6 ms·

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. Whi

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.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > I will be quite happy to move elsewhere if the place I live isn’t willing to take my concerns as a sufficient priority. that's your prerogative. But until public transport is financed through taxes paid by the population (in Denmark that's particularly true, given the rate of taxation) the priority must be the public interest, not your personal one.
    - tomjen3 4y ago
      Like I said we are simply going to have disagree.
gambiting 4y ago
Yes but people seem to have this backwards. Denmark and Netherlands are actually one of the best countries in the world to drive a car, because so much of other traffic has been shifted away from roads. Even in large cities, people are surprised that you can drive somewhere within few minutes and there usually is parking - it's specifically because all the other infrastructure is so good that people are incentivised to cycle, take a bus or a train - so there's fewer people on the road. So from that perspective - yeah, of course driving is going to be faster for you than public transport.
thayne 4y ago
I also suspect a lot of people who argue to completely replace cars with public transit either haven't tried traveling with young children on public transit, or haven't had the luxury of using a car when traveling with young children. Because taking young children on public transit is pretty miserable.
- matsemann 4y ago
  What about a cargo bike? Looks a hundred times smoother those doing that here, compared to a car.
josephcsible 4y ago
> lots of people start talking about how to make cars take more time Why is this Harrison Bergeron-style "solution" to things so common these days? "A lot of people choose X over Y, but we want more people to choose Y over X instead. Make Y better? Unthinkable! Let's make X worse instead!"
- tomjen3 4y ago
  Because it’s easier to make things worse than it is to make them better.

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.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > I will be quite happy to move elsewhere if the place I live isn’t willing to take my concerns as a sufficient priority. that's your prerogative. But until public transport is financed through taxes paid by the population (in Denmark that's particularly true, given the rate of taxation) the priority must be the public interest, not your personal one.
  - tomjen3 4y ago
    Like I said we are simply going to have disagree.

gambiting 4y ago

Yes but people seem to have this backwards. Denmark and Netherlands are actually one of the best countries in the world to drive a car, because so much of other traffic has been shifted away from roads. Even in large cities, people are surprised that you can drive somewhere within few minutes and there usually is parking - it's specifically because all the other infrastructure is so good that people are incentivised to cycle, take a bus or a train - so there's fewer people on the road. So from that perspective - yeah, of course driving is going to be faster for you than public transport.

thayne 4y ago

I also suspect a lot of people who argue to completely replace cars with public transit either haven't tried traveling with young children on public transit, or haven't had the luxury of using a car when traveling with young children. Because taking young children on public transit is pretty miserable.

matsemann 4y ago
What about a cargo bike? Looks a hundred times smoother those doing that here, compared to a car.

josephcsible 4y ago

> lots of people start talking about how to make cars take more time Why is this Harrison Bergeron-style "solution" to things so common these days? "A lot of people choose X over Y, but we want more people to choose Y over X instead. Make Y better? Unthinkable! Let's make X worse instead!"

tomjen3 4y ago
Because it’s easier to make things worse than it is to make them better.