5 ms·

> Otherwise bus travel is too slow and unreliable for people working 40h+ This feels like a very US mindset. In many other places buses are very reliable and

> Otherwise bus travel is too slow and unreliable for people working 40h+ This feels like a very US mindset. In many other places buses are very reliable and cities are built around them e.g. dedicated bus lanes and so they are often much faster than driving.

anal_reactor 2y ago
Buses are fantastic for the use case "we need to transport 100 people from suburbs to the office every day at 8AM", but they completely suck at use case "this one guy wants to come back home from a concert at 2AM". This means you need some personal vehicle anyway. And if you already have a car, why not use it for work commute. Living in a bike-oriented city, I think e-bikes are the future. Almost as versatile as cars, with none of the downsides.
- dagss 2y ago
  "why not use it for work-commute" In Oslo (and I am sure other European places), the answer is simply "because I want to spend 30 minutes on my commute instead of 90 minutes". (At least for train/metro) Assuming urban areas: Roads are always congested. Building more roads/more lanes only relieves it a few years then car traffic increases until you are as congested as before. (You can find proper scientific studies of this effect -- "induced traffic") But public transport, if enough people take it, take so ridiculously many more passengers per area of road that it cuts through this effect and actually helps congestion. (Establishing a bus route may also induce more traffic, but you can add another bus much more cheaply than another road lane, and actually keep up.) This requires buses to be prioritized in traffic though (dedicated lanes), otherwise there is as you point out no reason for individuals to take public transport. Basically a reserved bus/metro lane gives you "infinite road capacity" (with the obvious caveats)
  - anal_reactor 2y ago
    > At least for train/metro This is why real estate close to metro is significantly more expensive than further away from metro. > Basically a reserved bus/metro lane Yes
- Hikikomori 2y ago
  Buses and subways can operate during the night as well. Never had this issue.
  - anal_reactor 2y ago
    > Never had this issue. Username checks out
- mananaysiempre 2y ago
  > this one guy wants to come back home from a concert at 2AM Night buses are a thing. A city / urban area large enough to have concerts at 2AM should be able to support a set of them running one or two per hour with a 15 minutes’ walk to the closest stop. (There’s a tradeoff between convenience and empty buses, and night buses are there more to make sure nobody gets stuck.)
  - anal_reactor 2y ago
    > A city / urban area large enough to have concerts at 2AM should be able to support a set of them running one or two per hour with a 15 minutes’ walk to the closest stop > should But it doesn't.
    - rsynnott 2y ago
      I mean... every city I've been in in the last few years has either 24 hour routes or night routes or both. (I do think it used to be less common, but at least in Western Europe it is now standard for largish cities.)
- rsynnott 2y ago
  > but they completely suck at use case "this one guy wants to come back home from a concert at 2AM". Hmm, last week I was out til about 4am on Friday night, then got a 24 hour bus home. That's what I generally do when I'm out late. > This means you need some personal vehicle anyway Unless you're not drinking at this 2am concert, you're probably not using a personal car. Buses are actually quite _good_ for this use case, in that they're much cheaper to run 24/7 than trams and heavy rail (whose higher capacity is largely useless late at night, and, particularly in the case of heavy rail, really _need_ maintenance downtime).
- fragmede 2y ago
  bicycles don't work when the user is sufficiently drunk, as one might be, when leaving a concert at 2am or later. it's not a competition, the beauty of living in a city full of people is having a half dozen ways to get where you are going, instead of being limited to one or two.
forgetfreeman 2y ago
Given a bunch of us live in the US a US mindset shouldn't be shocking. Whereas in other places other ground truths apply, in the US exactly zero major metropolitan areas are built around mass transit making it wildly impractical for the bulk of human traffic.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  Half of the metro areas in the US used to have comprehensive public transit! Do you think Americans just didn't live in cities before cars? So many americans are seemingly utterly ignorant of their own history and then use that ignorance to insist "It can't happen here" Go read up on the tram systems we used to have.
  - forgetfreeman 2y ago
    > Half of the metro areas in the US used to have comprehensive public transit! Sure, when said metro areas were a 10th of their current size with a couple orders of magnitude fewer residents street cars were kind of a thing. You cannot credibly expect a similar system to service the suburban sprawl around Atlanta for example. So unless the plan is to dragline the suburbs and mulch 80% of the urban population this is a complete non-starter. The sheer number of routes and volume of equipment required to service them would be financially prohibitive.

