4 ms·

Hopefully developments like this will encourage the provision of good public transport. Ideally they would be built around transport hubs. A lot of the outer L

by NeoTar 3y ago

Hopefully developments like this will encourage the provision of good public transport. Ideally they would be built around transport hubs. A lot of the outer London suburbs originated as basically railways stops in fields, where the suburb grew around the station.

nightski 3y ago
Public transport is so inconvenient, even in the best cities. Your life revolves around transportation schedules. We walk several miles in our neighborhood every day. Yet we love the freedom a car gives us.
- ZekeSulastin 3y ago
  That’s why you ideally have a city with a good public transportation schedule - it’s not like having a car makes your transit planning immune to external factors anyways.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Because looking for a parking place is so much better... There are places where a car is nice, or even necessary (sports requiring large equipment for example, trips with the family), and then there is over using cars and building cities that require cars even if it can be done differently.
  - nightski 3y ago
    In our city of 500k (which is arguably small, but honestly I think it's the perfect size) we never have to look for a spot. There's always free parking available.
    - nostrebored 3y ago
      The parking isn't free. It's subsidized and comes at the expense of density, walkability, and the opportunity cost of what else could've been built.
      - cyrialize 3y ago
        A great example of this is the size of parking lots for sports stadiums. There's also several stories (I believe SimCity might be one?) of video game developers attempting to make representations of places in their game - and then removing all the parking lots as they realized it would make a boring experience.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - cyrialize 3y ago
      My city is less than half of that size. It's impossible to find a parking spot and parking is only free on Sundays. To make more parking, they'd have to tear down buildings or take away roads. Combined with a poor bus system, it ends up being a bad experience. I'd much rather have a better public transportation system in my city, it'd be much easier than having to tear things down. More people in the city are pushing for this, so hopefully it'll get better.
- NeoTar 3y ago
  Schedules are irrelevant when frequencies are high enough. If you look at the most successful public transport systems (e.g. in London, Paris and Berlin) trains frequencies are often at least every ten minutes off-peak and can be every two-three minutes in the peak times. At those frequencies you can literally just turn-up and travel.
  - nightski 3y ago
    This is not true in my experience, Seattle has a pretty solid bus system and we still felt like we were having to plan around them even though they generally would stop every 15 minutes. You could not count on them 100% either. Occasionally they just don't show up. For trains that is great but you still have to get to/from the trains. Heck even bus stops require a 5-10 minute walk some times. So it's the walk to the bus stop, planning if the bus doesn't show up, the transit time which could include a lot of stops, and so forth. It really adds up to a lot of time lost.
    - comte7092 3y ago
      Seattle has a pretty good bus system for the US but a pretty mediocre one globally. When we talk about “frequent enough” 15 minutes is an eternity, honestly it is the bare minimum for what could be considered frequent. Frequent is every 5-6 minutes. I’ve had commutes where the headway was 2 minutes. It doesn’t matter if the train/bus is late or doesn’t show up at that point.
      - nightski 3y ago
        Is there any evidence this works in anything but the largest cities? Because America is built on small towns/cities [1]. [1] https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/05/america-a-nation-of-small-towns.html https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/05/america-a-nat...
        comte7092 3y ago
        > America is built on small towns/cities There is this really strange mythology that persists around this. America is not built on small towns or cities any more than other countries, in fact it is generally much less so. 80% of the US population lives in urbanized areas. [0] Your citation is counting towns, but that doesn’t reflect the way Americans actually live, and if you think about it, that makes sense, the US can’t have millions of million plus cities. City population size is going to follow some sort of geometric/power law distribution. To answer your question, no one is advocating banning all cars outright. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_Sta... For comparison, look at India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_India?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_India?wprov=sf...
- KptMarchewa 3y ago
  In best cities you literally do not care since everything runs frequent enough you don't wait.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Gigachad 3y ago
    Even in average cities like Melbourne, you don't have to know a schedule at all. Trains run every few minutes most of the day. You just show up and get on.
- jillornot 3y ago
  I have found the opposite. Tokyo, Kyoto, Singapore, Hong Kong, Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam, all of them public transportation was way way WAY more convenient than a car. Lived with a car the first 16 years of my adult life followed by 16 years no car. The no car years were better. Now I live in SF with car. SF might be considered to have good public transportation by many in the USA but it's shit compared to those other cites and it's not convenient. It's really only useful if you live really close to one of the tram lines. Further, in those other cities, public transportation is clean and something everyone uses. In USA cities outside of NYC, public transportation is largely considered a service provided to those too poor to own a car. As such it's always shit.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

by NeoTar 3y ago

nightski 3y ago

Public transport is so inconvenient, even in the best cities. Your life revolves around transportation schedules. We walk several miles in our neighborhood every day. Yet we love the freedom a car gives us.

