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.
You're outside walking to transit in the first one. Second is still home to car, so same as my example.
I thought you complained about being inside due to weather.
If you don't have a problem with the weather then you are free to walk outside whenever you want. So transit is not a "cure" for your issue.
That was/is called "kiss and drop." The people who don't approve of Park and Rides are NIMBY types, or else leftists. Or more likely NIMBYs using leftist arguments. My feeling is that they should survey to see what demand would be and put in adequate parking at train stations and subway stops near the city edge.
Ironically "kiss and drop" stopped working not so much because women entered the work force as it forced husbands (and the children) to either have a cold dinner or to wait for dinner. My father used to arrive in Mamaroneck around 6:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. If my mother, one of those housewives, was cooking dinner, she either needed to start when he was home or have everything done before 6:15 p.m. or so. Also, in the morning, my bus for school arrived around 7:45 a.m. and I was still to young to get out by myself. That was also the time that his train left for NYC. So in 1965 we bought a used Volkswagen (we used to call it the 'put-put' for the noise made by its tailpipe). He would up driving to another rail line, the Harlem Line, and another rail station, Hartsdale, both because it was a more reliable line than the then-decrepit New Haven line and it had more adequate parking. Hartsdale was about a 6 mile drive, compared to 2 miles for Mamaroneck.
Fast forward to today. The one dollar to park has become about $12, and only a limited number of spaces go to non-residents of the Town of Greenburgh.
I remember one suburb (I won't name it since the story is likely repeated many places) where the entire town was within 1.7 km of a train station so parking was never really planned. Then a new station with plenty of parking opened 10 km away. Commuters from that town actually drove the distance.
I agree about time. Few will choose transit if takes twice as long. 20% longer? Maybe. [I'd rather slightly longer if I can read a book or even my phone].
I'm not just talking about going work. I'm talking about running errands, when, as chirack says, you can combine trips and leave stuff in the car when you go to the next place; going to the dr, etc where you won't be staying 8 hours and you don't know quite when you're going to be done; all of that.
You ask a lot of questions. But if the answers aren't what you'd like, you switch to different questions.
Hardly.
And I ask questions because those are usually more instructive in conversation than only making declarative statements. If all I was interested in was arguing a very narrow viewpoint, I could do that, but I wouldn't have cause, then, to ask questions about the role and value of things nor would I take such a moderate tone (eg, that cars are good and bad because they are a tool, not a silver bullet).
The specific post to which you are replying asks many questions, but they are all variations of one idea: comparing the net value of different modes. That's about a scientific as it gets, trying to control for variables and compare modes fairly.
If anything, some of the posters on here don't seem to like where that leads for their preferred mode. Some posters think steel-on-steel PT is THE way to go. Others seem to think the private car is the be-all, end-all mode of transportation, and everything else is hobby or recreation. Both cases fail to address the limitations and knock-on effects of each mode. Rail is really good for some things in specific contexts. The private vehicle is really good for some things in specific contexts. There are contexts where rail simply cannot compete with the private car, but there are also contexts where the car fails miserably.
I don't know what could be more fair than an apples-to-apples comparison.
This is why the older technology(Public Transit) lost to the newer technology(the car).
As has been covered before, what you describe is an incomplete description of what happened. What that leaves out is how context and politics played a role.
Anyway, what you describe isn't entirely accurate, either. For instance, a person still has to get to and from their car. That can mean exposure to the elements. Furthermore, not everyone has a garage, and many who do fill it with stuff other than their car. As such, a lot of journeys start or end outside.
As has been covered before, what you describe is an incomplete description of what happened. What that leaves out is how context and politics played a role.
The context was the model T. It started production in 1908, and ran till 1927. This car put America on wheels. People flocked to the new cars. The St. Valentines day massacre took place in 1929 in a parking garage. The car offered far more speed and flexibility than before.
Quote:
Anyway, what you describe isn't entirely accurate, either. For instance, a person still has to get to and from their car. That can mean exposure to the elements. Furthermore, not everyone has a garage, and many who do fill it with stuff other than their car. As such, a lot of journeys start or end outside.
The difference is that people usually don't park blocks away from where they live. When using public transit you have to walk to the bus/train stop(blocks), wait, ride a vehicle that is constantly opening it's doors(I would advise you never to sit near the door on a very cold Chicago winter day), get off ,wait for the transfer, then walk blocks to your destination. Public transit isn't usually door to door but the car can be.
I agree about time. Few will choose transit if takes twice as long. 20% longer? Maybe. [I'd rather slightly longer if I can read a book or even my phone].
Well here in Chicago it often does take twice as long. I used to go from one side of town to the other. By Car and freeway the trip was about 40mins, maybe an hour if there was traffic. By car and street it was 1 hour and 30. By public transit 1:30 but I could wind up standing 1 hour!
Kinda hard to read a book when you are standing holding on to a pole or strap as an train or bus moves along.
And I ask questions because those are usually more instructive in conversation than only making declarative statements. If all I was interested in was arguing a very narrow viewpoint, I could do that, but I wouldn't have cause, then, to ask questions about the role and value of things nor would I take such a moderate tone (eg, that cars are good and bad because they are a tool, not a silver bullet).
When the context is subsidies you "ask" how much people would drive if they had to pay the true cost of cars. When the context is cost to the user you "ask questions" about the hidden costs of the car. If someone answers in a way that makes the car look superior, you change contexts.
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.
