4 ms·

Sure people can still have cars in walkable places because not all trips are going to be better without a car. That doesn't mean that people owning cars in walk

Sure people can still have cars in walkable places because not all trips are going to be better without a car. That doesn't mean that people owning cars in walkable areas are going to use them for all or most trips. They probably don't drive to the corner store 2 blocks away to pick up a six pack or drive across the city to the office to pay $30 when transit takes less time, costs 1/6th the price, and doesn't require them to sit in traffic with their hands on the wheel.

pandaman 3y ago
I am not seeing anybody arguing that people owning cars use them for all trips even in non-walkable places. But I don't see how transit can take less time anywhere unless you literally live in a station and your destination is in another station. I have a train and a bus stations nearby, it's still a 5-10 min walk, not counting waiting for the train/bus. I'd estimate if I just wanted to go somewhere right now via transit, I'd be on board in 20-30 minutes, if I took my car, I'd be 10-20 miles away by then. But all this is besides the point of cars being big, even if there had been the magic transit of your imagination, which really was so fast and cheap, it would not reduce the size of the cars people bought. Bigger cars are more desirable, this is why they are more expensive. Americans are richer than most peoples, they can afford bigger cars.
- thethethethe 3y ago
  > But I don't see how transit can take less time anywhere unless you literally live in a station and your destination is in another station. Maybe its like this for because our infrastructure has been built around the assumption that you can park your car right in front of your destination AND doesn't have good transit oriented development/frequent enough service. If you had to walk 10 minutes to park your car and or circle the block for 10 minutes waiting for a spot to open up and the trains and busses ran every 3 minutes and didn't get stuck in traffic, the time would balance out differently
  - pandaman 3y ago
    I am looking from the point of view of physics. Transit runs buses and trains, each making frequent stops to load/unload passengers, and, busses, at least, obey the same traffic laws the cars have to obey, e.g. they cannot run red lights or drive against traffic on a one way street. Even not counting the suboptimal route, a bus will always be slower than a car, it's just physics. Trains might travel faster since they don't use roads but their routes are even less optimal because the railroad is a giant nuisance on top of being expensive so you are likely to spend more time getting to/from a station than you can win on a faster travel. But I see that your suggestion is actually to degrade the infrastructure to the point that you need to spend a lot of time to park. That's quite an "improvement".
    - TheCoelacanth 3y ago
      The key factor you're ignoring is the space dedicated to car infrastructure. In a transit-oriented neighborhood, you don't have to travel as far being you don't have acres of wasted space dedicated to parking.
      - pandaman 3y ago
        And what would be an example of such a neighborhood? The afore mentioned SF and NYC do not appear to be so, other, often mentioned in such thread locale, Tokyo in Japan appears to be also quite large too (Tokyo proper is 850 square miles).
        TheCoelacanth 3y ago
        Compare a car-centric city like Houston to city center designed before cars. The entire historic center of Siena with a population of 30,000 people and hundreds of businesses fits in the space of one highway interchange in Houston[1]. There's more worth going to within a 10 minute walk in Siena the there is within a ten minute drive in Houston. NYC, London or Tokyo also work as examples since traffic moves at a snail's pace. It's trivial to beat a car on transit and a moderately fit person could jog faster than a car there. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/uo7cle/a_comparison_between_a_highway_interchange_in/ https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/uo7cle/a_comparis...

pandaman 3y ago

I am not seeing anybody arguing that people owning cars use them for all trips even in non-walkable places. But I don't see how transit can take less time anywhere unless you literally live in a station and your destination is in another station. I have a train and a bus stations nearby, it's still a 5-10 min walk, not counting waiting for the train/bus. I'd estimate if I just wanted to go somewhere right now via transit, I'd be on board in 20-30 minutes, if I took my car, I'd be 10-20 miles away by then. But all this is besides the point of cars being big, even if there had been the magic transit of your imagination, which really was so fast and cheap, it would not reduce the size of the cars people bought. Bigger cars are more desirable, this is why they are more expensive. Americans are richer than most peoples, they can afford bigger cars.

thethethethe 3y ago
> But I don't see how transit can take less time anywhere unless you literally live in a station and your destination is in another station. Maybe its like this for because our infrastructure has been built around the assumption that you can park your car right in front of your destination AND doesn't have good transit oriented development/frequent enough service. If you had to walk 10 minutes to park your car and or circle the block for 10 minutes waiting for a spot to open up and the trains and busses ran every 3 minutes and didn't get stuck in traffic, the time would balance out differently
- pandaman 3y ago
  I am looking from the point of view of physics. Transit runs buses and trains, each making frequent stops to load/unload passengers, and, busses, at least, obey the same traffic laws the cars have to obey, e.g. they cannot run red lights or drive against traffic on a one way street. Even not counting the suboptimal route, a bus will always be slower than a car, it's just physics. Trains might travel faster since they don't use roads but their routes are even less optimal because the railroad is a giant nuisance on top of being expensive so you are likely to spend more time getting to/from a station than you can win on a faster travel. But I see that your suggestion is actually to degrade the infrastructure to the point that you need to spend a lot of time to park. That's quite an "improvement".
  - TheCoelacanth 3y ago
    The key factor you're ignoring is the space dedicated to car infrastructure. In a transit-oriented neighborhood, you don't have to travel as far being you don't have acres of wasted space dedicated to parking.
    - pandaman 3y ago
      And what would be an example of such a neighborhood? The afore mentioned SF and NYC do not appear to be so, other, often mentioned in such thread locale, Tokyo in Japan appears to be also quite large too (Tokyo proper is 850 square miles).
      - TheCoelacanth 3y ago
        Compare a car-centric city like Houston to city center designed before cars. The entire historic center of Siena with a population of 30,000 people and hundreds of businesses fits in the space of one highway interchange in Houston[1]. There's more worth going to within a 10 minute walk in Siena the there is within a ten minute drive in Houston. NYC, London or Tokyo also work as examples since traffic moves at a snail's pace. It's trivial to beat a car on transit and a moderately fit person could jog faster than a car there. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/uo7cle/a_comparison_between_a_highway_interchange_in/ https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/uo7cle/a_comparis...