3 ms·

Is the purpose of public transit to get you there Quicker, or to get you there Cheaper? Transit allows me to avoid owning a car, and the monthly parking charge

Is the purpose of public transit to get you there Quicker, or to get you there Cheaper? Transit allows me to avoid owning a car, and the monthly parking charge at home, daily parking by work, etc costs that come with— that’s the principal benefit as a city dweller. I live in Chicago (city) and the 2-1 time ratio is what I use to decide whether I take a cab or not. I look up the time to my destination -a store, friends house, the beach, whatever- and if it’s twice as long or quicker to take the train/bus then I will. (That’s not totally true, I use shared bikes to get most places these days.) When I was poorer, I used 3-1. For my office, when I go, it’s about 2-1, and has been for any of the half-dozen different places I’ve lived here. I consider that a sign of Well-Done Transit, not the opposite. It’s not surprising to me that transit takes longer, because you have to walk to a transit stop and then walk from a transit stop. Why would you expect it to be faster? If you want it to be faster than driving, you have to eliminate all parking minimums.

nicoburns 4y ago
In London it’s not uncommon for transit to be 2:1 faster than driving. It’s only ever really faster going from suburb to suburb without going through the center. It all depends on what kind of infrastructure you have.
- harvey9 4y ago
  I check Google maps for any journey where I have a choice of driving or riding in London. The variability is pretty wide. But agree with your point about suburb to suburb: in a choice of car vs bus (because there's no rail option for the journey) the car inevitably wins.
  - orwin 4y ago
    It is the same for Paris, mostly (they are a few exception with light rail, especially towards economic centers), but i think next year it should be better, with an automated subway line going around paris.
    - sofixa 4y ago
      2025, but yes, the Grand Paris Express will drastically improve connectivity between the suburbs. There are already 10+ trams doing the same at a smaller scale, but an automated metro with high capacity and frequency will be a game changer.
- kevincox 4y ago
  In the other hand in Dublin Ireland I only once saw a trip that was more that 10min faster by bus than walking (according to Google Maps and I walk faster than Google Maps predicts). The exception is the DART train which speeds things up if you happen to be going in the right direction but all of the other public transit is rubbish.
agumonkey 4y ago
In dense urban area, granted there's just a bit of bike lanes.. bike will get you faster anywhere. I was shocked to see it took me less than by car.
- dashundchen 4y ago
  I live in a Rust Belt city and bike everywhere. One of my common rides is five miles one way. It's very common for me to be riding along the same cars from my house to destination, with a little back and forth leapfrogging. Turns out their average speed is similar to cycling.
  - agumonkey 4y ago
    With traffic lights, jams, bus stops, etc.. it does slow them down tremendously. Of course bikes can go through jams and lights willy nilly. My job was 6 miles from home by car and 45min (some quite stressful), I actually took a longer path (7miles) by bike to enjoy a river path, took me 40min to arrive.
- throwaheyy 4y ago
  This really depends on the topography of the particular city. Even some small hills can kill any time advantage very quickly.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    Initially, perhaps, but riding such hills regularly is a pretty good way to build up leg strength (and confidence descending) to the point small hills aren't really going to slow you down much. Traffic (+ stop lights) is far and away the biggest thing that slows me down on a bike - I can average 5 k/h faster once away from heavily congested areas with frequent stops required. In my city at least those less congested areas are the hillier ones!
  - pastage 4y ago
    I used to dread hills even as an avid bicyclist, but as soon as I had three big ones on my daily route my body just adapted. So yes topography does affect your choices less people will cycle there, but it does not affect time that much.
ItsMonkk 4y ago
It's always important in these conversations to take into account the Downs–Thomson paradox[0]. If public transit gets stuck in traffic and takes longer than taking a car, people will take a car. And since taking a car is the least efficient way to use a lane, things will continue to get worse and worse as more people decide to use a car. You need to ensure that your public transit is not getting stuck in traffic. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs%E2%80%93Thomson_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs%E2%80%93Thomson_paradox
- hammock 4y ago
  That is why I proposed to eliminate parking minimums (I might add to tear down existing parking garages). Even a free-market equilibrium under the Downs Thomson would have less cars than what we have now
TinkersW 4y ago
When I lived in Chicago, biking was the fastest way to get around by far. Chicago has "good" public transport by US standards and it is still dog ass slow & often very crowded and unpleasant.
pornel 4y ago
False dichotomy. In dense cities it exists to move people efficiently, because roads physically can’t accommodate everyone. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_capacity#/media/File%3APassenger_Capacity_of_different_Transport_Modes.png https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_capacity#/media/File%3...

