3 ms·

Public transportation cannot compete over long distances either as they stop dropping people off anywhere close to home once you leave the city. They are only

Public transportation cannot compete over long distances either as they stop dropping people off anywhere close to home once you leave the city. They are only able to complete within a city at medium range where they special lanes.

vertis 3y ago
Fine, you drive between London and Paris, but I'm going to catch the Eurostar (tube and metro). You drive between New York and SF, but I'm going to fly. I'm not recommending buses, buses suck. European public transport is amazing and the US could learn something.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  Im talking more going from Chicago to small town central Illinois. You’re biased and assuming everyone who travels lives in, leaves from and arrives at a city. You assume everything else is fly over country instead of most of the countries land and half its population.
  - vertis 3y ago
    And you're biased in thinking everything has bad public transport like the US. I could use an absolute bucket load of examples from UK, Europe and Australia where to drive long distance you will always come off second to public transport of one form or another. Europe and the UK has an absolutely extensive train network, not just big cities. I could have as easily said Ancona to Bologna, or Strasbourg to Stuttgart. You're just unlikely to know anything about those places. Or even smaller stations/towns -- Hinkley or Inverness. Australia's regional towns are primarily linked by regional airlines, the drives are insanely long to get to the nearest city. People do, of course, but flying is always going to be quicker.
fmobus 3y ago
It can, when cities are not built with dumb land use patterns. I am moving to an apartment 50km away from my workplace. Commuting by car or by train will take around the same time (~50 min door-to-door), but the car will be subject to random traffic, hunting for parking spot, stress, etc. Oh, and the train is several times cheaper.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  This comment is out of touch just based on the first sentence. The US is a continent spanning nation and half the country does not live in a city.
  - fmobus 3y ago
    > The US is a continent spanning nation How is that relevant? No one commutes from NY to LA everyday, much as no one commutes from Berlin to Munich everyday. > and half the country does not live in a city Yes, and that's what I mean by "dumb land-use patterns". That people living in suburbs are not technically within a city's boundaries is a distinction without a difference. Land is wasted to highways and parking lots no one can cross without a two-ton machine, useless lawns no one really has time to enjoy or maintain, dumb McMansions that cost and arm and a leg and so on. And all of that is subsidised in what is effectively a [pyramid scheme]<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI>.

vertis 3y ago

Fine, you drive between London and Paris, but I'm going to catch the Eurostar (tube and metro). You drive between New York and SF, but I'm going to fly. I'm not recommending buses, buses suck. European public transport is amazing and the US could learn something.

edgyquant 3y ago
Im talking more going from Chicago to small town central Illinois. You’re biased and assuming everyone who travels lives in, leaves from and arrives at a city. You assume everything else is fly over country instead of most of the countries land and half its population.
- vertis 3y ago
  And you're biased in thinking everything has bad public transport like the US. I could use an absolute bucket load of examples from UK, Europe and Australia where to drive long distance you will always come off second to public transport of one form or another. Europe and the UK has an absolutely extensive train network, not just big cities. I could have as easily said Ancona to Bologna, or Strasbourg to Stuttgart. You're just unlikely to know anything about those places. Or even smaller stations/towns -- Hinkley or Inverness. Australia's regional towns are primarily linked by regional airlines, the drives are insanely long to get to the nearest city. People do, of course, but flying is always going to be quicker.

fmobus 3y ago

It can, when cities are not built with dumb land use patterns. I am moving to an apartment 50km away from my workplace. Commuting by car or by train will take around the same time (~50 min door-to-door), but the car will be subject to random traffic, hunting for parking spot, stress, etc. Oh, and the train is several times cheaper.

edgyquant 3y ago
This comment is out of touch just based on the first sentence. The US is a continent spanning nation and half the country does not live in a city.
- fmobus 3y ago
  > The US is a continent spanning nation How is that relevant? No one commutes from NY to LA everyday, much as no one commutes from Berlin to Munich everyday. > and half the country does not live in a city Yes, and that's what I mean by "dumb land-use patterns". That people living in suburbs are not technically within a city's boundaries is a distinction without a difference. Land is wasted to highways and parking lots no one can cross without a two-ton machine, useless lawns no one really has time to enjoy or maintain, dumb McMansions that cost and arm and a leg and so on. And all of that is subsidised in what is effectively a [pyramid scheme]<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI>.