>>998377

BUSES:

Pro
>Has any of the same advantages as private automobiles.
>But passengers can just chill out while somebody else has the stress of dealing with the road and its many idiot users.
>But can also carry lots of people.
>Route modification is easy.
>Cheap compared to trains.

Con
>As with any mode of public transit, the quality of service is entirely dependant on the quality of the service provider.
>Hard to carry anything larger than a backpack.

TRAINS:

Pro
>Can carry even more people than buses.
>Can go fast.
>But passengers can just chill out while somebody else has the stress of dealing with the rails.

Con
>As with any mode of public transit, the quality of service is entirely dependant on the quality of the service provider.
>Restricted to rail lines and rail stations, expensive to expand.
>Expensive compared to buses.
>Hard to carry anything larger than a backpack.

AIRPLANES:

Pro
>Like a butterfly, can go ANYWHERE.
>Are safer than most other modes of transportation.
>Can go REALLY, REALLY, REALLY FAST.
>But passengers can just chill out while somebody else has the stress of dealing with the sky and its many dangers.

Con
>Is really expensive.
>Can be uncomfortable.
>If you crash, you will die.
>Take-offs and landing restricted to airports.
>Good only for inter-urban transportation.

This is just off the top of my head. Got any suggestions or improvements?

>>998377
>Bicycles
>Can be expensive compared to walking.
>Bike thief is common and easy
Is it really a con if it can be so easily mitigated? You can pick up incredibly cheap bikes that are still much faster than walking and not such a big deal if they get stolen, being so cheap they're less likely to be stolen, and a decent lock isn't expensive and makes the bike even less likely to be stolen.

>Either you will be putting your life on line by riding on the streets with 4,079 pound death machines or keep to your little cycle paths. Which can often be rare, especially in Get-shot-sylvania.
That depends entirely on where you live and is not an inherent problem with bicycles.

>>998382
>Is it really a con if it can be so easily mitigated? You can pick up incredibly cheap bikes that are still much faster than walking and not such a big deal if they get stolen, being so cheap they're less likely to be stolen, and a decent lock isn't expensive and makes the bike even less likely to be stolen.

Even with the cheapest BSO and shoes from Walmart, you'll still have spend at least 100 bucks more for cycling than walking (per year; that cheap shit will fall apart fast).

>That depends entirely on where you live and is not an inherent problem with bicycles.

I think it indicates that bicycles, unlike buses (or motorcycles perhaps) cannot really share the road with cars as a mode of transportation effectively. People don't safe on them. Only by providing them with their own infrastructure, with varying degrees of separation from the road and often shared with pedestrians, will allow people to use them in any great numbers.

That in turn, makes them more like trains and their tracks, in a lose sense. That infrastructure cost some extra money, which could be placed as a con for bicycles.

>>998382
If you wanna go down that 'it depends' line, this thread is pointless.
NJ buses are absolute shit. There is not a single person who actually knows how to read the schedule. But, I'm not about to discount buses entirely because it sucks here.

>>998525
>If you wanna go down that 'it depends' line, this thread is pointless.
Not really, we just stick to talking about inherent pros and cons instead of personal experiences that can vary based on location. For example saying buses are bad because they're always late is pointless, saying they're bad because they're fixed to specific routes isn't.

File: TRAINS.jpg (59KB, 500x373px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 500x373px

BIKES ARE FOR FAGS

CARS ARE FOR FAGS WITH SMALL DICKS

TRAINS ARE FOR SUPERIOR NON-DEGENERATE ARYAN ÜBERMENSCH

>>998531
Oh, my bad. Thought that anon was saying something else.

>saying they're bad because they're fixed to specific routes
I'll say this; I think buses are THE most unfriendly form of public transport when it comes to newbies.
Maybe it's different in other states, but here, if there is no one wanting to get on or off, that stop gets skipped, and because there are so many stops, and not every one is getting it, it makes it hard to count stops and follow the map in the way you could on a train that has to stop regardless. (And stops are less obvious, only indicated by a ten inch sign on a six or seven foot pole.)

On the rare occasion I take a bus, I always feel like a panicky retard.

>>998565
It's the same here in England, buses don't stop unless they have to. In fact they usually won't stop unless you specifically put your hand out to signal that you want to get on, otherwise they assume you're waiting for a different bus (we have multiple different routes that go through some of the same stops). It's actually a good idea as it significantly cuts down on journey time and traffic.

I can only see it being an issue if you're going somewhere you've never been before so you don't know when your stop is coming up.

>>998568
Exactly, which is why I said newbie.
I'll make an exception for Greyhound, though. That shit's simple as pie and generally goes smooth as fuck.

>>998571
>I'll make an exception for Greyhound, though. That shit's simple as pie and generally goes smooth as fuck.

But they are intra-urban, so there are fewer stops in between in beginning and end of the bus trip.

File: damn.png (335KB, 625x436px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 625x436px

>>998807
I know, it's fucking glorious. You barely have to pay attention.
I like to eat brownies right before a long bus ride, so much fun.

>>998565
If you spend enough time with any bus system, you figure it out (or at least, mostly do).