POHB said:"Werehatrack" wrote
Quoted message said:Works well if you're always habitually running early on the commute
and/or have an employer/supervisor with a sane attitude toward on-time
arrival. (I.e., that it won't *always* happen.)
So have you a more reliable way to commute than a bike that occasionally
gets a flat, unless you live within walking distance of work?
Cars break down too and are much more prone to traffic hold ups, as is the
bus.
The automotive commute time to my most common AM destination (13 miles
via the most direct route, 17 via the fastest and most reliable)
varies by less than 3 minutes with the common interruptions, and has
not varied by more than five minutes over the course of three years.
In the past six years, I have had one commute interrupted by car
failure (flat tire) and one delayed by not starting (five minutes
spent getting it jumped due to a flat battery); the car is 12 years
old. I call that damned reliable.
Quoted message said:Trains and tubes/subways are way less reliable.
Here, it's not so much their reliability as their availability and
speed that makes them impractical. The only bus route downtown from
my neighborhood runs twice an hour, and I can race the bus to the
downtown library on my bike and win most of the time without working
up a sweat. Taking the schedule into account, I can beat it downtown
by an average of 15 minutes simply by leaving when I am ready instead
of waiting for the bus...but if it's raining, I'll drive instead. To
use the city bus system for the morning commute I mentioned above, a
bike would be faster by over an hour. This isn't as much praise for
the bike as it is an acknowledgement of the fact that the local bus
system isn't good for much. *Walking* can be faster between many
points.
Quoted message said:IME the bike is the best bet for reliability.
Maybe. If you need to be able to consistently arrive dry, don't rely
primarily on a bike in Houston, TX, for example. If you live in
Minneapolis (or someplace similar), a bike isn't terribly useful for
several months of the year due to ice, snow, and frigid temperatures.
And in many parts of the US, a bike simply won't get you from point A
to point B because the only feasible route is off-limits to that mode
of transport; most freeways are so designated. Reliability of the
device itself may not indicate reliability of its usefulness in a
given situation.
U.S. mass transport is entirely based on the automobile in all but a
handful of very large cities, and it's still the backbone of mass
transit in most of those. Bikes *could* replace some of that, but the
average U.S. commuter is unlikely to try to ride a bike 22 miles each
way; that's the typical commute distance here. Telling them to move
closer to where they work is, in most of the U.S., futile. Too many
people own their homes and can't sell without an unacceptable cost.
The persistent application of "zoning" has worked to physically
separate the industrial, office, commercial and residential areas, and
has acted to stratify the residential neighborhoods as well, with the
result that it is unlikely that affordable and/or suitable (if *any*)
housing will be found within a reasonable distance of any given
job....and if it is, that won't remain the case when the employer
moves you to another location, or the job evaporates and is replaced
by one many miles away (and the lease on the apartment has 6 months to
run), etc., as happens on a too-regular basis for most workers.
It's all very well to advocate bikes for commuting, but a widespread
shift won't occur in most of the U.S. without a lot of other changes
to pave the way. It may happen. There are locales in which this is
slowly shifting already; I'm in one of them. We're seeing old,
dilapidated industrial and warehousing districts razed and converted
to residences, we're seeing long-neglected near-city-center residences
renovated and occupied by professionals with an inner-loop practice,
we're seeing blighted near-downtown areas with low occupancy torn down
and converted to mid-price condos that are selling to people who work
nearby, etc. None of this would be taking place (or at least, not so
freely and swiftly) if Houston had the kind of obsession with
Byzantine restrictions on land use that is common elsewhere, but the
very lack of "planning" in this city is now producing areas with an
amazing hodgepodge of business, industry, residence, commerce and
entertainment, and a range of resident incomes in a single
neighborhood that covers all of the tax brackets.
Now, if we could just lose that damn Rodeo...
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
