6 ms·

London, Paris, NYC and Tokyo all have a comprehensive subway system and light rail covering the extended metro area. For many parts of LA, driving (or taking a

London, Paris, NYC and Tokyo all have a comprehensive subway system and light rail covering the extended metro area. For many parts of LA, driving (or taking a bus through terrible traffic) is the only option.

reillyse 10y ago
Sure, but travelling on those systems takes a long time. When I lived in London a 1 hour commute was seen as totally normal. That was by train and I had a very direct single overground train to take (Kentish town to Chiswick if I remember).
- eigenvector 10y ago
  An hour reading, sleeping or just zoned out on a train is a lot less fatigue than an hour operating a car in stop-and-go traffic.
  - closeparen 10y ago
    20 minutes standing on a violently accelerating and decelerating train while strangers' bodies are touching you is much more fatiguing than 2 hours at a standstill in a car (BART is far and away the worst part of every workday, while even the slowest trips to Monterey or Tahoe are a blast, but maybe that's just me).
    - pyromine 10y ago
      Comparing the mental fatigue of your work commute versus vacation travel is like comparing apples and oranges.
    - sampo 10y ago
      > BART is far and away the worst part of every workday BART is loud, rattly, screechy, wobbly, and generally feels like it could fall apart any moment. I wonder if even third world countries are able to produce trains that bad. But in developed parts of the world, trains are quiet and clean and run smoothly. In general when Americans say they don't like public transit, they mean they don't like American public transit, because it is so badly done in America.
      - closeparen 10y ago
        Sure, public transit can be done well. You can also offer guaranteed seating for a price, which changes the experience entirely. I'd love to spend the first and last hour of my workday on an Amtrak-like train (assuming it had reasonable on-time performance). The proposal here isn't to do public transit better, though. It's to get more people to use the existing, shitty public transit by pricing them out of driving.
    - encoderer 10y ago
      Two hours at a standstill makes my head explode. I appreciate the biodiversity here. Also if you can possibly take a transbay bus they are usually better for me than Bart during rush hour. Just as fast and more comfortable.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - talldan 10y ago
    That's definitely not the London commuter experience. Almost every train is crowded, and there's a very low chance that you'll get to sit on many trains. At some stations it's difficult to even board a train. Plus most trains don't have air conditioning. It's far from comfortable, but most of the time it does the job.
    - evgen 10y ago
      There is a wider variety to the London commuter experience than that experienced by people who don't actually live in London; sorry that you seem to be stuck on what I guess to be Southern, but if you are taking the tube it is not bad and on some lines can be quite pleasant. There is also a great bus system where you can almost always find a seat. London commuting is a dream compared to my prior one-hour each way drive via 85 & 101 in the valley.
      - talldan 10y ago
        Interesting to have that comparison. I've never done a regular drive to work (I currently take the tube). My journey right now is ok, but I've commuted in London for over 10 years, and experienced some very uncomfortable journeys. Try changing lines at a major station, and you experience the worst of it.
closeparen 10y ago
New York's public transit commuters have some of the worst commute times in the country, at 7.5-11 hours/week (45 minutes each way on the low end). For LA's drivers, even 37 minutes is pretty bad. [1] Public transit mitigates the environmental and public safety effects of traffic, but the "wasting your life in a slow-moving vehicle" problem is much worse with public transit (even rail). And no, that time is not reusable for reading, working, etc. unless you're so far out on the line (or your system is so "wastefully" overprovisioned) that getting a seat at rush hour is a realistic possibility. It's just as "gone" as it is for drivers in gridlock. So I'd rather lose less time, and that means driving (or making more money to afford higher rent closer to the center). If we want to design cities for ideological gratification (like SF) anything goes. If we want to design cities for low housing prices and low commute times, well, the worst case for freeway sprawl (LA) is beating the best case for walkable subway utopia (NY) by 20 minutes/day. [0] http://origin-states.politico.com.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/files/Embargoed%20Hardest%20Working%20Cities%20Study.pdf http://origin-states.politico.com.s3-website-us-east-1.amazo... [1] http://la.curbed.com/2014/10/8/10037514/mapping-the-average-commute-time-from-every-part-of-la http://la.curbed.com/2014/10/8/10037514/mapping-the-average-...
- 467568985476 10y ago
  I completely disagree about the reusability of time. I live in Boston and my commute on the train is only about 20 minutes, but that's plenty of time to read a few pages or catch up on the news. I see plenty of commuters reading books as well, so I'm definitely not a special case. Reading a book while standing on a crowded train is not that hard...
  - greeneggs 10y ago
    It certainly depends. In LA's metro system, they play a constant stream of announcements (often at ear-splitting volume). Even reading is difficult unless you get lucky and the system's broken.
    - 467568985476 10y ago

reillyse 10y ago

Sure, but travelling on those systems takes a long time. When I lived in London a 1 hour commute was seen as totally normal. That was by train and I had a very direct single overground train to take (Kentish town to Chiswick if I remember).

