Why Cars Remain So Appealing Even in Cities With Decent Public Transit

[ukw]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ublic-transit/

In a series of interactive maps, covering a dozen cities, the Media Lab has mapped the most efficient mode of transportation — by car, bike, foot or transit — between any two points in a city.

This is what such a map looks like in Washington, D.C., if, say, you're beginning your trip from Capitol Hill, inside the green block:



...

Two things are particularly striking about the above picture: Cycling is a much more efficient mode of transportation than many people realize. And transit is startlingly not so. Seldom will it get you farther, faster, than a bike will.

...
Look across the other cities in the collection, and transit appears equally inefficient, relative to both cars and bikes. Here's a sample from Philadelphia:



From Chicago:



From San Francisco:



You can look at these maps and conclude that more people would be better off biking, and that cities should invest in the infrastructure that encourages them to do so. This is true. But, when about half of one percent of all commuters nationwide currently cycle to work, it's probably unrealistic to expect that most people in those yellow blotches will regularly travel that way...

Summary: Public transit is a bit of a waste, given that biking seems more efficient within city limits, while driving is more efficient in the suburbs.

[kool maudit]

cars are fun and liberating. cities have to be very dense and urban before using a car makes you feel like you are missing out. cities need to be total shitshows for drivers, with no parking and crazy regulations and tons of weird little pedestrian streets.

in copenhagen, biking is best in the inner city, but the train is best for commutes from the city to the suburbs. cars are best for random commutes between suburbs and other things like that.

[Steely Dan]

the problem with transit from a time perspective vs. a bicycle is that bicycles, like cars, offer a door to door ride. there's no walking to the nearest bus or train station and then waiting for the next bus or train to show up, which could be anywhere from 10 seconds to 10 minutes. and then at your destination, you have another walk to get to where you ultimately want to get to. and if, heaven forbid, you have to transfer along the way, then you could be theoretically standing around for 20 full minutes or more picking your ass waiting for vehicles to come pick you up. those same 20 minutes on a bike are ALL used getting to your destination.

then there's the issue of how buses get bogged down in city traffic. at rush hour, i'm way faster on my bike than i am on any CTA bus because i can ride right past all the stupid cars, trucks and buses stuck in traffic.

bicycles completely rule the universe!

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

the problem with transit from a time perspective vs. a bicycle is that bicycles, like cars, offer a door to door ride. there's no walking to the nearest bus or train station and then waiting for the next bus or train to show up, which could be anywhere from 10 seconds to 10 minutes. and then at your destination, you have another walk to get to where you ultimately want to get to. and if, heaven forbid, you have to transfer along the way, then you could be theoretically standing around for 20 full minutes or more picking your ass waiting for vehicles to come pick you up. those same 20 minutes on a bike are ALL used getting to your destination.

then there's the issue of how buses get bogged down in city traffic. at rush hour, i'm way faster on my bike than i am on any CTA bus because i can ride right past all the stupid cars, trucks and buses stuck in traffic.

bicycles completely rule the universe!

Exactly!

[Leo the Dog]

Cars represent freedom for many. One can go anywhere/anytime they want, transport goods and fellow passengers.

[RCDC]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

bicycles completely rule the universe!

Yes, when the weather isn't too hot, cold, raining, snowy, windy, etc.
Yes, when you're youngish, fit and don't have children
Yes, when you're not carrying anything heavy or bulky

These charts don't seem to take any of that into account. Anyway, bicycling in a city is fine and I fully support accommodating it, but I personally wouldn't do it unless it was at a leisurely pace. I don't need to be inhaling exhaust and particles through my mouth more than necessary.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by RCDC

I don't need to be inhaling exhaust and particles through my mouth more than necessary.

that's one of the main reasons why all internal combustion powered cars should be banned immediately.

second hand smoking causes cancer, so does second hand internal combustion driving.

if people want to drive around in their own homes and give themselves cancer, so be it, but in the public realm we all have a right to breath air free from other people's cancer-causing behavior.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

Cars represent freedom for many. One can go anywhere/anytime they want, transport goods and fellow passengers.

I don't know. Paying $1000 a year for insurance, additional money for maintenance, gas, registration, financing, etc... and then being stuck in traffic every day for maybe up to two hours or more every day doesn't sound too liberating.

I'll stick with my bike. My ride is ten minutes from our apartment to work. There is essentially zero cost to my commute, I get exercise, it is enjoyable, and I can park/lock my bike directly in front of our office. This sounds a lot more like freedom.

[GlassCity]

I'd bike more but I feel uncomfortable sharing the road with cars, so unless there are bike lanes along my route I don't bike. It's different since I moved to a outer suburban location where there's never anybody on the sidewalk, but back when I lived in an inner ring suburb where there were always people outside, I just took the bus.

[POLA]

double post

[POLA]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

I don't know. Paying $1000 a year for insurance, additional money for maintenance, gas, registration, financing, etc... and then being stuck in traffic every day for maybe up to two hours or more every day doesn't sound too liberating.

Exactly, it's the "perception of free" that makes people choose cars. Once someone owns a car, they think of every trip they make as free without realizing that the costs associated with owning a car. Seriously, if you think cars are so great and represent "freedom" that still doesn't make a case for owning a car, but rather that there should be better taxi service and more short term rentals made easy (a la zipcar).

