10 ms·

Public transit works best for young healthy people. If you have kids or move a little slowly due to health or old age, public transit is a straight up no-go. An

by jbob2000 10y ago

Public transit works best for young healthy people. If you have kids or move a little slowly due to health or old age, public transit is a straight up no-go. And certain jobs necessitate a car. You won't convince a salesman to carry a projector, screen, and a box of pamphlets on the bus and train. And this says nothing of "comfort", which along with Time, is a rare commodity for working people. I'm not sitting on a rough seat crammed next to 5 other people for 2 hours. I'll take my car, with its 8-way adjustable seat, climate control and cup holders, thank-you-very-much. I'd rather sit and wait in traffic in my car than stand outside in the rain or snow waiting for a bus. And on top of that, transit for me would be about $400/month. A car lease, insurance, and gas per month would be about $600. I will happily pay $200 more per month for the massively increased mobility and comfort that a car provides. The value proposition for public transit really sucks.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jkern 10y ago
I think the point is that improving public transit would actually make the commute shorter. If public transit takes around the same amount of time as driving I'm sure lots more people would use it. I'm coming from Boston where we have a solid subway system and I massively prefer using that over driving.
hfourm 10y ago
It sounds a lot of what you are complaining about could be solved by "better public transportation", as the OP was commenting about.
aboodman 10y ago
I take my 2 year old daughter to preschool every day on mass transit in SF. And everyday I see a handful of parents in my bus doing the same. Some even have two kids. Why do you say mass transit is a non starter for kids? She loves it and I love the time with her and not worrying about parking, accidents, etc.
sethhochberg 10y ago
The point is to provide options - sure, if your job requires a car/truck you're obviously not going to use public transit. If you're in poor physical health, you probably can't take standard public transit - though accessibility options often exist. If you travel with kids often you might be less inclined to take transit (though plenty of people with kids do anyways). But if you're one of the hundreds of thousands of other people in a major metro who don't fall into those categories, you'd probably appreciate the option to not have to obtain a personal vehicle or use it exclusively for your commute, errands, a night on the town, etc.... and the best part is that for all the remaining people who do drive, every person who takes transit is one less person contributing to traffic congestion! Transit options benefit everyone. Your comment reads like you don't support transit options because they don't suit your particular tastes - I suggest you instead consider advocating for transit to make life better for both yourself and your community, regardless of whether you personally use transit or not.
- closeparen 10y ago
  Options are great. However, many on HN take the stance that we should push people to public transit by eliminating parking and closing (some) streets to vehicle traffic because density leads to bus routes and bicycles are intimidated by cars. That's not an option so much as a mandatory shift. I'd be fine making that shift if the public transit deployed today were actually good enough to be a like-for-like replacement of car ownership. It isn't unless you live in very expensive conveniently located neighborhoods.
  - pm24601 10y ago
    Society should STOP accommodate individual lifestyle choices that are not in society's best interest. You say: > should push people to public transit by eliminating parking and closing (some) streets to vehicle traffic because density leads to bus routes and bicycles are intimidated by cars. That's not an option so much as a mandatory shift I say society should stop giving away publicly owned real estate to the narrow segment of people who want to make driving their lifestyle choice. I would prefer that the parking lots be replaced with something more economically valuable. For example, 1. stores 2. apartments 3. office space. Take a look at Louisville's "award winning" parking crater: http://brokensidewalk.com/2016/parking-crater/?utm_content=buffer5a5a5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer http://brokensidewalk.com/2016/parking-crater/?utm_content=b... What is the economic value of so much real estate devoted to machine storage? --- < $0 ( because it takes away from the economic value of surrounding businesses ) If someone wants to drive then they can pay for the privilege. In the meantime, the rest of society should spend the money saved to make the automobile a museum curiosity.
CalRobert 10y ago
Cars also work better for healthy people than unhealthy people. My grandmother lost her license a while ago as her vision and reaction times (and, perhaps, judgment) faded. She might have benefited from access to strong public transport. As it is, her beautiful home in a lovely spot became something of a trap as it was too far from any amenities to be walkable.
CaptSpify 10y ago
This is always so weird to me. These problems have already been pretty much solved in other countries, but the US always thinks it's a special snowflake. Public transport works pretty well for non-young healthy people in other countries.
- Analemma_ 10y ago
  This pattern is sadly typical of our political discourse. "I know that {socialized health care, gun bans, public transit, labor rights, paid pregnancy leave} work great in every other first-world country, but it Can't Work Here, because Reasons".
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    Completely agreed. I wonder why so much of our political discourse is against using proven results?
  - Tiktaalik 10y ago
    Amsterdam and other cities in the Netherlands are the some of the best examples of this. People look at the massive portion that bicycles take up in their split of transportation modes and think that it could never happen in their country or city for all sorts of reasons because Amsterdam is special and the Dutch are unique and special. However if you can easily find pictures of Amsterdam in the 1970s where the streets look just as crammed with cars as any other city of that time. What happened is that people decided this wasn't working at all and they simply made a choice and they made a change to their spending priorities. Anyone can do this. All that is needed is the political will to make it a priority.
    - Mekkanox 10y ago
      Regarding commuting via bicycle: it's not necessarily a problem with traffic, as more with weather. Also it's wrong to compare a single city, Amsterdam, with a bunch of American cities because of drastically different weather patterns in those cities. Amsterdam has average temps (in F) from the mid 30's to the mid 60's[0]. That's prime bike weather. That's pretty much in line with San Francisco, which is a good city for biking. Even Manhattan and Brooklyn have reasonably overall pleasant weather for biking. But compare SF to somewhere like Washington, DC, or Austin, TX. For 3-4 months of the year, DC feels like a swamp. Same with Austin. It's much more preferable to use public transit or drive than bike in that weather. [0]http://www.holiday-weather.com/amsterdam/averages/ http://www.holiday-weather.com/amsterdam/averages/