anal_reactor 2y ago

Buses are fantastic for the use case "we need to transport 100 people from suburbs to the office every day at 8AM", but they completely suck at use case "this one guy wants to come back home from a concert at 2AM". This means you need some personal vehicle anyway. And if you already have a car, why not use it for work commute. Living in a bike-oriented city, I think e-bikes are the future. Almost as versatile as cars, with none of the downsides.

dagss 2y ago
"why not use it for work-commute" In Oslo (and I am sure other European places), the answer is simply "because I want to spend 30 minutes on my commute instead of 90 minutes". (At least for train/metro) Assuming urban areas: Roads are always congested. Building more roads/more lanes only relieves it a few years then car traffic increases until you are as congested as before. (You can find proper scientific studies of this effect -- "induced traffic") But public transport, if enough people take it, take so ridiculously many more passengers per area of road that it cuts through this effect and actually helps congestion. (Establishing a bus route may also induce more traffic, but you can add another bus much more cheaply than another road lane, and actually keep up.) This requires buses to be prioritized in traffic though (dedicated lanes), otherwise there is as you point out no reason for individuals to take public transport. Basically a reserved bus/metro lane gives you "infinite road capacity" (with the obvious caveats)
- anal_reactor 2y ago
  > At least for train/metro This is why real estate close to metro is significantly more expensive than further away from metro. > Basically a reserved bus/metro lane Yes
Hikikomori 2y ago
Buses and subways can operate during the night as well. Never had this issue.
- anal_reactor 2y ago
  > Never had this issue. Username checks out
mananaysiempre 2y ago
> this one guy wants to come back home from a concert at 2AM Night buses are a thing. A city / urban area large enough to have concerts at 2AM should be able to support a set of them running one or two per hour with a 15 minutes’ walk to the closest stop. (There’s a tradeoff between convenience and empty buses, and night buses are there more to make sure nobody gets stuck.)
- anal_reactor 2y ago
  > A city / urban area large enough to have concerts at 2AM should be able to support a set of them running one or two per hour with a 15 minutes’ walk to the closest stop > should But it doesn't.
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    I mean... every city I've been in in the last few years has either 24 hour routes or night routes or both. (I do think it used to be less common, but at least in Western Europe it is now standard for largish cities.)
rsynnott 2y ago
> but they completely suck at use case "this one guy wants to come back home from a concert at 2AM". Hmm, last week I was out til about 4am on Friday night, then got a 24 hour bus home. That's what I generally do when I'm out late. > This means you need some personal vehicle anyway Unless you're not drinking at this 2am concert, you're probably not using a personal car. Buses are actually quite _good_ for this use case, in that they're much cheaper to run 24/7 than trams and heavy rail (whose higher capacity is largely useless late at night, and, particularly in the case of heavy rail, really _need_ maintenance downtime).
fragmede 2y ago
bicycles don't work when the user is sufficiently drunk, as one might be, when leaving a concert at 2am or later. it's not a competition, the beauty of living in a city full of people is having a half dozen ways to get where you are going, instead of being limited to one or two.

forgetfreeman 2y ago

Given a bunch of us live in the US a US mindset shouldn't be shocking. Whereas in other places other ground truths apply, in the US exactly zero major metropolitan areas are built around mass transit making it wildly impractical for the bulk of human traffic.

mrguyorama 2y ago
Half of the metro areas in the US used to have comprehensive public transit! Do you think Americans just didn't live in cities before cars? So many americans are seemingly utterly ignorant of their own history and then use that ignorance to insist "It can't happen here" Go read up on the tram systems we used to have.
- forgetfreeman 2y ago
  > Half of the metro areas in the US used to have comprehensive public transit! Sure, when said metro areas were a 10th of their current size with a couple orders of magnitude fewer residents street cars were kind of a thing. You cannot credibly expect a similar system to service the suburban sprawl around Atlanta for example. So unless the plan is to dragline the suburbs and mulch 80% of the urban population this is a complete non-starter. The sheer number of routes and volume of equipment required to service them would be financially prohibitive.