Image transcript:

Calvin (from Calvin & Hobbes) sitting at a lemonade stand, smiling, with a sign that reads, “Trains and micromobility are inevitably the future of urban transportation, whether society wants it or not. CHANGE MY MIND.”

  • Blimp7990@reddthat.comEnglish
    2·
    2 years ago

    Same here. Trains are only cost effective in the SF area only if you don’t own a car. If you have a car, even traveling alone, almost every trip is cheaper even with $5 gasoline. For me I’d have to hit about $8/gal and pretend my time is free to have parity with a train. If I could not own a car, I would, but I don’t hate myself that much. And since I have a car, I only use public transit within the SF core (mission->north beach range)…which is funny because more often than not I just walk to my destination since SF is so fucking tiny.

    • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      2 years ago

      Last time I drove from Berkeley to downtown Sam Francisco it took me almost two hours. Would have been much shorter by BART.

      • Blimp7990@reddthat.comEnglish
        2·
        2 years ago
        1. given the talk of expensive trains, a resident would infer i live on the peninsula. bart is awful but not that pricy.
        2. Berkeley is part of the core urban area on the other side, although as long as you don’t want to cross the bridge I’d argue east bay’s public transit has almost no value given the ubiquity of parking and abundance of freeways.
        3. I tried transit up to berkeley once and it took 2 hours, so now i drive and my worst case time frame is 55 minutes. Bridge costs make it roughly the same as transit but at least twice as fast.

        no shit about the bay bridge, though. I’ve not driven across that hellhole since 2018.