diet_dr_pepper 10y ago
I live in NYC and commute via subway everyday, and I can assure you there are plenty of elderly people and parents with small children using it.
saiya-jin 10y ago
ever been to europe? we've solved this in most big places, public transport is faster way to travel in any city centre, cheaper too (for daily commuters). sure, by principle it can't solve issue for people like you describe, but for 80-90% it does. this would make roads much less clogged so those who really need (and pay for it) should go on their own. it's very real added value that helps environment, increases happiness, cuts times and so on. what (local) government should do is to motivate people/orgs with some monetary subsidies.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jacobolus 10y ago
> Public transit works best for young healthy people. If you have kids or move a little slowly due to health or old age, public transit is a straight up no-go. Is this a joke? Car travel works for healthy people who are ~20–60 years old with a stable income. For everyone else – children, teenagers, elderly people, the disabled, the poor, etc. – cars are terrible. The lack of other transportation options is perhaps the biggest reason that living in car-centric suburbs is hell for teenagers; they end up entirely dependent. Go take a bus in a city and you’ll see a huge variety of people riding.
sampo 10y ago
> Public transit works best for young healthy people. If you have kids or move a little slowly due to health or old age, public transit is a straight up no-go. Do you seriously think every old person in e.g. New York City owns a car to get around? Have you ever been to New York City?
galdosdi 10y ago
I don't blame you but this is a classic attitude from someone who has never experienced good transit, so assumes transit always sucks (and weirdly, then concludes we should not try to improve transit). This is like saying hamburgers are bad when you've only ever eaten them at McDonald's (and then mocking your friend who's trying to show you how to make a delicious hamburger from scratch by grinding up good cuts of meat). > You won't convince a salesman to carry a projector, screen, and a box of pamphlets on the bus and train. This would not be strange in Manhattan. You couldn't convince the salesman to waste his Time, which is a rare commodity for working people as you say, driving a car which would be slower than taking the subway. > I'd rather sit and wait in traffic in my car than stand outside in the rain or snow waiting for a bus. Subways avoid this problem. They're also expensive, but there's easier solutions -- bus and outdoor train shelters (which obviously protect from rain/snow) are sometimes heated in the northeast for this reason too. Also, dealing with rain/snow is pretty easy and pleasant if you just dress right. The prevalance of cars in this country means many people never learn to dress right because they can get away with never spending more than 60 seconds outside, the brief space between the car and the building door. > And on top of that, transit for me would be about $400/month. Here it's $100 a month. > I'm not sitting on a rough seat crammed next to 5 other people for 2 hours. A lot of people find dealing with repetitive constant stop and go traffic but having a comfy seat to be a crappy tradeoff compared to having less space but freeing your mind to read, doze, whatever. There are crowded an uncrowded systems and lines. Go try some good transit, then tell me what you think.
- tropo 10y ago
  Age, gender, disability, and political outlook all affect your perception of safety. This in turn determines if "freeing your mind to read, doze, whatever" is possible, or if instead you keep a very firm grip on your belongings while eyeing every other passenger with suspicion. Lots of people simply don't feel safe in crowds or without a door they can lock.
  - Anasufovic 10y ago
    I can imagine this is true for tourists but I'd be interested to hear actual commuters say something like this. The definite pattern here is that so many have never experienced good public transportation. I drive to work for my commute and I don't feel safe at all dealing with the drivers who will do anything to shave off seconds from their commute.
mikestew 10y ago
If you have kids or move a little slowly due to health or old age, public transit is a straight up no-go. All of the slow-moving elderly I see on the buses around Seattle would like to have a word with you. I'll take my car, with its 8-way adjustable seat, climate control and cup holders, thank-you-very-much. I tried it for a few weeks when I got tired of riding the bus. Jaguar S-Type, leather, walnut on the dash, about as nice as one's going to get. I'd rather sit and wait in traffic in my car than stand outside in the rain or snow waiting for a bus. To each their own. After two weeks of sitting on the 520 bridge staring at the bumper in front of me, I said "fuck this" and went back to the bus. You already said time was a "rare commodity" for working people, yet you'll sit in traffic while I sit on the bus making a bug fix or reading a book? And on top of that, transit for me would be about $400/month. Yoiks. $100 for me to ride the bus, versus $200-$300/month just for parking in downtown Seattle. That doesn't include gas or the $50K Jaguar. Again, though, for me it had nothing to do with money spent. But we all have our limits. Currently I ride the motorcycle to work (a different destination from above), which allows HOV lane usage, which whittles my commute down to 30 minutes and I park in front of the building. And my ride to work is a motorcycle, which is a plus in my book. Versus 90 minutes on the bus, a transfer, and the bus doesn't drop me anywhere near the building.
clusterf 10y ago
I like taking the train and biking. i can do work on the train. As for rain, we need it. temperatures never get cold enough to be uncomfortable outside. most employers will pay for your public transit costs.
gumby 10y ago
> Public transit works best for young healthy people. So what if this is the case? Moving 20% of the moving population in 2% of the vehicle-volume almost quadruples the capacity for everyone else. I don't buy your assertion in the large (most regions with effective pubic transport seem to move a roughly representative population of users -- including wealthy people). My point is that it could be true in the Bay Area (which is more spread out than your typical big city) but still not refute the need for mass transport.
lsc 10y ago
A lot of this is comes down to preference. I mean sure, I would prefer to be in the back of my private car, but given the choice between the stress of driving, and the stress of reading somewhere crowded? I will pay extra to get the time reading, and I will deal with the crowds for a discount. The monetary equation won't balance, if you are neutral on driving vs reading preferences, until we start requiring reasonable liability insurance minimums, and until I can get housing and my employer can get office space without paying for parking. The true costs of driving in silicon valley are dominated by parking and by the unfunded liability inherent to the activity.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jkern 10y ago

