There is nothing inherently convenient about cars, or about any
vehicle. It is the system that makes them convenient, and that system
includes both the vehicle and the infrastructure. Provide unlimited,
subsidized “free” car infrastructure, and cars will be convenient. Run
buses often, everywhere, all the time, and buses will be convenient.
Put everything in a giant skyscraper with computer-controlled
elevators, and elevators will be convenient. Trains, walking, bayou
boats, swinging from vines, conveyor belts, scuba diving: whatever it
is, if you throw enough money at the infrastructure you can make it
convenient.
UPDATE: I should add that while I am quoting this approvingly, I do have issues with the word convenient, which I explained here.
Was this tongue-in-cheeck? Anyway, I like the sentiment, but I don’t buy it. The premise is that given enough infrastructure resources, any form of transit can be made equally convenient. The problem is that there are a lot of very good metrics for “convenience” that we could come up with, each of which would favor a different form of transit in a different scenario.
To take the bus example, if you want to offer the point-to-point convenience of cars by using buses, your bus fleet will necessary become a fleet of individual taxis in the extreme. So you end up trading some conveniences for others.
In the extreme, the scuba example is pretty great too. Think about the advantages it offers in reaching the shipwreck Kathleen off of Lena Point in Juneau, or the disadvantages it has in getting you from Juneau to Seattle (even if you connect them with a water filled tube pumping fluid at 600 kph!).
Anyway, there ARE advantages to cars that are inherent to the car itself, and not just its infrastructure.
Well, part of the “system” that Cap’n Transit implied (but didn’t explicitly state) is the financing as well. Sure, cars as a mode might offer particular advantages, but what if they were taxed enormously? What about fuel taxes?
The same thing applies to transit – what about fares? Those are all parts of the system.
I agree in general, but there are always physical limitations of transportation modes. For instance, transit won’t be able to take me 50 miles away from Portland so I can go hiking in the Columbia Gorge. However, a car won’t be able to get me on time and find parking in a reasonably crowded, downtown environment, and will ultimately be more inconvenient for me.
Thanks, Jarrett, for featuring my quote! And thanks to the three of you for yoru interesting comments.
Jeffrey, I would ask you: how do you get point-to-point transportation from cars? Every car trip I’ve taken has required some walking, especially anywhere that was at all dense. And all of this is inherently comparative, so what are you comparing your 600kph scuba tube to? What infrastructure does that depend on?
WS, here in New York we can take a bus or a train to go hiking at Bear Mountain, South Mountain, and many other destinations.
Alex B, it’s true that different systems have different efficiencies. That’s the most important thing to take into consideration: how much is that convenience costing you, how much is it costing the taxpayer, and how much is it costing future generations?
I find it inherently convenient that my car has a large trunk (boot) when I need to carry cargo (whether groceries, furniture, etc.) – that’s not a function of infrastructure – that’s a function of the design of the car.
Heh. No, though.
Well, maybe if the ideal bus infrastructure consisted of Drive-it-yourself micro-buses you could park by your house and drive anywhere without having to pick people up?
I think people are missing the point. You need to step back and look at how things could be without the massive investment in cars, roads, and so on. For example: the “point to point convenience” of cars relies on a few things, including having roads that go everywhere (consider houses that are accessible only by walkway/bike path/train station), and parking that is reasonably available and reasonably near your destination. And cars in rural areas rely on the massive investment in paving all the roads.
Ron, if you take a step back, you’ll see that the convenience of the car depends on quite a lot. Carrying groceries is probably more convenient if you just stop by the store on the way home from work, rather than making a special trip to somewhere further away, or in some places, you can have those groceries delivered to your home (and which of those options is more convenient definitely depends on infrastructure). For furniture, there’s always the home delivery option, or the option of renting a car or van. In a sufficiently elaborate scenario, you could even have a moving service operating via street railways, if there’s enough street railway infrastructure to be close to both origin and destination. The convenience of the car is really an incremental cost thing: since you have the car already, it’s not much trouble to use it to move furniture. But it’s definitely not cost-effective to get a car just for that purpose, and if there’s enough infrastructure that you don’t need a car for anything else, then one of the other furniture-moving alternatives would certainly be more convenient.
It depends on what you mean by “inherently.” Obviously, cars aren’t much use without roads.
The inherent weakness of buses and trains is that they are large vehicles that follow fixed routes on fixed schedules. This makes it inherently difficult for transit to compete with cars on travel times. You have to provide lots of routes, with lots of stops/stations and very frequent service. And that’s very expensive, so you need huge volumes of riders to make it cost-effective. The only places where transit can realistically be competitive with cars on travel time for most trips is places where density is very high, like lower Manhattan. I suspect that even in Manhattan taxis are faster than buses or the subway for the majority of trips outside rush hour. I don’t see how it would be possible to make transit competitive with cars at all for trips that involve transporting any cargo larger or heavier than a person can conveniently carry.
