4 ms·
It all depends on circumstances, starting with the country you are in, that often determines the basic level of quality of any kind of public transport. Then,
by louwrentius 4y ago
It all depends on circumstances, starting with the country you are in, that often determines the basic level of quality of any kind of public transport.
Then, the real travel time is measured from door-to-door. That includes the traveling to stations/stops and the waiting time for connecting transport. I think this is fairly obvious.
If we want to make the world a better place for people and the environment, the number one priority should be to reduce any need to travel in the first place. But if they must travel, make public transport so good (price/time) that it is the first choice of transport.
That would be the appropriate vision for the future. And it can happen in any country.
The reality is that capitalism and politics prevent public transport from truly shining. It's not even that of a political statement because we know why America doesn't have great public transport overall, especially a lack of long-distance rail lines like 'we' have in Europe. (Car companies lobbying against rail)
- mytailorisrich 4y agoIn most cases it is unrealistically difficult to beat the convenience and speed of private cars. If you are in a very dense urban environments, maybe. Otherwise, no. That's why making public transport very cheap or even free does not make everyone let their cars at home.
- Beldin 4y agoActually, in most cases it is unrealistically difficult to beat the convenience of public transport over private cars without MASSIVE infrastructure investments favoring cars. Being able to get places with cars requires a lot of things: roads, parking, traffic measures (signs, crossings, stoplights, onways, offramps, freeways, more parking at destination, etc etc etc). If you only build for public transport, bikes, and walking, the savings in both space used and money spent become ridiculous. Basically: the world looks a lot different without every building having a huge car park. In my view: a lot better.
- mytailorisrich 4y agoThe point is that the infrastructure investments required for public transports would be even higher, taking into account that roads are also required for public transports... If I want a bus or a train to be right in front of my house any time I need one and I also want that bus/train to drive me exactly where I want to go, obviously the cost will be ridiculously high.
- louwrentius 4y agoYou set unreasonable expectations/ demands on public transport. There will always be some walking / biking to/from bus/tram stops. That has never been a problem. You are likely trying to compare the USA car-centric suburbs and frankly that choice makes distances larger but that’s life. USA has a tremendous disadvantage due to the car-centric nature. Yet even that can be changed, it will be costly, but there is no technical issue. It is all about politics. As long as taking a bus is seen as for “poor people” it will be an uphill battle.
- mytailorisrich 4y agoI am in Europe and I am replying to a claim that public transport can be made so good that it is people's first choice... and so the point I am making is that this is indeed setting an unrealistic expectation on public transport! If you need some biking or walking just to reach public transport, then wait, then travel through the network then there is always a level of inconvenience that you may not face if you use individual private transport instead. Even in Europe most people live is suburbs. Even if they are not car-centric (and they are in most cases) that increases inconvenience and cost of public transport.
- Beldin 4y ago> that you may not face if you use individual private transport instead. Only if you assume that individual private transport can get you door-to-door. Which is a rather unfair comparison. "cars are better because unlike public transport, you can drive up to basically any building and park there" is only true if you build roads and parkings to basically every building.
- louwrentius 4y agoI disagree and it’s quite wrong for many European countries, for instance. The whole idea is that public transport would be preferable in terms of time, comfort and cost. It can be done, there is no technical challenge whatsoever, it’s all politics. In many cases traffic is so bad that cars are just as bad. But the key thing is to sacrifice / build lanes exclusive to public transport (busses) because those lanes effectively are so much more efficient. We have a ton of electric busses already, which makes such transport even more ideal.
- mytailorisrich 4y agoI am in Europe and at country level public transport will never beat individual transport overall. In specific dense urban environments where cars can be extremely inconvenient (including because all the offices are packed in a few towers all at the same location), yes but again in the general case a bus will never be able to be as convenient as my own vehicle parked right outside my front door. And yes this is a technical and practicability challenge on top of being prohibitively expensive to run.
- louwrentius 4y agoTrading some convenience for a much better world in every conceivable metric is just more important.
- mytailorisrich 4y agoEvery conceivable metric except convenience, then... That sounds like a regression to me.
- louwrentius 4y agoYou know that a ton of people do exactly this: travel to a train station or bus/tram stop and they are fine with it. Lots of people don’t have cars. You seem to argue in bad faith as I have to point out the obvious to you.