4 ms·
> Bus. Takes 90 minutes to do what my car can do in under 30, and I don't want to wake up yet another hour earlier. > Subway. Doesn't run to the area where I
by mmirate 8y ago
> Bus.
Takes 90 minutes to do what my car can do in under 30, and I don't want to wake up yet another hour earlier.
> Subway.
Doesn't run to the area where I live; and would have to run even farther to reach the office. I suspect the NIMBYs want it like that.
> Ride-share.
I'm a miserly bachelor in an office full of respectable familypeople. None of them would dare to live within 2 zipcodes of where I live.
> Taxi.
Is shockingly expensive to use for daily commuting, moreso than financing, fueling and maintaining my own car. Plus, unless rush-hour lasts long enough, each cab will only get one commute ride per rush-hour, so there's no net decrease in traffic for commuting via cab.
- pavel_lishin 8y agoIt definitely seems like your city is determined to sacrifice everything necessary to uphold their car culture.
- mmirate 8y agoOutside of the Pacific-assisted wonder-weather zone of California, summers tend to be hot and humid, and winters aren't particularly mild either. Any amount of travel without the aid of climate control is ... undesirable.
- pavel_lishin 8y agoSure, but things like under- and above-ground rail exist, reasonable bus routes exist, good city planning exists. Punting everything to "well everyone har a car" is effectively giving up.
- mmirate 8y agoPerhaps. Then again, judging by the few times I've taken the metro for an inner-city errand, I'm not sure I'd want to ride it to work even if the line did run far enough. At least, not without ... martial-arts training? Or maybe a "penniless grad-student" disguise?