4 ms·

I think this problem is bigger in many US cities compared to Europe, because of the urban sprawl. There is almost no way to make it efficient to go from most pe

I think this problem is bigger in many US cities compared to Europe, because of the urban sprawl. There is almost no way to make it efficient to go from most people's houses to the city using public transport, since the area to cover is so great. To me, the solution is to re-think why everyone needs to go somewhere by car to get anything done. Why not have a grocery store closer? Some restaurants? Everyone having to travel from their house to the city centre to do basically anything is so wasteful. Most of this is because of zoning laws.

mcntsh 4y ago
The first example they give is NYC, showing cars being almost twice as fast as the train. NYC is denser than most European capitals.
- jrimbault 4y ago
  Train stations in NYC are much less dense than (for example my own city) Paris subway network. New-York subway network is impressive for its sprawl, but not really for its efficiency.
- bonyt 4y ago
  The New York metro area is much larger than NYC and includes suburbs and smaller cities in Long Island, New Jersey, and Connecticut.
  - mcntsh 4y ago
    Wouldn't those also be taken into account for the drivers side of the comparison?
    - kgermino 4y ago
      Yes, but someone from Long Island or Connecticut who works in Manhattan is unlikely to drive, while someone from those areas who works one town over will almost certainly drive. That will definitely skew these numbers if they don’t adjust for it
tomjen3 4y ago
I live in Denmark, have pretty much ideal public transport for my work (one bus, very little walking on either end) and it still takes about twice as long. Which would be fine, except when you bring this up lots of people start talking about how to make cars take more time, or making public transport free. Neither of which solves the problem. I probably would be more willing to take the bus if wasn't also less comfy than my car. Not only does my car have better seats than the bus, but I am guaranteed one.
- matsemann 4y ago
  But why does the bus take twice as long? Because it's stuck in traffic, take a different route, too many stops? I do think the best way of course is to make public transport a viable option by itself. But it's hard to do without actually limiting the use of cars as well. It's a chicken-and-hen problem, as long as too many rely on cars, it's hard to have a very good public transport. For instance because of what I mentioned, people choosing places to live based on cars making it hard to cover with public transport. Also, disincentivise car usage makes the city much better for those living there. I hate that people outside the city drive to work every day. Those cars are loud, takes so much space (which could've been cozy instead of asphalt), are a danger to kids, pedestrians, cyclists etc, pollutes the local air.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > Not only does my car have better seats than the bus, but I am guaranteed one at the expenses of everybody else. there is nothing more wasteful than turning up a very heavy, powerful and polluting machine to transport a single non disabled human for a few kms. anyway, your seat would be guaranteed also on a bike, a moped, a horse, a donkey, a 20 tons truck, a bulldozer and an helicopter. Doesn't mean they are all equally good options. Doesn't mean city planning should consider the comfort of your bum a priority.
  - tomjen3 4y ago
    Well we are simply going to have to disagree on that on and then I will be quite happy to move elsewhere if the place I live isn’t willing to take my concerns as a sufficient priority.
thayne 4y ago
For a while I lived in an area in th US where I had a grocery store, a library, and several grocery stores within a mile. But my commute was 10 minutes by car, and almost an hour by bus. And the buses took a pretty direct route and there was a bus stop pretty close to my home. Part of it was just all the stops the bus made, and a big part of it was just waiting. The bus times weren't very reliable, so I had to show up pretty early, because if I missed the bus I would have to wait an hour for the next bus. And the bus just stopped and waited 20 minutes for a light rail to get there. And depending on the day, I might have to switch buses there. And half a mile is still a long ways to carry groceries, especially in the heat or cold. But taking the bus required timing how long you shop so you are done in time to catch the bus that only comes once an hour. And that doesn't even get into the hours the bus didn't run, or the inconvenience of having to carry all your groceries. So while I think having such amenities closer to where people live, would be good, and would help. I don't think it is sufficient to solve the problems with public transit being slower.
alephxyz 4y ago
Zoning laws and more importantly NIMBYs. I used to live in a city that's currently being taken to court after they cancelled the construction permits for mixed use buildings because a few very vocal citizens didn't want to live next to 4+ floor buildings and managed to get elected to the city council.
quantumwannabe 4y ago
Your idea is actually how car-dependent cities are laid out. Look at a map of Phoenix for a textbook example: the city is laid out on a square mile grid with retail/offices on the grid corners. People may drive to go shopping, but that's a choice, they could walk there (if they want to brave the heat) since for most of the city the nearest shopping area is less than a mile (1.6 km) away.
doktorhladnjak 4y ago
Absolutely. It’s completely a consequence of the _choice_ to employ exclusionary zoning.

