That’s because you compare both in a car oriented setting. In a public transit oriented setting you won’t be faster by car.
Are you also saying that walking and cycling in a city is impossible and cuicidal because you judge it also based on a car oriented city?
A city designed for PT can be much more compact. A city designed for cars has to be much more bloated. What you are faster by car you have to drive further.
There are vast differences. Not every major city in the world is car-oriented, as in cars being given strong priority over all other means. What is true is that most cities are accessible by car. That is not the same.
Have a look at the density of various cities. Vienna for example has a population of around 2 mio within municipal limits within an area that is tiny compared to any actually car oriented city with a much smaller population. Also the urban area is organised along hubs and spokes to work well with public transportation but not so great for cars, at the same time, highway coverage within municipal borders is pretty poor. Most neighbourhoods, also outside of the centre have good walkable access to all sorts of local infrastructure, including supermarkets, gastronomy, health services, schools etc.
That is reflected in the modal split: 25% of all journeys in the city are done by car (not merely the city centre, the entire city which includes a population of around 2 mio, the large majority of people living in the metropolitan area), 34% are done by transit, 30% by walking and 11% by cycling.
Compare that to London, Ontario for example and if you don’t see the difference I don’t know what to say. And before you say that this comparison does not count as London, Ontario has only ~400k inhabitants. Yes, but both cities consume a very similar area in km2 and that’s the point.
That’s because you compare both in a car oriented setting. In a public transit oriented setting you won’t be faster by car.
Are you also saying that walking and cycling in a city is impossible and cuicidal because you judge it also based on a car oriented city?
A city designed for PT can be much more compact. A city designed for cars has to be much more bloated. What you are faster by car you have to drive further.
Okay, but every real city I’ve ever been in is a car-oriented setting.
Yes, we could imagine a fantasy world where going by car is slower, but I’m talking about the real world here.
There are vast differences. Not every major city in the world is car-oriented, as in cars being given strong priority over all other means. What is true is that most cities are accessible by car. That is not the same.
Have a look at the density of various cities. Vienna for example has a population of around 2 mio within municipal limits within an area that is tiny compared to any actually car oriented city with a much smaller population. Also the urban area is organised along hubs and spokes to work well with public transportation but not so great for cars, at the same time, highway coverage within municipal borders is pretty poor. Most neighbourhoods, also outside of the centre have good walkable access to all sorts of local infrastructure, including supermarkets, gastronomy, health services, schools etc.
That is reflected in the modal split: 25% of all journeys in the city are done by car (not merely the city centre, the entire city which includes a population of around 2 mio, the large majority of people living in the metropolitan area), 34% are done by transit, 30% by walking and 11% by cycling.
Compare that to London, Ontario for example and if you don’t see the difference I don’t know what to say. And before you say that this comparison does not count as London, Ontario has only ~400k inhabitants. Yes, but both cities consume a very similar area in km2 and that’s the point.