3 ms·

You can separate the issue better by saying intercity and intracity. Getting from your home to a location is usually not much more time than getting from your h

You can separate the issue better by saying intercity and intracity. Getting from your home to a location is usually not much more time than getting from your home to a station. This makes trains unviable for most inner-city travel outside of some lightrail in dense urban areas. For intercity, trains quickly start competing against airlines which are better for most domestic travel because the US is so big.

LeifCarrotson 7y ago
Subways are one of the most effective inner-city travel systems available. I'd consider that a train system.
- mikepurvis 7y ago
  I'm always reminded of this when I visit Toronto— the last time I was there, my partner and I were going to see a small concert in the west end, and I groaned as Google Maps told me it would be a 40 minute trip by TTC, including the walk at both ends. Usually we would have taken the subway, but for whatever reason I was feeling lazy this time so we drove. It was almost a half-hour trip across downtown through the tail end of rush hour, and then ten minutes of circling the block looking at parking lots and garages that were already full, and then another ten minutes of walking back to the venue from the street parking we finally found several blocks away. And no, the solution is not "build more parking", the solution is to further incentivise mass transit use. For example, in this case, I probably would have been dissuaded from driving if Google Maps had not only incorporate traffic delays into its estimate, but also highlighted that the apparently plentiful nearby parking lots were all likely to be full at the time of my planned arrival.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    If you remove the parking situation from large-scale events, then the travel time is the same if not faster with the car, while providing more freedom and comfort. That's why many people choose it. Unless you within walking distance of a station, you're going to get in a car anyway and at that point it's usually faster and cheap to drive. That's the fundamental calculus that prevents large-scale train construction in CA cities.
    - mikepurvis 7y ago
      But changing the parking situation changes everything. The concert we went to was an The Great Hall on Queen St W. There were only a few hundred people at the event, but nowhere around there were there a few hundred parking spots— the whole neighbourhood is packed with restaurants, clubs, and other destinations. The character of it would be completely changed by setting all that stuff up to be accessed primarily by personal vehicle. The reality is, most of the people around us attending the event got there by some combination of transit, walking, and uber/cabs. And we should have too; we'll know for next time.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Like I said, it depends on density. If the home-to-station time is short enough then it already exists (like in New York) but in other places it's faster to just drive to the location rather than to/from a station on both ends (like in Los Angeles). Density and last mile is the critical factor. Most cities in the US are too spread out currently.
Ericson2314 7y ago
Have you lived in a city with a subway? Give it a few years, and all the stuff is nearer the trains stops anyways. The train is rarely out of the way.
- manigandham 7y ago
  I currently live in both New York and Los Angeles. The subways in NY work because of density, but they won't work in LA. Lightrail can be improved, and more lines added, but you're not going to get NY mobility in LA with trains alone. Not until someone solves the last-mile reach with something other than cars.
  - Ericson2314 7y ago
    Transportation determines density.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      Maybe when it was all empty land. Right now the current density is what determines what transportation is viable, or can even be built. Even acquiring the land would be incredibly difficult with our politics and economics.

LeifCarrotson 7y ago

Subways are one of the most effective inner-city travel systems available. I'd consider that a train system.

mikepurvis 7y ago
I'm always reminded of this when I visit Toronto— the last time I was there, my partner and I were going to see a small concert in the west end, and I groaned as Google Maps told me it would be a 40 minute trip by TTC, including the walk at both ends. Usually we would have taken the subway, but for whatever reason I was feeling lazy this time so we drove. It was almost a half-hour trip across downtown through the tail end of rush hour, and then ten minutes of circling the block looking at parking lots and garages that were already full, and then another ten minutes of walking back to the venue from the street parking we finally found several blocks away. And no, the solution is not "build more parking", the solution is to further incentivise mass transit use. For example, in this case, I probably would have been dissuaded from driving if Google Maps had not only incorporate traffic delays into its estimate, but also highlighted that the apparently plentiful nearby parking lots were all likely to be full at the time of my planned arrival.
- manigandham 7y ago
  If you remove the parking situation from large-scale events, then the travel time is the same if not faster with the car, while providing more freedom and comfort. That's why many people choose it. Unless you within walking distance of a station, you're going to get in a car anyway and at that point it's usually faster and cheap to drive. That's the fundamental calculus that prevents large-scale train construction in CA cities.
  - mikepurvis 7y ago
    But changing the parking situation changes everything. The concert we went to was an The Great Hall on Queen St W. There were only a few hundred people at the event, but nowhere around there were there a few hundred parking spots— the whole neighbourhood is packed with restaurants, clubs, and other destinations. The character of it would be completely changed by setting all that stuff up to be accessed primarily by personal vehicle. The reality is, most of the people around us attending the event got there by some combination of transit, walking, and uber/cabs. And we should have too; we'll know for next time.
manigandham 7y ago
Like I said, it depends on density. If the home-to-station time is short enough then it already exists (like in New York) but in other places it's faster to just drive to the location rather than to/from a station on both ends (like in Los Angeles). Density and last mile is the critical factor. Most cities in the US are too spread out currently.

Ericson2314 7y ago

Have you lived in a city with a subway? Give it a few years, and all the stuff is nearer the trains stops anyways. The train is rarely out of the way.

manigandham 7y ago
I currently live in both New York and Los Angeles. The subways in NY work because of density, but they won't work in LA. Lightrail can be improved, and more lines added, but you're not going to get NY mobility in LA with trains alone. Not until someone solves the last-mile reach with something other than cars.
- Ericson2314 7y ago
  Transportation determines density.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    Maybe when it was all empty land. Right now the current density is what determines what transportation is viable, or can even be built. Even acquiring the land would be incredibly difficult with our politics and economics.