3 ms·
It is more efficient though. But if you say you want to avoid at all costs, and assuming there are more people like you out there, maybe we should just start _
by fmobus 3y ago
It is more efficient though.
But if you say you want to avoid at all costs, and assuming there are more people like you out there, maybe we should just start _charging that cost_.
- cloverich 3y agoWhat do you mean by efficient? When I lived in Austin, we lived in a neighborhood where the (only) train picked up, and it dropped me off 5 blocks from my office downtown. It was an extraordinarily pleasant period of my life. But even then, in ideal conditions, it still took longer than driving, and I had to time my departures to avoid waiting 15-30 minutes at the station. I'm definitely in favor of re-designing our cities and infrastructure to support that kind of lifestyle; I believe most people would prefer it if they experienced it. It seems inevitable from a carbon stand point. But I'm skeptical it will ever be more efficient?
- Symbiote 3y agoThey might mean energy efficiency or time efficiency (reading a book etc on the train). Or maybe construction energy efficiency, which in Austin is presumably a sunk cost. Note a 15-30 minute wait is what I have to endure at night (21.00 to 01.00) if I want to travel to/from the suburbs of Copenhagen on a weekday, similar population to Austin. On Friday and Saturday nights each line runs every 20 minutes all night.
- fmobus 3y agoIt's more efficient for society as a whole. Public transit simply moves more people using less space and less energy, causing fewer deaths, while also being more equitable to boot. And your comment noted, it's a godsend for the mind. I've moved to a country with public transit and haven't commuted by car in the last 5 years. Daily driving was destroying me.