5 ms·

Maybe it's just me but that picture makes the exact opposite point from what you're saying. It clearly points out that the difference between cars and other for

Maybe it's just me but that picture makes the exact opposite point from what you're saying. It clearly points out that the difference between cars and other forms of transportation is linear. Public transportation doesn't scale this especially well, as anybody using public transport knows, but this article is a nice summary [1]. We all know what would happen to bus stops, stations, and generally to public places if people on buses actually had anywhere near the density "made possible" by public transport. It just won't work. While for instance, adding roads in the sky (ie. very long bridges) scales exponentially, for obvious reasons. As does just flying (flying, incidentally, is a lot more efficient than people think). People don't want this, for obvious reasons, but there comes a point in cities where we have no choice. Frankly, cities like depicted in "the fifth element" and "star wars" are the future. Probably more rails, less floating, but the general idea is where we'll be going. Doesn't even really matter if they have public or private transport. Given how fast public transport upgrades (even when absolutely required by the numbers of people they just refuse to upgrade for decades. Yes. Decades) and how comfortable it is, and add of course the fact that they just don't support the use cases cars enable (some of which, like an elderly or disabled person doing groceries, are absolute requirements) and you get to the point : private transport is far preferable to public transport. [1] http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/MassTransit.HTM http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/MassTransit.HTM

