5 ms·

Getting somewhere faster doesn't necessarily mean it's better. Recently I lost my car (I used to have a company car in front of my door, but switched jobs), no

Getting somewhere faster doesn't necessarily mean it's better. Recently I lost my car (I used to have a company car in front of my door, but switched jobs), now I am solely using public transport and my bicycle. It takes more time, doesn't really cost me anything more than having a car and because it takes more time I have more space to clear my mind. To let my mind wander for a while to process thoughts. I'm talking about distances that typically take 5 - 20 minutes by car, that are now maybe 15 - 40 minutes by public transport. See also: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mental-downtime/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mental-downtime/

tomashubelbauer 7y ago
While a longer route with public transport is certainly an opportunity to let your mind wander (as long as it is not that crowded and you can autopilot transfers), it is still a forced one. You might find that's not a problem for you, and I believe you, but that's a privileged position to be in and you're the odd one out. Most people, I believe, would rather be in control of when they let their mind wander and when they get to their family or friends faster. I am not arguing against public transit here, I wish for a carless city as much as the next person, but I'm not blind to the fact that public transit is far from perfect and almost certainly not the full answer to a carless city.
animal531 7y ago
If you're losing 20 minutes * 2 trips per day, that adds up to probably 7 days of lost time per year that you could have been doing something with.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- glutamate 7y ago
  Like, reading a book. Or listening to a podcast. Wait, I can do that on a bus too. Not every minute of your life has to be optimised.
  - msla 7y ago
    > Like, reading a book. Or listening to a podcast. Wait, I can do that on a bus too. Not on some of the buses I've ridden. We'd have to solve a dozen or so social issues before buses were reliably a good place to do relaxing activities.
  - feintruled 7y ago
    And of course some of the same people who complain of this lost time pay hundreds a year to join a gym to spend an hour running on the spot...
    - marapuru 7y ago
      Haha, great irony :-)
rayiner 7y ago
All else being equal, getting places faster is better. Remember, most people don’t have jobs where they are paid to be “in the zone” three or four hours a day. They spend eight hours processing loan applications or serving customers. The average public transit commute in most cities is twice as long as the average driving commute: https://abc7news.com/5289025 https://abc7news.com/5289025 > The study found San Diego had the nation's shortest commute times with an average of just 26 minutes by car, but 52 minutes by public transit. That’s an hour a day (total) that public transit commuters aren’t spending with their families. Even during rush hour in DC, it’s slightly faster for me to get to work driving clear across the city instead of getting on at the rail station at the edge of the city and taking a train straight to the station 8 minutes from my office.
- jmg8766 7y ago
  I wanted to provide an anecdotal example, my bus commute is about 30 minutes and by car would be about 15 minutes. The extra time I spend commuting is ~150 hours per year (- WFH days/personal days/sick days). Owning a car and buying parking would cost me about $4506 more than having a bus pass per year. So I'm essentially getting paid ~$30/hr for those 150 hours each year to read books / listen to podcasts in public. I understand this is leaving out a lot of details. And if my commute times were twice as long I would only be getting paid ~$15/hr, still not bad if you already enjoy reading books or listening to podcasts for free.
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    If your city is anything like a typical US city, note that your bus pass costs 3-5 as much as you think you’re paying for it. The rest of the cost is covered by the taxes you are paying. This means that you are paying 70-80% of the public transport’s fare regardless of whether you’re actually using it. If you account for that, it might not change your calculations, because you cannot opt out of the transportation tax anyway, but it should make you think as to why buses are really so attractive after all.
    - jmg8766 7y ago

tomashubelbauer 7y ago

While a longer route with public transport is certainly an opportunity to let your mind wander (as long as it is not that crowded and you can autopilot transfers), it is still a forced one. You might find that's not a problem for you, and I believe you, but that's a privileged position to be in and you're the odd one out. Most people, I believe, would rather be in control of when they let their mind wander and when they get to their family or friends faster. I am not arguing against public transit here, I wish for a carless city as much as the next person, but I'm not blind to the fact that public transit is far from perfect and almost certainly not the full answer to a carless city.

animal531 7y ago

If you're losing 20 minutes * 2 trips per day, that adds up to probably 7 days of lost time per year that you could have been doing something with.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
glutamate 7y ago
Like, reading a book. Or listening to a podcast. Wait, I can do that on a bus too. Not every minute of your life has to be optimised.
- msla 7y ago
  > Like, reading a book. Or listening to a podcast. Wait, I can do that on a bus too. Not on some of the buses I've ridden. We'd have to solve a dozen or so social issues before buses were reliably a good place to do relaxing activities.
- feintruled 7y ago
  And of course some of the same people who complain of this lost time pay hundreds a year to join a gym to spend an hour running on the spot...
  - marapuru 7y ago
    Haha, great irony :-)

rayiner 7y ago

All else being equal, getting places faster is better. Remember, most people don’t have jobs where they are paid to be “in the zone” three or four hours a day. They spend eight hours processing loan applications or serving customers. The average public transit commute in most cities is twice as long as the average driving commute: https://abc7news.com/5289025 https://abc7news.com/5289025 > The study found San Diego had the nation's shortest commute times with an average of just 26 minutes by car, but 52 minutes by public transit. That’s an hour a day (total) that public transit commuters aren’t spending with their families. Even during rush hour in DC, it’s slightly faster for me to get to work driving clear across the city instead of getting on at the rail station at the edge of the city and taking a train straight to the station 8 minutes from my office.

jmg8766 7y ago
I wanted to provide an anecdotal example, my bus commute is about 30 minutes and by car would be about 15 minutes. The extra time I spend commuting is ~150 hours per year (- WFH days/personal days/sick days). Owning a car and buying parking would cost me about $4506 more than having a bus pass per year. So I'm essentially getting paid ~$30/hr for those 150 hours each year to read books / listen to podcasts in public. I understand this is leaving out a lot of details. And if my commute times were twice as long I would only be getting paid ~$15/hr, still not bad if you already enjoy reading books or listening to podcasts for free.
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  If your city is anything like a typical US city, note that your bus pass costs 3-5 as much as you think you’re paying for it. The rest of the cost is covered by the taxes you are paying. This means that you are paying 70-80% of the public transport’s fare regardless of whether you’re actually using it. If you account for that, it might not change your calculations, because you cannot opt out of the transportation tax anyway, but it should make you think as to why buses are really so attractive after all.
  - jmg8766 7y ago