3 ms·

>>High frequency busses in the interim with rail transit is the real solution. Mass transit systems only really work in high density areas. This is because th

>>High frequency busses in the interim with rail transit is the real solution. Mass transit systems only really work in high density areas. This is because the time taken to stop (pasengers on and off) then go is high. So the distance matters less than the number of stops. To be appealing your nearest stop should be within a half mile or so of your house. If a bus can carry 60 people, and only one or two people get in and off at a time, then it takes say 30 stops to fill up, or empty. That makes overall travel speed really slow. Contrast with a dense city - here big groups get on and off at every stop. So a bus needs fewer stops in a route, while being useful to lots of people. Cars work in low-density areas because they typically "stop" only twice, once to load, once to unload. So absolutely yes, we need better public transport, but that ideally means living and working in high density areas. (which for most(?) US people is undesirable.

jasonhansel 4y ago
In suburban areas, light rail can work quite well. Although you have to wait longer because of stops, the trains can also move much faster than cars--existing trains are fairly slow, but introducing higher-speed trains would make them competitive with cars. In rural areas, though, your point stands. For adults traveling alone, though, lightweight electronic vehicles like e-bikes may be better than electric cars. Ultimately, an "electric car" is like a "horseless carriage"--an attempt to shoehorn a new energy source into an old form factor where it doesn't fit particularly well.
- api 4y ago
  It can work for long commutes when you have park and rides, but you still need cars to go the last 1-5 miles. Still nice to take a train the bulk of a long commute into a city core. A lot of people who think trains and buses can do it all are young and have never had kids. Nothing about the suburbs made sense to me before kids. Everything makes sense after kids.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - bruce511 4y ago
    Yes, park and ride is great at creating a high-density hot-spot, from which an express, or few-stops train is great. (I too prefer that.) But it implies you have to have a car, and once you have the car then naturally you will use it :)
8note 4y ago
Cars work in low density areas where they don't interact with high density areas, but even then, they're best on dirt roads and gravel where the residents can do all the maintenance. In mid density areas like single family suburban housing, neither works very well
- bruce511 4y ago
  Obviously YMMV, but where I live (single family suburban housing) it works fantastically. The only time traffic hinders me is if I get in the freeway in the morning heading into the city. But obviously there are many factors in play, so each place is different.

jasonhansel 4y ago

In suburban areas, light rail can work quite well. Although you have to wait longer because of stops, the trains can also move much faster than cars--existing trains are fairly slow, but introducing higher-speed trains would make them competitive with cars. In rural areas, though, your point stands. For adults traveling alone, though, lightweight electronic vehicles like e-bikes may be better than electric cars. Ultimately, an "electric car" is like a "horseless carriage"--an attempt to shoehorn a new energy source into an old form factor where it doesn't fit particularly well.

api 4y ago
It can work for long commutes when you have park and rides, but you still need cars to go the last 1-5 miles. Still nice to take a train the bulk of a long commute into a city core. A lot of people who think trains and buses can do it all are young and have never had kids. Nothing about the suburbs made sense to me before kids. Everything makes sense after kids.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- bruce511 4y ago
  Yes, park and ride is great at creating a high-density hot-spot, from which an express, or few-stops train is great. (I too prefer that.) But it implies you have to have a car, and once you have the car then naturally you will use it :)

8note 4y ago

Cars work in low density areas where they don't interact with high density areas, but even then, they're best on dirt roads and gravel where the residents can do all the maintenance. In mid density areas like single family suburban housing, neither works very well

bruce511 4y ago
Obviously YMMV, but where I live (single family suburban housing) it works fantastically. The only time traffic hinders me is if I get in the freeway in the morning heading into the city. But obviously there are many factors in play, so each place is different.