4 ms·

A single subway line in Toronto is 38 km / 24 miles long. A single regional rail line passing through downtown is 114 km / 71 miles long. A 15 mile commute is p

A single subway line in Toronto is 38 km / 24 miles long. A single regional rail line passing through downtown is 114 km / 71 miles long. A 15 mile commute is perfectly achievable on public transit when the facilities exist.

falcolas 3y ago
In the rural US, you'd have maybe 1-2 people per hour who would take said public transit route. Most hours, you'd have zero.
- cooper_ganglia 3y ago
  Yeah, I drive through 3 other towns before even getting to the town I work in. And the town I work in is 10-15 minutes off the "main road" (if you can even call it that, lol) so setting this up with public transport means having an entire bus SOLELY for me. You'd waste more than you'd save. I can't live closer, and my work can't move. These are the realities of living in the country. It's awesome and I wouldn't change it for the world, but stuff is just far apart, no matter what. People really, really do not understand what living rural is like.
  - theluketaylor 3y ago
    > People really, really do not understand what living rural is like. The same criticism applies equally well to rural dwellers about urban life which is why someone rural could be shocked by the idea someone might actively choose to to travel by high quality public transportation. I have lived both rural and urban and actively choose urban. Rural is a fine choice too, but rural dwellers shouldn't expect their energy intensive and economically expensive lifestyle to be subsidized by urban dwellers forever. Maintaining a huge road network with relatively low utilization is massively expensive and western rural life is currently among the most carbon intensive lifestyles.
    - vidanay 3y ago
      Are you hypothesizing that eventually everyone will/should move to urban areas? I don't think that will end up being sustainable either.
    - falcolas 3y ago
      For better or worse, Urban dwellers are the majority in the US - the "Fuck Cars" blanket statements get a bit frustrating to see as someone in a rural environment. > Maintaining a huge road network with relatively low utilization is massively expensive and western rural life is currently among the most carbon intensive lifestyles. Yet it's necessary, and cheaper than the alternative when you have industry which must exist in a rural setting (such as farming). Attempting to mandate public transport for rural settings would cost more, and may even be more carbon intensive. So as much as people who live in rural areas shouldn't dictate how public transport is instituted in dense urban areas, neither should urbanites dictate how transport in rural areas is managed.
      - frumper 3y ago
        Urban dwellers in America isn’t a dense city. It’s a loose collection of smaller cities all over the place. The US census defines urban as having 5,000 people in an area.
- theluketaylor 3y ago
  Which is fine, but I'm sick of those same people consistently voting against high quality public transport inside cities while insisting on urban highways and tons of parking for when they come to the city. Untold billions have been spent creating a road network to support their rural lifestyle and then they object to any money being spent on transportation modes other than driving. Farmers get a pass since they are producing things on the land. Everyone else who chooses to live rural or exurban doesn't get to object to urban dwellers wanting quality transit or to reduce the prominence of cars in urban spaces.
  - falcolas 3y ago
    > Farmers get a pass since they are producing things on the land. And the people who maintain farmers' equipment? Purchasers of farmers' goods? The people who sell food to farmers? The people who maintain infrastructure? Mail? Which is to say, where there are farmers (or ranchers etc), there is a whole city nearby who supports them. And cities imply infrastructure - like roads.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  It is really not about rural areas. But the massive sub-urban which sounds like it was designed to be as far from where work is as possible... Farms take land, but cities should not. They should be designed to be effective in most ways by minimizing distance travelled for most common trips.

falcolas 3y ago

In the rural US, you'd have maybe 1-2 people per hour who would take said public transit route. Most hours, you'd have zero.

cooper_ganglia 3y ago
Yeah, I drive through 3 other towns before even getting to the town I work in. And the town I work in is 10-15 minutes off the "main road" (if you can even call it that, lol) so setting this up with public transport means having an entire bus SOLELY for me. You'd waste more than you'd save. I can't live closer, and my work can't move. These are the realities of living in the country. It's awesome and I wouldn't change it for the world, but stuff is just far apart, no matter what. People really, really do not understand what living rural is like.
- theluketaylor 3y ago
  > People really, really do not understand what living rural is like. The same criticism applies equally well to rural dwellers about urban life which is why someone rural could be shocked by the idea someone might actively choose to to travel by high quality public transportation. I have lived both rural and urban and actively choose urban. Rural is a fine choice too, but rural dwellers shouldn't expect their energy intensive and economically expensive lifestyle to be subsidized by urban dwellers forever. Maintaining a huge road network with relatively low utilization is massively expensive and western rural life is currently among the most carbon intensive lifestyles.
  - vidanay 3y ago
    Are you hypothesizing that eventually everyone will/should move to urban areas? I don't think that will end up being sustainable either.
  - falcolas 3y ago
    For better or worse, Urban dwellers are the majority in the US - the "Fuck Cars" blanket statements get a bit frustrating to see as someone in a rural environment. > Maintaining a huge road network with relatively low utilization is massively expensive and western rural life is currently among the most carbon intensive lifestyles. Yet it's necessary, and cheaper than the alternative when you have industry which must exist in a rural setting (such as farming). Attempting to mandate public transport for rural settings would cost more, and may even be more carbon intensive. So as much as people who live in rural areas shouldn't dictate how public transport is instituted in dense urban areas, neither should urbanites dictate how transport in rural areas is managed.
    - frumper 3y ago
      Urban dwellers in America isn’t a dense city. It’s a loose collection of smaller cities all over the place. The US census defines urban as having 5,000 people in an area.
theluketaylor 3y ago
Which is fine, but I'm sick of those same people consistently voting against high quality public transport inside cities while insisting on urban highways and tons of parking for when they come to the city. Untold billions have been spent creating a road network to support their rural lifestyle and then they object to any money being spent on transportation modes other than driving. Farmers get a pass since they are producing things on the land. Everyone else who chooses to live rural or exurban doesn't get to object to urban dwellers wanting quality transit or to reduce the prominence of cars in urban spaces.
- falcolas 3y ago
  > Farmers get a pass since they are producing things on the land. And the people who maintain farmers' equipment? Purchasers of farmers' goods? The people who sell food to farmers? The people who maintain infrastructure? Mail? Which is to say, where there are farmers (or ranchers etc), there is a whole city nearby who supports them. And cities imply infrastructure - like roads.
Ekaros 3y ago
It is really not about rural areas. But the massive sub-urban which sounds like it was designed to be as far from where work is as possible... Farms take land, but cities should not. They should be designed to be effective in most ways by minimizing distance travelled for most common trips.