5 ms·

Very odd to count the private vehicle to public transit as a transfer on the same level as public transit to public transit transfer. Once this is pointed out t

Very odd to count the private vehicle to public transit as a transfer on the same level as public transit to public transit transfer. Once this is pointed out the observation is almost banal.

111111IIIIIII 3y ago
I think this is why the article is confusing. The interpretation with the least friction is so banal that it seems unlikely to be the intended meaning.
- itronitron 3y ago
  The artistry is to take the banal and illuminate it in a new way.
samtho 3y ago
I agree, if I’m driving my car for a single leg of the journey, then my “origin” is where my private vehicle is parked.
- starkparker 3y ago
  This comment, maybe unintentionally(?), encapsulates the cultural angle of the article pretty well. Suburban Americans, with exceptions, consider the "origin" of a trip on public transit not where they originate from, but where they get out of their car, because the sparse urban transit systems and job locations are oriented around extending car capabilities. It is easier and less stressful for an American to drive part of a commute and ride one train than to drive none of it and risk missing an infrequently operating transfer that strands them far from home. Suburban Europeans, with exceptions, do not do this, because their denser urban transit systems and job locations are built around foot or transit access. It is easier and less stressful for a European to ride the train all the way because, even if a transfer is required, it is more likely to occur closer to home and with a more frequently operating service. So, transit proposals in the United States that propose solutions based on European models without recognizing this American trait – often deeply rooted in experiences over years of bad transfer experiences in places that have transit, and operating against a cultural car-friendly bias in places that don't – are less likely to succeed. Or, as the article puts it: > To the extent that this relates to American commuter rail reforms, it’s about coverage within the city: multiple city stations, good (free, frequent) connections to local urban rail, high frequency all day to encourage urban travel (a train within the city that runs every half an hour might as well not run).
  - afterburner 3y ago
    It's not about American or European. Where Americans can reliably take public transit the whole way, their thinking would be the same as the Europeans you describe. It's just about how a car leg compares to a train leg or a bus leg. Of course the car-to-train transfer will seem relatively frictionless compared to the other options. It's the easiest of them. That the car leg is first when leaving in the morning is more about the circumstances of suburban commuting than the transfer point's distance from home/dest. Of course the car leg is closer to home, your car is at home. If you already lived in the city with better train access you wouldn't even be using a car. On top of that, usually the whole idea of using a car is to make it a car+train commute, rather than a bus+train commute. Usually these distant car+train commuters aren't taking a bus as the last step, because then they would probably just drive the whole way (instead of bus+train+bus just do car). And they wouldn't take a bus as the first step because that was the whole point of using the car, and the only place than can use the car as part of a multi-mode commute anyways. It really weakens the claim that it's about the transfer being closer to home that determines the decision.
  - geraldwhen 3y ago
    Most Americans don’t use public transit and cannot. Only 5% of Americans use public transit to commute to work. America is too spread out, and where public transit exists, it’s unreliable or significantly slower than travel by car. There are only a few exceptions in the US.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      America is not to spread out if you look only east of the Mississippi, and the Pacific coast. Alaska and the great plains lack the population for good transit, but the rest is close to European density and European solutions could work. What doesn't work is the bad service we get. Cars are expensive, but better than what passes for transit so of course we drive.
      - samtho 3y ago
        Even looking west, people don’t commute outside of their mega region. IMHO what the California High Speed Rail got wrong was their ambitious attempt to build the main line from SF to LA where they should have stated in the North by connecting San Francisco, Sacramento, and Stockton and/or in the south by linking LA with San Diego. These corridors are going to be more used by commuters and it’s usage would drive the will to connect them.
SllX 3y ago
Bus to the station would have the same effect. If you live near the station but need some other mode of transit to get there in a timely fashion, that’s easier to justify. If everything else fails, you can just go home. If there’s a failure on the other end, you’re not exactly near work, and you’re much further away from your home now. Part of dealing with public transit on a regular basis is dealing with it failing: bus came 5 minutes early and you missed it and the next one is 25 minutes away; bus gets taken out of service; bus is too crowded to take new passengers; somebody jumps in front of a train. Whatever it is, you’re now subject to depending on a system that has failed you. There’s some psychological comfort in being able to just go home. And unlike with the office, there’s less pressure to get home on time at a time when you would normally be out anyway. You just call in and make the walk back if you have to, or maybe get on the bus back if one is available.
slaymaker1907 3y ago
Even if the two legs of the journey are on transit, the unsaid aspect of all this is that buses are an order of magnitude less reliable than a train. The train conductor won’t skip stops because they didn’t notice anybody at the station and has to deal with little to no traffic (traffic only existing for light rail/streetcars). I’d much rather have the risky part near home because if something goes wrong, it’s much easier to find an alternative like biking, car pooling, rescheduling, walking, etc. Honestly, if we could make routes served by buses more reliable, this would all be much less of an issue.
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  I wonder if the bus think it's US specific. I've had that problem in SF, but never in Germany or Shanghai.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

Very odd to count the private vehicle to public transit as a transfer on the same level as public transit to public transit transfer. Once this is pointed out the observation is almost banal.

