3 ms·
In many big asian cities, the nearest MRT stop is less than 5 minutes walking away, there are trains every 3 minutes, they ride fast, and the layout is such tha
by Aardwolf 4y ago
In many big asian cities, the nearest MRT stop is less than 5 minutes walking away, there are trains every 3 minutes, they ride fast, and the layout is such that you usually need 0 or 1 transfers to another colored line, can't really beat it imho, except with the public bikes in some cases
EU's metros are a bit dated compared to that, but still very useful.
In the NY one, I was sometimes thinking walking is about as fast if you add up the slow train speed with the waiting time. In SF, there is none?!
- kjkjadksj 4y agoI’d love to see some maps of good examples, but I think transit with minimal transferring is a really tough network nut to crack. You can build hub and spoke or with a few hubs and spokes but this often requires going way out of your way into somewhere you can transfer between spokes. You can build a grid basically like what is done with busses, but again, the routing demands compromising your personal convenience because you are moving along a grid, versus more as the crow flies. At the end of the day no one is going to be perfectly happy with transit by definition. It serves the average commuter along the given corridor, never you in particular and your particular commute. A lot of car drivers today probably wont accept that, taking a backseat and saying they will deal with waiting if it means second order benefits that aren’t immediately obvious, since for the last 100 years they’ve held the notion that they are in charge.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- palata 4y agoTo me your opinion sounds really US-centered (where public transports typically suck). It is fine to say that US has evolved for the individual car, and it's very hard to change. But I don't get why you say that it's the same everywhere else...