4 ms·

Also, if you have multiple kids and all the stuff associated with them (stroller, bags, etc), you're going to want a car. What would you rather do - spend 45 m

Also, if you have multiple kids and all the stuff associated with them (stroller, bags, etc), you're going to want a car. What would you rather do - spend 45 minutes on public transit with two screaming kids and all your groceries, or drive your own car 15 minutes to the store?

djcapelis 10y ago
In dense urban environments, taking a car means more traffic and a huge pain for parking. When I am going between SF and Oakland the train is usually faster and more convenient. Especially during peak commute times. And if you really want to be able to park your car, you should support people taking the train. Otherwise there won't be much parking left for you if you really need it and it'll make your car transit experience suck more. :)
Johnny555 10y ago
You're taking the kid to the store either way, which seems like the hardest part. And I've noticed that my urban friends really trim down their kid-gear compared to my suburban friends -- city dwellers use a small stroller (or no stroller and a child carrier wrap) and a small bag with essentials, suburban dwellers use a stroller the size of a Mini Cooper (which they hauled around with a full sized SUV) with several bags of "essentials". When I lived in the city, both of the grocery stores near me offered home delivery -- you drop off your bags at the front desk and schedule a delivery later this afternoon, so no need to carry them home or take them on transit. But it was a dense enough city that you didn't take transit there, you'd just walk. They had some kind of dial-in grocery shopping service as well that you could use to call in an order for delivery... but nowadays, online shopping seems to have solved the problem of shopping with children.
ACow_Adonis 10y ago
But if you live near a place that has grown up with high-density public transport use and pedestrian priority, the real question is why would you drive your own car 15 minutes to the store when 3 of them are within 15 minutes walk of your front door. (in my case roughly 4 min, 11 min and 13 min respectively by foot according to google for my nearest 3 big grocery stores). Trying to turn car based suburbia into a car free zone is admittedly an almost lost cause, but that's a bit of a misnomer. The real argument is to establish the city-design as one that is not car centric, not to convert a car-centric design into a car-free zone.
Doctor_Fegg 10y ago
Only one kid, but in a rural area, and public transport is fine, better even. You don't need to fold up the pushchair to get it on the bus/train. The kid gets a good view out the windows, which he loves. Factor in the time to find a parking space, and door-to-door journey time is similar, even quicker. The one downside is frequency: our trains and buses only run once an hour, and when baby wants to go home, he wants to go home NOW.

djcapelis 10y ago

In dense urban environments, taking a car means more traffic and a huge pain for parking. When I am going between SF and Oakland the train is usually faster and more convenient. Especially during peak commute times. And if you really want to be able to park your car, you should support people taking the train. Otherwise there won't be much parking left for you if you really need it and it'll make your car transit experience suck more. :)

Johnny555 10y ago

You're taking the kid to the store either way, which seems like the hardest part. And I've noticed that my urban friends really trim down their kid-gear compared to my suburban friends -- city dwellers use a small stroller (or no stroller and a child carrier wrap) and a small bag with essentials, suburban dwellers use a stroller the size of a Mini Cooper (which they hauled around with a full sized SUV) with several bags of "essentials". When I lived in the city, both of the grocery stores near me offered home delivery -- you drop off your bags at the front desk and schedule a delivery later this afternoon, so no need to carry them home or take them on transit. But it was a dense enough city that you didn't take transit there, you'd just walk. They had some kind of dial-in grocery shopping service as well that you could use to call in an order for delivery... but nowadays, online shopping seems to have solved the problem of shopping with children.

ACow_Adonis 10y ago

But if you live near a place that has grown up with high-density public transport use and pedestrian priority, the real question is why would you drive your own car 15 minutes to the store when 3 of them are within 15 minutes walk of your front door. (in my case roughly 4 min, 11 min and 13 min respectively by foot according to google for my nearest 3 big grocery stores). Trying to turn car based suburbia into a car free zone is admittedly an almost lost cause, but that's a bit of a misnomer. The real argument is to establish the city-design as one that is not car centric, not to convert a car-centric design into a car-free zone.

Doctor_Fegg 10y ago

Only one kid, but in a rural area, and public transport is fine, better even. You don't need to fold up the pushchair to get it on the bus/train. The kid gets a good view out the windows, which he loves. Factor in the time to find a parking space, and door-to-door journey time is similar, even quicker. The one downside is frequency: our trains and buses only run once an hour, and when baby wants to go home, he wants to go home NOW.