I think the point is that improving public transit would actually make the commute shorter. If public transit takes around the same amount of time as driving I'm sure lots more people would use it. I'm coming from Boston where we have a solid subway system and I massively prefer using that over driving.

hfourm 10y ago

It sounds a lot of what you are complaining about could be solved by "better public transportation", as the OP was commenting about.

aboodman 10y ago

I take my 2 year old daughter to preschool every day on mass transit in SF. And everyday I see a handful of parents in my bus doing the same. Some even have two kids. Why do you say mass transit is a non starter for kids? She loves it and I love the time with her and not worrying about parking, accidents, etc.

sethhochberg 10y ago

The point is to provide options - sure, if your job requires a car/truck you're obviously not going to use public transit. If you're in poor physical health, you probably can't take standard public transit - though accessibility options often exist. If you travel with kids often you might be less inclined to take transit (though plenty of people with kids do anyways). But if you're one of the hundreds of thousands of other people in a major metro who don't fall into those categories, you'd probably appreciate the option to not have to obtain a personal vehicle or use it exclusively for your commute, errands, a night on the town, etc.... and the best part is that for all the remaining people who do drive, every person who takes transit is one less person contributing to traffic congestion! Transit options benefit everyone. Your comment reads like you don't support transit options because they don't suit your particular tastes - I suggest you instead consider advocating for transit to make life better for both yourself and your community, regardless of whether you personally use transit or not.

