Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Personal time" isn't always about "things you want to do." Daycare, for example, is very expensive, and "late fees" can be as high as $5 per minute. If driving actually takes less time to get to your child's daycare, how many people are going to fiddle around on public transportation simply because they like it so much?
You act as if that thought has never occurred in the minds of most people. Like you're going to tell someone, "Hey, you know what would make your commute shorter? Live closer to your job." At that point, they whip at their checkbook, and advise you to become a consultant on how to shorten people's commutes. Within a year, you'd have a New York Times Best Seller titled "How to Shorten Your Commute: Simply Live Closer to Work."
If you go back and read the article in the OP, there's a part where the author talks about some guy living in Maine who says people who don't ride transit are "selfish." When the author points out that the guy didn't even ride transit himself, the guy says "Well, that's only because I have a good job here and my wife is happy at her job, and her family is here." So the guy criticizing other people for not riding transit gets a pass because he has "legitimate reasons" (in his view) for not living in a transit accessible area, but the masses he's criticizing for not riding transit don't have legitimate reasons?
What makes him any different from someone who lives in a far away neighborhood because his wife and kids like it there?
Then there's also the fact that people will typically change employers over a dozen times during their working lifetimes and it doesn't make sense to move every time you change jobs; or one spouse commutes one way and one commutes another; or that some places have multiple offices in a given metro area and people can get shuffled around from one office location to another on the company's whim; or that real estate is often more expensive the closer you get to major employment hubs or even the closer you get to train depots that take you to those employment hubs so people are forced to trade off time against real estate values, et cetera. Saying "just live closer to work" is about as practical telling someone who's having trouble dating, "just stop being single."
Then there's also the fact that people will typically change employers over a dozen times during their working lifetimes and it doesn't make sense to move every time you change jobs; or one spouse commutes one way and one commutes another; or that some places have multiple offices in a given metro area and people can get shuffled around from one office location to another on the company's whim; or that real estate is often more expensive the closer you get to major employment hubs or even the closer you get to train depots that take you to those employment hubs so people are forced to trade off time against real estate values, et cetera. Saying "just live closer to work" is about as practical telling someone who's having trouble dating, "just stop being single."
Exactly.
So let's say you live in the city and your wife is selected to be Head of Cardio Thoracic Surgery in a distant exurban hospital. What are you going to do? Divorce her? Put your foot down and tell her that a transit-oriented, eco-friendly and urban lifestyle take priority over her career ambitions? Or are you going to complain that the hospital shouldn't be in the exurbs and away from transit in the first place?
Finally, in a heavily congested city, there are psychological and sociological issues that go along with being stuck in traffic every day, that's why we get road rage and many accidents caused by aggressive driving trying to "make up" lost time. When you feel you have no choice but to drive aggressively and speed in traffic to get where you need to be on time, to the point that you blast the horn when someone delays 2 seconds to turn left, it has become a significant societal issue.
No, it's just become a personal issue. Whenever I see someone throwing and adult temper tantrum, the other 99% of people are just dealing with it. I usually catch up with the temper tantrum thrower multiple times as he weaves in and out of lanes going no where making it difficult for everyone else because he wants to act like a child, at least when I'm driving. If I'm on my motorcycle, I rarely ever see that behavior as I'm cutting throw stuck traffic like a hot knife through butter. Either get something with two wheels so you've basically doubled your number of lanes or just don't drive like a tard. Driving like a tard doesn't get you anywhere faster when traffic is congested which is why no one with a brain does it.
I take BART in to San Francisco when it's practical, nothing against public transit. It's just usually not practical. Even in San Francisco I'll drive if I'm not going downtown. MUNI is less convenient than driving, so I won't take it. Plus my schedule is flexible. If I get out at 4-5, I'll just grab dinner and do some work until 7 when traffic dies down.
Where does this idea come from that public transportation can't be stressful? Does this look like it would at all be comfortable for a middle aged woman with chronic back pain?
"Personal time" isn't always about "things you want to do." Daycare, for example, is very expensive, and "late fees" can be as high as $5 per minute. If driving actually takes less time to get to your child's daycare, how many people are going to fiddle around on public transportation simply because they like it so much?
