• @[email protected]
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -11 year ago

    Sounds like a classic example of poorly designed transit. Well designed transit is often faster than driving and should certainly be faster than walking unless your destination is not frequently visited by many people.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      Can you point to any examples of “well designed transit”? In my head, I can only see transit being faster than a car if it’s in a densely populated city with small roads and dedicated transit lanes (be it a bus or a train). I don’t know if that describes most of the places people live in the US.

      • @[email protected]
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Many cities in europe have succesful transit systems that compete with car times. Amsterdam in the Netherlands is a strong example. As for the united states, some of the denser downtowns with metros will have faster commute times on their metros than by car. It is rare to find well designed transit in America and that is part of what this sub is advocating to change. Most of the existing decent transit in america is relying on whatever lines and zoning survived the mass adoption of the automobile.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          Yeah but do you have any examples of good transportation outside of dense urban areas? I can’t imagine a typical American suburb being redesigned in any way that leads to efficient public transit unless maybe we push people into dense apartment complexes. And yeah, maybe that’s an option, but people aren’t going to give up their big houses and yards for the “privilege” of riding public transportation lol.

          Don’t get me wrong, I do greatly dislike cars, and I think public transportation is a very good thing to have, but it’s not what’s going to save us from cars.

          • @[email protected]
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            It works best alongside redevelopment. America is missing the in between of high density to low density zoning. Areas where building can be built 3-6 stories high and built to be flexible Where they can be mixed commercial uses or residential uses. This can create environments much easier to serve with public transit and walkability. This is basically how many older cities were before they started tearing themselves apart for the car.

            You are correct in that public transit doesn’t service suburbia well. The car is the ideal solution to its design and thats exactly how it was built. After decades of this pattern and heavily subsidizing this development, the finnancial impacts are starting to catch up. Unfortunately when maintenance and repairs costs are considered, many suburban and strip mall developments cost more to maintain than the generate in taxes.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        I live in a small city outside of Boston. We all know Boston has decent (for the US) transit, but consider my town …

        • we have two commuter rail stations for people commuting into Boston

        • train station in the center of town also

          • bus hub
          • taxi hub
          • bike trail
          • higher density housing
          • “Main Street” with many shops and restaurants, all walkable
          • most local government functions

        So I am living in a single family home in a small city, but there’s a bus on the corner that will take me to the town center (or I could walk) where there are many destinations, many connections. A significant number of people already live there where everything is. Unfortunately I still use my car too often, but yes I think my town does transit well even though it is not a major city