111111IIIIIII 3y ago

I think this is why the article is confusing. The interpretation with the least friction is so banal that it seems unlikely to be the intended meaning.

itronitron 3y ago
The artistry is to take the banal and illuminate it in a new way.

samtho 3y ago

I agree, if I’m driving my car for a single leg of the journey, then my “origin” is where my private vehicle is parked.

starkparker 3y ago
This comment, maybe unintentionally(?), encapsulates the cultural angle of the article pretty well. Suburban Americans, with exceptions, consider the "origin" of a trip on public transit not where they originate from, but where they get out of their car, because the sparse urban transit systems and job locations are oriented around extending car capabilities. It is easier and less stressful for an American to drive part of a commute and ride one train than to drive none of it and risk missing an infrequently operating transfer that strands them far from home. Suburban Europeans, with exceptions, do not do this, because their denser urban transit systems and job locations are built around foot or transit access. It is easier and less stressful for a European to ride the train all the way because, even if a transfer is required, it is more likely to occur closer to home and with a more frequently operating service. So, transit proposals in the United States that propose solutions based on European models without recognizing this American trait – often deeply rooted in experiences over years of bad transfer experiences in places that have transit, and operating against a cultural car-friendly bias in places that don't – are less likely to succeed. Or, as the article puts it: > To the extent that this relates to American commuter rail reforms, it’s about coverage within the city: multiple city stations, good (free, frequent) connections to local urban rail, high frequency all day to encourage urban travel (a train within the city that runs every half an hour might as well not run).
- afterburner 3y ago
  It's not about American or European. Where Americans can reliably take public transit the whole way, their thinking would be the same as the Europeans you describe. It's just about how a car leg compares to a train leg or a bus leg. Of course the car-to-train transfer will seem relatively frictionless compared to the other options. It's the easiest of them. That the car leg is first when leaving in the morning is more about the circumstances of suburban commuting than the transfer point's distance from home/dest. Of course the car leg is closer to home, your car is at home. If you already lived in the city with better train access you wouldn't even be using a car. On top of that, usually the whole idea of using a car is to make it a car+train commute, rather than a bus+train commute. Usually these distant car+train commuters aren't taking a bus as the last step, because then they would probably just drive the whole way (instead of bus+train+bus just do car). And they wouldn't take a bus as the first step because that was the whole point of using the car, and the only place than can use the car as part of a multi-mode commute anyways. It really weakens the claim that it's about the transfer being closer to home that determines the decision.
- geraldwhen 3y ago
  Most Americans don’t use public transit and cannot. Only 5% of Americans use public transit to commute to work. America is too spread out, and where public transit exists, it’s unreliable or significantly slower than travel by car. There are only a few exceptions in the US.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    America is not to spread out if you look only east of the Mississippi, and the Pacific coast. Alaska and the great plains lack the population for good transit, but the rest is close to European density and European solutions could work. What doesn't work is the bad service we get. Cars are expensive, but better than what passes for transit so of course we drive.
    - samtho 3y ago
      Even looking west, people don’t commute outside of their mega region. IMHO what the California High Speed Rail got wrong was their ambitious attempt to build the main line from SF to LA where they should have stated in the North by connecting San Francisco, Sacramento, and Stockton and/or in the south by linking LA with San Diego. These corridors are going to be more used by commuters and it’s usage would drive the will to connect them.

SllX 3y ago

Bus to the station would have the same effect. If you live near the station but need some other mode of transit to get there in a timely fashion, that’s easier to justify. If everything else fails, you can just go home. If there’s a failure on the other end, you’re not exactly near work, and you’re much further away from your home now. Part of dealing with public transit on a regular basis is dealing with it failing: bus came 5 minutes early and you missed it and the next one is 25 minutes away; bus gets taken out of service; bus is too crowded to take new passengers; somebody jumps in front of a train. Whatever it is, you’re now subject to depending on a system that has failed you. There’s some psychological comfort in being able to just go home. And unlike with the office, there’s less pressure to get home on time at a time when you would normally be out anyway. You just call in and make the walk back if you have to, or maybe get on the bus back if one is available.

slaymaker1907 3y ago

Even if the two legs of the journey are on transit, the unsaid aspect of all this is that buses are an order of magnitude less reliable than a train. The train conductor won’t skip stops because they didn’t notice anybody at the station and has to deal with little to no traffic (traffic only existing for light rail/streetcars). I’d much rather have the risky part near home because if something goes wrong, it’s much easier to find an alternative like biking, car pooling, rescheduling, walking, etc. Honestly, if we could make routes served by buses more reliable, this would all be much less of an issue.

ajmurmann 3y ago
I wonder if the bus think it's US specific. I've had that problem in SF, but never in Germany or Shanghai.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]