3 ms·

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.

by samtho 3y ago

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.
      - bluGill 3y ago
        High speed rail is about distances too long for commuting. Plenty of people do make that trip in their cars. If only CA could build fast for reasonable prices. Their inability to do either gives transit haters plenty of ammo to show transit shouldn't be built. And if transit keeps doing things like second ave subway and cahrs the haters are right.
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    > America is too spread out This is a very common talking point, but it's not _as_ true as people think, depending on state. California, for instance, has a population density similar to France, though almost infinitely worse public transport _infrastructure_. The infra problem is likely more of a factory than the density thing, at least in the US's more populous states.

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.

by 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.

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.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      High speed rail is about distances too long for commuting. Plenty of people do make that trip in their cars. If only CA could build fast for reasonable prices. Their inability to do either gives transit haters plenty of ammo to show transit shouldn't be built. And if transit keeps doing things like second ave subway and cahrs the haters are right.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  > America is too spread out This is a very common talking point, but it's not _as_ true as people think, depending on state. California, for instance, has a population density similar to France, though almost infinitely worse public transport _infrastructure_. The infra problem is likely more of a factory than the density thing, at least in the US's more populous states.