| s1k3 wrote:
| The difference? I can use those minutes doing something instead
| of paying attention to traffic and driving. I can read a book or
| get a head start on work or bum around on social media. If I bike
| to work it doubles as my exercise for the day. The utility of
| that time is what makes the difference for me.
| flemhans wrote:
| This rule works in Copenhagen too. I'm often met with disbelief
| and even mild outrage when I make the claim.
| pastage wrote:
| Copenhagen is a pretty car centric city though, public
| transport has traditionally not been that well prioritized. It
| is good city for bicycles, but the suburbs are sadly made for
| cars IMHO. There is also alot of infrastructure being built for
| cars in and around Copenhagen so it's not changing soon.
| sigstoat wrote:
| i'd like to know the variance of the two looks like, and how much
| earlier transit riders have to leave wherever they are to account
| for it, than drivers. (this wouldn't show up because they
| measured door-to-door times.)
|
| admittedly i'm able to keep my car in good repair, but: over the
| decades i've only had a handful of days where my car didn't start
| in the morning, or i encountered _unexpected_ events on the road
| that made the trip take dramatically longer. (heavy traffic on a
| road i use every day would just show up in my average.)
|
| but when i've tried to use buses, while in school, or a brief
| period when my employer was at the other end of the bus that
| stopped in my neighborhood, i had buses not show up about once a
| week (or show up well ahead of the posted schedule). now that i
| think about it, i've been on about as many buses that had traffic
| accidents as i've had days where my car didn't start, despite
| using my car 100x more often than i've taken a bus.
| josephcsible wrote:
| I support solutions to this of the form "let's make transit
| faster while keeping driving the same speed". I strongly oppose
| solutions to this of the form "let's keep transit basically the
| same speed but make driving slower".
| Mildlypolite wrote:
| In my city the bike is usually faster than the car simply because
| you don't have to search for a parking spot for 30 minutes.
| juve1996 wrote:
| Parking is an underrated part of the equation that many on here
| are not taking into account. It's scarce, and extremely
| expensive.
| O_H_E wrote:
| This is the same here in Ontario, Canada in 2 of the biggest non-
| toronto cities.
| mattlondon wrote:
| The tube in London is significantly faster than driving in all
| but the most unusually low-traffic weekend days.
|
| What is terrible thigh are the buses. It is almost like it is a
| regulation now that they cannot go faster then 12mph. And even if
| they _could_ go faster than that, they stop literally every
| 100-200 meters so you are constantly stopping and starting. It is
| infuriatingly slow and plodding as a result, despite the fact
| that they have dedicated bus lanes here.
|
| I simply do not know why there are not more "express" bus routes
| in London that only stop at major places (e.g. perhaps linking
| tube stations that are on different lines, or going "across"
| London (c.f. tube lines that tend to head to the center).
|
| I think it is the result of a bit of a socialist ideal about
| everyone sharing the same journey as some sort of proletariat-
| unite fantasy where we all share the same bus: children on their
| way to school, workers on their way to the office, grannies going
| to visit their grandchildren, etc etc - no matter your status or
| walk of life you're all together sharing the same journey, all
| equal, all together etc. That is all very well and good, but
| different people are under different time pressures, so lowering
| the bus to handle the lowest common denominator of someone who
| just wants to get it to go 0.5 to 1km down the road ruins it for
| those that need to cover distance. So those that can pay to go
| places faster than those that don't
| throwaway290 wrote:
| What a surprise, in cities designed for cars it's faster to use a
| car...
| option wrote:
| it is also far less comfortable, you can take far less cargo
| (e.g. trip to the beach with kids), and you'll be exposed to all
| the current pathogens
| fallingknife wrote:
| I think that this is the fundamental issue of why we don't have
| more public transit. It's just next to impossible to beat the
| convenience of cars. The only place I have been in the US where
| public transit is more convenient than driving is Manhattan. That
| kind of density is really the only place where you can do that.
| jmyeet wrote:
| It's not clear to me that this is an apples-to-apples comparison.
