Cars vs Mass transit.

in cars •  last year 


image.png

https://betonit.substack.com/p/cars-could-be-even-more-convenient

Cars are faster.

Yep, mostly true.

For me the one exception was when I lived in San Francisco.

San Francisco is dense enough and with good enough transit coverage that at least in the areas I worked, transit was as fast or faster than cars. Add in the challenge of finding street parking in my neighborhood and the cost of parking downtown, and transit was a clear winner (for many neighborhoods, and for those without money to burn on downtown parking).

Still, if too could get a cab without waiting too long, that would challenge mass transit for speed.

I'm not anti-mass transit, but the point is that people who choose to drive are not being irrational or stupid. They are being self-interested, but value is subjective, whereas many anti-car activists act out of a moral conviction that liking your car is a objectively wrong.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

same. I would use buses if they were more practical

The problem is that mass transit isn't a viable alternative in many places. It works out great in big cities (if the infrastructure is in place), but if you live out in the country, smaller towns or in an area of suburban sprawl, mass transit isn't practical now and likely never will be no matter how much you invest.

When I was in Boston for work many years ago, it was great to be able to take a train from outside the city into downtown for a couple of bucks (though you would still need to get transportation to the train station...in my case there was a stop right outside my hotel). But living along the Space Coast of Florida, mass transit is not a viable alternative to a car and I'm not sure how it ever could be. Complementary maybe, but definitely not a replacement.