3 ms·

If there is an hourly train one could say there are 60 moments at which one could chose to travel. In the worse one you've missed it by 0-1 min. It seems reason

by 6510 4y ago

If there is an hourly train one could say there are 60 moments at which one could chose to travel. In the worse one you've missed it by 0-1 min. It seems reasonable to add the average 30 min to the travel time + margins. One could similarly say there are 60 moments to arrive in an hour. Your appointment could live at the most unfortunate. It seems reasonable to add the average 30 min to the trip again. If the train stops a lot it might be close to accelerating and decelerating most of the time. It seems reasonable to lose half the possible for speed. If it doesn't stop a lot it might take a long time to get to the station. If you need to take 2 trains you might have to wait for the second. Buses and taxis stop far away from the train and traffic is unpredictable. No matter how fast the train is, it can still take a long time to get places. There are countless puzzles left to solve.

Grustaf 4y ago
That is a solved puzzle, public transport is not a new concept, most city dwellers outside of the US rely on it. From the passenger point of view, you simply plan your travel if the train only comes once an hour. Nobody arrives at random to such an infrequent mode of transportation. Once an hour probably means it's intercity travel. From the networks point of view: you constantly monitor travel patterns and optimise frequencies, connections, train lengths etc. With driverless trains the trade-offs are fewer, hence you never need to worry about when the next Copenhagen metro comes.
- oceanplexian 4y ago
  You lost me at “plan your travel”. Logistically, public transportation is awful. You can’t bring any cargo with you, you can’t tow anything, you need to buy an expensive ticket for each person (Even a compact car can fit 5 people), trains don’t turn around if you have a family emergency, and the comfort level of the most advanced trains in Europe and Japan frankly sucks compared to even a mid-level SUV in the most basic trim. Don’t get me wrong, public transportation is an interesting novelty. But for short trips it’s worse than a car, and for long trips it’s inferior to an airplane. There’s a sweet spot where it works if you’re trying to beat commuter traffic but I’d say that’s about it. The people trying to spend billions to build out these networks have an agenda and frankly I’d prefer if we just fixed our roads and airports.
  - Grustaf 4y ago
    It’s only a novelty in the US. In other rich countries where people don’t have a car fetish it’s just the most practical and comfortable way to get to work. Obviously if you need to tow something you can’t use the metro, but that’s a very rare need on the whole. Then you take the car, cursing traffic and the parking situation. Here in Copenhagen you’ll often see carpenters and similar with cargo bikes, so it’s not like you always need a huge SUV to move some tools, or indeed children. Cars are almost never the fastest way to get somewhere in a city. Americans love them for cultural reasons, not because it’s practical. Like in poor countries cars are a still a symbol of freedom and wealth in the US, most of the rich world has moved on from that mindset.

by 6510 4y ago

Grustaf 4y ago

That is a solved puzzle, public transport is not a new concept, most city dwellers outside of the US rely on it. From the passenger point of view, you simply plan your travel if the train only comes once an hour. Nobody arrives at random to such an infrequent mode of transportation. Once an hour probably means it's intercity travel. From the networks point of view: you constantly monitor travel patterns and optimise frequencies, connections, train lengths etc. With driverless trains the trade-offs are fewer, hence you never need to worry about when the next Copenhagen metro comes.

oceanplexian 4y ago
You lost me at “plan your travel”. Logistically, public transportation is awful. You can’t bring any cargo with you, you can’t tow anything, you need to buy an expensive ticket for each person (Even a compact car can fit 5 people), trains don’t turn around if you have a family emergency, and the comfort level of the most advanced trains in Europe and Japan frankly sucks compared to even a mid-level SUV in the most basic trim. Don’t get me wrong, public transportation is an interesting novelty. But for short trips it’s worse than a car, and for long trips it’s inferior to an airplane. There’s a sweet spot where it works if you’re trying to beat commuter traffic but I’d say that’s about it. The people trying to spend billions to build out these networks have an agenda and frankly I’d prefer if we just fixed our roads and airports.
- Grustaf 4y ago
  It’s only a novelty in the US. In other rich countries where people don’t have a car fetish it’s just the most practical and comfortable way to get to work. Obviously if you need to tow something you can’t use the metro, but that’s a very rare need on the whole. Then you take the car, cursing traffic and the parking situation. Here in Copenhagen you’ll often see carpenters and similar with cargo bikes, so it’s not like you always need a huge SUV to move some tools, or indeed children. Cars are almost never the fastest way to get somewhere in a city. Americans love them for cultural reasons, not because it’s practical. Like in poor countries cars are a still a symbol of freedom and wealth in the US, most of the rich world has moved on from that mindset.