4 ms·

Given that this mostly indicates that cars are just a better product than public transit for the individual, one might hope that this would be interpreted as a

by iofj 11y ago

Given that this mostly indicates that cars are just a better product than public transit for the individual, one might hope that this would be interpreted as a challenge : can we make public transport as good as having a car ? I wonder if public transport would still be cheaper than having lots of cars if it were demanded to provide the same service : pick up anyone anywhere, including goods, and bring them to their destination, without having to change vehicles halfway. The thing for me is, even with absurd levels of traffic, my car takes me to work in ~50 minutes, 20 minutes if there's no traffic. The only public transport option would do 1.5h, and would always do 1.5h (with regular delays to 2h I might add). Furthermore, I wouldn't be able to take much more than a laptop bag on public transport, whereas with my car I can do groceries on the way home. And the only thing the government is talking about is making public transport more expensive.

nkoren 11y ago
Like http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/24/11094524/prt-transit-history-self-driving-cars-alden-starrcar-tomorrowland-1960s http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/24/11094524/prt-transit-histo...?
- iofj 11y ago
  Something like that, yes. Nice article.
jheriko 11y ago
"can we make public transport as good as having a car ?" i wish the people involved would take that challenge very seriously. :P
- JorgeGT 11y ago
  Is not only that, but a matter of incentives. Hard to try to reduce cars when +10% of your country's GDP depends on it.
justincormack 11y ago
Those times are inverted in many places, eg London and New York which have a majority of commuting on public transport. Cars are also more expensive due to congestion charges.
- yason 11y ago
  London and New York are built for people, not cars. It makes sense to use public transit where the city is dense, walkable, and well connected with transit lines. Commuting by car in London is lunacy whereas in Bay Area it's the only sensible thing to do.
  - enjo 11y ago
    "whereas in Bay Area it's the only sensible thing to do." Which is a failure of policy in the Bay Area.
    - nikanj 11y ago
      To be fair, the Bay has much worse weather than London or New York. Of course people want to remain within their cars. /s
  - ars 11y ago
    > London and New York are built for people And people drive cars. So all cities are built for people. (Or did you think the cars drove around for fun on their own?) The actual difference is they are simply very large cities. So they can afford transit that would be impossible in smaller cities. You can not replicate what they do in other cities that are not as large (large measured in population density mainly). There is nothing unique about their design other than being large. They have the same level of roads as any other city. (And personally I have zero desire to walk anywhere, and I hate living in dense crowded cities. So I avoid living in - or even going to - cities that promote either of those things.)
    - icebraining 11y ago
      The article is about "highly urbanized areas", though, with the analysis being focused on D.C., Miami, Seattle, San Francisco, and New York.
tuukkah 11y ago
What you describe is close to what Split provides in D.C.: http://split.us/ http://split.us/
HeyLaughingBoy 11y ago
In some cases it does. I commute into the city from a rural area. I drive my car ~20 min to a large parking lot and take an express bus that gets me there in about 30 minutes consistently. In really bad weather it may take 45 min to an hour. However, driving would consistently take 1 - 1.5 hours with no traffic. I know people who have to take a similar route and take 3 hours to drive home if there's a snowstorm. Since I drive to the bus stop, I have my car available to get groceries, etc. And my employer picks up the tab for the monthly bus pass (they would also subsidize parking if I drove). Seriously, the only drawback is that I have to be at the bus stop by a particular time since the buses don't run all day.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Why is the bus faster than driving, if traffic isn't a factor?
  - cr1895 11y ago
    Bus-only lanes?
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Why would that matter if there's no traffic in other lanes?
      - moftz 11y ago
        In Northern Virginia during weekday mornings, I-66 into Washington DC is HOV-2 only within the beltway. You can also take the Orange line on the Metro which follows 66. They are thinking about making it HOV-3 soon. If you don't carpool, you have to get off 66 before the beltway and take a longer route on roads with thicker traffic or take the metro which takes a bit longer. Parking in DC is an absolute nightmare unless you have a spot in a garage and those can cost $20+/day unless your employer pays for it.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 11y ago
unsignedint 11y ago
On the same boat. I actually don't like driving, if I don't have to. I don't like trying to find places to park even more than driving it. I actually would be inclined to pay more if that would make the system better, but I don't have much faith in that. In fact, it's probably in a negative feedback loop. I don't understand why the bus system around here, even doesn't have a line that directly connects transit centers in the region, that would solve A LOT of problems. (I'm living in Eastside, across the lake from Seattle.) I don't mind walking to the bus stop (that's probably good for me, anyways) but if I have to spend 2 hours commuting by public transit, as opposed to 15 in a car, that would be 3.5 hours wasted each day!
lmm 11y ago
In a city that was built for the car, where every business and every housing development builds road access, the car will always have the advantage. If the city started narrowing roads and selling off the land for development, just think how much money that would be worth. If road and rail got the same amount of public land devoted to them I'm pretty sure public transport would win.
victorhooi 11y ago
The thing is, cars are heavily subsidised, more than people realise. For one, there are heavy negative externalities associated with cars. Governments choose to ignore those - and hence are in essence subsidising car users for free. If drivers actually had to pay the full cost of cars in terms of environment and health impact, they would be up in arms. And of course there is infrastructure - car owners don't even cover a fraction of the actual cost of this - it all comes from general taxation. So yes, we as a society have chosen to heavily subsidise car use, possibly for cultural or emotional reasons. But ultimately, the piper will have to be paid. That's why I think we should all do our part to, as you say, encourage public transport use - and more walking/cycling. My dream is that car usage might actually one day be charged at its true cost, instead of asking society to foot it's bill - but I think that's a long way off.
- spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
  Err how so? Would you actuality like to give us some examples of subsidy.
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  yes and no - roads are such a critical piece of infrastructure, no state can 100% function without them. Government uses them, military too, and vast amount of business is done via them. we all pay for it, and we all indirectly use it (how do you get groceries to your shop for example?), and most of us directly too.

