Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
One day people will accept that building roads and expensive interchanges rarely improves anything for long. I just don't accept that all those people in cars don't have reasonable alternatives if they chose. I get that some don't, but I'm sure at least 50% of them don't need to be driving.
|
I think the problem with making choices based on "reasonable alternatives" is that they fail to provide enough meaningful benefit to persuade people to switch.
Like you're replying to someone that says it's a 20 minute bus ride to the CTrain station and then another, what, 15 minutes to DT (if that's the hypothetical destination). So you have a 35 minute commute that probably equals the worst of a rush hour drive (for anyone that would have Westbrook as the start to their CTrain journey).
So, at best, you've equaled the commute time. But this doesn't account for walking to the bus stop, waiting for the bus and walking from the Ctrain station to whatever your destination is DT. At best, in the sunniest of summer days, that's still an inconvenience and at worst, in the dead of winter, ####ing sucks... And nevermind some of the less than pleasant things you might encounter at the stations or on the train (like other people... ewww). How is that going to convince someone that sitting in their own car, listening to their music, with the climate control set how they want is
not a better option?
To be clear, I'm not arguing against the idea that transit should be better and that driving infrastructure is probably over-invested in... But at the same time, I can totally see why people would rather drive than take transit, because in its current form, it's not a "reasonable alternative".