But travel time is not the only factor that influences people’s decisions – or even the most important one, except in the lowest of density places where the car is truly the only option. As mentioned above, there are numerous car-less options for those of us who live in cities for transporting cargo – and those options are rationally more sensible because they STILL cost less overall despite the American government’s 60-year experiment in trying to put everyone in cars.
If one already has a car, it’s probably almost always easier to travel around by car (if your destination is near some type of road) when one has a moderate sized cargo to haul that can fit comfortably in the seats or trunk.
Second only to travel time, this is otherwise the largest benefit of autos over mass transit.
That reminds me, what are those motorcycle and cargo area combination vehicles with 3 wheels you see in WWII movies? Yeah, we need more of them, again. 🙂
Even the cargo issue is a result of the ubiquity of cars. Before car ownership became widespread in the US, department stores offered free deliveries.
“WS, here in New York we can take a bus or a train to go hiking at Bear Mountain, South Mountain, and many other destinations.”
In Oregon, where we have real mountains (not the fake foothills on the East Cost 😉 ), the ocean, the desert (Oregon is actually 2/3rds desert, btw), and literally thousands of hiking trailheads, any sort of tourist bus or train is only going to be financially feasible to main places.
I agree with your sentiments, actually, but it’s not completely solid when you get into the myriad of complexities that is transportation. My personal opinion is the automobile is bad for most quick trips (not all, however) but good for medium/long distanced trips.
Cap’n Transit,
Consider first Juneau, Alaska where I grew up. Juneau has 30,000 people inside one of the largest city boundaries in the United States. It’s in a rain forest sandwiched between mountains and ocean. Juneau already has a fantastic road network catered to cars, so getting between any two houses (which typically have plenty of driveway space) is a cinch. I rarely have to walk far after parking, my car keeps me protected from the rain and snow, and I never have to wait for my car to start my journey. If I replace the road network with the ideal sidewalk network, suddenly I have the advantage of not owning a car (saving hundreds of USD a month), I never have to find parking, and it’s the ultimate in point-to-point convenience. However, this means a simple trip to visit my friend can take me an hour of walking in the pouring down rain. In this scenario I think we can allow the sidewalks to be covered, so I can be protected from the elements. However, unless you completely rebuild the city itself, walking (and yes, even biking) would rarely compete with the time advantages offered by driving a car.
You could run a similar scenario in Juneau by adding the ultimate bus service, but there would be other tradeoffs then as well, like those described by Watson a few comments up.
I now live carless in New York City, a completely different equation than living in Juneau. Cars are suddenly a loss less valuable and don’t perform as well on the convenience metric.
@ CroMagnon – Re : Trikes
Here you go :
Army green trike from Cushman (about half-way down)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cushman
Harley meter maid / traffic trike
http://www.lafayette.in.gov/egov/docs/1235782024981.htm
P.S. Just for fun, a hot rod trike
http://www.showrods.com/gallery_pages/2002_contest/meter_maid.html
But imagine if Juneau had developed without cars. After all, it’s not even linked to the rest of the North American road network except by ferry, so it’s not that implausible. And your simple trip to visit your friend would probably mean a short walk to the one and only local bus route, and a short walk from that bus route to your friend’s house, because Juneau is actually surprisingly well laid out to be conveniently served by means of a single bus route running along the main road.
I find it more convenient to get everything done in one trip (say, once a week or two weeks) – combining errands in a couple of hours and having them done with.
As for local grocery stores (downtown), a lot of selection may not be available within walking distance and typically, prices are higher in the downtown, so the cost of gas (of the occassional trip) is easily made up for by the savings. Basics are easy to get downtown on the walk to and from work (bread, milk, eggs) but hauling larger quantities would be a hassle.
As for deliveries, I wouldn’t want to have to wait at home (condo, without concierge) for a delivery person with an unknown schedule (we all know how frustrating it is to wait for telephone service or the cable guy). I would hate to have to do that multiple times for a delivery from each store that I visit.
Yes, local grocery stores have a fairly limited selection, because they can’t effectively compete with the big box stores built on cheap land on the outskirts of town… a business model that is only made possible by plentiful roads and mandatory provision of parking. For that matter, in cities like SF, there’s a limit on how big a store is allowed to get before parking becomes mandatory. Maybe a supermarket in downtown would be successful, but we’ll never know, because one can’t be built, because there’s no room for parking. Anyway, we can argue anecdotes back and forth to forever, but the point is not to get every single person out of their cars, but rather what it would take to get the median person out of their cars (because then non-driving mode share would be 50%!)
But travel time is not the only factor that influences people’s decisions – or even the most important one, except in the lowest of density places where the car is truly the only option.
