Anons argue in comments
this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2025
1128 points (97.5% liked)
Greentext
5232 readers
1853 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Eh, I did that for a couple years in Utah and it was largely fine. When the snow got nasty, I took the bus.
That was back when my commute was 10 miles (16km) with a segregated bike path the whole way. My new commute is more than double that, so I drive. But if we weren't so car centric, things would be more compact and I wouldn't have this nasty commute.
Hi, a different commenter here. I love public transportation (time to sit and read! meet interesting people!) and dislike cars, but realistically we often have other considerations that city design alone wouldn't solve.
Now I WFH so that's cool. But the experience made me realize how complex is the problem of transportation and urban design. I mean, I agree with the fact that bikes are awesome and we need better public transportation in the US, though.
I am curious, how much time did it take to make those 18miles (28km?) by car? I have just checked in my city, that has really nice public transportation (Tallinn), and to cross essentially the whole city (~20km, a route that nobody does, so probably not very well connected) on Monday at 9am it takes 59m by public transport (2 buses) and 40m by car (it takes 30m generally, but traffic). 2-3h or 2/3 times that to do 50% more distance looks like public transportation is not that good, did you mean "good for US standards"?
Yeah, I appreciate that it's complex, but in the US we prioritize cars instead of people.
A properly designed system will account for lots of transportation options. This means:
If you go to smaller towns, a car is your best bet. If you're going downtown, a train should be more efficient, and a car should be workable. If you live in or near a city, a bike should be sufficient.
We used to have one car because I could bike to work, but now we need too, and only because of the 2 days I commute to the office. And the worst part is that there's a train line near my house that I could totally take to work if they actually built the line they've been talking about for decades. But instead of building that line (connects to a larger system, including a stop at a major sports stadium), we expanded a highway (didn't fix traffic) and we're building a new highway (might help somewhat). Most of those cars are traveling along the proposed train route (it runs parallel to the highway), yet the highway gets priority.
I propose we rethink transit in terms of moving people instead of cars.
Yeah agreed it's an interesting problem bc it has so many components... unfortunately when we try to get one part of it implemented, people say: it's not going to solve the whole problem so why bother. I'm still learning about it and so are most people. But I think even the most truck-loving person has an older relative who can't drive any more, or maybe they themselves can't drive bc of a DUI or something, so there's always an opening for learning more.
Yup. Fortunately there are professions for solving these types of problems, so we need to stop demanding specific solutions and let them do their job.
It turns out adding more lanes often makes things worse, and the better solution is to replace cars with higher density transit, so your truck loving friend will likely be better off if we invest in transit instead of highways. I want to take transit to work instead of adding to traffic, but that currently takes 4x as long as driving (2-ish hours each way). You should absolutely be able to drive if you want, and the more practical other modes of transportation are, the less cars will be on the road since a lot of people would rather ride than drive.
Failed the brief on at least two counts. First, you took a bus when it got "nasty" - thus proving automobiles are more adaptable, and thus superior. Second, a 10 mile commute is not across the USA - granted the terrain in Utah is varied, but not coast-to-coast varied. You also didn't put up your times vs. average car travel time for the route, so I'm going to assume that your average speed was lower, and your average time was also longer.
Because you don’t cross a continent by bike or car, you do it by fast or night train in which you can take your bicycle.
Or by plane if you’re in a hurry.
Was this all an attempt to "gotcha" people to prove that cars on free roads go faster and protect you better from elements than bikes? I mean, yeah of course they do. This doesn't make them "superior" in an absolute way because superiority depends on parameters. Take cost, health benefits, maintenance costs, environmental impact and bikes would be superior.
Can't talk about US, but in Italy the daily average by car was between 10 and 15 kilometers I seem to remember, that is 30-40min by bike at a slow pace. For that I would 100% say that provided infrastructure exists, bikes are a largely superior transportation vehicle compared to everything else. If you talk about traveling between islands I would say a boat is more efficient, or if you have to travel 500km I would say planes are. Superiority depends on the specific evaluation, that's my point. For the kind of coast to coast trip you mentioned, in winter, I would say trains can be vastly superior to cars, for example, and they can be combined with bikes.
50% of the Boston workforce commutes by train every day, and that's with how notoriously bad the Boston T is considered. 100 years ago, before the advent of car centric urban design, the Boston T was twice the size it is today, servicing towns all over eastern Massachusetts. A big part of the reason that a car is your best option for pretty much anything is because our country was redesigned to make it necessary. We used to have streetcar towns here - trolley systems that ran up and down the major hubs in towns - that they straight up paved over the rails for, making things less accessible in the name of selling cars and gasoline. They're also a major contributing factor in the death of small businesses and the rise of the giant box stores at the edge of town that you have to drive 20 minutes to in order to go food shopping.
Your argument is in bad faith, and your reasoning is disingenuous. Pretty much every large town west of the Mississippi grew around a train station. Nobody is taking away your freedom to sit in traffic on your morning commute. But imagine how much better that commute would be if you could take 50 cars off the road per bus or hundreds per light rail train. The average commuter car in the US has 1.2 people in it. If you make it so that drivers don't have to deal with walkers and bikers, and vice versa, everybody wins.
Took me 40 min each direction (best time was 30 min), car took 20-30 min (very little traffic) and the bus took 40+ min. But I could also skip the gym since I already got my exercise for the day, so I consider it a wash. With an ebike, I could cut that almost in half (legal top speed is 28mph, but nobody enforces that, so I could probably go 30-35mph). I average about 15-20 mph, depending on wind.
10 miles is really far for a bike commute though. If you live somewhere bike centric, you'd probably only go 3-5 miles, at which point the time difference is negligible and probably faster by bike because of no parking issues.
And the bus was only necessary because we don't plow bike lanes. With proper infrastructure, I wouldn't need the bus at all. My coldest commute was ~5F, and layers kept the ride completely comfortable, so the issue was literally only the lack of infrastructure.
My point isn't to say the US is currently completely bikeable, my point is that with proper infra, it could be. We don't have as nasty of weather as the NE and MW, but we do get low temps and snow, and I've seen madlads cycling in the MW in crazy weather.