Coffee, music fuel grueling commutes

[Jon Dalton]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Just me for example. Would take me 20-30min to drive to work. Takes me 45-60min via public transit.

Where are you living in Toronto?

I take 45 min. door to door, 30 min. train ride, and that's enough. Yes, driving would be a slight bit quicker some of the time, but that is 100% greulling traffic.

After 2 years of driving to the same job, I moved in order to start taking GO Transit instead. It was the single most rewarding choice I have ever made for my overall quality of life. I sleep and/or read on the train, and the remainder is a 5 minute walk and bike ride. The stress level is zero and it doesn't matter what the weather is.

Yet I would technically get there 5-10 minutes faster by driving, on average, barring any traffic irregularities or weather related complications.

Speed isn't everything. Perception matters a great deal. The quality of the time spent commuting, and the quality of the time you spend after work as well as the quantity, are more important.

[hymalaia]

Originally Posted by downtownpdx

I understand people, esp. in this country, don't like parting with their cars -- but there oughta be some decent alternatives. Here in Portland, you are pretty unlikely to see a freeway over 6 lanes, and despite increasing congestion it won't change soon, so the traffic is definitely worsening. BUT -this appraoch is deliberate, and there is a land-use system / mass transit system that at least provides some fairly easy alternatives. Light-rail and buses move people around well, and even if it takes longer to get home sometimes.....they're at least not contributing to global warming like single-occupancy cars do. Oh yeah, and no road rage on a train.

don't forget not only does it reduce pollution but has many other benefits. There is a nicer city layout without too many ugly freeways consuming the ugly landscape. Take the Banfield, in addition to only being 6-7 lanes saves more space for housing, bike routes, makes it cheaper to keep depressed and out of view, etc. Also other forms of transit are more inclusive than cars, kids, young teens, disabled, elderly and those without licenses have options to get around. This increases their participation in city life and makes it more interesting. And like you said, no road rage on a train. When you are face to face you tend to get along better with others. Plus if you do drive you have a good backup when the price of gas shoots off. Much less stressful to ride the train than drive also, you don't have to stay on high alert.

The main tradeoff of all this is that it take longer to get places but its not
THAT bad. Can't have everything, I guess but it's certainly worth it, IMO.

[downtownpdx]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

The sad thing though is that people will not switch untill transit actually speeds itself up. .

...And this change in habits won't come around just b/c transit "speeds itself up" -- our urban areas have to stop catering to the idea that congestion is the enemy. Nobody's entitled to a free-flowing, 65mi-hr ride home every day, because everyone else wants the same thing, and it's unsustainable. We have to stop pretending that adding 2 more lanes to the 12-lane freeway will solve the problem. There will always be congestion. But cities can turn that into something functional and even positive -- if they can steer development and transit towards people, not cars. Transit won't speed up in people's minds unless it makes sense to use it, and it doesn't make sense in the midst of sprawl.

Originally Posted by miketoronto

But the thing is, commutes are not that long on average. This is only a very small number of people doing these extreme commutes.

Yeah, this is very true. In Waterloo Region, about 8,000 people commute to the GTA. It sounds like a lot, and people play it out to be that way, but after doing the calculations, it's less than 4% of the workforce living here. What I do find funny, however, is the reasons people give for doing it. I found an article on this phenomenon actually. There's even one guy who used to commute to downtown Toronto from Stratford!! That's 150 km each way!! The guy slept an average of 5 hours a night. I don't see how people can justify this kind of thing.

Here's the article, very much related to this thread.

http://transit.toronto.on.ca/archive...l/sprawl06.htm

[downtownpdx]

Originally Posted by hymalaia

There is a nicer city layout without too many ugly freeways consuming the ugly landscape.

Also other forms of transit are more inclusive than cars, kids, young teens, disabled, elderly and those without licenses have options to get around. This increases their participation in city life and makes it more interesting.

When you are face to face you tend to get along better with others. Plus if you do drive you have a good backup when the price of gas shoots off. Much less stressful to ride the train than drive also, you don't have to stay on high alert.

.

Exactly The quality of life and general civility are some major perks of a good mass transit system.

[pdxtex]

what shocked me about the article was the fact that the girl commuting into detroit for work was spending nearly 500 dollars in a gas a month. i don't know about you guys, but i don't have an extra 500 bucks a month to spend on gas. i do drive, but i probably spend 20 bucks max on gas per week. once gas hits 5 dollars a gallon, i think people will start to dramatically reassess their consumption habits.

Originally Posted by pdxtex

what shocked me about the article was the fact that the girl commuting into detroit for work was spending nearly 500 dollars in a gas a month. i don't know about you guys, but i don't have an extra 500 bucks a month to spend on gas. i do drive, but i probably spend 20 bucks max on gas per week. once gas hits 5 dollars a gallon, i think people will start to dramatically reassess their consumption habits.

