Not an urban myth--an urban fact. And a suburban fact. And a rural fact.

It's only myth for urban areas that are in Europe, or might as well be.

The D.C. metro has the right idea -- suburban rail stations with large parking lots and huge parking garages so folks can drive there from home and then take the train to work. The only problems are the parking areas were too small within a few years of the opening of the outer stations, and the system was designed with the idea that everyone wants to go downtown, which in this day of new high-rise office centers being built along the interstate loops around the city, is an obsolete concept. The rail systems have to follow the path of growth along the beltways.

Unless you and your destination are on the same route, there's no way on most so-called "rapid" transit systems to get anywhere in less than half an hour, especially when the busses or trains are spaced 15 to 30 minutes apart. So those commute times are actually better. (And I wouldn't be surprised to hear that transit advocates exclude the waiting times from their calculations to make their numbers competative).

Depends on the system -- commuter rail lines operate on limited schedules, due to main lines having to share the same destination point and trackage as they arrive at the station, while subway/light rail lines with their own tracks can operate on a far more frequent basis (I believe the infamous No. 7 line in New York runs two-minute headways during rush hour).

Define convenient.

OJ,

No one wants to listen to me screaming along with ACDC while listening to my IPOD. My guess is that they wouldn't like Mike Medved much either.

Conversely, before they stop us from talking while driving alone, I hope the politicians (or vigilantes) have the decency to tar & feather people who talk in the Commuter Car - they are far more annoying.

If Stephen Pinker told us that we had a gene that favored sitting in our own private domain for a few minutes a day, I'd be inclined to believe him.

I'm not talking about Chicago or New York, but out here in the real suburbia.

This spring I was looking at a job based in Seattle a few blocks from the UW campus, and dreaded the prospect of a commute, so I looked into just what my tax dollars offered in the way of subsidized transportation. Quite simply, it didn't. Even the "express" from Redmond to the U district would have taken almost an hour to get there, and even then it appeared I had to change busses at Montlake. And because they ran on a schedule, that amount of time would not change because of road condtiions.

A much better solution would have been to come in/leave early. Most days it would have taken me about twenty minutes. And as a bonus, I wouldn't have to deal with being wedged in among bus riders. (The job fell through, and it was back to the Evil Software Empire which is only a long three miles away.)

I agree that when your commute takes you from your bedroom to your living room, taking the car might add to your journey time.

I have a 13.5 mile commute. I drove my car through the traffic jams for 62 minutes on Tuesday to get home. On my bike it takes 40-45 minutes (my record is 32 minutes, but that is a little insane), sometimes a little more than an hour if there is a snowstorm.

It depends on where you are and what the traffic is like, but in many urban areas car travel is getting to be rather absurd between the hours of 7-9am and 4-6pm. You don't move.

Raoul:

Bet you there're plenty of carpoolers especially at the University.

I commute from the near western suburbs of Chicago to the south side of the city. I'm a physician but I can work relatively stable, sane hours. Real world testing --

Car commute -- city streets to the west side expressway, into the city (the dreaded Circle Interchange), down the south side expressway (under construction, normally seven lanes each way down to three), then city streets to work destination. Door-to-door elapsed time: 42 minutes.

Public transit commute -- city streets to elevated train in my village center, find a parking space, walk up to the train platform. Train goes through Chicago's Loop and down the south side, making numerous stops. Wait for bus, bus takes me to within 3 blocks of destination with numerous stops, and walk the final 3 blocks. Door-to-door elapsed time: 61 minutes.

I'll drive, thanks.

My commute is about 15 miles. It takes around 30-45 minutes by car, or 60 minutes via "express" bus. The bus breaks down or fails to show up anywhere from weekly to semiannually. The car pretty much always works. The express bus only runs 3 times in the morning & evening. When it's not running, I have to make several transfers to get home - I'm guessing around 1-2 hours for the commute. During that time of the day, my car is always available and will get me home in about 20 minutes.

Make driving expensive enough and they'll add buses to handle the riders and get there faster in the reduced traffic.

Why not walk from the train station? I walked almost every day we lived in Chicago. Took the El if it rained hard enough.

Make driving more expensive and people won't just abandon their cars for the bus - they'll abandon large families, suburbs, and rural areas for the single life downtown.

Immobility produced larger families.

"because private vehicles are faster and more convenient"

Making mass transit faster and more convenient is the challenge then. How do we do that?

I am, of course ignoring the transit requirements of people who do not live in or near population centers. They are sinners and deserve no quarter, right oj?

OJ,

You're whistling past the graveyard. Once we have personal helicopters or jetpacks or similiar one-person transport, mass transit will be dead. People don't want to ride with strangers, on somebody else's schedule, to work.

Thirteen miles, twenty-four minutes.

Immobility produced larger families.

No - lack of contraceptives produced larger families. Higher transportation costs results in people living closer together, which reduces family size.

Pete:

Fine, as long as they pay for the damage they do.

Sing it in Mexico City or any Housing Project in the US. The notion is absurd on its face.

Pete --

Once wifi is ubiquitous enough that you can stay on a hand-held computer with internet access from home to office and back without losing the connection, above-ground mass transit will become a more viable option than sitting behind the wheel of your vehicle stuck in traffic, even if the mass transit option adds a little extra time to the home-office commute.

John,

A little extra time? Have you ridden mass transit lately? Undependable, slow, noisy, and inconvenient to name a few.

Rider surveys and increases indicate the opposite.

Carpooling is just smaller busses, with no set schedule, and drivers who have no incentive to make sure I get to work on time, or at all (or have a ride home, for that matter.)

Yep, another utopian solution to be imposed on everyone else.

Rider surveys and increases indicate the opposite.

That's because people are abandoning rural and suburban environments for the city, where mass transit is a convenient alternative for people who are too lazy to walk. This is why downtown high rise condos have been selling out all across America - before ground is even broken on their construction.

It's just gas prices getting them to try it and they find they like it.

raoul:

pssst..it isn't about you.

It's just gas prices getting them to try it and they find they like it.

Yes, and family size will decline as a result. In every country, fertility rates in urban areas are lower than fertility rates in rural areas.

Like I said, high transportation costs are good for mass transit and bad for large families. It's interesting to see which of those two alternatives you prefer.

Never been to Cabrini Green, huh?

Mass transit will increase family size just because couples will get to spend more time together ande have more money.

Mass transit will increase family size just because couples will get to spend more time together ande have more money.

Nope. City life (the result of high transportation costs) results in smaller homes, fewer play areas for kids, and more entertaining diversions for adults (concerts, plays, films, museums, restaurants, etc.), which retards family formation.

Mass transit will move folks from the suburbs to their jobs downtown more efficiently, leaving more time and money for family, but go look around the projects if you want to see high fertility rates or check Palestine, which is entirely urban.

go look around the projects if you want to see high fertility rates or check Palestine, which is entirely urban.

Let me get this straight - you're holding up "the projects" and occupied Palestine as societal models for increasing fertility rates in urban environments?

Meanwhile, the three countries with the world's lowest fertility rates are Singapore, Macau, and Hong Kong. I'm sure they have wonderful mass transit systems though.

No, I'm saying that urbanization doesn't produce lower fertility rates.