eigenvector 10y ago
An hour reading, sleeping or just zoned out on a train is a lot less fatigue than an hour operating a car in stop-and-go traffic.
- closeparen 10y ago
  20 minutes standing on a violently accelerating and decelerating train while strangers' bodies are touching you is much more fatiguing than 2 hours at a standstill in a car (BART is far and away the worst part of every workday, while even the slowest trips to Monterey or Tahoe are a blast, but maybe that's just me).
  - pyromine 10y ago
    Comparing the mental fatigue of your work commute versus vacation travel is like comparing apples and oranges.
  - sampo 10y ago
    > BART is far and away the worst part of every workday BART is loud, rattly, screechy, wobbly, and generally feels like it could fall apart any moment. I wonder if even third world countries are able to produce trains that bad. But in developed parts of the world, trains are quiet and clean and run smoothly. In general when Americans say they don't like public transit, they mean they don't like American public transit, because it is so badly done in America.
    - closeparen 10y ago
      Sure, public transit can be done well. You can also offer guaranteed seating for a price, which changes the experience entirely. I'd love to spend the first and last hour of my workday on an Amtrak-like train (assuming it had reasonable on-time performance). The proposal here isn't to do public transit better, though. It's to get more people to use the existing, shitty public transit by pricing them out of driving.
  - encoderer 10y ago
    Two hours at a standstill makes my head explode. I appreciate the biodiversity here. Also if you can possibly take a transbay bus they are usually better for me than Bart during rush hour. Just as fast and more comfortable.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- talldan 10y ago
  That's definitely not the London commuter experience. Almost every train is crowded, and there's a very low chance that you'll get to sit on many trains. At some stations it's difficult to even board a train. Plus most trains don't have air conditioning. It's far from comfortable, but most of the time it does the job.
  - evgen 10y ago
    There is a wider variety to the London commuter experience than that experienced by people who don't actually live in London; sorry that you seem to be stuck on what I guess to be Southern, but if you are taking the tube it is not bad and on some lines can be quite pleasant. There is also a great bus system where you can almost always find a seat. London commuting is a dream compared to my prior one-hour each way drive via 85 & 101 in the valley.
    - talldan 10y ago
      Interesting to have that comparison. I've never done a regular drive to work (I currently take the tube). My journey right now is ok, but I've commuted in London for over 10 years, and experienced some very uncomfortable journeys. Try changing lines at a major station, and you experience the worst of it.

closeparen 10y ago

New York's public transit commuters have some of the worst commute times in the country, at 7.5-11 hours/week (45 minutes each way on the low end). For LA's drivers, even 37 minutes is pretty bad. [1] Public transit mitigates the environmental and public safety effects of traffic, but the "wasting your life in a slow-moving vehicle" problem is much worse with public transit (even rail). And no, that time is not reusable for reading, working, etc. unless you're so far out on the line (or your system is so "wastefully" overprovisioned) that getting a seat at rush hour is a realistic possibility. It's just as "gone" as it is for drivers in gridlock. So I'd rather lose less time, and that means driving (or making more money to afford higher rent closer to the center). If we want to design cities for ideological gratification (like SF) anything goes. If we want to design cities for low housing prices and low commute times, well, the worst case for freeway sprawl (LA) is beating the best case for walkable subway utopia (NY) by 20 minutes/day. [0] http://origin-states.politico.com.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/files/Embargoed%20Hardest%20Working%20Cities%20Study.pdf http://origin-states.politico.com.s3-website-us-east-1.amazo... [1] http://la.curbed.com/2014/10/8/10037514/mapping-the-average-commute-time-from-every-part-of-la http://la.curbed.com/2014/10/8/10037514/mapping-the-average-...

467568985476 10y ago
I completely disagree about the reusability of time. I live in Boston and my commute on the train is only about 20 minutes, but that's plenty of time to read a few pages or catch up on the news. I see plenty of commuters reading books as well, so I'm definitely not a special case. Reading a book while standing on a crowded train is not that hard...
- greeneggs 10y ago
  It certainly depends. In LA's metro system, they play a constant stream of announcements (often at ear-splitting volume). Even reading is difficult unless you get lucky and the system's broken.
  - 467568985476 10y ago