That’s great if public transport goes from near where you are to near where you want to be, in a reasonable time.
For me that’s not the case. Anywhere I want to go takes 27 changes over at least 5 hours for a net distance of three miles; it’d be quicker to hop backwards blindfold on a bent pogo stick.
people who argue for public transport argue for better implementation of it (and also city planning that supports it). the idea isn’t for everyone to just stop using cars in favor of public transport even if the public transport system is absolute shit. it’s for systemic support of public transport in such a way that commuters would willingly choose it over being stuck in traffic in their little metal boxes for hours.
While there’s something to that, it’s also a difficult fact that rail is just harder than roads, and by extension more expensive. You have hills? You are going to need to do tunnels and bridges for the rail because you can’t turn that sharply and you mustn’t have more than 1.5% grade. For road, just snake it around and up and down the hills.
You have a source and destination that not many people will be using? It’s cost prohibitive to run a whole train or bus to cover that route.
Now it’s one thing when the population distribution was based around settling around the harsh realities of needing to be along viable transit paths, but when a great deal of the population settled with the assumption of roads, you are going to have a hard time sorting out transit routes without mass resettlement.
Of course, if you apply mass transit to cities and nearby areas you’ve gotten the worst of the troubles solved and it’s viable for mass transit. But cars are just part of the equation for longer hauls.
That’s great if public transport goes from near where you are to near where you want to be, in a reasonable time.
For me that’s not the case. Anywhere I want to go takes 27 changes over at least 5 hours for a net distance of three miles; it’d be quicker to hop backwards blindfold on a bent pogo stick.
people who argue for public transport argue for better implementation of it (and also city planning that supports it). the idea isn’t for everyone to just stop using cars in favor of public transport even if the public transport system is absolute shit. it’s for systemic support of public transport in such a way that commuters would willingly choose it over being stuck in traffic in their little metal boxes for hours.
it’s a criticism of the system, not the people.
That’s what decades of car centric urban design does to everyone; any transportation other than a car is treated as a second class
While there’s something to that, it’s also a difficult fact that rail is just harder than roads, and by extension more expensive. You have hills? You are going to need to do tunnels and bridges for the rail because you can’t turn that sharply and you mustn’t have more than 1.5% grade. For road, just snake it around and up and down the hills.
You have a source and destination that not many people will be using? It’s cost prohibitive to run a whole train or bus to cover that route.
Now it’s one thing when the population distribution was based around settling around the harsh realities of needing to be along viable transit paths, but when a great deal of the population settled with the assumption of roads, you are going to have a hard time sorting out transit routes without mass resettlement.
Of course, if you apply mass transit to cities and nearby areas you’ve gotten the worst of the troubles solved and it’s viable for mass transit. But cars are just part of the equation for longer hauls.
Biking three miles takes about 15 minutes, you should do that instead
Three miles is like the Perfect distance to ride a bike. Why even get into a car?
Well, if op is from the US, it’s probably because our infrastructure makes cycling way more dangerous than it needs to be.
Thats true. :(