this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
1212 points (97.4% liked)

Memes

45734 readers
407 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Passenger per hour going where? If everyone is going from A to B, ok. But people need to go allover the place.

For me a 10min car ride is a 1.15h bus ride....

[–] MonkderDritte@feddit.de 21 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Good sign that your city invests too less/wrong in public transport.

[–] AFC1886VCC@reddthat.com 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Public transport is shit where I live. If I want to go and visit my grandma, it's a 20 minute drive, 15 on a good traffic day.

If I want to use public transport, its a 45 minute walk to the nearest train station, then a 30 minute train journey, then a 40 minute walk to grandma's.

its a 45 minute walk to the nearest train station,

Yeah, this is a really, really, really big problem with designing society for cars. Tons of people live in suburbia, with no mixed zoning, where they're a 2 hour walk from their nearest church, a 4 hour walk if they want a coffee; and so like you say, driving becomes their only option. It's the only thing they can do, realistically. And if they ever lose their car somehow, uh, say hello to poverty. Good luck getting a job at that coffee shop 4 hours away.

In situations where someone who lives very far from a city is visiting someone else very far, cars probably still make some sense. In the OP picture example, though, that is a prime candidate for transit refactoring. The presence of cars there is actually hurting them.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 11 points 6 months ago

If cars were banned then the bus lines would be a lot better to compensate

But maybe you take a 10 minute train followed by a 5 minute bus in the utopia example

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Well, no one is saying cars are worse for all purposes. If you want to take your family and dogs to a cabin in the mountains while also shopping for food along the way, it is probably going to be your best bet. Still, that is not what is pictured in the post. These are commuters that are probably moving from work to home (or vice versa), where cars really are the worst of most options. If the bus takes longer, it is probably an issue of allocation of funds for a shorter route and exclusive lanes for it.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

My town does buses better than that, but peak hour buses get stuck in traffic

So times when it's a 20 minute drive, it's 30 or 40 minutes by bus, when the same drive is 45 minutes in slow traffic, the bus is not a lot worse, at 1 hr

Anyway the better solution has busses only as a last mile solution, with trunks covered by rail

[–] kungen@feddit.nu 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I don't really understand, how can the bus be so much worse? I assume it's on the same lanes as the cars? Is it that busses are forced to drive significantly slower than cars, or are you including the time to+from the bus station perhaps?

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The bus must stop at other stops, wait at an interchange for passengers, then drive in the same lanes as cars (though there are limited lanes on some major roads)

There are no dedicated lanes on the route in my example, though it also is an express bus which doesn't stop at the interchange between where I live and the town centre. Also it is speed limited slower than the rest of traffic on the main road of the route