No, you can only do public transit in rural places inthe Netherlands if you go to a big hub city. If you have to go 3 towns over, you have to take a car, or be prepared to double or triple your travel time.
Linking towns to nearby cities sounds like the job of an interurban (Short one or two car length light rail / trolly that makes one stop per town, traveling the countryside between each at grade and at relatively high speed), but almost nowhere has those anymore.
Even within a city, bus travel is usually much slower than a car. Because you have to wait to get on the bus, and then the bus is making many stops along the way to load and unload. And it probably also isn’t going directly to where you need to go and probably doesn’t stop directly in front of where you live, so you need to add walking/bike riding to the beginning and end of the trip.
I’m a big proponent of bus travel, but let’s not kid ourselves here – choosing the bus can easily make a 30 minute car ride into a 2 hour bus ride overall.
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.
Walking can take you nearly anywhere, but it’s slow
Biking can take you somewhat fewer places and is faster
Driving further restricts your access and improves speed
Buses restrict your access again, but without improving speed. They have other benefits, but if your only concerns are versatility and speed, they aren’t in the natural progression.
Trains, however, can be a lot faster than cars, at the usual cost of going fewer places.
The solution, as it often is, is to use more trains. Also, walking and bike tunnels. Weather is often a reason why I don’t walk or bike.
The solution is a cohesive well integrated system, of a mix of modes (local/ mid range/ rapid backbone) in a city that is optimised for public transit, cycling and walking. Buses have their place in that, so do trams, light rail and heavy metro and heavy rail.
Yes, but the service isn’t always sufficient in the countryside. If you live outside the city you still often own a car. But you can easily travel and visit any place in the countryside with a bit of time.
You can definitely do public transit out in the country, but isn’t the Netherlands one of the most densely-populated countries in the world?
No, you can only do public transit in rural places inthe Netherlands if you go to a big hub city. If you have to go 3 towns over, you have to take a car, or be prepared to double or triple your travel time.
If you have to go three towns over in rural NL the car may be the best option, but going by bike is a very close second.
The busses in the NL are often mainly for transporting you to and from the city, though some provinces also offer halfway decent local connections.
Linking towns to nearby cities sounds like the job of an interurban (Short one or two car length light rail / trolly that makes one stop per town, traveling the countryside between each at grade and at relatively high speed), but almost nowhere has those anymore.
Even within a city, bus travel is usually much slower than a car. Because you have to wait to get on the bus, and then the bus is making many stops along the way to load and unload. And it probably also isn’t going directly to where you need to go and probably doesn’t stop directly in front of where you live, so you need to add walking/bike riding to the beginning and end of the trip.
I’m a big proponent of bus travel, but let’s not kid ourselves here – choosing the bus can easily make a 30 minute car ride into a 2 hour bus ride overall.
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.
The solution, as it often is, is to use more trains. Also, walking and bike tunnels. Weather is often a reason why I don’t walk or bike.
The solution is a cohesive well integrated system, of a mix of modes (local/ mid range/ rapid backbone) in a city that is optimised for public transit, cycling and walking. Buses have their place in that, so do trams, light rail and heavy metro and heavy rail.
Switzerland also manages it in rural areas.
Yes, but the service isn’t always sufficient in the countryside. If you live outside the city you still often own a car. But you can easily travel and visit any place in the countryside with a bit of time.