[thethethethe]

Change the time to rush hour in Tokyo on Google maps and the commute is the same. Cars are great if there is no traffic and you can park, which is something we can't just engineer ourselves out of without supporting other modes of transit.

> 17 mins by car, 26 mins by transit (though walking is faster than transit and biking is faster than car, apparently you cannot drive through the city, very progressive).

Walking is almost as fast as driving and biking is faster? Not sure how this proves your point, sounds like it is working as intended

[pandaman]

My point is that transit is never faster than car, obviously if you close the streets to vehicles you can make places reachable only by foot. You can as well ban bicycles and biking won't be faster than anything. That is also the easiest way to fix a the daily HN thread about cars being too big and scaring cyclists:)

[thethethethe]

> My point is that transit is never faster than car, obviously if you close the streets to vehicles you can make places reachable only by foot.

This just isn't true, everything breaks down and driving becomes much slower during rush hour due to inherent limitations of, you guessed it, physics.

See my other comment about my rush hour bus commute in Portland, the bus was faster than driving because of dedicated bus lanes. Driving is only fast if there isn't traffic AND there is ample parking close to your destination.

[TheCoelacanth]

That is obviously not true. Try driving through central London or central New York during rush hour. Subway will be much faster. Jogging will be faster for a moderately fit person.

Siena bans traffic out of necessity, not just on a whim. There simply isn't space for cars.