Edit: If anyone lives in the area, I wouldn't mind meeting up. My email is in my profile.
Edit: If anyone lives in the area, I wouldn't mind meeting up. My email is in my profile.
I can get a bus to downtown Pittsburgh a block away from my house, but I'll almost always drive because I can often get downtown in almost half the time (25 minutes vs 45), I can often find free parking, and I can then set my own terms for arrival and departure. Fares are currently $7.50 for a roundtrip, which is over two gallons of gas or a gallon of gas and a cheap parking spot.
Point being, if you already have a car and if you can park cheaply, public transit, as much as I personally like it, becomes a tough value proposition.
Pittsburgh's bus system is definitely not the most timely or reliable of bus systems I've used, but I have the opposite experience here: parking is a huge pain, drivers can be insane, and I'd much rather sit on the bus reading Hacker News on my phone (or whatever). Maybe not for the occasional Costco trip but definitely anywhere in the East End.
Granted, (i) I also have an unlimited bus pass via CMU (sunk costs work both ways!), and (ii) I'm close to several frequent routes (in Squirrel Hill). If I had to pay each time and buses were less frequent I'd probably be thinking like you are.
In any case, OP's two-hour number seems pretty off-putting. Agreed that time is an important consideration at that scale :-)
What's bad about the suburbs is that they're not linked. So even if I got an unlimited pass for cheap, a 15 minute drive to Ikea becomes a trip that takes about an hour and a half (one way!) and involves a transfer.
Looking forward to the new zone-free fares next year, I hope it helps to solve the chicken/egg problem of ridership and routes.
Driving to work takes 20 minutes. Biking to work takes me 35 minutes plus a shower. But I have to shower anyway, and I get 35 minutes of exercise at the price of 15 minutes.
I was going to propose that kind of logic for your parent, take public transit partway and bike partway. Unfortunately for him, somehow:
Even with a free trip to the closest station, that's only going to shave about 3/4 of a mile off of my biking trip.
But you talk about getting into the city from outside and the equation changes a lot. I'm a short drive from a commuter rail station and I tend to go in that way if I'm going in "9 to 5" for an event or meeting, especially given how bad rush hour traffic is.
But, for anything else, it will take me close to twice as long and probably cost me $25 between the train, parking at the commuter rail, and possibly the T from the rail station. And trains are pretty infrequent outside of "normal" commuting hours.
A great example would be coming from Waltham via the Worcester/Framingham Line versus driving along the Mass Pike -- it'd be a coin flip as to what wins on a given day.
Moreover, outside of subway service the only alternative (where available) is bus which can easily double commute times compared to driving. In some cases (Waltham and Newton for example) there's the Inner/Outer Express Buses which also competes directly with Commuter Rail in terms of timeliness (10% slower on average) but at a lower cost -- you can take non-express buses as well which are cheaper still, but tack on another 35-45 minutes each way -- we're talking 3 to 4 hours of commuting a day from northern parts of Boston to central Waltham via a combination of subway and non-express buses.
However, Commuter Rail tends to be faster than driving on longer trips. Such as coming from Providence, Worcester, Fitchburg, etc.
Outside the city center. There are only a very few bus lines, infrequent and not covering much area.
I suppose it's the same in most of the European countries:
10% of people have good nearby transportation.
50% of people live in the country side, with little to no transportation in sight. Car is highly recommended (usually considered mandatory).
In the US, we really do suffer for our vast wealth. We spent 70 years doing huge horizontal growth, putting tons of the population back to work in the process, and getting huge growth as a result. The problem with this, aside from the car dependency, is that it's not financially viable. When towns first build it, they get a burst of growth. Problem is, their infrastructure costs pretty much go up as a function of area, but the horizontal growth pattern doesn't pay its way. This becomes problematic in second and third life cycles, where the road maintenance is cripplingly expensive, but brings no growth.
We should be building places that converge on hubs of activity. If we did that, we'd be able to put transit to those hubs and it would work because there would be better density nearby, and the potential riders wouldn't be too far to get to stations without cars.
In the US we're going to be building this way, sooner or later. Some towns/cities have taken it upon themselves to move in that direction already. Many others are planning to be too big to fail, I guess. But we can't put off reality forever.
But that's 1.5 hours of snoozing, reading, working, drinking coffee, having breakfast, whatever else you like, vs 45 minutes having to concentrate on driving.
I used to love my two hourly (total) commute on a train because it was two hours of enforced relaxation time every day. You can return home each evening completely switched off from work.
I will take the 15 minutes of driving over 45 minutes any time (unless I'm drinking of course) just because 30 minutes adds up very quickly over a week.
For those not familiar with Denver-area geography, Centennial is a southeastern suburb (as stated in the article) and Westminster a northwestern suburb. These are each serviced by different lines.