3 ms·

It's not just the US though, this is the case everywhere in the world! > If we built 10 residential towers within a 7 minute walk of a rapid transit station, a

by ars 3y ago

It's not just the US though, this is the case everywhere in the world! > If we built 10 residential towers within a 7 minute walk of a rapid transit station, and run trains every 3 minutes at peak times, you bet your bottom dollar transit will destroy a car commute for every resident of those towers. If you added a parking lot lage enough for all residents of the tower to have a car (otherwise it's not a fair comparision), then I would take that bet: The car will still be twice as fast (don't forget to include walking time). Trains are slow because they have to start and stop constantly, you have to walk to them, you have to get on and off. None of that applies to a car: it's point-to-point. > IF the first and last mile doesn't ruin it! And it always does...... no one has solved that.

dukeyukey 3y ago
> Trains are slow because they have to start and stop constantly, you have to walk to them, you have to get on and off. None of that applies to a car: it's point-to-point. It does though? In a dense city cars have to constantly stop-and-start thanks to treaffic and pedestrian crossings - there's no gurantee of parking space at the other end - if there is, there's a good chance it's not next to your destination. I live in Zone 3 London, about 5 miles from my workplace. Point-to-point (so not counting finding a parking space), both driving and the train take about 45 minutes. Cycling takes a bit less time, since cars get stuck in traffic and bikes don't.
hughesjj 3y ago
> Trains are slow because they have to start and stop constantly, you have to walk to them, you have to get on and off. None of that applies to a car: it's point-to-point. Wait, are you claiming that cars don't stop at any point in their journey? Like this isn't even taking into account your distance metric (L0 vs L1 norms) being less efficient than a train has the potential to be, or the 5 minutes it took me to get out of my parking garage before I'd even see a street vs the 1 minute it would take me in the elevator
xp84 3y ago
> car will be twice as fast, What? I just pointed out that at the time most people need to drive we have traffic. I assure you, in San Francisco, I’d win the race even with a little walk on both ends. > don’t forget walking time Are you implying that downtown offices have ample space for every worker to park next to their desk? Or advocating a Texas-like downtown with a huge parking lot or garage on every urban block. Parking in an urban core is prohibitively expensive for most, since it uses a ton of very expensive real estate. > trains are slow because… This is a strange take. Trains are fast because they stop exactly 6 times between Daly City and Montgomery. Cars are slow because they have to go about 5MPH through a massive part of San Francisco every day between 7:30-9:30AM and 3-7PM. (Forgive me if I’m off by an hour for that particular commute, I left a few years ago). Cars are much faster at 2AM though, or in rural Nebraska. My point was, someone who lived in a sane development in those places does not need a personal car. That would be a large enough population to support a grocery right there. The city itself is a quick ride away, so you can do non-bulky shopping easily via the train. And for weekend trips or IKEA runs or whatever, imagining a car rental office onsite is easy, and again, MUCH cheaper than the cost of ownership, including paying the cost of storage, via having a more expensive residence - since it takes up so much more square footage per unit to provide parking for each resident. (Also don’t forget things like paying for window repair after every car burglary!) By the way. I live in the suburbs and drive a car basically 100% of my trips. I’m not disputing that they’re the only option for how most of our country is planned. Just that we chose this and we could have chosen otherwise. And in theory, undeveloped areas could be built differently.

by ars 3y ago

dukeyukey 3y ago

> Trains are slow because they have to start and stop constantly, you have to walk to them, you have to get on and off. None of that applies to a car: it's point-to-point. It does though? In a dense city cars have to constantly stop-and-start thanks to treaffic and pedestrian crossings - there's no gurantee of parking space at the other end - if there is, there's a good chance it's not next to your destination. I live in Zone 3 London, about 5 miles from my workplace. Point-to-point (so not counting finding a parking space), both driving and the train take about 45 minutes. Cycling takes a bit less time, since cars get stuck in traffic and bikes don't.

hughesjj 3y ago

> Trains are slow because they have to start and stop constantly, you have to walk to them, you have to get on and off. None of that applies to a car: it's point-to-point. Wait, are you claiming that cars don't stop at any point in their journey? Like this isn't even taking into account your distance metric (L0 vs L1 norms) being less efficient than a train has the potential to be, or the 5 minutes it took me to get out of my parking garage before I'd even see a street vs the 1 minute it would take me in the elevator

xp84 3y ago

> car will be twice as fast, What? I just pointed out that at the time most people need to drive we have traffic. I assure you, in San Francisco, I’d win the race even with a little walk on both ends. > don’t forget walking time Are you implying that downtown offices have ample space for every worker to park next to their desk? Or advocating a Texas-like downtown with a huge parking lot or garage on every urban block. Parking in an urban core is prohibitively expensive for most, since it uses a ton of very expensive real estate. > trains are slow because… This is a strange take. Trains are fast because they stop exactly 6 times between Daly City and Montgomery. Cars are slow because they have to go about 5MPH through a massive part of San Francisco every day between 7:30-9:30AM and 3-7PM. (Forgive me if I’m off by an hour for that particular commute, I left a few years ago). Cars are much faster at 2AM though, or in rural Nebraska. My point was, someone who lived in a sane development in those places does not need a personal car. That would be a large enough population to support a grocery right there. The city itself is a quick ride away, so you can do non-bulky shopping easily via the train. And for weekend trips or IKEA runs or whatever, imagining a car rental office onsite is easy, and again, MUCH cheaper than the cost of ownership, including paying the cost of storage, via having a more expensive residence - since it takes up so much more square footage per unit to provide parking for each resident. (Also don’t forget things like paying for window repair after every car burglary!) By the way. I live in the suburbs and drive a car basically 100% of my trips. I’m not disputing that they’re the only option for how most of our country is planned. Just that we chose this and we could have chosen otherwise. And in theory, undeveloped areas could be built differently.