I hope her aim of commuting had nothing to do with getting a bigger house for less money. I think $500/month on gas really offsets that in the long run.

[the urban politician]

My commute consists of a 5 minute walk to a subway station, a 7-8 minute train ride, followed by a 1 minute walk from the station to my job.

NANNER NANNER NANNER!!!!!!

[hymalaia]

Originally Posted by downtownpdx

Exactly The quality of life and general civility are some major perks of a good mass transit system.

yeah and I didn't even mention parking, heh.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by downtownpdx

...And this change in habits won't come around just b/c transit "speeds itself up" -- our urban areas have to stop catering to the idea that congestion is the enemy. Nobody's entitled to a free-flowing, 65mi-hr ride home every day, because everyone else wants the same thing, and it's unsustainable. We have to stop pretending that adding 2 more lanes to the 12-lane freeway will solve the problem. There will always be congestion. But cities can turn that into something functional and even positive -- if they can steer development and transit towards people, not cars. Transit won't speed up in people's minds unless it makes sense to use it, and it doesn't make sense in the midst of sprawl.

Agreed. 'miles-per-hour' isnt the right measure, but rather simply 'hours' (or hopefully, 'minutes' when it comes to commuting). Most people measure their commute threshold in time, not distance. Even in a more compact urban form with higher transit usage, these same people will still have a tolerance for absurdly long (1.5 hr+) commutes, but it would still be advantageous because their lower trip lenghths (measured in distance) mean:
1) less vehicle-miles (auto or transit), less pollution, less energy consumption, less wear/tear on infrastructure
2) more efficient land use

[Chicago103]

My current commute is just an elevator ride as I now both live and work in the John Hancock Center in Chicago, 5 minutes max if the elevators are particularly backed up, I could take the stairs down and have a shorter commute than the average american, maybe not going upstairs though.

Some people may think im crazy for living in a 550 square foot studio with a roomate for the location and short commute but from where I am siting I think they are crazy for putting up with 5 hours of sleep a night for an extra 1,000 square feet wrapped vinyl siding and a grass lawn in the exurbs that they never have time to enjoy due to their insane commutes. Its absurd that some people would even think that extra square footage and grass is a baby sitter for their kids.

[pdxtex]

^^^best commute ever!!! thats pretty sweet.

[pj3000]

I walk to work. It takes me 8 minutes.

[ginsan2]

*bangs head on desk*

I can feel the pain of all of the people in that article. Especially because the City of Detroit, that obvious genius of urban planning that it is, decided to start reconstruction work on bridges. In November. Over I-94. Way to go Detroit.

What should be a twenty minute commute for me to get downtown is now an hour, thanks to the Lodge (which turns into a parking lot at the slightest hint of traffic) or again with the construction in November that can't possibly be finished.

Music fuels my way through the same exact situation described above. My ears actually hurt by the time I make it out of my car.

Are there any other Detroit drivers here that fear another winter of driving on I-75, or "Screaming Path of Icy Hell"?

Originally Posted by Crawford

That Michigan commuter is completely insane, because he has absolutely no excuse.

Metro Detroit traffic isn't that bad and housing prices are extremely affordable. The only reason I could imagine for such a ridiculous commute would be under temporary circumstances for a family emergency. Even then, I don't see the point when you are only home to sleep and shower.

No, Metro Detroit traffic is that bad. And it's bad because:

Originally Posted by pdxtex

commuting in metro detroit sucks period. the arterial roads suck, the highway tarmac is equally sucky (potholes and fill), people drive too fast, and outside of ann arbor, there are virtually no alternative transit options.....i used to think nothing of driving 50 minutes just to go to the "cool" record stores in royal oak and now i freak out when im in traffic for more then 30 minutes here in portland.

Thank you pdxtex. Detroit traffic is horrific. The streets tend to curve (Beaubien) or suddenly turn into one way streets without any warning. They're also very small in general.

Originally Posted by Cleveland Brown

Well, if you kept your slow ass out of the left lane then you wouldn't have a problem . In Michigan speed limits are de facto "minimum limits" except in really bad weather.

Here here! The Michigan speed limit always equals Posted Speed Limit +10. I've even cut in front of police officers speeding and haven't been pulled over unless I was at the +20mph level.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Metro Detroit commuting is great. Traffic generally moves, even on the most congested corridors. Drivers tend to be much more courteous than in other cities.

... No. See above. I'm not in a position to compare to other cities, but Metro Detroit traffic is just plain bad. Every corridor is a congested corridor, and if there's even the slightest chance of rain or snow, Detroit drivers are suddenly incapable of driving above 20 mph. It isn't until you finally get away from Detroit that you can pull up to the limit.

