That's the thing buses and trains are more expensive than driving because of sunk costs of owning a car and at the same time they are not usually as efficient to use, i.e. add another 1/2 to your trip time. Time is something in very short supply. So you can build all the bus routes and trains you want, that does not mean anyone actually wants to use them. Then there is whole boredom of riding transportation rather than actually driving. All these people harp about public transportation, etc, but really given the choice does anyone actually prefer public transportation over cars if the roads can accommodate them. I don't think so.
Time spent on public transport is useful, particularly time spent on trains. You've got wifi, a table and a power socket, so you can get real work done. You can have a proper meal and a glass of wine, you can watch a movie, read a book or have a nap. Most buses in my country now have wifi and power sockets.
A lot of rail commuters find that their commute is an unusually productive time. You've got all the resources you need to work but relatively few distractions, especially in the quiet carriage. It's a little slice of time that's entirely your own. It's like working in a cafe, except you're travelling at 125mph.
Here in the UK, the railways are too successful for their own good - passenger volume has doubled in 20 years, so the infrastructure is creaking under the sheer weight of passengers. We're building a new cross-country high-speed route, two major commuter routes across London, upgrading vast swathes of the network and it's still not nearly enough to keep up with demand.
I used to commute Brighton to London, the trains are nice and I could get a seat. However anyone getting on at any intermediate stations usually had to stand.
We definitely need more high speed lines to free up space on the other lines.
For those of us that have to deal with urban centres, a car is often extremely inconvenient. Add a half hour to your trip time just to park it. You have to go back and get it when it's time to leave instead of just hopping on the nearest train station, etc. That and cost of ownership. I'd rather spend the couple of bucks/quid/x00jpy to have someone take care of that for me and get off when I need to. Plus I'm less bored on the train because I can engage my mind with reading/work/games instead of yelling at all the drivers that are clearly not as good as me.
Yes? I’d absolutely rather spend time on a train than a car. It’s faster, takes me right into the centre of the town I’m going to, I don’t have to worry about finding a parking space and I can get some work done on the way (or just read a book). Why would you want to drive?
What? Trains are worse than buses, in that they taken you further from where you want to go in a slower manner that you still have to uber to your actual destination from.
Go travel round Europe for a month using nothing but public transport and come tell us the same thing. That's basically the entire point of the article, the trains in the US absolutely suck compared to any other developed country. Most are quicker than driving and do take you into the hear of the city, I can travel from London city centre to Manchester city centre (163 miles as the crow flies) in 90 mins, if I drove it'd take 3-4 hours traffic depending. A good rail network makes your arguments invalid I'm afraid.
Edit: For a more US kind of distance look at London to Paris, 2h15m (883 miles as the crow flies) from city centre to city centre.
Your numbers are way off. Fastest Manchester-London train is 2h (the 0700 Manchester stoping 0707 Stockport and 0900 Euston). I don't think there's one quite that fast on the way back. It's about 180 miles. London is a late city but I wouldn't call Euston "the centre", it's not even in the congestion charge zone. Plan on a good 30 minutes to get to your destination in London and 15 in Manchester.
Paris is not 800 miles, or even 800km.
You're right that a car is unlikely to be the better choice for Manchester-london when ignoring costs (£124 each way on the quiet trains)
Here in Japan trains have been an integral part of the transportation system for so long that a lot of the destinations you want have been built up around the train stations. The train companies make a significant portion of their income from real estate (malls) built in or around train stations since there's so much foot traffic.
Where do you live where trains are slower than buses?
To a certain extent you’re right in that it’s all just a question of where you live. But for me recently all the trains I have been taking are in Japan or UK, and if I need to get to somewhere that’s more than a short walk from the central train station there’s been a light rail or underground system for me to transfer onto.
Only the nation's capital - good 'ol Washington, D.C. Metro area where busses on 66 regularly pass the metro on dedicated rail including on 128 where the new 'silver line' was recently completed and extensions ongoing
Not to mention that bus fares in the area, in most situations, are cheaper than the metro for same distance covered
A typical third rail metro moves at around 25-30mph if you factor in station stops. Top speed varies, e.g. for Washington Metro the cars can accelerate up to 75mph but could plausibly be much slower depending on the track characteristics, how well sections of it are maintained, and how well the trains are scheduled. Hence it's unsurprising that Metro trains will get passed on a freeway unless there's a traffic jam.
Where Metro wins is on capacity. When the trains are full, one track of Metro carries an amount of people that would fill up 10 lanes of freeway. Of course, one major problem is that building mass transit is sold to the public as a way to 'reduce congestion' i.e. "other people will ride the subway so that my freeway will be clear". Due to induced demand from other people shifting their travel to the highway, this is not really truthful advertising.
It's more accurate to say that the mass transit provides an alternative for people who are fed up with traffic jams and want a more predictable way of getting downtown. Buses fail to provide that alternative, because unless the transit agency manages to get a dedicated bus lane along the whole route (it's probably not), they are going to be stuck in the same traffic that an ordinary car is stuck in.
The metro might occasionally get passed by buses for brief stretches, but it's definitely faster overall. I have tried several methods of commuting and metro is easily the fastest, even though I have a reverse commute which makes other methods faster than they would be in the direction that most people are going.
Cars are better than trains if you assume you're just sitting there on the train doing nothing. But I can be working on personal projects, browsing, etc on a train. The only thing I can do while driving is listen to music.
> All these people harp about public transportation, etc, but really given the choice does anyone actually prefer public transportation over cars if the roads can accommodate them. I don't think so.
so all these people either secretly prefer driving cars, or just have no other choice?
you know, you're talking about me among others[1], and the arrogance of your "I don't think so" is just... annoying.
[1] i haven't commented on this thread before, but i do commute to work by train, ~80km each way. i've been doing that for over a decade, and my employers have let me count the time spent on the train toward my on-clock time because i can and do work on the train. driving a car would mean wasting my time, and it would cost me more. not to mention that public transport is way safer than individual automotive transport.