by iofj 11y ago

nkoren 11y ago

Like http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/24/11094524/prt-transit-history-self-driving-cars-alden-starrcar-tomorrowland-1960s http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/24/11094524/prt-transit-histo...?

iofj 11y ago
Something like that, yes. Nice article.

jheriko 11y ago

"can we make public transport as good as having a car ?" i wish the people involved would take that challenge very seriously. :P

JorgeGT 11y ago
Is not only that, but a matter of incentives. Hard to try to reduce cars when +10% of your country's GDP depends on it.

justincormack 11y ago

Those times are inverted in many places, eg London and New York which have a majority of commuting on public transport. Cars are also more expensive due to congestion charges.

yason 11y ago
London and New York are built for people, not cars. It makes sense to use public transit where the city is dense, walkable, and well connected with transit lines. Commuting by car in London is lunacy whereas in Bay Area it's the only sensible thing to do.
- enjo 11y ago
  "whereas in Bay Area it's the only sensible thing to do." Which is a failure of policy in the Bay Area.
  - nikanj 11y ago
    To be fair, the Bay has much worse weather than London or New York. Of course people want to remain within their cars. /s
- ars 11y ago
  > London and New York are built for people And people drive cars. So all cities are built for people. (Or did you think the cars drove around for fun on their own?) The actual difference is they are simply very large cities. So they can afford transit that would be impossible in smaller cities. You can not replicate what they do in other cities that are not as large (large measured in population density mainly). There is nothing unique about their design other than being large. They have the same level of roads as any other city. (And personally I have zero desire to walk anywhere, and I hate living in dense crowded cities. So I avoid living in - or even going to - cities that promote either of those things.)
  - icebraining 11y ago
    The article is about "highly urbanized areas", though, with the analysis being focused on D.C., Miami, Seattle, San Francisco, and New York.

tuukkah 11y ago

What you describe is close to what Split provides in D.C.: http://split.us/ http://split.us/

HeyLaughingBoy 11y ago

In some cases it does. I commute into the city from a rural area. I drive my car ~20 min to a large parking lot and take an express bus that gets me there in about 30 minutes consistently. In really bad weather it may take 45 min to an hour. However, driving would consistently take 1 - 1.5 hours with no traffic. I know people who have to take a similar route and take 3 hours to drive home if there's a snowstorm. Since I drive to the bus stop, I have my car available to get groceries, etc. And my employer picks up the tab for the monthly bus pass (they would also subsidize parking if I drove). Seriously, the only drawback is that I have to be at the bus stop by a particular time since the buses don't run all day.

icebraining 11y ago
Why is the bus faster than driving, if traffic isn't a factor?
- cr1895 11y ago
  Bus-only lanes?
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Why would that matter if there's no traffic in other lanes?
    - moftz 11y ago
      In Northern Virginia during weekday mornings, I-66 into Washington DC is HOV-2 only within the beltway. You can also take the Orange line on the Metro which follows 66. They are thinking about making it HOV-3 soon. If you don't carpool, you have to get off 66 before the beltway and take a longer route on roads with thicker traffic or take the metro which takes a bit longer. Parking in DC is an absolute nightmare unless you have a spot in a garage and those can cost $20+/day unless your employer pays for it.
- HeyLaughingBoy 11y ago

unsignedint 11y ago

On the same boat. I actually don't like driving, if I don't have to. I don't like trying to find places to park even more than driving it. I actually would be inclined to pay more if that would make the system better, but I don't have much faith in that. In fact, it's probably in a negative feedback loop. I don't understand why the bus system around here, even doesn't have a line that directly connects transit centers in the region, that would solve A LOT of problems. (I'm living in Eastside, across the lake from Seattle.) I don't mind walking to the bus stop (that's probably good for me, anyways) but if I have to spend 2 hours commuting by public transit, as opposed to 15 in a car, that would be 3.5 hours wasted each day!

lmm 11y ago

In a city that was built for the car, where every business and every housing development builds road access, the car will always have the advantage. If the city started narrowing roads and selling off the land for development, just think how much money that would be worth. If road and rail got the same amount of public land devoted to them I'm pretty sure public transport would win.

victorhooi 11y ago

The thing is, cars are heavily subsidised, more than people realise. For one, there are heavy negative externalities associated with cars. Governments choose to ignore those - and hence are in essence subsidising car users for free. If drivers actually had to pay the full cost of cars in terms of environment and health impact, they would be up in arms. And of course there is infrastructure - car owners don't even cover a fraction of the actual cost of this - it all comes from general taxation. So yes, we as a society have chosen to heavily subsidise car use, possibly for cultural or emotional reasons. But ultimately, the piper will have to be paid. That's why I think we should all do our part to, as you say, encourage public transport use - and more walking/cycling. My dream is that car usage might actually one day be charged at its true cost, instead of asking society to foot it's bill - but I think that's a long way off.

spacecowboy_lon 11y ago
Err how so? Would you actuality like to give us some examples of subsidy.
saiya-jin 11y ago
yes and no - roads are such a critical piece of infrastructure, no state can 100% function without them. Government uses them, military too, and vast amount of business is done via them. we all pay for it, and we all indirectly use it (how do you get groceries to your shop for example?), and most of us directly too.