5 ms·

Traffic can be a real thing. For me to get most places in Boston it's actually at least as fast for to take the subway then to sit in rush hour traffic. I guess

by voxic11 10y ago

Traffic can be a real thing. For me to get most places in Boston it's actually at least as fast for to take the subway then to sit in rush hour traffic. I guess buses don't have that advantage though.

sliverstorm 10y ago
Depends on the bus, my local township has a new system of a private busway corridor, which strikes somewhere between a bus (low capital investment) and a train (no traffic).
ghaff 10y ago
For traveling within Boston, the T--in spite of its well-publicized issues--is a pretty decent urban transportation system for a lot of cases. But you talk about getting into the city from outside and the equation changes a lot. I'm a short drive from a commuter rail station and I tend to go in that way if I'm going in "9 to 5" for an event or meeting, especially given how bad rush hour traffic is. But, for anything else, it will take me close to twice as long and probably cost me $25 between the train, parking at the commuter rail, and possibly the T from the rail station. And trains are pretty infrequent outside of "normal" commuting hours.
swampthinker 10y ago
Not sure what you're talking about. Taking the train from Alewife to Downtown always beats the car, just not a bicycle.
- MrFoof 10y ago
  He's more referring to where Commuter Rail, not subway, is the method. Problems notwithstanding, subway lines other than the Green Line will always win over driving during peak times. A great example would be coming from Waltham via the Worcester/Framingham Line versus driving along the Mass Pike -- it'd be a coin flip as to what wins on a given day. Moreover, outside of subway service the only alternative (where available) is bus which can easily double commute times compared to driving. In some cases (Waltham and Newton for example) there's the Inner/Outer Express Buses which also competes directly with Commuter Rail in terms of timeliness (10% slower on average) but at a lower cost -- you can take non-express buses as well which are cheaper still, but tack on another 35-45 minutes each way -- we're talking 3 to 4 hours of commuting a day from northern parts of Boston to central Waltham via a combination of subway and non-express buses. However, Commuter Rail tends to be faster than driving on longer trips. Such as coming from Providence, Worcester, Fitchburg, etc.
r00fus 10y ago
Not in the US, generally. In France, for example, many municipalities have dedicated bus lanes which make buses competitive for timing.
- user5994461 10y ago
  In the city center the bus is useless because it's stuck in traffic jam. Any other option is better: bike/tube/overground/underground. Outside the city center. There are only a very few bus lines, infrequent and not covering much area. I suppose it's the same in most of the European countries: 10% of people have good nearby transportation. 50% of people live in the country side, with little to no transportation in sight. Car is highly recommended (usually considered mandatory).
  - tbihl 10y ago
    In Madrid it's not like this. I've never ridden anywhere in the city where the buses couldn't make it between the stops in good time, and that includes places like Gran Via and Puerta del Sol. In the US, we really do suffer for our vast wealth. We spent 70 years doing huge horizontal growth, putting tons of the population back to work in the process, and getting huge growth as a result. The problem with this, aside from the car dependency, is that it's not financially viable. When towns first build it, they get a burst of growth. Problem is, their infrastructure costs pretty much go up as a function of area, but the horizontal growth pattern doesn't pay its way. This becomes problematic in second and third life cycles, where the road maintenance is cripplingly expensive, but brings no growth. We should be building places that converge on hubs of activity. If we did that, we'd be able to put transit to those hubs and it would work because there would be better density nearby, and the potential riders wouldn't be too far to get to stations without cars. In the US we're going to be building this way, sooner or later. Some towns/cities have taken it upon themselves to move in that direction already. Many others are planning to be too big to fail, I guess. But we can't put off reality forever.
  - barney54 10y ago
    In DC with the Metro having problems, the bus is frequently faster--even from downtown.

by voxic11 10y ago

sliverstorm 10y ago

Depends on the bus, my local township has a new system of a private busway corridor, which strikes somewhere between a bus (low capital investment) and a train (no traffic).

ghaff 10y ago

For traveling within Boston, the T--in spite of its well-publicized issues--is a pretty decent urban transportation system for a lot of cases. But you talk about getting into the city from outside and the equation changes a lot. I'm a short drive from a commuter rail station and I tend to go in that way if I'm going in "9 to 5" for an event or meeting, especially given how bad rush hour traffic is. But, for anything else, it will take me close to twice as long and probably cost me $25 between the train, parking at the commuter rail, and possibly the T from the rail station. And trains are pretty infrequent outside of "normal" commuting hours.

swampthinker 10y ago

Not sure what you're talking about. Taking the train from Alewife to Downtown always beats the car, just not a bicycle.

MrFoof 10y ago
He's more referring to where Commuter Rail, not subway, is the method. Problems notwithstanding, subway lines other than the Green Line will always win over driving during peak times. A great example would be coming from Waltham via the Worcester/Framingham Line versus driving along the Mass Pike -- it'd be a coin flip as to what wins on a given day. Moreover, outside of subway service the only alternative (where available) is bus which can easily double commute times compared to driving. In some cases (Waltham and Newton for example) there's the Inner/Outer Express Buses which also competes directly with Commuter Rail in terms of timeliness (10% slower on average) but at a lower cost -- you can take non-express buses as well which are cheaper still, but tack on another 35-45 minutes each way -- we're talking 3 to 4 hours of commuting a day from northern parts of Boston to central Waltham via a combination of subway and non-express buses. However, Commuter Rail tends to be faster than driving on longer trips. Such as coming from Providence, Worcester, Fitchburg, etc.

r00fus 10y ago

Not in the US, generally. In France, for example, many municipalities have dedicated bus lanes which make buses competitive for timing.

user5994461 10y ago
In the city center the bus is useless because it's stuck in traffic jam. Any other option is better: bike/tube/overground/underground. Outside the city center. There are only a very few bus lines, infrequent and not covering much area. I suppose it's the same in most of the European countries: 10% of people have good nearby transportation. 50% of people live in the country side, with little to no transportation in sight. Car is highly recommended (usually considered mandatory).
- tbihl 10y ago
  In Madrid it's not like this. I've never ridden anywhere in the city where the buses couldn't make it between the stops in good time, and that includes places like Gran Via and Puerta del Sol. In the US, we really do suffer for our vast wealth. We spent 70 years doing huge horizontal growth, putting tons of the population back to work in the process, and getting huge growth as a result. The problem with this, aside from the car dependency, is that it's not financially viable. When towns first build it, they get a burst of growth. Problem is, their infrastructure costs pretty much go up as a function of area, but the horizontal growth pattern doesn't pay its way. This becomes problematic in second and third life cycles, where the road maintenance is cripplingly expensive, but brings no growth. We should be building places that converge on hubs of activity. If we did that, we'd be able to put transit to those hubs and it would work because there would be better density nearby, and the potential riders wouldn't be too far to get to stations without cars. In the US we're going to be building this way, sooner or later. Some towns/cities have taken it upon themselves to move in that direction already. Many others are planning to be too big to fail, I guess. But we can't put off reality forever.
- barney54 10y ago
  In DC with the Metro having problems, the bus is frequently faster--even from downtown.