zlacker

> If your goal is to eat at a very specific restaurant, 4 miles away, this would take you less than 10 minutes by car, but could easily be 30 to 40 no car, with at least one transfer.

Just tried this out in my city, 6km away to a random point in a dense-ish environment (ie. not out in the suburbs):

* 19 minutes by bike

* 22 minutes by train

* 22 minutes by car

Note that this is a completely unfair comparison. The bike can likely be parked right outside, with the train walking is factored in. For the car this assumes there's parking near where I am, near the destination and that it takes no time at all to find a spot.

The only way to achieve the comparison you've made is to build exactly the kind of car-centric environment being criticized here. Bulldoze the neighboring stores to build car parks. Bulldoze entire neighborhoods to build urban freeways. Rip up tram and train tracks. Defund public transportation. The end result is that maybe your very specific restaurant only takes 10 minutes to get to, but the nearest 30 restauraunts are in a 4 mile radius rather than within walkable distance.

>>ben-sc+(OP)
>The only way to achieve the comparison you've made is to build exactly the kind of car-centric environment being criticized here.

Or simply live 10 minutes walking from the nearest subway station? The issue is you need to have both sides of the trip essentially on top of a public transit station. Even the cities with great public transit systems will have plenty of areas where the closest station is half a mile away.

>>Apollo+UM
The route I picked included ~12 minutes of walking for the train ride. It would likely take around the same mount if not more walking to use a car park.