Yes, shorter travel times are not the only factor that makes cars more attractive than mass transit. Comfort, convenience, flexibility, privacy, protection from bad weather and extreme temperatures, the ability to transport cargo, and easier travel in groups, especially with children, are other factors that explain the popularity of cars. But I think you underestimate the importance of travel times. Even in Manhattan, there is a huge market for car travel in the form of taxis, despite their relatively small time savings over mass transit in that location (not to mention the higher cost). For urban travel in general, mass transit can easily take three or four times as long as making the same trip by car, especially if it involves transfers. A 20-minute car ride can easily take an hour or more by transit. I think that is a huge advantage of cars. And as people become wealthier, the relative value of their time increases.
Oy, Watson, you really are missing the point. The whole post – and my post, and Jarrett’s “unhelpful word” post that he linked to – are about how problematic the word “convenient” is. To argue that cars are more convenient because they’re more convenient is – wait for it – begging the question.
Are you really incapable of imagining a transit system that offers the same level of comfort, flexibility, privacy, protection from bad weather and extreme temperatures, and ease of travel in groups and with children, as cars do? Are you really so blind to the level of discomfort, inflexibility, and exposure to unpleasant people and bad weather that you have to put up with all the time with cars? Do you realize what a hassle it is to put a kid in a car seat – and keep the kid there for the whole ride?
All of the supposed advantages that you attribute to cars are nothing without the government-sponsored infrastructure. Take away the roads and parking lots and you’ve got nothing. Despite your repeated assertions, in Manhattan taxis are slower than the subway from about 6AM to 8PM most days, and until midnight on weekends. I have no idea why so many people take them; I’ve tried several times and finally gave up in frustration.
But to the extent that taxis (and cars in general) are at all time-competitive with subways and buses in Manhattan, it’s entirely due to the amount of “free” real estate that they’re given by the government. Avenue after avenue has five or six lanes devoted to moving cars, plus a lane or two for parking and standing. Cars and taxis even have access to the FDR Drive above 23rd Street, the West Side Highway above 57th Street, Park Avenue and the Central Park loop drive, which are all off-limits to buses.
Private cars and taxis are often faster than buses because buses have to make multiple stops, but again, it’s all infrastructure. If you took two lanes out of every avenue for a dedicated busway, any time advantage that a taxi might have would evaporate.
So again, please try to step away from your own experiences and imagine what it’s like to enjoy the convenience of living without a car, when you have the right infrastructure to make it possible.
anonymouse & Cap’n Transit,
I don’t think Watson is missing the point at all. Look — if you have to change the density of Juneau in order to make your walking infrastructure actually replace the driving infrastructure, then you’ve failed. It’s fair to change the infrastructure, but you don’t get to change the density of the city. The people in Juneau actually *like* low density. The road system is just fantastically well suited to solving the transportation problem given the constraints and ideals of that region.
Automobiles combined with a good road infrastructure are just one tool to solve a problem. I couldn’t agree with you more that people put their blinders on and erroneously see it as the ONLY tool. But even given the ideal infrastructure for other modes of conveyance (e.g., other tools), these other tools are NOT all equal. They don’t all solve the same problems equally well. Different scenarios call for different solutions. Sometimes just one tool is good enough, and sometimes multiple tools are need. Which tools you choose, depends on the problem.
Jeffrey
capn transit.
Are you really incapable of imagining a transit system that offers the same level of comfort, flexibility, privacy, protection from bad weather and extreme temperatures, and ease of travel in groups and with children, as cars do?
Yes, really. I just don’t see it would be possible at all, even if we completely ignore economic feasibility and focus purely on the physical/engineering aspects of the system. Please describe this hypothetical transit system that you think could compete effectively with cars on travel times, convenience, flexibility, comfort, privacy, protection from bad weather and extreme temperatures, ability to transport cargo, and ease of travel in groups and with children. Even assuming it would be physically possible to build such a system, the cost would be astronomical.
Despite your repeated assertions, in Manhattan taxis are slower than the subway from about 6AM to 8PM most days, and until midnight on weekends.
Please substantiate this claim. I just played with a few randomly-chosen trips in Manhattan using Google Maps. In every case, the estimated travel time by transit was longer than the estimated travel time by car. If transit is not competitive or just barely competitive with cars on travel times in the place that has the densest network of trains and buses in the country, and legendary road congestion, it has absolutely no chance of competing with cars on travel times in urban areas in general.
I agree that certain modes are intrinsically different and some are better suited for certain purposes than others. Certainly, scuba diving will never work as well for getting around a flooded NYC as a motorboat.
