In a really big and busy city it's emotionally exhausting and not reasonable to have an interaction with everyone near you. The only way a lot of people can tolerate being packed into busy public transit systems on a daily basis is to intentionally ignore each other to a certain degree.
It's essentially the same unspoken etiquette rule as what you're socially expected to do if riding a crowded elevator.
Go commute by NYC subway 10 times a week, M-F especially during peak tourist season and you'll understand.
I intentionally behave completely different if I'm in a small town of 3000 people or walking down the street, shopping, riding transit in a large city.
It's not. I really like public transport. It is cheap (I pay 22 euros a month unlimited), I can do something I like like reading or watching something. I don't have to worry about when my parking expires or having to return to a car. It's pretty ideal IMO.
You do have to ignore the people around yes but I don't find that a problem at all.
because it has other people on it? personally I find that sitting down and getting passively carried near to my destination is way less stressful than paying attention to the road that whole time - not to mention finding parking. You don't end up exactly at your destination, but a little bit of walking is good for you.
Assuming you live in a locale with a reasonably efficient system. I've heard some horror stories about north american public transport. Other countries tend to do much better with timetables and routes.
I've never caught a train nor a bus in my life and intend to never do so. I value my privacy and don't want to get stabbed or sit on a chair where someone has pissed all over.
Am European, at least in the big cities, public transport is mostly not worth using unless you are too poor to afford better options.
Too crowded, too hot, there’s a decent chance of arriving at your destination drenched in sweat. Not to mention how absolutely gross the people sitting next to you will often be.
I’ll happily take a few parking fines every day rather than getting in the tube.
I could afford a car and I also live in a big European city. But a car is a huge hassle here. Just trying to figure out where to park the thing every time is a huge stressor. I'm so glad I don't have to deal with that anymore. Nor the fuel, the fines, the maintenance, the insurance, the road tax, the parking fees all that stuff. I could afford it but I'd rather spend it on something I actually enjoy.
Public transport here costs a fixed fee a month for which I couldn't even top up a quarter tank.
It sounds like a dream. Well air-conditioned public transport can certainly be a wonderful experience. I was a huge fan of the MTR when living in Hong Kong.
Unfortunately those implementations are far from the norm though, but of course all of these networks are seeing gradual upgrades.
How about in European big cities where that is not the case? Prague, London, Prague, Budapest, Zurich, Madrid, Berlin, Vienna…? So many people, especially not particularly poor people, use them to commute every single week. Notoriously, for some of these cities, it is slower to travel by car for your commute.
I live in London, temperatures in excess of 30C are frequent on the Tube. If I’m going to or coming from the gym, that’s fine. Otherwise it really isn’t.
The metro in Prague is indeed good, it’s just not a big city.
Zurich also has excellent public transport, but it’s really a village at best.
Madrid has Barcelona beat, but still occasionally suffers from a lack of air conditioning frequently leading to absurd temperatures.
I also live in London and never specified underground or trains only for any of these cities. Buses also cheap and air conditioned.
Also 2-4 months at best out of the year is not a great argument for public transportation not being the better option compared to cars and parking that don’t scale.
Side note, Elizabeth, District, Circle, Hammersmith & city, and Metropolitan lines where many people work are air conditioned. So are the trains to paddington and St. Pancras from any “village” outside of the London zones. This summer especially it’s been good for me.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s a plenty of good public transport in London. I’m just of the opinion that unless you happen to live on a particularly good route, the experience is too inconsistent.
I love the trains, Gatwick express is downright brilliant.
> Also 2-4 months at best out of the year is not a great argument for public transportation not being the better option compared to cars and parking that don’t scale.
Temperatures in packed tube carriages are very high no matter the time of the year, the bodies of the passengers alone put out sufficient heat.
When the AC works, that’s fine. My experience is that it fails far more often than I’m willing to accept.
high speed trains, that can go up to about 350kmph/200mph, are the norm in Europe if you're going a long distance across France or Germany, but they're not daily public transit for most people just like flying isn't.
You've never tried it but are still convinced it's a hellhole? I took a bus and train downtown yesterday and it was a perfectly smooth experience. And at least as far as I noticed, nobody stabbed anyone or pissed in any seats.
It really depends, I would much rather travel by NYC subway or Vancouver SkyTrain or Seattle light rail if my origin and destination are within walking distance. It's the least horrible option in many cases. Good luck to anyone's stress level and pocketbook trying to commute by car in much of NYC and pay $550 a month for parking.
I have a hot take about commuting by car from the suburbs into midtown Manhattan (the densest part). The trick is time of day. If you are a gov't bond trader, it it is pretty normal to get to the office around 6AM. You can easily beat morning traffic arriving that early. Also, your day ends very early, so the return commute is also easy.
This is a classic myopic HN reply. I will be downvoted for this harsh response: You fuckin' dummy, "bond trader" was an example profession that is (1) high income and (2) needs to arrive early to work. Probably most lawyers and many medical doctors would be simliar. Also, if you own multiple pizza stores that need to get started early, the same rules would apply.
It was an intentionally myopic reply. Most jobs have fixed start times that people can't change around to avoid traffic unless you want to add an extra hour of dawdling before and after work. When someone complains about commute traffic, do you suggest they switch profession to lawyer?
There's no "trick" here. Its just a repackaged form of what literally every commuter knows that leaving early can beat traffic.
Right, I could have written that much more pessimistically with 850/mo parking, insurance, congestion charges 5 days a week x 2, cost of car insurance, maintenance, fuel, cost of the car itself, etc.
The insurance in NYC is at least twice the rest of the country and then there is the likelihood your car will be hit or stolen while you're away, meaning at the very least it will be in the shop for a while. People I know who had cars in Manhattan or Brooklyn still took the train most of the time, leaving the car in the garage.
I remember in the 70s and 80s people on buses and subways reading magazines and newspapers. The idea that electronic devices have ushered in some age where humans want to interact with each other less is a myth I think.
There seems to be an overall, “I’m just now aware of this phenomenon, technology must be to blame” when the phenomenon has stayed constant and the tech has shifted under it.
The other related phenomenon is "I dont believe culture and society can change, so I pick something I am vaguely aware of existing in the past. The people who are old enough to be there know the comparison makes no sense, but it allow me to stop the discussion about change".
Like, there was some reading of newspapers and magazines, but not that much. They were large, you know. Most people stared silently out of the window. Multiple people reading newspapers on the bus would be rare occurrence. And it was NOT noisy unlike tiktok video.
I don't think that's it. I think highly anti-social behavior is often deliberate, looking for someone to challenge you. An exertion of power. That's why pretty much everyone learns to ignore the behavior and not say anything.
If you can't or won't illustrate why the two are similar, avoid making the analogy. It just invites a fork in the conversation where people are going to argue "actually it's like a homeless guy taking a shit in my glove box," and other spurious diversions.
The point is that just because two things are used to avoid a third thing doesn't mean they're comparable when one of them is much less disruptive to those around you. There are people who don't think being forced into interactions because there didn't happen to be a way to decline without being considered rude is a better state that allowing people to opt out. Framing it as "both are examples of the same problem" is based on the (in my opinion flawed) premise that it's an objective problem in the first place rather than the previous social norm that was tilted towards extroverts now having more accomodations for those who aren't as extroverted.
