Originally Posted by
Roody
There was a major study of transit in several American cities. In all of the cities, transit coverage for residences was pretty good. But coverage for places of employment was much worse. In other words, you can't get to work on the bus, but you can get home.
Evidently, coverage quality of local transit companies is evaluated based on coverage of peoples' homes exclusively. My area, for example, has bus stops within two blocks of more than 90% of residential units, which is pretty good. But data on coverage for work sites isn't even gathered.
When I started my job, I didn't have a bike. But I knew there would be traffic issues, so I investigated taking transit. Well to take transit the whole way would mean three agencies, at a cost of about $10-11 each way. So I said, um, no thanks. That is way too expensive and too risky. I had two options for the last 4 miles: a train that ran erratically plus a 10 minute walk or a 30 minute bus ride on a bus with 15 minute headways that stops in front of my building. One of my coworkers (who doesn't have a car) lives in a different location, but a similar distance. She carpools if she is lucky or takes transit. Between the 45 minute bus ride she needs to get to the train, and a train that runs once an our after about 9:20a, she often works from home because she missed the train, or ends up being pretty late. That was way too unpredictable. (The bike commute is actually predictable for me, I can bike to my train, the train is at 15 minute or less frequencies, with a predictable 30 minute bike ride to the office.)
But at least my location does have OK transit if you are originating at the right point. 3 jobs ago I worked somewhere transit impossible. And realized I really hate working in office park land.
Here in the Bay Area, most job centers are less than 3 miles from the train of some form, but last mile transit is iffy.