5 ms·

That is probably because you look at it from too narrow a position. Yes, the public transport inside Oslo may be brilliant. That is very good for transporting p

by q-base 6y ago

That is probably because you look at it from too narrow a position. Yes, the public transport inside Oslo may be brilliant. That is very good for transporting people around who lives inside Oslo, but chances are that a lot of people cannot afford or want to live there. For probably each kilometer extra you move away from the city center, the difficulty using public transport increases exponentially. Once you get to 50-100km away from the city center, then your options look very bleak. I live in Copenhagen myself, but I grew up 100km outside of Copenhagen. Using a car to go back and forth from there to Copenhagen takes approximately 1 hour each way. Using public transportation all the way takes closer to 2 hours. Using a combination takes 1h 30min on a good day. Some people move out of cities because they want the countryside. But other people are forced to do so because of prices. Banning cars from cities seems to only think of people who lives inside it and not how difficult it will be for a lot of people already "taxed" with hour long commutes because of stupidly expensive housing combined with centralization of workplaces.

ghaff 6y ago
I'm in the same situation with the nearest major city. The train actually makes sense to go in and out on a work day if I need to for some reason given how bad rush hour traffic is. But it's a non-starter for an evening event. I just wouldn't go in if you made it too hard for me to drive and park. (Which the city can absolutely do of course.)
- bluGill 6y ago
  Why wouldn't you use the train for the non-work event? I don't know where you live. What I do know is in many cities they run 2-4 train in for those who start work at 8am, and then run them back out at 5 pm after the people get off work. If this is your case, as it is for many, then I agree. They don't want you to take the train to those evening events. It doesn't have to be this way. A train could run every 5 minutes all day long. If your city did this would you still insist on driving?
  - fogihujy 6y ago
    Well, see my Copenhagen example abuve for one reason. The Metro goes every 5 minutes, but if you need to go somewhere where you need to switch between the metro and some other form of public transport then you'll usually double the time required. The fact that it's cheaper for three people to take a taxi instead of going with public transport doesn't help either.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    First of all, it takes 90 minutes to take the train--and probably another 30 minutes if I need to take the subway in the city to connect with the train. It takes an hour to drive outside of rush hour. The train runs about every 90 minutes outside of rush hour. So it's a non-starter for a night event. So, sure, I'd use a much faster and far more frequent train if it existed. But that's a wildly different situation from what exists today. And this is a US location (Boston/Cambridge) that has relatively good transit--and I live fairly close to an exurban train station.
em-bee 6y ago
you don't have a traffic problem if you can go 100km in one hour. i live a similar distance from a larger city, and here it's quite the reverse. it takes one hour on the train, and two hours by car.
fogihujy 6y ago
Copenhagen's public transport system has amazing individual components, that unfortunately don't mix very well. Want to go to Copenhagen, sure, take the train. Need to get somewhere inside Copenhagen? Just take the S trains from the train station until you reach one of the smaller stops, get on a bus, walk a few hundred metres, and get on the metro, and then change to another bus. As you say, getting to Copenhagen is easy. Getting around between two points not connected by the same types of public transport? It's a time-consuming nightmare. It's a good thing down-town Copenhagen is a good city for biking, or it would be a total traffic disaster.
gspr 6y ago
> Once you get to 50-100km away from the city center, then your options look very bleak. I'd say that at 100 km you're no longer talking about that city's public transit anymore (for a city this size). At 50 km I'd maybe agree with you. That's also a bit of what I meant to indicate with the Swiss trains comment – the (heavy rail) train services indeed aren't great around Oslo. > I live in Copenhagen myself, but I grew up 100km outside of Copenhagen. Using a car to go back and forth from there to Copenhagen takes approximately 1 hour each way. Using public transportation all the way takes closer to 2 hours. Using a combination takes 1h 30min on a good day. But then again, in fairness, at 100 km outside of Copenhagen you're halfway to Germany! It's getting to be a stretch for a commute anyway, is it not? > Banning cars from cities seems to only think of people who lives inside it and not how difficult it will be for a lot of people already "taxed" with hour long commutes because of stupidly expensive housing combined with centralization of workplaces. Well, in return, those people do get vastly cheaper housing (I'm well aware that suburban housing around Oslo and Copenhagen is still very very expensive, but once you start hitting the 100 km range that certainly stops being the case). Adapting cities to be car-friendly make them sprawly, congested or pedestrian-unfriendly. Or all three.
addicted 6y ago
Your entire complaint is about high rents, not about cars. If you had less intra city public transport and biking you would take even longer to get to your destination in the city because now you’d be taxing the same roads with people who are going 2 kms via car instead of on a bike. Further, as happened in many American cities, entire neighborhoods would be razed to build highways and parking lots to support those cars further reducing housing capacity in the city center, and making housing even more expensive.

