5 ms·

I tend to agree, but I think it's worth considering that public transit commutes might be longer because people find time on public transit more pleasant, and a

I tend to agree, but I think it's worth considering that public transit commutes might be longer because people find time on public transit more pleasant, and are willing to do more of it. To look at two extremes, 45 minutes of bumper-to-bumper stop-and-go driving is a lot less compelling than 45 minutes of reading on a commuter train with a comfortable seat.

masklinn 7y ago
> people find time on public transit more pleasant, and are willing to do more of it. My knowledge of "popular" underground (London) or metro (Paris) lines makes that very unlikely, they're hot, way overcrowded, and odd-smelling when they don't outright stink. Very useful and convenient, and can be pleasant outside of peak hours, but back when I worked in Paris despite not being a morning person I switched my work hours to take the metro way off-peak (between 6 and 7) so I could commute with some fresh air and have more than "no room whatsoever". On the most populated lines, the trains are packed line sardine cans, and I don't know now but 20 years back there was no AC let alone AC which could handle a car packed to the brim in high summer. Just to be clear: I didn't regret not having a car one bit, and given my commute was directly through Paris (from one near suburb to an other on the opposite side of the city) I don't think commuting by car would have been more pleasant. Couldn't have commuted reading books for starters, that's an advantage of a somewhat lengthy train commute (bus is less comfortable for reading especially if you tend to get car sickness, and obviously you can't read in your car though I guess audiobooks might be an option these days).
- dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
  > I switched my work hours to take the metro way off-peak (between 6 and 7) Yeah, I did the same, and sometimes I feel this is the second most productive time of the day.
- vr46 7y ago
  London’s public transport consists of trains and buses, not just the tube. And there are several air-conditioned ‘metro’ lines, all the sub-surface lines. The others are hot and horrible, I agree, but the public transport network in London is second to none. It also includes bicycles if you want the wind in your hair.
- reallydontask 7y ago
  My experience, on trains, is similar to yours, though perhaps less unpleasant. I've been taken trains at around 06:30 for about four years and it's such a big difference to a more standard office hour. I can relax, I can sleep without having somebody sat next to me, I can work and best of all I don't have to drive.
- sprafa 7y ago
  London has incredible public transport and only one line has no AC so it’s hot (edit) this is completely wrong, actually quite a few lines lack AC.. On being overcrowded - sure, during rush hour. Even then you marvel at the TfL’s efficiency - during rush hour I’ve counted one underground train every 20 seconds. 20 seconds! And this keeps on going for an hour or more.
  - te_chris 7y ago
    Huh? None of the deep lines have AC
    - sprafa 7y ago
      Really? I was under the impression Central was one of the few. Maybe it’s an air circulation thing, but for someone reason I can only think of the northern and central as being insanely hot. Will google. edit you’re right I’ve just changed the post above.
  - yomly 7y ago
    Are you sure we live in the same city? The Central line during summer is so hot it wouldn't be legal to transport cattle on it. The Northern line regularly has packed platforms going north in the morning. The Metropolitan has been undergoing "modernisation" for over a decade... EDIT trains also frequently run late OR early They break under the slightest deviation in nature - rain, snow, heat and leaves on the track all caused breakdown in service every year And let's not forget the dreaded "signal failure". By comparison my experiences in Munich, China, Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore and Hong Kong have all illustrated what an efficient metro system can be. Though they obviously have 50+ years less infrastructure baggage to lit around
    - sprafa 7y ago
      The Central line was the one I was thinking of. I was wrong and I’ve edited the post above. The reason for this is clear tho - those lines are sometimes upwards of 100\80 years old. It’s still probably the one of the best public transport systems I’ve ever encountered, and imo perhaps one of the best ones in Europe. edit I haven’t been to Munich but I’ve been to Cologne & Berlin, I found London beat their transport systems particularly in clarity and signage. I find TfL signage systems to be some of clearest in the world, and I give them great credit for that. Their design is excellent and makes it virtually impossible to get lost.
- baud147258 7y ago
  For Paris, it depends on the line. I'm taking line 10 daily (and a bit of T2) and it's confortable enough.
  - plopilop 7y ago
    When I lived in Paris, I used (for various jobs) lines 2, 6 and 13 to commute, also RER B. The mere idea of getting a seat during rush hour was delusional. I remember once, at Denfert-Rochereau, I had to let two RER go to the south without me, as there was litteraly no place for me to go inside. Could not even put a foot in.
    - baud147258 7y ago
      I'm lucky, especially since I take line 10 from the terminus to go back home, I'm sure to have a seat.
jacquesm 7y ago
> 45 minutes of reading on a commuter train with a comfortable seat I've never seen that train. The ones I am in - when I am in them, I avoid them as much as I can - are crowded and reading is definitely not going to happen, standing is more common than sitting.
C1sc0cat 7y ago
Have you actually commuted long distance > 70 Miles each way? I worked out in the UK it costs (after allowing for tax) £10k pa to commute the 70 miles to central London - and thats not counting the costs of the extra hour and a half out of your day.
- ollie87 7y ago
  Or you could live somewhere like Newark in Nottinghamshire where the train is an hour and ten minutes into Kings Cross and it'll cost you £6,000 a year. Plus house prices/rents are cheaper too. I'm so glad I live basically on the East Coast mainline, it's the only decent line in the entire country.
  - C1sc0cat 7y ago
    Apart from when they screwed people living in Bedford and Luton.