Nevertheless, Watson’s claim that transit has not chance of being competitive against transit in travel time beyond Manhattan is clearly false. Even in my home city of Baltimore, the Metro is often faster to downtown door to door from outside the City than driving at rush hour depending on where one’s starting point is. In Washington, the Metro is almost always faster than driving at rush hour.
I didn’t say that transit is never competitive with cars on travel time. I said that it isn’t competitive for most trips. A particular weekday rush-hour commute trip from the Baltimore suburbs to downtown might well be faster by transit than by car. But trips of that kind are only a small fraction of the total number of trips in the Baltimore metropolitan area.
And as I said, travel time is only one consideration. Even for commutes where transit is faster than cars, most commuters might still prefer to drive for a variety of other reasons — comfort, privacy, convenience, flexibility, protection from bad weather, etc.
You are back pedaling. Usually cars are faster than transit, sometimes they’re not and some places they’re often not. Many cities have already proved they stand a chance competing against the car on travel time. The rush hours share is about 30% of daily travel, though I don’t have the suburban station breakdown handy. If Baltimore had more Metro service, it’d be a bigger percentage. Hopefully, we will someday.
The Metro has plenty of protection from the weather, BTW, more than driving. I’m not sure the Metro is less comfortable than my Civic in the summer, either.
Watson, you’re talking out of your ass. At equal travel times, transit wins hands down because people don’t like to be chauffeurs and don’t like to be stuck in traffic.
Most of the transit-dominated markets are actually faster by car: for example, Westchester-Manhattan has so much road capacity that cars are faster even at 8 in the morning, but Metro-North still has 80% of that market share. And if you go to cities with congestion pricing, such as Singapore, it’s even starker.
The weather issue is actually cited as a positive for transit in Calgary – there’s no need to walk from surface parking lots to the mall in the cold.
cromagnon,
You are back pedaling.
In my first post I wrote “The only places where transit can realistically be competitive with cars on travel time for most trips is places where density is very high, like lower Manhattan.” Perhaps you could show us where you think I backpedalled from this position. In fact, it’s not clear that transit is faster for most trips even in Manhattan. As I said, Google Maps’ travel time estimates seem to suggest the opposite, at least with respect to transit vs. taxis.
The rush hours share is about 30% of daily travel
Last time I checked, 30% is not “most trips.” But where are you getting that 30% number from, anyway? I very strongly doubt that transit is competitive with cars on travel time even for most trips during rush hours.
The Metro has plenty of protection from the weather, BTW, more than driving.
Obviously, transit users are significantly protected from bad weather and extreme temperatures while they are inside buses and trains, although frequent opening of doors at bus stops and rail stations can make it difficult to maintain adequate heating and cooling on transit vehicles. But transit provides no protection from the elements while people are walking or biking to and from bus stops and rail stations, and usually little or no protection while people are waiting for transit vehicles to arrive. In much of the country, including the northeast, transit users are frequently exposed to freezing temperatures in the winter months and high heat and humidity in the summer.
Look, the point here is that if we start with a completely blank slate, we can get a city and transit system that is just as “convenient” as existing cities and their car-oriented transportation systems. The existing advantage that car-based transportation is to a significant extent path-dependent. That is, the advantage comes from the significant investment in infrastructure made over the past 100 years, including roads, pipelines, parking lots, and so on, and those are investments that may or may not be made if we were starting over from a blank slate.
Are you really incapable of imagining a transit system that offers the same level of comfort, flexibility, privacy, protection from bad weather and extreme temperatures, and ease of travel in groups and with children, as cars do?
PRT? (grinning, ducking and running….:-)
I wouldn’t trust Google Maps to know signal timing, traffic conditions, potential delays, etc.
The answer to your question is that it depends on the trip. In most of Manhattan, my experience is that during the daytime, north-south travel is faster on the subway, and east-west travel is somewhat faster in a taxi. In Upper Manhattan, the taxi is almost always faster. In neither case is the difference very large. My commute is nearly the worst possible on transit within Manhattan (72nd/York to 117th/Broadway*), and it’s about 40 minutes on NYCT and 25 in a taxi. I almost never take a taxi because it’s too expensive and unreliable. Neither do most other Manhattanites.
I know it’s apples to oranges, but for people who work in Manhattan, the average travel time one-way is a few minutes faster in a car than on transit. (It’s significantly lower if you walk). If I remember correctly, the modal split in this group is about 67-14 in favor of transit, with the rest walking or biking or taking a taxi. This should tell you how people behave at equal travel time.
anonymous,
Look, the point here is that if we start with a completely blank slate, we can get a city and transit system that is just as “convenient” as existing cities and their car-oriented transportation systems.
Again I ask, please describe this hypothetical transit system that you think could compete effectively with cars on travel times, convenience, flexibility, comfort, privacy, protection from bad weather and extreme temperatures, ability to transport cargo, and ease of travel in groups and with children.