4 ms·

That's a case everywhere with subways, because car need to stop on lights for pedestrians, other cars and every intersection - while subway just goes?

josephcsible 1y ago
Can you name a specific pair of locations that I can plug in to Google Maps and see that outcome?
- mrpippy 1y ago
  How about the World Trade Center to Yankee Stadium. Driving is 32 min with a $9 toll, or 38 min with no toll. Subway is 31 min with $3 fare. And this is a Sunday afternoon, I’m sure the drive gets dramatically worse on a weekday.
  - josephcsible 1y ago
    > How about the World Trade Center to Yankee Stadium. Driving is 32 min with a $9 toll, or 38 min with no toll. Subway is 31 min with $3 fare. When I checked that route just now, I saw 31 minutes driving with a toll, 35 minutes driving without a toll, and 42 minutes on the subway. And even with your numbers, that's very, very far from the 2 hours vs. 20 minutes that was originally claimed. > And this is a Sunday afternoon, I’m sure the drive gets dramatically worse on a weekday. When I set a departure time of tomorrow at 5pm, it says 41 minutes on the subway and a range of 30-60 minutes for driving. (Still not even close to 2 hours vs. 20 minutes.)
    - mrpippy 1y ago
      It says 42 minutes via subway because you have to walk to the station and wait a few minutes for the next subway. Plus if you were driving, you’d of course need to park at the destination (either expensive or time-consuming, possibly both).
      - josephcsible 1y ago
        > It says 42 minutes via subway because you have to walk to the station and wait a few minutes for the next subway. Google doesn't seem to count the time of waiting for the next subway train. It looks like they give you a departure time a few minutes in the future, such that if you leave then, you'll arrive just in time for the train. Since most people probably won't cut it that close, doesn't that mean it will probably take even longer than Google suggests? In particular, longer enough to counteract the time spent parking if you drive?
        keeda 1y ago
        > Google doesn't seem to count the time of waiting for the next subway train. Pretty sure it does. My understanding is that it computes the time simply as (estimated_end_time - start_time), and it determines the estimated_end_time as whenever you would reach your destination, which accounts for train schedules and walking time. > Since most people probably won't cut it that close... At least in NYC, IME people did cut it that close because during regular hours (that actually extend pretty late into the evening) the frequency is high enough that if you miss a train you only need to wait a few minutes for the next one. The other thing that has not been mentioned so far in this sub-thread (but maybe elsewhere) is that public transport is very relaxing. Even if it's crowded and you have to stand, you can use your smartphone because there is wireless reception on the subway. And if you consider the madness that is driving in NYC traffic, there is no comparison. It's maddening even just sitting in a rideshare. I'm surprised you're seeing driving times being comparable. I'm actually doubting the Google Maps estimates, which are usually rock solid.
        josephcsible 1y ago
        > My understanding is that it computes the time simply as (estimated_end_time - start_time), and it determines the estimated_end_time as whenever you would reach your destination, which accounts for train schedules and walking time. It does do that. But it moves start_time into the future, and that's what makes it not count the time of waiting for the train.
- jddj 1y ago
  Liverpool Street station to LHR terminal 2, tomorrow afternoon at 1630. Car gives up to 2hr, train gives 46min. Abbey wood to LHR, up to 2h40 by car or 1h02 by train
  - josephcsible 1y ago
    46 minutes is a lot more than 20 minutes, and "up to 2hr" is doing a lot of work since Google says "typically 1-2 hr". And isn't London the city that instituted the ridiculous 20mph speed limit? So even if the 2 hours vs. 20 minutes were true there, I'd put London in the "artificially slow down cars" category.
    - jddj 1y ago
      It's too bad they don't give an estimate for how long it would be if the 4 million tube journeys per day were cars on the street.
      - mlyle 1y ago
        Individuals don't make that choice, though. Individuals consider the transit modes available to them, and don't consider the externality of slightly delaying everyone else if they take a car.
    - queenkjuul 1y ago
      The average speed on the Kennedy in Chicago at rush hour very well might be less than 20mph. It's taken me a full 75min to go 7 miles, the bulk of which was "expressway" The train gets me home in an hour, every time. I could bike and save even more time. Cars just don't move fast in cities.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

josephcsible 1y ago

Can you name a specific pair of locations that I can plug in to Google Maps and see that outcome?