craftyguy 9y ago
> Public transportation doesn't scale this especially well, as anybody using public transport knows, but this article is a nice summary Then how do cities like Singapore, with a population density of nearly 8k people per square km, have far less traffic than pretty much any major US city? They make public transportation work, and if you've ever been there, you'd know it works really well. Just because western countries haven't figured it out yet doesn't mean that it can't work at all. Public transportation in the US sucks because the US, as a whole, wants it to suck.
- mc32 9y ago
  Well, there are a couple of reasons they can make it work: -Tax cars really highly. -Have car quotas -Suppress dissent and in practice a one party system -Build out public transit -Pop Density. -No land for sprawl available.
  - jacobolus 9y ago
    You don’t need to run a one-party police state in order to have a functioning public transit system or limit urban car use, and it’s entirely possible to have a one-party police state while also having car-dependent suburban sprawl.
    - mc32 9y ago
      Granted. I'm just pointing out those were the reasons it was "easy" to pull off in SG.
  - akgerber 9y ago
    Japan also has excellent public transportation, and is much less restrictive than Singapore. In major metro areas, its rail systems even make a profit. It has sprawl but it's far less auto-oriented than the US. Some major factors are: -expressways are almost all tolled -carbuyers are required to demonstrate that they own/rent a parking space, rather than policy than mandates every new housing unit and business have enough parking that demand is more than sated even at zero cost -zoning that allows sufficiently-dense land use such that most residences are within a short walk of a rail station— this station usually has groceries and other necessities nearby, as well as schools within walking distance
- yorwba 9y ago
  > Public transportation in the US sucks because the US, as a whole, wants it to suck. Rather, public transportation sucks, so everyone who can afford a car (and some who can't) buy a car and use it, so they don't care very much that public transportation sucks; they instead are annoyed that private transportation sucks and want that to improve (e.g. by having an AI deal with driving). They don't see public transportation as a solution to the problem they experience, even if it would solve the problem that brought them into that situation. FWIW, I have always relied on public transportation in any western country I have been to and while it could have been better sometimes (e.g. rural bus schedules requiring you to plan around them) I don't think it's too bad either. I don't know how Singapore compares, but usable public transportation is definitely also common elsewhere.
  - candiodari 9y ago
    By the way, what about the victims of this public transport attitude ? Such as this making it impossible for disabled and elderly to do groceries ? (and let's not forget things like Amazon just don't work unless they exploit delivery men if you do choose to answer this question)
    - yorwba 9y ago
      Are you implying that public transport, which in Europe is required to have accessibility measures like ramps and elevators, is worse for someone in a wheelchair than a regular car they would never fit in (let alone in the driver seat)? Most elderly also benefit from the same measures. EDIT: I don't really understand the Amazon question. Maybe I didn't understand the original question either.
      - candiodari 9y ago
        1) Cars are accessible for wheelchair users (obviously they are modified for this purpose, which is less than you'd think) [1] [2] [3] 2) public transport is not wheelchair accessible. We have trains from the 70s on the track, and aside from multiple steps and a gap, there are no places for wheelchairs. Buses are a little better, but not really usable either. When push comes to shove, this requires people to lift the wheelchair and put it on the train/bus, then help you on the bus as well. If bystanders don't do this, I guarantee out here the driver won't either. For trains, you are supremely unlikely to find anyone of the public transport companies in the station, and nobody helping wheelchair bound people on the bus. Plus, you never, ever see wheelchairs on the train. Note that if you look at the videos below you see that in most cases, disabled people need (much) more time to get aboard a vehicle. This is not available in public transport and is available in private cars. Furthermore, wheelchair users (as visible in the second video) (and obviously only up to a certain level of disability) are not just able to use cars, but are able to carry and move heavy loads using them, like groceries. So once again, an argument in favor of cars once a good look at reality is added to it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0usQ1LksSA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0usQ1LksSA [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTuMw6rtsxA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTuMw6rtsxA [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMvvQOeBDfY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMvvQOeBDfY
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
This comment only makes sense in an American context. Other developed and even developing countries do it much better, lacking the limitations you’ve described.
coldtea 9y ago
>We all know what would happen to bus stops, stations, and generally to public places if people on buses actually had anywhere near the density "made possible" by public transport. It just won't work. And yet it works perfectly well all around the world.
- njarboe 9y ago
  Maybe American culture is a bit different than everywhere else. If so, enabling this different to continue might be a good idea. Diversity and all that.
  - sundaeofshock 9y ago
    It seems to work in New York, Boston, San Francisco, and Seattle. Of course it could be better in some of those places, but those cities could not exist in their current form without mass transit.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Or maybe not, obesity, environment costs, and all that... Besides, is Manhattan not American? The seem to do well (though, of course, they could spend more and improve their neglected since the 70s or so subway).
    - skinnymuch 9y ago
      Still the only city to have many lines open 24/7 and besides a few other American cities, I don't think any other city has a 24 hour line.
  - Sharlin 9y ago
    Maybe also reinstate slavery while you're at it? In the name of cultural diversity and all that.
  - akgerber 9y ago
    Or maybe American laws make it essentially illegal to use newly-developed or redeveloped land in a way compatible with high-quality transit service.
nathanvanfleet 9y ago
This is totally the exact thing the article is talking about. I've spoken to American friends who tell me that public transport can just never work when talking about their experience with BART and MUNI. But you don't have to go very far away to find a place where it really does work.
- akgerber 9y ago
  BART and Muni are good public transit by American standards— which is to say, not particularly good public transit.
vidarh 9y ago
I'm humbled to learn that the experience that have led to me never bothering to get a drivers license because public transportation generally works better than private the high population density places I've lived the vast majority of my adult life has been a figment of my imagination.
- candiodari 9y ago
  > high population density places I've lived the vast majority of my adult life has been a figment of my imagination Just a wild guess, the "vast majority of your adult life" are the experience you imagine the whole world has, yet they were spent unattached, without children or supporting so much as a cat, never mind children in a rich area of a huge city (and yes, San Francisco counts as huge) ... Clearly we should design the entire planet around the frustrations extremely rich Californians experience ($100k per year is almost 2 TIMES the median income, and makes you part, as an unattached person, of the top 7% income earners in the US. Let's just stop pretending and point out the obvious: to fix income inequality in the US, these incomes are what needs to be taxed MUCH more, without, of course, providing any more government services for that extra tax for you. You do not need it. Plenty of other people, 93% when not even counting those outside the US, do need it) Sorry for the derision, but you were doing it to me.
  - sundaeofshock 9y ago
    I live in San Francisco am unable to drive (before Uber and Lyft) and raised a child. While it was sometimes challenging, I would have been unable to live my life without mass transit. San Francisco Muni has a daily ridership of 658k. Do you really think it would be better if all of those rides were done via car?
  - vidarh 9y ago
    > Just a wild guess, the "vast majority of your adult life" are the experience you imagine the whole world has, yet they were spent unattached, without children or supporting so much as a cat, never mind children in a rich area of a huge city (and yes, San Francisco counts as huge) ... The majority of it was spent attached, with a child, and several years of it taking buggies on public transport. And no, San Francisco is not huge - San Francisco isn't much bigger than my suburb. You also seem to think I'm in the US, for no good reason. So that's wrong on every count.
donald_knuth 9y ago
Your counter argument to public transit is flying cars? Your entire statement is a strawman argument. No one is saying get rid of cars, simply improve traffic by adding mass transit