| Specifically: is the _same_ commute by public transport longer by
| car? For example, you might be comparing a ride from Garden City
| to Lower Manhattan by train to a ride from Garden City to JFK
| Airport by car. If so, then this is completely meaningless.
|
| There are also socioeconomic factors to consider. If you're poor
| then driving into Lower Manhattan just isn't an option for you.
| Car ownership is already expensive. Insurance in the NY metro
| area is particularly expensive. Parking anywhere in Manhattan is
| going to be really expensive.
|
| So you may end up using data like this as a reason to eliminate
| what is for many people their only option.
|
| At the other end of the spectrum are places like Houston, with a
| 26 lane freeway. It's also currently building the largest urban
| ring road in the world (IIRC) at >180 miles. Those are eyesores
| by themselves but it's absolutely criminal not to eliminate 2
| lanes of a 26 lane freeway to run light rail along the length of
| the freeway. Stations are pretty easily combined with parking
| structures and integrated with bus routes.
|
| What you realize after awhile is being car-centric in America is
| not only a question of profound selfishness but it's also de
| facto segregation. Not from inorities per se, just "undesirables"
| ie poor people. It's why wealthier neighborhoods like Santa
| Monica tried to fight rail expansion into their area.
|
| The cost of car ownerships, much like most of the US outlawing
| building anything other than single family houses (typically on
| ridiculously large lots) is a deliberate economic barrier. US
| cities are really no different to Cape Town.
| scythe wrote:
| >The new network isn't just about saving time. It's also opened
| up job opportunities for those who are now within walking
| distance of frequent service. "The goal," Luhrsen says, "was to
| connect those places of density within the system -- to get
| people to jobs, to get them to schools, health-care facilities
| ... seven days a week."
|
| This ending paragraph is basically why I don't care about the
| title. At this point, convincing people to switch from cars to
| buses/trains en masse is a tiny glint of light on the horizon.
| Far more important in the near-term is simply providing adequate
| transportation to those who can't or don't wish to drive.
| anonymousDan wrote:
| Would be interested to see a similar visualization for major
| European cities. As someone living in London I would be very
| surprised if public transport isn't quicker on average.
| adaml_623 wrote:
| I think it's undeniable that journeys in to, out of, or around
| central London are faster on public transport if you're going
| along one of the main routes. But there are lots of journeys
| outside of the centre, either sideways or diagonal, that are
| very awkward and slow on public transport.
|
| My problem is that I have very little data or intuitive feel
| for how the 8 million people in London actually move during the
| average day
| nicoburns wrote:
| My experience is that it's common for people to meet in
| central London (and/or to have loca friends in the area you
| live) for this reason. Houses and workplaces are usually
| coordinated to minimise travel time (although there's been a
| huge increase in homeworking since covid which is reducing
| the need for this).
| ageitgey wrote:
| My experience in London is that it just depends on where you
| are going.
|
| - Local neighborhood? Walking or cycling is fastest
|
| - Next high street over? Bus or cycling is fastest
|
| - Most places in central London? Tube or train is fastest
|
| - That neighborhood a mile away that inexplicably has bad bus
| connections to you but you need to go because that's where the
| vet/store/whatever you need to visit is? Driving is often the
| best way, especially if you need to carry something. Cycling is
| pretty good, too.
|
| - That village 30 miles away? Driving or train (depending on
| your train line connections)
|
| - Full-size Ikea in Wembley? Driving (pretty hard to get there
| any other way) and you are probably going to want to bring
| something back
|
| - Mini-Ikea in Hammersmith? Take the Underground, driving
| wouldn't even really be possible
|
| Overall, I end up driving fairly rarely to never except for
| vacations or home repair type stuff. But having a multitude of
| transit options is really nice and most daily activities just
| require walking or quick local bus rides.
|
| I'm as pro-public-transit and cycling as they come, but there
| are definitely some types of trips where cars make sense. But I
| probably only drive 2-3 times a month vs. multiple times a day
| in the US. Zip cars are fairly omnipresent around London, so
| you don't need to own a car to drive those rare trips.
| matsemann wrote:
| Same experience here in Oslo. With the different rent-a-car-
| by-hour companies popping up, I'll just rent a car for a few
| hours every now and then. I could do that like 10 times a
| month and it would probably be cheaper still than owning a
| car, most people don't realize how much it actually costs.
| Sharing a car like this makes so much sense.
| orwin wrote:
| Yeah, i do that too, but sadly i'm in a fairly touristic
| city and in summer it become very hard to find available
| vehicle.
| ouid wrote:
| Yeah, but i can't play super auto pets in my car.
