Hacker News Reader

It's obviously not convenient for everyone - but no single measure is.

I'd also cut down on your walking time by taking a bycicle - you could probably save 20 minutes by that alone. My wife also takes a bike ride to the train station (and she packs quite a few bags on the bike).

Nonetheless - yes, there are situations in which cars are still way better.

Unfortunately, it's not possible to bring a bike into a crowded commuter bus and the stretch between home and bus stop can't be efficiently used by bike without commiting several traffic violations. I can, however, do the entire trip by bike (which I often do in summer), using a different route. That takes only slightly longer than the trip via bus.

In the Netherlands and Denmark, it's not unusal to cycle to a bus stop or railway station, lock the bike there, take the bus/train, and walk at the other end.

Or, to own a second bicycle and leave it at the other end.

In London small, folding bicycles serve the same purpose, but they're much more expensive.

Escooters are more practical here. I see these as the future of getting to PT.

Or take it as a benefit: half an hour of walking a day can clear your head like nothing else (not even a bike-ride).

30 minutes mild physical exercise is a terrifying proposal to the average person.

It's also really bad for families. 200 euro per person (even if you only have, say 75 euro for kids) would be 600+ for a car. Not competitive with cars in many scenarios.

Polite suggestion: if you can drive in 10 mins you could probably cycle in 20-30 mins depending on details. Although not, I suppose, if 8 of those 10 mins are on high speed autobahn :)

When I lived in Rome I cycled everywhere. I was the 2nd fastest on the road for my 13-14km / 35min commute, but it takes time & effort to get fit. Public transport varied from 50 to 100 mins and private car was typically about 45 mins.

The only faster means were motorbikes & mopeds.

I'm fit (2000-4000km distance per yer, multiple sports). But I would never bike to work/train for longer than 5 minutes. I sweat too much (armpits, feet). And taking spare clothes/shoes, and showering in the office is too much.

It's acceptable to cycle to the office at less than your maximum workout speed.

I find going through all the red lights makes up the difference.

Me and many of my colleagues ride the bike to office when it is sunny. Better than the train. It’s 30km each trip (2h). A shower once in the office seems acceptable, given the mood boost lasting for the whole day.

There are showers and the locker room where I keep a set of clean work clothes at my work. This is normal for a medium to large company, and some small ones have the same utilities. Copenhagen.

In my case car is 25 minutes, subway is 20 minutes, bike is 15 minutes.

There are ways to avoid having buses stuck in traffic. Dedicated lanes for public transport, getting more people to use public transport rather than cars, and so on. So I'd say it's more often than not a choice in planning if it's convenient compared to using cars or not.

(There's also the problem of less developed systems often being less convenient, and because of it not having the funding needed to expand due to low usage)

Dedicated lanes exist in this city, but not every street has them of course. The line in question also services a street that does not have a dedicated lane. And that's where it sometimes gets stuck in traffic. Funnily, it used to be routed via a different street that actually does have dedicated lanes. But back then the bus got stuck in the narrower street connecting those two.

It all depends on circumstances, starting with the country you are in, that often determines the basic level of quality of any kind of public transport.

Then, the real travel time is measured from door-to-door. That includes the traveling to stations/stops and the waiting time for connecting transport. I think this is fairly obvious.

If we want to make the world a better place for people and the environment, the number one priority should be to reduce any need to travel in the first place. But if they must travel, make public transport so good (price/time) that it is the first choice of transport.

That would be the appropriate vision for the future. And it can happen in any country.

The reality is that capitalism and politics prevent public transport from truly shining. It's not even that of a political statement because we know why America doesn't have great public transport overall, especially a lack of long-distance rail lines like 'we' have in Europe. (Car companies lobbying against rail)

In most cases it is unrealistically difficult to beat the convenience and speed of private cars. If you are in a very dense urban environments, maybe. Otherwise, no.

That's why making public transport very cheap or even free does not make everyone let their cars at home.

Actually, in most cases it is unrealistically difficult to beat the convenience of public transport over private cars without MASSIVE infrastructure investments favoring cars.

Being able to get places with cars requires a lot of things: roads, parking, traffic measures (signs, crossings, stoplights, onways, offramps, freeways, more parking at destination, etc etc etc). If you only build for public transport, bikes, and walking, the savings in both space used and money spent become ridiculous.

Basically: the world looks a lot different without every building having a huge car park. In my view: a lot better.

The point is that the infrastructure investments required for public transports would be even higher, taking into account that roads are also required for public transports...

If I want a bus or a train to be right in front of my house any time I need one and I also want that bus/train to drive me exactly where I want to go, obviously the cost will be ridiculously high.

You set unreasonable expectations/ demands on public transport. There will always be some walking / biking to/from bus/tram stops. That has never been a problem.

You are likely trying to compare the USA car-centric suburbs and frankly that choice makes distances larger but that’s life. USA has a tremendous disadvantage due to the car-centric nature.