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by rcdc

yes, when the weather isn't too hot, cold, raining, snowy, windy, etc.
Yes, when you're youngish, fit and don't have children
yes, when you're not carrying anything heavy or bulky

+1

id love to live in a city where i can bike year round but thats just not realistic here. and yes i realize there are die hards here that do it but im not quite that insane.

[M II A II R II K]

The freedom of cars is not free, and in true free market fashion, the more the roads get congested then the higher the toll gets to price people out of the roads and parking to prevent congestion.

No shortage of demand but limited supply.

[mhays]

Living near work and walking everywhere is my idea of freedom. The extra several thousand dollars per year comes in handy too.

[arkitekte]

Realistically how many cities are there in the US where one could actually get by without a car and not be completely annoyed by it or be at an extreme inconvenience? I know there are some on here that want to bike to work year round no matter the distance or time, but how many places can that actually be done realistically where people would be encouraged to do it rather than a handful of people trying to be non conformist?

I love to ride my bike and I'd love to live somewhere where I could get to and from work without a car if I wanted to, but the option to go wherever whenever in my own vehicle is too good.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by POLA

Exactly, it's the "perception of free" that makes people choose cars. Once someone owns a car, they think of every trip they make as free without realizing that the costs associated with owning a car. Seriously, if you think cars are so great and represent "freedom" that still doesn't make a case for owning a car, but rather that there should be better taxi service and more short term rentals made easy (a la zipcar).

I think that's a bit far fetched. I bet you most people know exactly how much their cars cost them. Most people pay for things like insurance monthly, and fuel up regularly. There is no perception of "free"

We have good access to work from our home. We commute together because our offices are a block apart and my partner gets "free" heated underground parking. Now there's the perception of free you were talking about.. the Lexus is still a fuel hog and insurance is expensive. But we're not paying $300/mo to park. If it weren't for him driving anyways, I would take the bus. It stops just down the block from our house and lands me right at my office door 20 minutes later. He works funny hours sometimes so I take the bus 2-3 times a week, I don't mind it except when I liss it by 30 seconds, and I have to wait 15 minutes for the next one. That's irritating, and in the winter I'd rather not do it. I'd also consider biking however with no shower or changing facilities (we are working on that though) it makes it unpleasant given the dip down & then back up out of the river valley to get to downtown

I also own a truck. a 2011 Toyota Tacoma 4 door 4WD with all the bells & whistles. Since I bought it last december I have put just under 3000km's on it, and that includes a 1500km round trip to British Columbia. So I'm lucky if I turn the key once a week. Yet there it sits, costing me money every day. And I don't really care... I'm not giving up anything by having it, and it offers me the freedom to go do fun things, or pick up a hot water heater at the hardware store, etc etc etc. I could live in the most urban setting in the world and I would still own a vehicle.

[POLA]

costing me money every day. And I don't really care... I'm not giving up anything by having it

And there's the rub. You are giving up something to have that car. Namely, cold hard cash! Again, if you wanted to buy a water heater, just rent a uhaul. If you wanted to avoid inclement weather, take a taxi, if you wanted to go away for the weekend, rent a car. Oh, but those all cost money and time? And what, the car sitting in that "free" parking spot isn't?

Anyways, the point is that this economic argument only makes sense in a city that can support a diverse and cheap range of transportation options (from buses to car-shares). To answer this post's original question of why cars are so appealing is simply because the alternative is not competitive enough to warrant a one to go car free.

[240glt]

^ Cash I can line my coffin with I suppose

Renting a U-haul is a pain. Taking a taxi every day is a pain. We do occasionally rent cars for longer holidays, namely because we prefer to travel in a more suitable or more fuel efficient vehicle than the ones we own.

The truck sitting there may cost me money, but it saves me time, and allows me the freedom that all those other options simply can not

[FREKI]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

cars are fun and liberating. cities have to be very dense and urban before using a car makes you feel like you are missing out. cities need to be total shitshows for drivers, with no parking and crazy regulations and tons of weird little pedestrian streets.

in copenhagen, biking is best in the inner city, but the train is best for commutes from the city to the suburbs. cars are best for random commutes between suburbs and other things like that.

Living in Copenhagen one can get by without a car - I have for many years of my adult life, but car ownership does make life easy when one wants to shop, wants to get out into nature or simply wants to get to and from work..

PT is widely available and can get you anywhere here, but it's slow and one often have to transfere wasting even more time.. to me biking shorter distances and driving longer distances makes a lot more sense..

Other than the fun of biking and drinving it also holds a lot of flexibility and you can set your own pace ( more or less ) plus you have your privacy

[Nouvellecosse]

"In a series of interactive maps, covering a dozen cities, the Media Lab has mapped the most efficient mode of transportation — by car, bike, foot or transit — between any two points in a city."

Efficient?!? They're saying the only thing that goes into determining efficiency is speed? So a Ferrari is more efficient than a Honda? Efficiency is the ratio of the final outcome relative to the input required to achieve that outcome. If the desired outcome is to transport people or goods, and one method does this 50% faster while using 100% more energy, space, materials, or other notable resources, then it's faster but not more efficient.