Tell me you're an American without telling me you're an American[0].
If travel times, cost, and availability were actually equal, you'd pick public transit every time, because you don't have to focus on the cognitively stressful task of operating a motor vehicle. The reason why you care about being driven directly to your destination is specifically because the availability is so poor and gaps in the network get papered over with shittons of walking.
The car has an analogous 'last mile' problem - i.e. finding a place to legally park it at your destination. We fixed that by mandating free parking everywhere. This pushes buildings away from one another, which means walking is even less viable, which exacerbates the traffic issue with lots of short trips. It also disaggregates traffic flows, which makes availability more expensive to produce, et cetera.
I’m British and live in London so I live almost exclusively by public transport, walking and cycling. Driving here is also hard work. Most people I know in the UK, particularly anyone with a family, prefer driving, which is why the “anti-car” policies have been so controversial. Also, by availability I didn’t mean goes directly to your destination as that’s really just a fundamental limitation of public transport. Frankly, I would probably always drive over taking the tube/train/bus if it wasn’t for the cost of congestion charge and parking.
However, I recognise that driving is a selfish action with significant externalities, and I prefer to live somewhere that prioritises alternative forms of transportation. I vote for anyone who prioritises public transport and to restrict cars, because cars make cities ugly, noisy, dirty, unwalkable, and dangerous.
Other than commutes and peak hours in zone 1, driving normally takes less time, end-to-end. Really the only trips that take less time on the train in zone 2 and beyond are if each end of the trip is right next to the station. That's not a surprise, since around the world, most public transport is highly optimised at commuting and trips within the central zone.
I'll give you an example trips I take quite frequently (not exact so that I don't dox myself completely): Homebase Catford to Grove Park Cemetery: public transport 25 mins excluding waiting, driving 10 mins; Anytime Fitness Hither Green to Manor House Gardens: 22 mins vs 9 mins; Voodoo Rays Peckham to Mountsfield Park: 15 mins vs 55 mins. It's also often cheaper to drive, especially if it's more than one person, and I usually have my partner with me.
Even in zone 1 at peak times, driving is usually about the same as public transport once you factor in the time for connections, waiting, getting down into the stations and back, etc. It's just expensive as hell with the congestion charge and parking costs.
The surprising thing about London's traffic is it really flows quite well, even compared to much smaller and less densely populated towns in the UK. I've driven across quite literally the length and breadth of the UK, and I've experienced much worse traffic elsewhere. I'm not sure if it's the fancy "smart" traffic light system we have or some other aspect of urban planning, but I find that I quite rarely get stuck in frustrating traffic jams. That is, except for if there's a bad crash in the Blackwall Tunnel. That can cause gridlock all the way back to Blackheath.
London and the UK in general have some of the best public transport in the world. It’s not the best for sure, and places like Switzerland, Japan and the Netherlands are better, but it’s the top 10 - and probably higher if you only consider countries with a large population.
I agree it sucks, but the fact that it sucks and is also one of the best does suggest that good public transport is difficult. Note how all the places with half decent public transport tend to be rich.
However even Switzerland (which I have been to) if I had to pick which form of transport has the most utility, I’d still choose the car. Public transport usually takes longer door-to-door and involves changes in modes or doesn’t quite get you to your destination. Also it isn’t 24/7. It’s great for commuting, not so great for other things. I guess nightlife though isn’t a huge concern in Zurich :)
About a week, but in the modern day it definitely doesn't take a month to get used to a city's public transport system. Phones now tell you all you need to know in most developed countries. Perhaps with the exception of particularly terrible ticketing systems such as the UK train system and, I can't remember why now as it's been a few years, but I hate the train ticketing in Germany too. But even in those cases, you still get where you're going, just with the chance that you'll get told off by a ticket inspector because your train isn't valid for the super ultra full moon off-peak ticket you booked.
And London really does have some of the best in the world. There are a lot of rough edges, for sure, but nearly all rankings I can find have it around 10th best city public transportation system in the world which is pretty up there. Maybe now that they've finally fixed Bank station, it could even go up a few points ;). Zurich is probably the best I've experienced, and Stockholm, Tokyo and Singapore are also very good. Paris, Moscow, Madrid, New York City and Amsterdam are probably all roughly on par with London; better in some ways, worse in others, and which one you prefer probably depends on your individual preferences.
Eh. London has pretty good public transport _coverage_, but it doesn’t _work_ very well. Like, it’s a lot better than anything you’d find in the US, but many continental systems are more reliable, better organised, and cleaner.
Some are better, many are not. There are not many other systems of the same scale as London's in the continent, and those that are aren't really much better. The Paris Metro for example is very dirty and smelly in my experience, although the trains are frequent which is nice. Generally, across the world, I find larger cities have dirtier public transport, with the exception of Tokyo which is spotless. There are lots of cute and beautiful tiny systems across Europe, like Prague, but it's obviously easier to make a small system that works well than something at the scale of London, Paris or NYC.
Where London really struggles, as the whole of the UK does, is the awful ticketing system. That said if you don't care too much about the cost and stick to the Oyster zone, you can just tap your phone and not think about it beyond that. Oh, also the lack of AC for the few weeks of hot temperatures we get, but that at least is apparently being fixed soon.
Functionality wise, I've never had any issues in London. The open data is accurate and comprehensive, so the app of your choice has accurate route planning, you pay by tapping your phone and follow the instructions. Other systems have mostly caught up now, but for a long time London did better than 90% of other systems in that area.
I'd say the city I found most surprisingly good was Stockholm. Very comprehensive for the relatively small population size, and all the stations were beautiful and clean. If anything, it seemed overbuilt and almost desolate a lot of the time. I'm not sure how they afford or justify the upkeep on it given that most other systems in the world seem to be struggling.
> Some public transport absolutely is 24/7.
It may well be, but Zurich's isn't, which is what I was talking about! Very few places have 24/7 trains, but Zurich doesn't even have 24 hour busses except at the weekend.
If travel times, cost, and availability were actually equal, you'd pick public transit every time, because you don't have to focus on the cognitively stressful task of operating a motor vehicle.
Sounds like a case of projection. Most people aren't especially intimidated by driving, and quite a few actually enjoy it. Far fewer people enjoy being packed onto a crowded bus or train with strangers (and those are the ones who inevitably sit next to me.)
When people have the option to drive, and the money to do so, they usually prefer to.
Tell me you're an American without telling me you're an American[0].
If travel times, cost, and availability were actually equal, you'd pick public transit every time, because you don't have to focus on the cognitively stressful task of operating a motor vehicle. The reason why you care about being driven directly to your destination is specifically because the availability is so poor and gaps in the network get papered over with shittons of walking.
The car has an analogous 'last mile' problem - i.e. finding a place to legally park it at your destination. We fixed that by mandating free parking everywhere. This pushes buildings away from one another, which means walking is even less viable, which exacerbates the traffic issue with lots of short trips. It also disaggregates traffic flows, which makes availability more expensive to produce, et cetera.
[0] Or Canadian.