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| This will be really unpopular here haha.
|
| But the average person is always going to do what is best for
| them. You can let this inform almost any decision of your life
| when trying to decide what herd behavior and your users will do.
| ska wrote:
| I don't see why you would expect this to be unpopular.
|
| You are oversimplifying though , the average person is usually
| going to do what _they think_ is best for them, _given the
| options they know about_.
|
| The distinction is critical in topics like city/transportation
| planning.
| woodruffw wrote:
| That's an _extremely_ popular opinion, as evidenced by
| everybody doing it :-)
|
| Most of the responses here are methodological ones, not claims
| that we should all selflessly ride public transit.
| gernb wrote:
| I'm not sure what your point is.
|
| https://youtu.be/muPcHs-E4qc?t=462
| a1371 wrote:
| Significant clarification missing from the title: "IN AMERICA"
|
| And to some Americans' surprise, not everywhere is like that.
| When you build your cities around cars, no other mode of
| transportation can thrive. Over a century of sprawl and road
| widening can't have an overnight fix.
| theshrike79 wrote:
| For me it'd take about 20 minutes to drive to the office + any
| time spent looking for a parking spot + possible rush hour
|
| Or I can walk about 7 minutes to the train station, hop on a
| train for 30 minutes and walk 5 minutes to the office.
|
| I always pick the latter, because I can just zone out for the 30
| minutes in the train, maybe watch a TV show on my tablet, read a
| book or take a nap. Can't do any of those in traffic.
| matsemann wrote:
| I think this problem is bigger in many US cities compared to
| Europe, because of the urban sprawl. There is almost no way to
| make it efficient to go from most people's houses to the city
| using public transport, since the area to cover is so great.
|
| To me, the solution is to re-think why everyone needs to go
| somewhere by car to get anything done. Why not have a grocery
| store closer? Some restaurants? Everyone having to travel from
| their house to the city centre to do basically anything is so
| wasteful. Most of this is because of zoning laws.
| mcntsh wrote:
| The first example they give is NYC, showing cars being almost
| twice as fast as the train. NYC is denser than most European
| capitals.
| jrimbault wrote:
| Train stations in NYC are much less dense than (for example
| my own city) Paris subway network.
|
| New-York subway network is impressive for its sprawl, but not
| really for its efficiency.
| bonyt wrote:
| The New York metro area is much larger than NYC and includes
| suburbs and smaller cities in Long Island, New Jersey, and
| Connecticut.
| mcntsh wrote:
| Wouldn't those also be taken into account for the drivers
| side of the comparison?
| kgermino wrote:
| Yes, but someone from Long Island or Connecticut who
| works in Manhattan is unlikely to drive, while someone
| from those areas who works one town over will almost
| certainly drive. That will definitely skew these numbers
| if they don't adjust for it
| doktorhladnjak wrote:
| Absolutely. It's completely a consequence of the _choice_ to
| employ exclusionary zoning.
| quantumwannabe wrote:
| Your idea is actually how car-dependent cities are laid out.
| Look at a map of Phoenix for a textbook example: the city is
| laid out on a square mile grid with retail/offices on the grid
| corners. People may drive to go shopping, but that's a choice,
| they could walk there (if they want to brave the heat) since
| for most of the city the nearest shopping area is less than a
| mile (1.6 km) away.
| alephxyz wrote:
| Zoning laws and more importantly NIMBYs. I used to live in a
| city that's currently being taken to court after they cancelled
| the construction permits for mixed use buildings because a few
| very vocal citizens didn't want to live next to 4+ floor
| buildings and managed to get elected to the city council.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| I live in Denmark, have pretty much ideal public transport for
| my work (one bus, very little walking on either end) and it
| still takes about twice as long.
