15 ms·
> Ah, but public transit is inherently the slowest option. This isn't true if you are in a dense city with good public transit. This is currently mid day (3 P
by robrenaud 7y ago
> Ah, but public transit is inherently the slowest option.
This isn't true if you are in a dense city with good public transit. This is currently mid day (3 PM), and it's about 30% faster (21 minutes vs 29 minutes) to go from my current location in Manhattan to a bar I enjoy hanging out in Brooklyn via public transit than car, according to Google Maps. It would be even better around rush hour.
- jtcruthers 7y agoThere are maybe 2 or 3 cities in the entire United States that are dense enough with good enough public transportation. The vast majority of the population cannot relate.
- jgwil2 7y agoGP is refuting the idea that public transit is inherently the slowest mode of transportation by providing an instructive counter-example. If the vast majority of the population cannot relate, that's a product of policy choices that favor sparse development in most of the country.
- TylerE 7y agoIn the same way it isn't true that healthcare in the US isn't unaffordable as long as you're a successful businessman with lots of savings. Maybe technically correct, but useless to most people.
- sparkling 7y agoNew York City is perhaps the only major city in the US where public transit is indeed faster than individual modes transportation (scooter, car, bike, whatever).
- piffey 7y agoThis all is heavily dependent on how you align your day to day life. If you set up your work and living situation along the LA Subway or BART or Seattle's Link Light Rail then you'll always be able to get there faster using those services. Even in NYC you can end up in places that are a bit of transit wastelands that take longer to get to than by car.
- look_lookatme 7y agoNot true at 10pm but good on your for getting a 3pm drink going.