You act as if that thought has never occurred in the minds of most people. Like you're going to tell someone, "Hey, you know what would make your commute shorter? Live closer to your job." At that point, they whip at their checkbook, and advise you to become a consultant on how to shorten people's commutes. Within a year, you'd have a New York Times Best Seller titled "How to Shorten Your Commute: Simply Live Closer to Work."
In the article I posted in the OP, the author talks about some guy living in Maine who says people who don't ride transit are "selfish." When the author points out that the guy didn't even ride transit himself, the guy says "Well, that's only because I have a good job here and my wife is happy at her job, and her family is here." The author made the following point:
What makes him any different from someone who lives in a far away exurb for "valid personal reasons?"
Your rationality is a breath of fresh air. I get so tired of ideologically driven reasoning.
Where does this idea come from that public transportation can't be stressful? Does this look like it would at all be comfortable for a middle aged woman with chronic back pain?
My aunt stopped riding the train into town because of her back problems. By the time the train gets to her stop, all of the seats are taken.
There is a hidden catch-22 with public transit. The urbanists claim trains are more comfortable and relaxing than driving in traffic but at the same time they are also trying to increase ridership. The problem with increasing ridership is that the trains will become more crowded and the comfort and relaxation factors disappear. Therein lies the catch-22.
That's the same hidden catch-22 as driving. Highways were sold based on the idea that they would prevent congestion and become an effortless, trouble-free ride home. But highways become even more congested, and adding more highway lanes makes the problem worse via induced demand. The difference with transit is that it's easier to add capacity if it is justifiable by traffic: more trains instead of more lines.
"Personal time" isn't always about "things you want to do." Daycare, for example, is very expensive, and "late fees" can be as high as $5 per minute. If driving actually takes less time to get to your child's daycare, how many people are going to fiddle around on public transportation simply because they like it so much?
You act as if that thought has never occurred in the minds of most people. Like you're going to tell someone, "Hey, you know what would make your commute shorter? Live closer to your job." At that point, they whip at their checkbook, and advise you to become a consultant on how to shorten people's commutes. Within a year, you'd have a New York Times Best Seller titled "How to Shorten Your Commute: Simply Live Closer to Work."
In the article I posted in the OP, the author talks about some guy living in Maine who says people who don't ride transit are "selfish." When the author points out that the guy didn't even ride transit himself, the guy says "Well, that's only because I have a good job here and my wife is happy at her job, and her family is here." The author made the following point:
What makes him any different from someone who lives in a far away exurb for "valid personal reasons?"
Excellent point about day care! Also good points about hypocrisy. Whose reasons for living where they live are "invalid"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
That's the same hidden catch-22 as driving. Highways were sold based on the idea that they would prevent congestion and become an effortless, trouble-free ride home. But highways become even more congestion, and adding more highways makes the problem worse via induced demand. The difference with transit is that it's easier to add capacity if it is justifiable by traffic: more trains instead of more lines.
Then there's also the fact that people will typically change employers over a dozen times during their working lifetimes and it doesn't make sense to move every time you change jobs; or one spouse commutes one way and one commutes another; or that some places have multiple offices in a given metro area and people can get shuffled around from one office location to another on the company's whim; or that real estate is often more expensive the closer you get to major employment hubs or even the closer you get to train depots that take you to those employment hubs so people are forced to trade off time against real estate values, et cetera. Saying "just live closer to work" is about as practical telling someone who's having trouble dating, "just stop being single."
That too, esp. the bold!
*****
The problem is this board is full of young singles, mostly male, who have no idea what it's like to try to coordinate schedules of multiple family members. Most of the married ones on this board don't have kids, either.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 03-21-2014 at 08:52 PM..
That's the same hidden catch-22 as driving. Highways were sold based on the idea that they would prevent congestion and become an effortless, trouble-free ride home. But highways become even more congested, and adding more highway lanes makes the problem worse via induced demand. The difference with transit is that it's easier to add capacity if it is justifiable by traffic: more trains instead of more lines.
There is a fallacy in your last statement. The Federal Railroad Administration limits how closely trains can travel to each other on a given rail line, so sooner or later more rail lines will be required just like adding highways. Although I will give you credit for your point that highways suffer from the same catch-22 as mass transit. Any time too many users are attracted to something it will degrade the user experience.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