masklinn 7y ago

> people find time on public transit more pleasant, and are willing to do more of it. My knowledge of "popular" underground (London) or metro (Paris) lines makes that very unlikely, they're hot, way overcrowded, and odd-smelling when they don't outright stink. Very useful and convenient, and can be pleasant outside of peak hours, but back when I worked in Paris despite not being a morning person I switched my work hours to take the metro way off-peak (between 6 and 7) so I could commute with some fresh air and have more than "no room whatsoever". On the most populated lines, the trains are packed line sardine cans, and I don't know now but 20 years back there was no AC let alone AC which could handle a car packed to the brim in high summer. Just to be clear: I didn't regret not having a car one bit, and given my commute was directly through Paris (from one near suburb to an other on the opposite side of the city) I don't think commuting by car would have been more pleasant. Couldn't have commuted reading books for starters, that's an advantage of a somewhat lengthy train commute (bus is less comfortable for reading especially if you tend to get car sickness, and obviously you can't read in your car though I guess audiobooks might be an option these days).

dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
> I switched my work hours to take the metro way off-peak (between 6 and 7) Yeah, I did the same, and sometimes I feel this is the second most productive time of the day.
vr46 7y ago
London’s public transport consists of trains and buses, not just the tube. And there are several air-conditioned ‘metro’ lines, all the sub-surface lines. The others are hot and horrible, I agree, but the public transport network in London is second to none. It also includes bicycles if you want the wind in your hair.
reallydontask 7y ago
My experience, on trains, is similar to yours, though perhaps less unpleasant. I've been taken trains at around 06:30 for about four years and it's such a big difference to a more standard office hour. I can relax, I can sleep without having somebody sat next to me, I can work and best of all I don't have to drive.
sprafa 7y ago
London has incredible public transport and only one line has no AC so it’s hot (edit) this is completely wrong, actually quite a few lines lack AC.. On being overcrowded - sure, during rush hour. Even then you marvel at the TfL’s efficiency - during rush hour I’ve counted one underground train every 20 seconds. 20 seconds! And this keeps on going for an hour or more.
- te_chris 7y ago
  Huh? None of the deep lines have AC
  - sprafa 7y ago
    Really? I was under the impression Central was one of the few. Maybe it’s an air circulation thing, but for someone reason I can only think of the northern and central as being insanely hot. Will google. edit you’re right I’ve just changed the post above.
- yomly 7y ago
  Are you sure we live in the same city? The Central line during summer is so hot it wouldn't be legal to transport cattle on it. The Northern line regularly has packed platforms going north in the morning. The Metropolitan has been undergoing "modernisation" for over a decade... EDIT trains also frequently run late OR early They break under the slightest deviation in nature - rain, snow, heat and leaves on the track all caused breakdown in service every year And let's not forget the dreaded "signal failure". By comparison my experiences in Munich, China, Tokyo, Seoul, Singapore and Hong Kong have all illustrated what an efficient metro system can be. Though they obviously have 50+ years less infrastructure baggage to lit around
  - sprafa 7y ago
    The Central line was the one I was thinking of. I was wrong and I’ve edited the post above. The reason for this is clear tho - those lines are sometimes upwards of 100\80 years old. It’s still probably the one of the best public transport systems I’ve ever encountered, and imo perhaps one of the best ones in Europe. edit I haven’t been to Munich but I’ve been to Cologne & Berlin, I found London beat their transport systems particularly in clarity and signage. I find TfL signage systems to be some of clearest in the world, and I give them great credit for that. Their design is excellent and makes it virtually impossible to get lost.
baud147258 7y ago
For Paris, it depends on the line. I'm taking line 10 daily (and a bit of T2) and it's confortable enough.
- plopilop 7y ago
  When I lived in Paris, I used (for various jobs) lines 2, 6 and 13 to commute, also RER B. The mere idea of getting a seat during rush hour was delusional. I remember once, at Denfert-Rochereau, I had to let two RER go to the south without me, as there was litteraly no place for me to go inside. Could not even put a foot in.
  - baud147258 7y ago
    I'm lucky, especially since I take line 10 from the terminus to go back home, I'm sure to have a seat.

jacquesm 7y ago

> 45 minutes of reading on a commuter train with a comfortable seat I've never seen that train. The ones I am in - when I am in them, I avoid them as much as I can - are crowded and reading is definitely not going to happen, standing is more common than sitting.

C1sc0cat 7y ago

Have you actually commuted long distance > 70 Miles each way? I worked out in the UK it costs (after allowing for tax) £10k pa to commute the 70 miles to central London - and thats not counting the costs of the extra hour and a half out of your day.

ollie87 7y ago
Or you could live somewhere like Newark in Nottinghamshire where the train is an hour and ten minutes into Kings Cross and it'll cost you £6,000 a year. Plus house prices/rents are cheaper too. I'm so glad I live basically on the East Coast mainline, it's the only decent line in the entire country.
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  Apart from when they screwed people living in Bedford and Luton.