Yet even that can be changed, it will be costly, but there is no technical issue. It is all about politics. As long as taking a bus is seen as for “poor people” it will be an uphill battle.

I am in Europe and I am replying to a claim that public transport can be made so good that it is people's first choice... and so the point I am making is that this is indeed setting an unrealistic expectation on public transport!

If you need some biking or walking just to reach public transport, then wait, then travel through the network then there is always a level of inconvenience that you may not face if you use individual private transport instead.

Even in Europe most people live is suburbs. Even if they are not car-centric (and they are in most cases) that increases inconvenience and cost of public transport.

> that you may not face if you use individual private transport instead.

Only if you assume that individual private transport can get you door-to-door. Which is a rather unfair comparison. "cars are better because unlike public transport, you can drive up to basically any building and park there" is only true if you build roads and parkings to basically every building.

Streets have to access all buildings due to fire fighting reasons, unless you also plan to rearchitecture the firefighting infrastructure to use pipelines branching from a huge central fire extinction station.

Firefighting vehicle doesn't need parking space

It is obvious that a building requires road access. The issue of emergency services access has already been mentioned but there is also obviously the issue of deliveries, including large items like appliances and furniture.

I did mention the caveat that sometimes private transport (which includes bikes) may be inconvenient. That includes issues with parking space.

I'd argue that making private transport very impractical is not the same as making public transport "so good it becomes the first choice"... it's making private transport bad enough that it becomes more inconvenient than public transport...

Realistically I think people prefer private transport and will use private transport when on balance they consider than driving/cycling has become too inconvenient (traffic is really too bad, no parking as you mention, etc). But if private transport works then public transport cannot be made more convenient for obvious reasons.

I'm not so sure about that. The subsidies that a functioning public transport requires every year are massive as well. I wouldn't be surprised if they exceeded the cost of extra infrastructure (roads, parking etc.) required by private cars.

Public transport would obviously need much less space and would be much more efficient. It’s the car sprawl that is unsustainable in every way.

In a dense city centers? Probably. Everywhere else? I'm not so sure. An average person will is bothered by wait times longer than 10 minutes and wants the stop to be within 5-7 minutes from their door. So, you'd have to run a bus/tram every 10 minutes through a ton of sleepy suburbs, which may not even see a car every 10 minutes. It's just not rational.

I disagree and it’s quite wrong for many European countries, for instance.

The whole idea is that public transport would be preferable in terms of time, comfort and cost. It can be done, there is no technical challenge whatsoever, it’s all politics.

In many cases traffic is so bad that cars are just as bad. But the key thing is to sacrifice / build lanes exclusive to public transport (busses) because those lanes effectively are so much more efficient.

We have a ton of electric busses already, which makes such transport even more ideal.

I am in Europe and at country level public transport will never beat individual transport overall. In specific dense urban environments where cars can be extremely inconvenient (including because all the offices are packed in a few towers all at the same location), yes but again in the general case a bus will never be able to be as convenient as my own vehicle parked right outside my front door.

And yes this is a technical and practicability challenge on top of being prohibitively expensive to run.

Trading some convenience for a much better world in every conceivable metric is just more important.

Every conceivable metric except convenience, then... That sounds like a regression to me.

You know that a ton of people do exactly this: travel to a train station or bus/tram stop and they are fine with it. Lots of people don’t have cars.

You seem to argue in bad faith as I have to point out the obvious to you.

considering that short journey time, have you thought about biking?

I also bike to work when the weather allows it. The trip by bike takes slightly longer than the one by bus.

> I use public transport to go to work. But it's not really convenient. It takes me about 45 minutes to get there. And that's if everything goes well. Half an hour of that is walking (to and from bus stops) and waiting (you should be several minutes early because busses sometimes leave early themselves, but most of the time they are late).

Can you provide more details about where you are and the distance involved? I don't understand why you wouldn't simply drive 10 minutes.

Around my area, what takes about 30 - 45m by car, can take up to 2h in public transports, and one needs to travel both ways.

Naturally I have better ways to spend 4h per day than jumping between connections.

Are you in the UK by any chance? Sounds just like my old commute before I started working from home, and my partner’s current one

Is there ample housing near your place of work with enough supply to keep prices affordable?

Is this in the US or Europe?

This is in Europe.

> Half an hour of that is walking

You could buy an electric scooter.

"I never sat in heavy traffic because you can easily circumvent that in a car" Having lived in places that actually have heavy traffic (LA) this reads like total bull. Nobody can "easily circumvent" heavy traffic.

You can if the heavy traffic only occurs, e.g., in the center of the city because of ongoing construction. I need to go from A to B. The bus does the trip via C where the traffic jam occurs. By car I can either use route D or E.

We're far away here from the traffic situation in LA or any other real city.