5 ms·

It's clear that buses are vastly more efficient in terms of moving large numbers of people around, and so ride sharing alone (even automated) will just continue

It's clear that buses are vastly more efficient in terms of moving large numbers of people around, and so ride sharing alone (even automated) will just continue to tie up traffic. At a point, uber and lyft will have to introduce buses in order to keep their single-use services attractive. But, as long as there is private ownership, we won't have wide adoption of public transportation. Everywhere in the world I have traveled, I have noticed that usually 1) public transportation is limited only to a town/city, and 2) private buses to move between cities/provinces are limited by market forces, and thus put a penalty on people living farther from economic drivers. Which forces people in remote areas, who on average make less money, to own cars to get to jobs [which robs them of time and money they could be investing in their future etc]. The only way to change the inequality of people getting to jobs/goods/services is to remove private car ownership and institute nation-wide public transportation, and subsidize the more expensive parts of the network. Not only would this be cheaper overall and more efficient overall, it would raise the GDP, reduce pollution, reduce debt, reduce traffic fatalities, and increase upward mobility. People think cars give them freedom, but they never think about the societal cost.

lazyjones 9y ago
> People think cars give them freedom, They don't just think so, they know it > but they never think about the societal cost. There is a "societal cost" attached to everything. Housing, Eating, going to the restroom. Society should evolve to make known improvements to people's lives available to more people and not devolve to a point where most modern amenities are considered too expensive for most people. That said, pretty much everybody hates public transport everywhere in the world. It's better than nothing of course and in some densely-populated areas it's actually an improvement and faster than using a car (the subway). But given a reasonable choice, people prefer having their own cars, just like they prefer to have their own homes instead of sharing one with dozens of other people. Whatever the "societal cost" may be (what's the cost of individual housing?).
- peterwwillis 9y ago
  I don't think your perspective is realistic. If you think people make reasonable choices, I have some sad news. People "prefer" a lot of things. People prefer soda and potato chips and 1000-calorie meals. People prefer to not pay taxes for health care and public education. People prefer to get pregnant and not get married. People prefer to live in suburbs away from inner cities full of people who might be different than them. People prefer not to save money. People prefer to vote along party lines and watch TV news that aligns with their views rather than reality. And they also prefer to drive individual cars which are highly likely to injure or kill them, or own handguns which are also likely to injure or kill them, and yet rant like paranoid lunatics if they have to get on a plane with a guy in a turban. That being said, I know a lot of people around the world who prefer public transportation. It gives them time to read, to communicate. And like you mentioned, it is faster than commuting by car. It is, of course, also vastly cheaper than owning a car. But it also enables people to make more money by getting better jobs, without having to invest in a car, which is often a significant impediment. > Society should evolve to make known improvements to people's lives available to more people I agree! Like public transportation. > and not devolve to a point where most modern amenities are considered too expensive for most people Kind of like cars, an amenity which is often needed to get a job, but also ties people up in debt from loans and maintenance costs and insurance costs and registration costs and parking tickets and parking lot fees and traffic tickets, making it harder to make a living. You're saying cars should be made cheaper, of course, but this is absolutely ridiculous. Since 1967, the cost of a car (adjusted for inflation) has either stayed the same or risen. There is no indicator at all that cars in this market will get cheaper any time soon. Other markets have cheaper cars, either because of regulatory influence, or because they simply produce cars at rates that their people can afford. Which means cheaper cars could be sold here, but manufacturers know they can make more money here. So - what would a "reasonable" choice be? To go into debt to own a transportation method they don't need? Or to buy an SUV so they can drive to Starbucks and spend $4 on a coffee? People are idiots, and we should not define the terms of our society based on their whims alone.
  - tartuffe78 9y ago
    I guess we should just let you make all the choices for everyone then, sounds like you're up for it.
def_true_false 9y ago
>and institute nation-wide public transportation, and subsidize the more expensive parts of the network. Isn't this how e.g. state owned rail companies work already?

lazyjones 9y ago

> People think cars give them freedom, They don't just think so, they know it > but they never think about the societal cost. There is a "societal cost" attached to everything. Housing, Eating, going to the restroom. Society should evolve to make known improvements to people's lives available to more people and not devolve to a point where most modern amenities are considered too expensive for most people. That said, pretty much everybody hates public transport everywhere in the world. It's better than nothing of course and in some densely-populated areas it's actually an improvement and faster than using a car (the subway). But given a reasonable choice, people prefer having their own cars, just like they prefer to have their own homes instead of sharing one with dozens of other people. Whatever the "societal cost" may be (what's the cost of individual housing?).

peterwwillis 9y ago
I don't think your perspective is realistic. If you think people make reasonable choices, I have some sad news. People "prefer" a lot of things. People prefer soda and potato chips and 1000-calorie meals. People prefer to not pay taxes for health care and public education. People prefer to get pregnant and not get married. People prefer to live in suburbs away from inner cities full of people who might be different than them. People prefer not to save money. People prefer to vote along party lines and watch TV news that aligns with their views rather than reality. And they also prefer to drive individual cars which are highly likely to injure or kill them, or own handguns which are also likely to injure or kill them, and yet rant like paranoid lunatics if they have to get on a plane with a guy in a turban. That being said, I know a lot of people around the world who prefer public transportation. It gives them time to read, to communicate. And like you mentioned, it is faster than commuting by car. It is, of course, also vastly cheaper than owning a car. But it also enables people to make more money by getting better jobs, without having to invest in a car, which is often a significant impediment. > Society should evolve to make known improvements to people's lives available to more people I agree! Like public transportation. > and not devolve to a point where most modern amenities are considered too expensive for most people Kind of like cars, an amenity which is often needed to get a job, but also ties people up in debt from loans and maintenance costs and insurance costs and registration costs and parking tickets and parking lot fees and traffic tickets, making it harder to make a living. You're saying cars should be made cheaper, of course, but this is absolutely ridiculous. Since 1967, the cost of a car (adjusted for inflation) has either stayed the same or risen. There is no indicator at all that cars in this market will get cheaper any time soon. Other markets have cheaper cars, either because of regulatory influence, or because they simply produce cars at rates that their people can afford. Which means cheaper cars could be sold here, but manufacturers know they can make more money here. So - what would a "reasonable" choice be? To go into debt to own a transportation method they don't need? Or to buy an SUV so they can drive to Starbucks and spend $4 on a coffee? People are idiots, and we should not define the terms of our society based on their whims alone.
- tartuffe78 9y ago
  I guess we should just let you make all the choices for everyone then, sounds like you're up for it.

def_true_false 9y ago

>and institute nation-wide public transportation, and subsidize the more expensive parts of the network. Isn't this how e.g. state owned rail companies work already?