closeparen 10y ago
Options are great. However, many on HN take the stance that we should push people to public transit by eliminating parking and closing (some) streets to vehicle traffic because density leads to bus routes and bicycles are intimidated by cars. That's not an option so much as a mandatory shift. I'd be fine making that shift if the public transit deployed today were actually good enough to be a like-for-like replacement of car ownership. It isn't unless you live in very expensive conveniently located neighborhoods.
- pm24601 10y ago
  Society should STOP accommodate individual lifestyle choices that are not in society's best interest. You say: > should push people to public transit by eliminating parking and closing (some) streets to vehicle traffic because density leads to bus routes and bicycles are intimidated by cars. That's not an option so much as a mandatory shift I say society should stop giving away publicly owned real estate to the narrow segment of people who want to make driving their lifestyle choice. I would prefer that the parking lots be replaced with something more economically valuable. For example, 1. stores 2. apartments 3. office space. Take a look at Louisville's "award winning" parking crater: http://brokensidewalk.com/2016/parking-crater/?utm_content=buffer5a5a5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer http://brokensidewalk.com/2016/parking-crater/?utm_content=b... What is the economic value of so much real estate devoted to machine storage? --- < $0 ( because it takes away from the economic value of surrounding businesses ) If someone wants to drive then they can pay for the privilege. In the meantime, the rest of society should spend the money saved to make the automobile a museum curiosity.

CalRobert 10y ago

Cars also work better for healthy people than unhealthy people. My grandmother lost her license a while ago as her vision and reaction times (and, perhaps, judgment) faded. She might have benefited from access to strong public transport. As it is, her beautiful home in a lovely spot became something of a trap as it was too far from any amenities to be walkable.

CaptSpify 10y ago

This is always so weird to me. These problems have already been pretty much solved in other countries, but the US always thinks it's a special snowflake. Public transport works pretty well for non-young healthy people in other countries.

Analemma_ 10y ago
This pattern is sadly typical of our political discourse. "I know that {socialized health care, gun bans, public transit, labor rights, paid pregnancy leave} work great in every other first-world country, but it Can't Work Here, because Reasons".
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  Completely agreed. I wonder why so much of our political discourse is against using proven results?
- Tiktaalik 10y ago
  Amsterdam and other cities in the Netherlands are the some of the best examples of this. People look at the massive portion that bicycles take up in their split of transportation modes and think that it could never happen in their country or city for all sorts of reasons because Amsterdam is special and the Dutch are unique and special. However if you can easily find pictures of Amsterdam in the 1970s where the streets look just as crammed with cars as any other city of that time. What happened is that people decided this wasn't working at all and they simply made a choice and they made a change to their spending priorities. Anyone can do this. All that is needed is the political will to make it a priority.
  - Mekkanox 10y ago
    Regarding commuting via bicycle: it's not necessarily a problem with traffic, as more with weather. Also it's wrong to compare a single city, Amsterdam, with a bunch of American cities because of drastically different weather patterns in those cities. Amsterdam has average temps (in F) from the mid 30's to the mid 60's[0]. That's prime bike weather. That's pretty much in line with San Francisco, which is a good city for biking. Even Manhattan and Brooklyn have reasonably overall pleasant weather for biking. But compare SF to somewhere like Washington, DC, or Austin, TX. For 3-4 months of the year, DC feels like a swamp. Same with Austin. It's much more preferable to use public transit or drive than bike in that weather. [0]http://www.holiday-weather.com/amsterdam/averages/ http://www.holiday-weather.com/amsterdam/averages/

diet_dr_pepper 10y ago

I live in NYC and commute via subway everyday, and I can assure you there are plenty of elderly people and parents with small children using it.

saiya-jin 10y ago

ever been to europe? we've solved this in most big places, public transport is faster way to travel in any city centre, cheaper too (for daily commuters). sure, by principle it can't solve issue for people like you describe, but for 80-90% it does. this would make roads much less clogged so those who really need (and pay for it) should go on their own. it's very real added value that helps environment, increases happiness, cuts times and so on. what (local) government should do is to motivate people/orgs with some monetary subsidies.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jacobolus 10y ago

> Public transit works best for young healthy people. If you have kids or move a little slowly due to health or old age, public transit is a straight up no-go. Is this a joke? Car travel works for healthy people who are ~20–60 years old with a stable income. For everyone else – children, teenagers, elderly people, the disabled, the poor, etc. – cars are terrible. The lack of other transportation options is perhaps the biggest reason that living in car-centric suburbs is hell for teenagers; they end up entirely dependent. Go take a bus in a city and you’ll see a huge variety of people riding.

sampo 10y ago

> Public transit works best for young healthy people. If you have kids or move a little slowly due to health or old age, public transit is a straight up no-go. Do you seriously think every old person in e.g. New York City owns a car to get around? Have you ever been to New York City?