nicoburns 4y ago

In London it’s not uncommon for transit to be 2:1 faster than driving. It’s only ever really faster going from suburb to suburb without going through the center. It all depends on what kind of infrastructure you have.

harvey9 4y ago
I check Google maps for any journey where I have a choice of driving or riding in London. The variability is pretty wide. But agree with your point about suburb to suburb: in a choice of car vs bus (because there's no rail option for the journey) the car inevitably wins.
- orwin 4y ago
  It is the same for Paris, mostly (they are a few exception with light rail, especially towards economic centers), but i think next year it should be better, with an automated subway line going around paris.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    2025, but yes, the Grand Paris Express will drastically improve connectivity between the suburbs. There are already 10+ trams doing the same at a smaller scale, but an automated metro with high capacity and frequency will be a game changer.
kevincox 4y ago
In the other hand in Dublin Ireland I only once saw a trip that was more that 10min faster by bus than walking (according to Google Maps and I walk faster than Google Maps predicts). The exception is the DART train which speeds things up if you happen to be going in the right direction but all of the other public transit is rubbish.

agumonkey 4y ago

In dense urban area, granted there's just a bit of bike lanes.. bike will get you faster anywhere. I was shocked to see it took me less than by car.

dashundchen 4y ago
I live in a Rust Belt city and bike everywhere. One of my common rides is five miles one way. It's very common for me to be riding along the same cars from my house to destination, with a little back and forth leapfrogging. Turns out their average speed is similar to cycling.
- agumonkey 4y ago
  With traffic lights, jams, bus stops, etc.. it does slow them down tremendously. Of course bikes can go through jams and lights willy nilly. My job was 6 miles from home by car and 45min (some quite stressful), I actually took a longer path (7miles) by bike to enjoy a river path, took me 40min to arrive.
throwaheyy 4y ago
This really depends on the topography of the particular city. Even some small hills can kill any time advantage very quickly.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  Initially, perhaps, but riding such hills regularly is a pretty good way to build up leg strength (and confidence descending) to the point small hills aren't really going to slow you down much. Traffic (+ stop lights) is far and away the biggest thing that slows me down on a bike - I can average 5 k/h faster once away from heavily congested areas with frequent stops required. In my city at least those less congested areas are the hillier ones!
- pastage 4y ago
  I used to dread hills even as an avid bicyclist, but as soon as I had three big ones on my daily route my body just adapted. So yes topography does affect your choices less people will cycle there, but it does not affect time that much.

ItsMonkk 4y ago

It's always important in these conversations to take into account the Downs–Thomson paradox[0]. If public transit gets stuck in traffic and takes longer than taking a car, people will take a car. And since taking a car is the least efficient way to use a lane, things will continue to get worse and worse as more people decide to use a car. You need to ensure that your public transit is not getting stuck in traffic. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs%E2%80%93Thomson_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs%E2%80%93Thomson_paradox

hammock 4y ago
That is why I proposed to eliminate parking minimums (I might add to tear down existing parking garages). Even a free-market equilibrium under the Downs Thomson would have less cars than what we have now

TinkersW 4y ago

When I lived in Chicago, biking was the fastest way to get around by far. Chicago has "good" public transport by US standards and it is still dog ass slow & often very crowded and unpleasant.

pornel 4y ago

False dichotomy. In dense cities it exists to move people efficiently, because roads physically can’t accommodate everyone. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_capacity#/media/File%3APassenger_Capacity_of_different_Transport_Modes.png https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_capacity#/media/File%3...