mcntsh 4y ago

The first example they give is NYC, showing cars being almost twice as fast as the train. NYC is denser than most European capitals.

jrimbault 4y ago
Train stations in NYC are much less dense than (for example my own city) Paris subway network. New-York subway network is impressive for its sprawl, but not really for its efficiency.
bonyt 4y ago
The New York metro area is much larger than NYC and includes suburbs and smaller cities in Long Island, New Jersey, and Connecticut.
- mcntsh 4y ago
  Wouldn't those also be taken into account for the drivers side of the comparison?
  - kgermino 4y ago
    Yes, but someone from Long Island or Connecticut who works in Manhattan is unlikely to drive, while someone from those areas who works one town over will almost certainly drive. That will definitely skew these numbers if they don’t adjust for it

tomjen3 4y ago

I live in Denmark, have pretty much ideal public transport for my work (one bus, very little walking on either end) and it still takes about twice as long. Which would be fine, except when you bring this up lots of people start talking about how to make cars take more time, or making public transport free. Neither of which solves the problem. I probably would be more willing to take the bus if wasn't also less comfy than my car. Not only does my car have better seats than the bus, but I am guaranteed one.

matsemann 4y ago
But why does the bus take twice as long? Because it's stuck in traffic, take a different route, too many stops? I do think the best way of course is to make public transport a viable option by itself. But it's hard to do without actually limiting the use of cars as well. It's a chicken-and-hen problem, as long as too many rely on cars, it's hard to have a very good public transport. For instance because of what I mentioned, people choosing places to live based on cars making it hard to cover with public transport. Also, disincentivise car usage makes the city much better for those living there. I hate that people outside the city drive to work every day. Those cars are loud, takes so much space (which could've been cozy instead of asphalt), are a danger to kids, pedestrians, cyclists etc, pollutes the local air.
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> Not only does my car have better seats than the bus, but I am guaranteed one at the expenses of everybody else. there is nothing more wasteful than turning up a very heavy, powerful and polluting machine to transport a single non disabled human for a few kms. anyway, your seat would be guaranteed also on a bike, a moped, a horse, a donkey, a 20 tons truck, a bulldozer and an helicopter. Doesn't mean they are all equally good options. Doesn't mean city planning should consider the comfort of your bum a priority.
- tomjen3 4y ago
  Well we are simply going to have to disagree on that on and then I will be quite happy to move elsewhere if the place I live isn’t willing to take my concerns as a sufficient priority.

thayne 4y ago

For a while I lived in an area in th US where I had a grocery store, a library, and several grocery stores within a mile. But my commute was 10 minutes by car, and almost an hour by bus. And the buses took a pretty direct route and there was a bus stop pretty close to my home. Part of it was just all the stops the bus made, and a big part of it was just waiting. The bus times weren't very reliable, so I had to show up pretty early, because if I missed the bus I would have to wait an hour for the next bus. And the bus just stopped and waited 20 minutes for a light rail to get there. And depending on the day, I might have to switch buses there. And half a mile is still a long ways to carry groceries, especially in the heat or cold. But taking the bus required timing how long you shop so you are done in time to catch the bus that only comes once an hour. And that doesn't even get into the hours the bus didn't run, or the inconvenience of having to carry all your groceries. So while I think having such amenities closer to where people live, would be good, and would help. I don't think it is sufficient to solve the problems with public transit being slower.

alephxyz 4y ago

Zoning laws and more importantly NIMBYs. I used to live in a city that's currently being taken to court after they cancelled the construction permits for mixed use buildings because a few very vocal citizens didn't want to live next to 4+ floor buildings and managed to get elected to the city council.

quantumwannabe 4y ago

Your idea is actually how car-dependent cities are laid out. Look at a map of Phoenix for a textbook example: the city is laid out on a square mile grid with retail/offices on the grid corners. People may drive to go shopping, but that's a choice, they could walk there (if they want to brave the heat) since for most of the city the nearest shopping area is less than a mile (1.6 km) away.

doktorhladnjak 4y ago

Absolutely. It’s completely a consequence of the _choice_ to employ exclusionary zoning.