5 ms·
The catch is that by rail, a trip can take 40min to an hour. By car it's less than half of that.
by esyir 5y ago
The catch is that by rail, a trip can take 40min to an hour. By car it's less than half of that.
- malermeister 5y agoA car in the US reaches around 100km/h in the best case. Rail reaches thrice that. Not sure what kind of math you did there.
- esyir 5y agoThe kind that comes from 30 years in a country considered to have "amazing" public transport. Rail is great if you're going long distances, or if traffic is an absolute nightmare. Not so much for the much shorter distances inday to day travel. Worse, if you're walking out to the train station, that's even more time spent that would have been covered by a car.
- throwaway22032 5y agoRight. I live super super metroland central compared to like 99% of the world. The tube station is ten mins away and then on the other side it's ten mins from my friend. If it's close enough I just drive or cycle the whole thing in 15. Roads and paths are everywhere by definition, they're like, what "outside" is.
- throwaway22032 5y agoReal world math. I live in London, we have a billion trains and shit, my mate 4 miles away is still 45 mins by train/bus because public transport is worse by definition for rarely travelled routes. I can cycle in half the time or drive in 1/4.
- malermeister 5y agoI'm sorry, but London's public transit is horrible. I've moved there from Vienna and it was a huge downgrade. Don't think it's fair to use that city as benchmark.