3 ms·

>There's 138 trains per day between Amsterdam and The Hague. It's faster to take the train than to drive on that trip If you're going from the Hague central st

>There's 138 trains per day between Amsterdam and The Hague. It's faster to take the train than to drive on that trip If you're going from the Hague central station to Amsterdam central station, sure. Now plan a more typical commute from say the Hague Wateringen to the over Amstel industrial estate (It takes two times as as driving) Play around with real life scenarios. Say you're going from Amsterdam Osdorp to your work in Utrecht Lageweide. It takes twice with transit as if you were to drive even with traffic. Most Dutch people drive, especially those that can afford to.

mcv 4y ago
> It takes two times as as driving That really depends on the amount of traffic jam you end up in. It's true that not every route has a direct train connection, and there are definitely trips where cars are faster, but during rush hour around big cities, cars become a lot less reliable. On top of that, cars are only fast if you have access to parking on each end of the trip. Otherwise you still need to park somewhere else and take local transit for the final leg (which is definitely the preferred way to visit Amsterdam by car).
- yourusername 4y ago
  >That really depends on the amount of traffic jam you end up in. And on the ammount of leaves/snow/rain/wind/heat/strikes impeding rail traffic. Terrible traffic jams happen but let's not pretend the NS doesn't have a long list of excuses to run less or no trains or massively delayed trains. I can't count the number of times NS announced that they would stop running trains because of some weather where i had no issue driving home. On average driving is going to be twice as fast for most typical commutes.
  - mcv 4y ago
    No, I agree. Trains have gotten unreasonably unreliable too. They didn't always have this much trouble with leaves, rain and cold, as far as I recall. I think trains everywhere, and not just in Pennsylvania, suffer from being run for profit on narrow safety/reliability margins.
jononomo 4y ago
Imagine how many more cars would have to be on the road if there were only 20 trains per day between Amsterdam and The Hague!
CalRobert 4y ago
35 minute drive without traffic, or a 20 minute bike ride to Utrecht Centraal, 40 minute train ride to Lelylaan, and a 15 minute bike ride from Lelylaan. (so 75 minutes predictably-ish, though NS had a lot of delayed/late trains when I visited last). But the kicker, I suppose, is that in my version you drive 35+ minutes and then need to work out, while the train version means I don't need to go to the gym. When I lived in LA I rode my bike and it meant being in great shape without ever having to work out, and I miss it, but of course it depends on the situation.
WeylandYutani 4y ago
They did research on this: people actually ENJOY being stuck in traffic. So it doesn't really matter if mass transit is fast, cheap, reliable. You have to make owning a car impossible. Take away parking spaces, block roads into the city, increase taxation.
- mcv 4y ago
  Well I don't. I strongly prefer travelling by train, even if it takes longer, because that's more time I can read or do something else productive. Cars are terrible for that.

mcv 4y ago

> It takes two times as as driving That really depends on the amount of traffic jam you end up in. It's true that not every route has a direct train connection, and there are definitely trips where cars are faster, but during rush hour around big cities, cars become a lot less reliable. On top of that, cars are only fast if you have access to parking on each end of the trip. Otherwise you still need to park somewhere else and take local transit for the final leg (which is definitely the preferred way to visit Amsterdam by car).

yourusername 4y ago
>That really depends on the amount of traffic jam you end up in. And on the ammount of leaves/snow/rain/wind/heat/strikes impeding rail traffic. Terrible traffic jams happen but let's not pretend the NS doesn't have a long list of excuses to run less or no trains or massively delayed trains. I can't count the number of times NS announced that they would stop running trains because of some weather where i had no issue driving home. On average driving is going to be twice as fast for most typical commutes.
- mcv 4y ago
  No, I agree. Trains have gotten unreasonably unreliable too. They didn't always have this much trouble with leaves, rain and cold, as far as I recall. I think trains everywhere, and not just in Pennsylvania, suffer from being run for profit on narrow safety/reliability margins.

jononomo 4y ago

Imagine how many more cars would have to be on the road if there were only 20 trains per day between Amsterdam and The Hague!

CalRobert 4y ago

35 minute drive without traffic, or a 20 minute bike ride to Utrecht Centraal, 40 minute train ride to Lelylaan, and a 15 minute bike ride from Lelylaan. (so 75 minutes predictably-ish, though NS had a lot of delayed/late trains when I visited last). But the kicker, I suppose, is that in my version you drive 35+ minutes and then need to work out, while the train version means I don't need to go to the gym. When I lived in LA I rode my bike and it meant being in great shape without ever having to work out, and I miss it, but of course it depends on the situation.

WeylandYutani 4y ago

They did research on this: people actually ENJOY being stuck in traffic. So it doesn't really matter if mass transit is fast, cheap, reliable. You have to make owning a car impossible. Take away parking spaces, block roads into the city, increase taxation.

mcv 4y ago
Well I don't. I strongly prefer travelling by train, even if it takes longer, because that's more time I can read or do something else productive. Cars are terrible for that.