|
| Which would be fine, except when you bring this up lots of
| people start talking about how to make cars take more time, or
| making public transport free.
|
| Neither of which solves the problem.
|
| I probably would be more willing to take the bus if wasn't also
| less comfy than my car. Not only does my car have better seats
| than the bus, but I am guaranteed one.
| matsemann wrote:
| But why does the bus take twice as long? Because it's stuck
| in traffic, take a different route, too many stops?
|
| I do think the best way of course is to make public transport
| a viable option by itself. But it's hard to do without
| actually limiting the use of cars as well. It's a chicken-
| and-hen problem, as long as too many rely on cars, it's hard
| to have a very good public transport. For instance because of
| what I mentioned, people choosing places to live based on
| cars making it hard to cover with public transport.
|
| Also, disincentivise car usage makes the city much better for
| those living there. I hate that people outside the city drive
| to work every day. Those cars are loud, takes so much space
| (which could've been cozy instead of asphalt), are a danger
| to kids, pedestrians, cyclists etc, pollutes the local air.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > Not only does my car have better seats than the bus, but I
| am guaranteed one
|
| at the expenses of everybody else.
|
| there is nothing more wasteful than turning up a very heavy,
| powerful and polluting machine to transport a single non
| disabled human for a few kms.
|
| anyway, your seat would be guaranteed also on a bike, a
| moped, a horse, a donkey, a 20 tons truck, a bulldozer and an
| helicopter. Doesn't mean they are all equally good options.
| Doesn't mean city planning should consider the comfort of
| your bum a priority.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| Well we are simply going to have to disagree on that on and
| then I will be quite happy to move elsewhere if the place I
| live isn't willing to take my concerns as a sufficient
| priority.
| gambiting wrote:
| Yes but people seem to have this backwards. Denmark and
| Netherlands are actually one of the best countries in the
| world to drive a car, because so much of other traffic has
| been shifted away from roads. Even in large cities, people
| are surprised that you can drive somewhere within few minutes
| and there usually is parking - it's specifically because all
| the other infrastructure is so good that people are
| incentivised to cycle, take a bus or a train - so there's
| fewer people on the road.
|
| So from that perspective - yeah, of course driving is going
| to be faster for you than public transport.
| thayne wrote:
| I also suspect a lot of people who argue to completely
| replace cars with public transit either haven't tried
| traveling with young children on public transit, or haven't
| had the luxury of using a car when traveling with young
| children. Because taking young children on public transit is
| pretty miserable.
| matsemann wrote:
| What about a cargo bike? Looks a hundred times smoother
| those doing that here, compared to a car.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > lots of people start talking about how to make cars take
| more time
|
| Why is this Harrison Bergeron-style "solution" to things so
| common these days? "A lot of people choose X over Y, but we
| want more people to choose Y over X instead. Make Y better?
| Unthinkable! Let's make X worse instead!"
| tomjen3 wrote:
| Because it's easier to make things worse than it is to make
| them better.
| thayne wrote:
| For a while I lived in an area in th US where I had a grocery
| store, a library, and several grocery stores within a mile. But
| my commute was 10 minutes by car, and almost an hour by bus.
| And the buses took a pretty direct route and there was a bus
| stop pretty close to my home. Part of it was just all the stops
| the bus made, and a big part of it was just waiting. The bus
| times weren't very reliable, so I had to show up pretty early,
| because if I missed the bus I would have to wait an hour for
| the next bus. And the bus just stopped and waited 20 minutes
| for a light rail to get there. And depending on the day, I
| might have to switch buses there.
|
| And half a mile is still a long ways to carry groceries,
| especially in the heat or cold. But taking the bus required
| timing how long you shop so you are done in time to catch the
| bus that only comes once an hour.
|
| And that doesn't even get into the hours the bus didn't run, or
| the inconvenience of having to carry all your groceries.
|
| So while I think having such amenities closer to where people
| live, would be good, and would help. I don't think it is
| sufficient to solve the problems with public transit being
| slower.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-31 23:01 UTC)