3 ms·
> If every road were free of traffic, every destination had unlimited parking at the door, everyone already owned a car, and driving carried no direct or indire
by quietbritishjim 3mo ago
> If every road were free of traffic, every destination had unlimited parking at the door, everyone already owned a car, and driving carried no direct or indirect costs, almost everyone would drive everywhere.
Even with that unrealistically idealised scenario, if you had similarly idealised public transport (station within 5 minutes walk either end, trains every 5 minutes) I'd still choose the train much of the time. I could actually get something done on my laptop instead of having to concentrate on the road, plus I could get up for a stretch mid journey (without stopping). It would be different if I had a lot of luggage or was bringing the kids, though.
My point is that driving is not always inherently more attractive than public transport.
- inigyou 3mo ago> station within 5 minutes walk either end, trains every 5 minutes Describes large parts of London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, etc
- thaumasiotes 3mo agoSure. Also Shanghai. But that isn't an ideal scenario for public transit regardless of whether somebody tries to describe it that way. Very frequent stops ("station within 5 minutes walk") mean that your journey through the subway system will take a very, very long time. Driving can easily cut that time in half.
- inigyou 3mo agoAnd now we return to the idea of big tall buildings so that things are close together.
- thaumasiotes 3mo agoYou're right; if only someone in Shanghai had thought of building skyscrapers. Wait.
- queenkjuul 3mo agoConversely, traffic is so bad at peak hours that taking the train is faster than driving when it comes to getting home from downtown here in Chicago, even with frequent stops (and my line stops more often than most). Biking is basically always faster than driving+parking here unless you have reserved private parking on both ends or are going clear across town (8+ miles)