Because public transit, done well, is the fastest way to move around. It gets you everywhere, even to places personal vehicles can't reach. It's a lot cheaper. It generates hubs of activity that keep cities lively and relevant. It doesn't get stuck in traffic. It doesn't need to be parked.
The benefits of good public transport are so mind blowing that it's difficult to explain unless you have lived on a city that has it.
Key words: "done well" and "good public transport".
Whenever I see discussions like this, I always feel the standards that most public transportation advocates consider "good" or even "acceptable" are far lower than mine.
Mine - Seoul, Tokyo, other East Asian cities.
Most public transportation advocates - Maybe NYC, many even lower.
Factors - reliability, cleanliness (both cars and stations), reach, safety (both actual and perceived, and both violent and non-violent).
Give me the Seoul or Tokyo subway and I'll gladly ditch my car (actually...no, but I'd only use it for excursions outside the city).
Hmm I disagree. I lived in Madrid. In fact in one of those cities that this article mentions from the new subway construction. Subway takes 1h15min to reach the city center. Car only takes 30 minutes.
This is because when you are building a subway every one wants their station. The map above may look like straight lines, but if you look at the real map, the north of line 10 is not straight at all, it's more zig zag.
We are trying to make transportation work for everyone and we end up with transportation that works for no one.
Also, the subway closes at midnight, and by Spanish standards, that's early. I was stranded twice (because different stations close at different times) until i decided that I would never take public transport in Madrid again
I also lived in Madrid. 1h15 means you were not in Madrid, but in one of the surrounding towns. 30 minutes in a car is enough to get from any point in Madrid to any other (assuming clear traffic).
It's obvious that people outside of the areas where transport is dense enough won't enjoy all the benefits. This is a usual complain about all dense public transport areas, but it simplifies to the fact that you were not in the area with dense coverage. In the case of Madrid, Metro is only dense enough in areas surrounded by the Circular line. There's also a very dense bus network that covers everywhere within M-40 and even some areas outside it (some bus lines can be hindered by traffic though, there are bus lanes in most critical spots but there's always some unpredictability).
Also, you're wrong on the closing time, it's been 1:30 AM for a long long time. That's the time where the last train departs on each line, so it's possible to catch trains at almost 2 AM depending on where you are. By Madrid standards, if you are out and about at 1 AM it means you are in a bar or in a party, and it's time to decide whether to continue through the night and get back when Metro opens again at 6 AM, to use a taxi to get back home, or to use the night bus network if you're lucky to be near a stop and willing to wait for it.
> Car only takes 30 minutes
That is not rush hour time, though.
Oh yeah, I'm talking about recreationally. I would never accept a job offer that requires a commute to the city.
100% agree that commuting to work in public transport is way better
I work in NYC but live in the inner suburbs, as does most of my social circle.
For most of us, when it comes to commuting for work, it's always public transportation.
But when it comes to going into the city for leisure, it's always the car.
It takes 30 minutes to reach my workplace by bike, or alternatively 50 minutes by public transport.