Originally Posted by pdxtex

what shocked me about the article was the fact that the girl commuting into detroit for work was spending nearly 500 dollars in a gas a month. i don't know about you guys, but i don't have an extra 500 bucks a month to spend on gas. i do drive, but i probably spend 20 bucks max on gas per week. once gas hits 5 dollars a gallon, i think people will start to dramatically reassess their consumption habits.

We don't have options here. There is no public transit. Although I do think it's stupid to drive that long for that much... I'd simply move closer to work, that's definitely an affordable option here in MI.

[Crawford]

^
I honestly don't know what you are talking about. In what other major American metro (5 million+) are there almost no traffic jams at the height of rush hour?

During the morning rush I can drive 20 miles from my mom's house in Bloomfield Township to downtown detroit in about 35 minutes, 40 minutes at most. The only times there are traffic jams is if there is a major accident, major construction or a big event. Most of time traffic flies, even on big arteries like I-75, I-696 and Telegraph.

Here in the NYC area, a 20 mile rush hour journey down a major freeway would take three times as long (maybe more), and would be much more nerve-racking. Bridge and tunnel crossings into Manhattan have routine one-hour delays. This happens every workday, and frequently occurs on weekends. I have found LA, SF, DC, Boston and Miami to be pretty much the same. Chicago is better but nothing like Detroit.

Even more ridiculous is your comment about metro Detroit having "narrow streets". What city on earth has wider streets? Maybe Houston, Dallas and Atlanta, that's about it. Woodward, supposedly Detroit's urban corridor, is an 8-lane highway for most of its route. Telegraph is enormous. Grand River, Michigan, Gratiot, Fort and Jefferson are all huge. The mile roads are almsot all wide. The Jeffries is one of the widest highways I have ever seen.

[ginsan2]

Originally Posted by Crawford

^
I honestly don't know what you are talking about. In what other major American metro (5 million+) are there almost no traffic jams at the height of rush hour?

During the morning rush I can drive 20 miles from my mom's house in Bloomfield Township to downtown detroit in about 35 minutes, 40 minutes at most. The only times there are traffic jams is if there is a major accident, major construction or a big event. Most of time traffic flies, even on big arteries like I-75, I-696 and Telegraph.

Even more ridiculous is your comment about metro Detroit having "narrow streets". What city on earth has wider streets? Maybe Houston, Dallas and Atlanta, that's about it. Woodward, supposedly Detroit's urban corridor, is an 8-lane highway for most of its route. Telegraph is enormous. Grand River, Michigan, Gratiot, Fort and Jefferson are all huge. The mile roads are almsot all wide. The Jeffries is one of the widest highways I have ever seen.

Telegraph does not run anywhere near downtown Detroit. Michigan is anything but huge, I have no idea where you get that impression (Since when are two lanes considered "Huge"?) Gratiot is four lanes but that quickly narrows down, is only 35mph and has a billion lights (none of which are timed with one another).

Good for you. I sit in traffic in Detroit every single morning and evening on multiple freeways, so clearly I must not be driving in the same city named "Detroit". Because in this Detroit, the one here in southeast Michigan, traffic comes quickly to a stop in rushour.

Just as an aside, I live in Dearborn, literally on Telegraph, and it still takes me an hour now to get downtown.

[LivingIn622]

The bad traffic is downtown Detroit while construction is going on, and I'm not talking about roads. Random streets will just be closed and a construction sign just sitting there. That's Greektown's construction mayhem. But Metro Detroit and up into downtown on the main drag is fine. It's the downtown side streets that piss me off.

[ginsan2]

Originally Posted by LivingIn622

The bad traffic is downtown Detroit while construction is going on, and I'm not talking about roads. Random streets will just be closed and a construction sign just sitting there. That's Greektown's construction mayhem. But Metro Detroit and up into downtown on the main drag is fine. It's the downtown side streets that piss me off.

Hear hear! Michi said almost the exact same thing in the other thread, and I agree. Why is that entire lane in Greektown on Beaubien shut down? There's nothing happening.

What I don't get is how such a large city doesn't have any kind of mass transit throughout the metropolitan area. In most cities of that size, even in North America, there's at least some kind of park and ride commuter rail. I'm sure that could save time.

[ginsan2]

Originally Posted by Cambridgite

What I don't get is how such a large city doesn't have any kind of mass transit throughout the metropolitan area. In most cities of that size, even in North America, there's at least some kind of park and ride commuter rail. I'm sure that could save time.

See, along with the jobs, industry, and white flight that caused Detroit's complete economic collapse during the past three decades (where have you been?) mass transit was sort of not on the list of things to fix at the time. Which makes sense, considering that, you know, Detroit was the automotive capital of the world for quite some time.

The Big Three put just the slightest crimp in mass transit.