galdosdi 10y ago

I don't blame you but this is a classic attitude from someone who has never experienced good transit, so assumes transit always sucks (and weirdly, then concludes we should not try to improve transit). This is like saying hamburgers are bad when you've only ever eaten them at McDonald's (and then mocking your friend who's trying to show you how to make a delicious hamburger from scratch by grinding up good cuts of meat). > You won't convince a salesman to carry a projector, screen, and a box of pamphlets on the bus and train. This would not be strange in Manhattan. You couldn't convince the salesman to waste his Time, which is a rare commodity for working people as you say, driving a car which would be slower than taking the subway. > I'd rather sit and wait in traffic in my car than stand outside in the rain or snow waiting for a bus. Subways avoid this problem. They're also expensive, but there's easier solutions -- bus and outdoor train shelters (which obviously protect from rain/snow) are sometimes heated in the northeast for this reason too. Also, dealing with rain/snow is pretty easy and pleasant if you just dress right. The prevalance of cars in this country means many people never learn to dress right because they can get away with never spending more than 60 seconds outside, the brief space between the car and the building door. > And on top of that, transit for me would be about $400/month. Here it's $100 a month. > I'm not sitting on a rough seat crammed next to 5 other people for 2 hours. A lot of people find dealing with repetitive constant stop and go traffic but having a comfy seat to be a crappy tradeoff compared to having less space but freeing your mind to read, doze, whatever. There are crowded an uncrowded systems and lines. Go try some good transit, then tell me what you think.

tropo 10y ago
Age, gender, disability, and political outlook all affect your perception of safety. This in turn determines if "freeing your mind to read, doze, whatever" is possible, or if instead you keep a very firm grip on your belongings while eyeing every other passenger with suspicion. Lots of people simply don't feel safe in crowds or without a door they can lock.
- Anasufovic 10y ago
  I can imagine this is true for tourists but I'd be interested to hear actual commuters say something like this. The definite pattern here is that so many have never experienced good public transportation. I drive to work for my commute and I don't feel safe at all dealing with the drivers who will do anything to shave off seconds from their commute.

mikestew 10y ago

If you have kids or move a little slowly due to health or old age, public transit is a straight up no-go. All of the slow-moving elderly I see on the buses around Seattle would like to have a word with you. I'll take my car, with its 8-way adjustable seat, climate control and cup holders, thank-you-very-much. I tried it for a few weeks when I got tired of riding the bus. Jaguar S-Type, leather, walnut on the dash, about as nice as one's going to get. I'd rather sit and wait in traffic in my car than stand outside in the rain or snow waiting for a bus. To each their own. After two weeks of sitting on the 520 bridge staring at the bumper in front of me, I said "fuck this" and went back to the bus. You already said time was a "rare commodity" for working people, yet you'll sit in traffic while I sit on the bus making a bug fix or reading a book? And on top of that, transit for me would be about $400/month. Yoiks. $100 for me to ride the bus, versus $200-$300/month just for parking in downtown Seattle. That doesn't include gas or the $50K Jaguar. Again, though, for me it had nothing to do with money spent. But we all have our limits. Currently I ride the motorcycle to work (a different destination from above), which allows HOV lane usage, which whittles my commute down to 30 minutes and I park in front of the building. And my ride to work is a motorcycle, which is a plus in my book. Versus 90 minutes on the bus, a transfer, and the bus doesn't drop me anywhere near the building.

clusterf 10y ago

I like taking the train and biking. i can do work on the train. As for rain, we need it. temperatures never get cold enough to be uncomfortable outside. most employers will pay for your public transit costs.

gumby 10y ago

> Public transit works best for young healthy people. So what if this is the case? Moving 20% of the moving population in 2% of the vehicle-volume almost quadruples the capacity for everyone else. I don't buy your assertion in the large (most regions with effective pubic transport seem to move a roughly representative population of users -- including wealthy people). My point is that it could be true in the Bay Area (which is more spread out than your typical big city) but still not refute the need for mass transport.

lsc 10y ago

A lot of this is comes down to preference. I mean sure, I would prefer to be in the back of my private car, but given the choice between the stress of driving, and the stress of reading somewhere crowded? I will pay extra to get the time reading, and I will deal with the crowds for a discount. The monetary equation won't balance, if you are neutral on driving vs reading preferences, until we start requiring reasonable liability insurance minimums, and until I can get housing and my employer can get office space without paying for parking. The true costs of driving in silicon valley are dominated by parking and by the unfunded liability inherent to the activity.