craftyguy 9y ago

> Public transportation doesn't scale this especially well, as anybody using public transport knows, but this article is a nice summary Then how do cities like Singapore, with a population density of nearly 8k people per square km, have far less traffic than pretty much any major US city? They make public transportation work, and if you've ever been there, you'd know it works really well. Just because western countries haven't figured it out yet doesn't mean that it can't work at all. Public transportation in the US sucks because the US, as a whole, wants it to suck.

mc32 9y ago
Well, there are a couple of reasons they can make it work: -Tax cars really highly. -Have car quotas -Suppress dissent and in practice a one party system -Build out public transit -Pop Density. -No land for sprawl available.
- jacobolus 9y ago
  You don’t need to run a one-party police state in order to have a functioning public transit system or limit urban car use, and it’s entirely possible to have a one-party police state while also having car-dependent suburban sprawl.
  - mc32 9y ago
    Granted. I'm just pointing out those were the reasons it was "easy" to pull off in SG.
- akgerber 9y ago
  Japan also has excellent public transportation, and is much less restrictive than Singapore. In major metro areas, its rail systems even make a profit. It has sprawl but it's far less auto-oriented than the US. Some major factors are: -expressways are almost all tolled -carbuyers are required to demonstrate that they own/rent a parking space, rather than policy than mandates every new housing unit and business have enough parking that demand is more than sated even at zero cost -zoning that allows sufficiently-dense land use such that most residences are within a short walk of a rail station— this station usually has groceries and other necessities nearby, as well as schools within walking distance
yorwba 9y ago
> Public transportation in the US sucks because the US, as a whole, wants it to suck. Rather, public transportation sucks, so everyone who can afford a car (and some who can't) buy a car and use it, so they don't care very much that public transportation sucks; they instead are annoyed that private transportation sucks and want that to improve (e.g. by having an AI deal with driving). They don't see public transportation as a solution to the problem they experience, even if it would solve the problem that brought them into that situation. FWIW, I have always relied on public transportation in any western country I have been to and while it could have been better sometimes (e.g. rural bus schedules requiring you to plan around them) I don't think it's too bad either. I don't know how Singapore compares, but usable public transportation is definitely also common elsewhere.
- candiodari 9y ago
  By the way, what about the victims of this public transport attitude ? Such as this making it impossible for disabled and elderly to do groceries ? (and let's not forget things like Amazon just don't work unless they exploit delivery men if you do choose to answer this question)
  - yorwba 9y ago
    Are you implying that public transport, which in Europe is required to have accessibility measures like ramps and elevators, is worse for someone in a wheelchair than a regular car they would never fit in (let alone in the driver seat)? Most elderly also benefit from the same measures. EDIT: I don't really understand the Amazon question. Maybe I didn't understand the original question either.
    - candiodari 9y ago
      1) Cars are accessible for wheelchair users (obviously they are modified for this purpose, which is less than you'd think) [1] [2] [3] 2) public transport is not wheelchair accessible. We have trains from the 70s on the track, and aside from multiple steps and a gap, there are no places for wheelchairs. Buses are a little better, but not really usable either. When push comes to shove, this requires people to lift the wheelchair and put it on the train/bus, then help you on the bus as well. If bystanders don't do this, I guarantee out here the driver won't either. For trains, you are supremely unlikely to find anyone of the public transport companies in the station, and nobody helping wheelchair bound people on the bus. Plus, you never, ever see wheelchairs on the train. Note that if you look at the videos below you see that in most cases, disabled people need (much) more time to get aboard a vehicle. This is not available in public transport and is available in private cars. Furthermore, wheelchair users (as visible in the second video) (and obviously only up to a certain level of disability) are not just able to use cars, but are able to carry and move heavy loads using them, like groceries. So once again, an argument in favor of cars once a good look at reality is added to it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0usQ1LksSA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0usQ1LksSA [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTuMw6rtsxA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTuMw6rtsxA [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMvvQOeBDfY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMvvQOeBDfY

seanmcdirmid 9y ago

This comment only makes sense in an American context. Other developed and even developing countries do it much better, lacking the limitations you’ve described.

coldtea 9y ago

>We all know what would happen to bus stops, stations, and generally to public places if people on buses actually had anywhere near the density "made possible" by public transport. It just won't work. And yet it works perfectly well all around the world.

njarboe 9y ago
Maybe American culture is a bit different than everywhere else. If so, enabling this different to continue might be a good idea. Diversity and all that.
- sundaeofshock 9y ago
  It seems to work in New York, Boston, San Francisco, and Seattle. Of course it could be better in some of those places, but those cities could not exist in their current form without mass transit.
- coldtea 9y ago
  Or maybe not, obesity, environment costs, and all that... Besides, is Manhattan not American? The seem to do well (though, of course, they could spend more and improve their neglected since the 70s or so subway).
  - skinnymuch 9y ago
    Still the only city to have many lines open 24/7 and besides a few other American cities, I don't think any other city has a 24 hour line.
- Sharlin 9y ago
  Maybe also reinstate slavery while you're at it? In the name of cultural diversity and all that.
- akgerber 9y ago
  Or maybe American laws make it essentially illegal to use newly-developed or redeveloped land in a way compatible with high-quality transit service.

nathanvanfleet 9y ago

This is totally the exact thing the article is talking about. I've spoken to American friends who tell me that public transport can just never work when talking about their experience with BART and MUNI. But you don't have to go very far away to find a place where it really does work.

akgerber 9y ago
BART and Muni are good public transit by American standards— which is to say, not particularly good public transit.

vidarh 9y ago

I'm humbled to learn that the experience that have led to me never bothering to get a drivers license because public transportation generally works better than private the high population density places I've lived the vast majority of my adult life has been a figment of my imagination.

candiodari 9y ago
> high population density places I've lived the vast majority of my adult life has been a figment of my imagination Just a wild guess, the "vast majority of your adult life" are the experience you imagine the whole world has, yet they were spent unattached, without children or supporting so much as a cat, never mind children in a rich area of a huge city (and yes, San Francisco counts as huge) ... Clearly we should design the entire planet around the frustrations extremely rich Californians experience ($100k per year is almost 2 TIMES the median income, and makes you part, as an unattached person, of the top 7% income earners in the US. Let's just stop pretending and point out the obvious: to fix income inequality in the US, these incomes are what needs to be taxed MUCH more, without, of course, providing any more government services for that extra tax for you. You do not need it. Plenty of other people, 93% when not even counting those outside the US, do need it) Sorry for the derision, but you were doing it to me.
- sundaeofshock 9y ago
  I live in San Francisco am unable to drive (before Uber and Lyft) and raised a child. While it was sometimes challenging, I would have been unable to live my life without mass transit. San Francisco Muni has a daily ridership of 658k. Do you really think it would be better if all of those rides were done via car?
- vidarh 9y ago
  > Just a wild guess, the "vast majority of your adult life" are the experience you imagine the whole world has, yet they were spent unattached, without children or supporting so much as a cat, never mind children in a rich area of a huge city (and yes, San Francisco counts as huge) ... The majority of it was spent attached, with a child, and several years of it taking buggies on public transport. And no, San Francisco is not huge - San Francisco isn't much bigger than my suburb. You also seem to think I'm in the US, for no good reason. So that's wrong on every count.

donald_knuth 9y ago

Your counter argument to public transit is flying cars? Your entire statement is a strawman argument. No one is saying get rid of cars, simply improve traffic by adding mass transit