mrpippy 1y ago
How about the World Trade Center to Yankee Stadium. Driving is 32 min with a $9 toll, or 38 min with no toll. Subway is 31 min with $3 fare. And this is a Sunday afternoon, I’m sure the drive gets dramatically worse on a weekday.
- josephcsible 1y ago
  > How about the World Trade Center to Yankee Stadium. Driving is 32 min with a $9 toll, or 38 min with no toll. Subway is 31 min with $3 fare. When I checked that route just now, I saw 31 minutes driving with a toll, 35 minutes driving without a toll, and 42 minutes on the subway. And even with your numbers, that's very, very far from the 2 hours vs. 20 minutes that was originally claimed. > And this is a Sunday afternoon, I’m sure the drive gets dramatically worse on a weekday. When I set a departure time of tomorrow at 5pm, it says 41 minutes on the subway and a range of 30-60 minutes for driving. (Still not even close to 2 hours vs. 20 minutes.)
  - mrpippy 1y ago
    It says 42 minutes via subway because you have to walk to the station and wait a few minutes for the next subway. Plus if you were driving, you’d of course need to park at the destination (either expensive or time-consuming, possibly both).
    - josephcsible 1y ago
      > It says 42 minutes via subway because you have to walk to the station and wait a few minutes for the next subway. Google doesn't seem to count the time of waiting for the next subway train. It looks like they give you a departure time a few minutes in the future, such that if you leave then, you'll arrive just in time for the train. Since most people probably won't cut it that close, doesn't that mean it will probably take even longer than Google suggests? In particular, longer enough to counteract the time spent parking if you drive?
      - keeda 1y ago
        > Google doesn't seem to count the time of waiting for the next subway train. Pretty sure it does. My understanding is that it computes the time simply as (estimated_end_time - start_time), and it determines the estimated_end_time as whenever you would reach your destination, which accounts for train schedules and walking time. > Since most people probably won't cut it that close... At least in NYC, IME people did cut it that close because during regular hours (that actually extend pretty late into the evening) the frequency is high enough that if you miss a train you only need to wait a few minutes for the next one. The other thing that has not been mentioned so far in this sub-thread (but maybe elsewhere) is that public transport is very relaxing. Even if it's crowded and you have to stand, you can use your smartphone because there is wireless reception on the subway. And if you consider the madness that is driving in NYC traffic, there is no comparison. It's maddening even just sitting in a rideshare. I'm surprised you're seeing driving times being comparable. I'm actually doubting the Google Maps estimates, which are usually rock solid.
        josephcsible 1y ago
        > My understanding is that it computes the time simply as (estimated_end_time - start_time), and it determines the estimated_end_time as whenever you would reach your destination, which accounts for train schedules and walking time. It does do that. But it moves start_time into the future, and that's what makes it not count the time of waiting for the train.
jddj 1y ago
Liverpool Street station to LHR terminal 2, tomorrow afternoon at 1630. Car gives up to 2hr, train gives 46min. Abbey wood to LHR, up to 2h40 by car or 1h02 by train
- josephcsible 1y ago
  46 minutes is a lot more than 20 minutes, and "up to 2hr" is doing a lot of work since Google says "typically 1-2 hr". And isn't London the city that instituted the ridiculous 20mph speed limit? So even if the 2 hours vs. 20 minutes were true there, I'd put London in the "artificially slow down cars" category.
  - jddj 1y ago
    It's too bad they don't give an estimate for how long it would be if the 4 million tube journeys per day were cars on the street.
    - mlyle 1y ago
      Individuals don't make that choice, though. Individuals consider the transit modes available to them, and don't consider the externality of slightly delaying everyone else if they take a car.
  - queenkjuul 1y ago
    The average speed on the Kennedy in Chicago at rush hour very well might be less than 20mph. It's taken me a full 75min to go 7 miles, the bulk of which was "expressway" The train gets me home in an hour, every time. I could bike and save even more time. Cars just don't move fast in cities.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]