by q-base 6y ago

ghaff 6y ago

I'm in the same situation with the nearest major city. The train actually makes sense to go in and out on a work day if I need to for some reason given how bad rush hour traffic is. But it's a non-starter for an evening event. I just wouldn't go in if you made it too hard for me to drive and park. (Which the city can absolutely do of course.)

bluGill 6y ago
Why wouldn't you use the train for the non-work event? I don't know where you live. What I do know is in many cities they run 2-4 train in for those who start work at 8am, and then run them back out at 5 pm after the people get off work. If this is your case, as it is for many, then I agree. They don't want you to take the train to those evening events. It doesn't have to be this way. A train could run every 5 minutes all day long. If your city did this would you still insist on driving?
- fogihujy 6y ago
  Well, see my Copenhagen example abuve for one reason. The Metro goes every 5 minutes, but if you need to go somewhere where you need to switch between the metro and some other form of public transport then you'll usually double the time required. The fact that it's cheaper for three people to take a taxi instead of going with public transport doesn't help either.
- ghaff 6y ago
  First of all, it takes 90 minutes to take the train--and probably another 30 minutes if I need to take the subway in the city to connect with the train. It takes an hour to drive outside of rush hour. The train runs about every 90 minutes outside of rush hour. So it's a non-starter for a night event. So, sure, I'd use a much faster and far more frequent train if it existed. But that's a wildly different situation from what exists today. And this is a US location (Boston/Cambridge) that has relatively good transit--and I live fairly close to an exurban train station.

em-bee 6y ago

you don't have a traffic problem if you can go 100km in one hour. i live a similar distance from a larger city, and here it's quite the reverse. it takes one hour on the train, and two hours by car.

fogihujy 6y ago

Copenhagen's public transport system has amazing individual components, that unfortunately don't mix very well. Want to go to Copenhagen, sure, take the train. Need to get somewhere inside Copenhagen? Just take the S trains from the train station until you reach one of the smaller stops, get on a bus, walk a few hundred metres, and get on the metro, and then change to another bus. As you say, getting to Copenhagen is easy. Getting around between two points not connected by the same types of public transport? It's a time-consuming nightmare. It's a good thing down-town Copenhagen is a good city for biking, or it would be a total traffic disaster.

gspr 6y ago

> Once you get to 50-100km away from the city center, then your options look very bleak. I'd say that at 100 km you're no longer talking about that city's public transit anymore (for a city this size). At 50 km I'd maybe agree with you. That's also a bit of what I meant to indicate with the Swiss trains comment – the (heavy rail) train services indeed aren't great around Oslo. > I live in Copenhagen myself, but I grew up 100km outside of Copenhagen. Using a car to go back and forth from there to Copenhagen takes approximately 1 hour each way. Using public transportation all the way takes closer to 2 hours. Using a combination takes 1h 30min on a good day. But then again, in fairness, at 100 km outside of Copenhagen you're halfway to Germany! It's getting to be a stretch for a commute anyway, is it not? > Banning cars from cities seems to only think of people who lives inside it and not how difficult it will be for a lot of people already "taxed" with hour long commutes because of stupidly expensive housing combined with centralization of workplaces. Well, in return, those people do get vastly cheaper housing (I'm well aware that suburban housing around Oslo and Copenhagen is still very very expensive, but once you start hitting the 100 km range that certainly stops being the case). Adapting cities to be car-friendly make them sprawly, congested or pedestrian-unfriendly. Or all three.

addicted 6y ago

Your entire complaint is about high rents, not about cars. If you had less intra city public transport and biking you would take even longer to get to your destination in the city because now you’d be taxing the same roads with people who are going 2 kms via car instead of on a bike. Further, as happened in many American cities, entire neighborhoods would be razed to build highways and parking lots to support those cars further reducing housing capacity in the city center, and making housing even more expensive.