I just spent a couple of weeks in London, where The Underground has the most fantastic "Journey Planner" I have ever seen. I almost did not take my laptop on this trip, but I am really glad I did, because I used the Journey Planner almost every day. Check it out in the lower right corner of http://www.tfl.gov.uk/modalpages/2625.aspx.
That's cool -- it's a nice way of see how inefficient public is without actually having to ride a bus. For example, I plugged in a trip from my house to a park in Ann Arbor. Trip distance -- 2.2 miles. By car, 7 minutes (according to Google). By bike, 11 minutes (at a leisurely 12 MPH). By public transport, 28 minutes (according to Google). And half of that distance (and most of the time) is walking to catch the bus on one end and walking from the stop to the destination on the other. Walking the whole way by the most efficient route -- about 40 minutes. But you have to allow some time waiting for the first bus, so the bus and walking are about the same.
Or let's go to the mall. 3.9 miles. By bus, 45 minutes (plus wait time). By car, 11 minutes. By bike, 20 minutes. Walking the whole way? About an hour.
So without even having to ride, I can see that public transport here is:
- 4X slower than driving
- 2-3X slower than biking
- slightly faster than walking the whole way
Yes, I know that we need a way for people who can't drive or afford a car to get around. And when I'm in big city (London, Paris, New York), I use the subway, it's fine. But in smaller American cities, traditional rail/bus transport really sucks (and is absurdly expensive besides).
What would I do instead? Dump the whole damn thing and replace it with jitneys, ride sharing, and need-based taxi vouchers. It would cost a fraction of what we spend now and provide much more convenient services for users. Chances of that happening ever? Zero.
I would imagine everyone in DC, NYC, or the other covered city already knows this, but HopStop.com has always been the best resource for this sort of thing.
How do you reconcile your libertarian views with your status as an urbanite? Almost by definition, cities depend on community and to some extent, socialism. You can be a libertarian that believes in small government if you have a ranch in Wyoming. Cities can only thrive with a level of public services (transport, police, etc) that requires greater government revenue and socialization of many aspects of one's life.
I just spent a couple of weeks in London, where The Underground has the most fantastic "Journey Planner" I have ever seen. I almost did not take my laptop on this trip, but I am really glad I did, because I used the Journey Planner almost every day. Check it out in the lower right corner of http://www.tfl.gov.uk/modalpages/2625.aspx.
So Budget Day was three paragraphs?
Public transit is bad. Therefore, this is also bad.
It's been nearly a decade now since I lived in DC, but it seems to me that you could already do that on the WMATA website circa 1999.
That's cool -- it's a nice way of see how inefficient public is without actually having to ride a bus. For example, I plugged in a trip from my house to a park in Ann Arbor. Trip distance -- 2.2 miles. By car, 7 minutes (according to Google). By bike, 11 minutes (at a leisurely 12 MPH). By public transport, 28 minutes (according to Google). And half of that distance (and most of the time) is walking to catch the bus on one end and walking from the stop to the destination on the other. Walking the whole way by the most efficient route -- about 40 minutes. But you have to allow some time waiting for the first bus, so the bus and walking are about the same.
Or let's go to the mall. 3.9 miles. By bus, 45 minutes (plus wait time). By car, 11 minutes. By bike, 20 minutes. Walking the whole way? About an hour.
So without even having to ride, I can see that public transport here is:
- 4X slower than driving
- 2-3X slower than biking
- slightly faster than walking the whole way
Yes, I know that we need a way for people who can't drive or afford a car to get around. And when I'm in big city (London, Paris, New York), I use the subway, it's fine. But in smaller American cities, traditional rail/bus transport really sucks (and is absurdly expensive besides).
What would I do instead? Dump the whole damn thing and replace it with jitneys, ride sharing, and need-based taxi vouchers. It would cost a fraction of what we spend now and provide much more convenient services for users. Chances of that happening ever? Zero.
I would imagine everyone in DC, NYC, or the other covered city already knows this, but HopStop.com has always been the best resource for this sort of thing.
Megan, can I ask you an honest question?
How do you reconcile your libertarian views with your status as an urbanite? Almost by definition, cities depend on community and to some extent, socialism. You can be a libertarian that believes in small government if you have a ranch in Wyoming. Cities can only thrive with a level of public services (transport, police, etc) that requires greater government revenue and socialization of many aspects of one's life.
That's cool -- it's a nice way of see how inefficient public is without actually having to ride a bus.
Yes. It has allowed me to confirm my long-held suspicion that even in Manhattan at rush hour, a taxi is generally faster than transit.