Decisions of how to get from one place to another aren't made in a vacuum.

I have a ranked stack of priorities for how I get around, depending on what Google Maps initially estimates. And to a lesser extent, having to switch between different modes of transport. My rules of thumb:

• If biking is close to walking, I'll probably walk.
• If public transit is close to biking, I'll probably bike.
• If driving is close to public transit, I'll probably take the bus.

The key is in being close in the ratio. Walking, biking, and being driven around (busses or ubers alike) are more relaxing than driving. There's more of a vibe to them when they're under favorable circumstances. Only when one form of transit is about 2x longer than another will I step up to the next faster form of transport. Or just drive myself.

When public transit works, it adjusts this ratio favorably. It's usually faster to take the subway in New York than to hail a car. Minimally, it's more consistent. Traffic varies a ton depending on the time of the day. It's yet another risk you run when you drive yourself.

When public transit doesn't work, it adjusts this ratio unfavorably. It takes 2x as long to get somewhere because of the quantity of local stops. Or it's less consistent: busses sometimes arrive and sometimes don't.

If they want to increase ridership, cities should focus on routes that are competitive (or beat) driving.