ZekeSulastin 3y ago
That’s why you ideally have a city with a good public transportation schedule - it’s not like having a car makes your transit planning immune to external factors anyways.
hef19898 3y ago
Because looking for a parking place is so much better... There are places where a car is nice, or even necessary (sports requiring large equipment for example, trips with the family), and then there is over using cars and building cities that require cars even if it can be done differently.
- nightski 3y ago
  In our city of 500k (which is arguably small, but honestly I think it's the perfect size) we never have to look for a spot. There's always free parking available.
  - nostrebored 3y ago
    The parking isn't free. It's subsidized and comes at the expense of density, walkability, and the opportunity cost of what else could've been built.
    - cyrialize 3y ago
      A great example of this is the size of parking lots for sports stadiums. There's also several stories (I believe SimCity might be one?) of video game developers attempting to make representations of places in their game - and then removing all the parking lots as they realized it would make a boring experience.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - cyrialize 3y ago
    My city is less than half of that size. It's impossible to find a parking spot and parking is only free on Sundays. To make more parking, they'd have to tear down buildings or take away roads. Combined with a poor bus system, it ends up being a bad experience. I'd much rather have a better public transportation system in my city, it'd be much easier than having to tear things down. More people in the city are pushing for this, so hopefully it'll get better.
NeoTar 3y ago
Schedules are irrelevant when frequencies are high enough. If you look at the most successful public transport systems (e.g. in London, Paris and Berlin) trains frequencies are often at least every ten minutes off-peak and can be every two-three minutes in the peak times. At those frequencies you can literally just turn-up and travel.
- nightski 3y ago
  This is not true in my experience, Seattle has a pretty solid bus system and we still felt like we were having to plan around them even though they generally would stop every 15 minutes. You could not count on them 100% either. Occasionally they just don't show up. For trains that is great but you still have to get to/from the trains. Heck even bus stops require a 5-10 minute walk some times. So it's the walk to the bus stop, planning if the bus doesn't show up, the transit time which could include a lot of stops, and so forth. It really adds up to a lot of time lost.
  - comte7092 3y ago
    Seattle has a pretty good bus system for the US but a pretty mediocre one globally. When we talk about “frequent enough” 15 minutes is an eternity, honestly it is the bare minimum for what could be considered frequent. Frequent is every 5-6 minutes. I’ve had commutes where the headway was 2 minutes. It doesn’t matter if the train/bus is late or doesn’t show up at that point.
    - nightski 3y ago
      Is there any evidence this works in anything but the largest cities? Because America is built on small towns/cities [1]. [1] https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/05/america-a-nation-of-small-towns.html https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/05/america-a-nat...
      - comte7092 3y ago
        > America is built on small towns/cities There is this really strange mythology that persists around this. America is not built on small towns or cities any more than other countries, in fact it is generally much less so. 80% of the US population lives in urbanized areas. [0] Your citation is counting towns, but that doesn’t reflect the way Americans actually live, and if you think about it, that makes sense, the US can’t have millions of million plus cities. City population size is going to follow some sort of geometric/power law distribution. To answer your question, no one is advocating banning all cars outright. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_Sta... For comparison, look at India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_India?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_India?wprov=sf...
KptMarchewa 3y ago
In best cities you literally do not care since everything runs frequent enough you don't wait.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Gigachad 3y ago
  Even in average cities like Melbourne, you don't have to know a schedule at all. Trains run every few minutes most of the day. You just show up and get on.
jillornot 3y ago
I have found the opposite. Tokyo, Kyoto, Singapore, Hong Kong, Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam, all of them public transportation was way way WAY more convenient than a car. Lived with a car the first 16 years of my adult life followed by 16 years no car. The no car years were better. Now I live in SF with car. SF might be considered to have good public transportation by many in the USA but it's shit compared to those other cites and it's not convenient. It's really only useful if you live really close to one of the tram lines. Further, in those other cities, public transportation is clean and something everyone uses. In USA cities outside of NYC, public transportation is largely considered a service provided to those too poor to own a car. As such it's always shit.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]