3 ms·

> There is no institutional inertia or political organizing involved in walking, riding your bike, or taking the bus for your next trip. Assuming you live in a

> There is no institutional inertia or political organizing involved in walking, riding your bike, or taking the bus for your next trip. Assuming you live in a bikeable or walkable area, sure. Bus service exists, but it can be patchy and/or underfunded. Some people simply have none of these options. I live in Detroit (yes, Motor City), and this area is crying out for good mass transit. In fact, two out of four necessary counties voted down a regional transit mileage (which amounted to peanuts every year on property tax bills), which would have provided billions to develop rapid transit for southeast Michigan, because of pretty much racial hangups and “screw you, got mine”-ism from the suburbs. These are complex issues. I agree that building out transit infrastructure is complicated, but I think making them politically attractive are equally difficult.

AckSyn 9y ago
The issue about them shutting down a public transit system into the burbs isn't because of racism but one of access. These people don't want easy access via bus to their neighborhoods, and for a very good reason.
ars 9y ago
Compared to having your own car, even the absolutely best, world class, mass transit service is just terrible. And I say this having tried both. It just doesn't compare. This is not a battle you are going to win. I'm happy for other people to take mass transit and leave more road space for me. Or I can be more fair and want more road space for everyone. Mass transit is not a good solution, it's a poor solution, that sometimes is the best thing available, but never mistake that for actually being a good solution. Properly designed cities would not need it.
- tachyoff 9y ago
  > This is not a battle you are going to win. When cities are gridlocked by expensive, polluting cars, nobody wins. > I'm happy for other people to take mass transit and leave more road space for me. That kind of thinking is why we don’t have reliable public transit. > Mass transit is not a good solution, it's a poor solution... Nobody tell Europe, or Japan. I don’t know how to communicate the idea that perhaps every single person having their own 2,000-pound personal transportation machine doesn’t scale well. I mean, never mind that we could reduce climate change, road deaths, congestion, and the requirement to own a car. How is having one bus take 20 people somewhere worse than making those people buy a car, making them drive separately, then making them find parking? Public transit is one of those things that, like public healthcare or public education, involves giving up a bit of perceived individuality to benefit the greater good. But if you’ve already got yours and are convinced that’s the way to go, I can’t help you. See you at the voting booth.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    > How is having one bus take 20 people somewhere worse than making those people buy a car, making them drive separately, then making them find parking? Because those 20 people are extremely unlikely to share an origin, destination, or schedule.
  - ars 9y ago
    > When cities are gridlocked by expensive, polluting cars, nobody wins. No one is forcing you to build so many homes so close together. Make some space, give people room to live. > That kind of thinking is why we don’t have reliable public transit. No, we don't have reliable public transit because public transit just isn't very good. People know that, and have little interest is wasting their time, unless they have no other choice. > Nobody tell Europe, or Japan. OK, I won't. Except I've actually been there, and compared to cars Mass Transit is terrible. And this wasn't some bad mass transit - no it was world class, where you could get literally anywhere in the entire county, with very frequent buses. Still would never prefer it to a car. > How is having one bus take 20 people somewhere worse than making those people buy a car, making them drive separately, then making them find parking? Because I can store things in my car, I don't have to hand carry them. Because I can buy one thing, put it in my car, then go, with empty hands, and buy another. Because I can put a car seat, fitted exactly to my infant, in the car. Because I know I'll have room for a stroller, and won't have to fight to get on or off the bus. Because I can put kids in the car, and then not have to worry about them finding somewhere to sit that is reasonably close to me. Because I don't have to wait in the heat. Because I can set the temperature to exactly what I want, and not have to hope the driver set it right. Because I don't have to suffer aggressive drivers who slam on the bakes and gas throwing me around the bus. Because I don't have to worry about missing my stop. Because I don't have to worry about me getting on (or off) the bus, and one of the kids having the door slammed on his face, leaving him alone without me. Because I can change my plan and go somewhere else, without figuring out which bus to take. Because I can go somewhere in the middle of the night, and not have to worry that the buses have stopped running. Because I don't need to worry about having my stuff stolen while traveling. Because I can sit down for a long trip. Because I don't have to wait for the next bus. Because I don't have to carefully plan connections between stops to get where I need to go, and leave at exactly the right time. I can just go when I want. Because I don't have to be so close to so many people. Because I can transport a lot of stuff, if I want. Because I can transport a single heavy item, and drag it only twice. Because I don't have to worry about strangers complaining I'm taking up too much room with my item(s). Because I can travel right to my door, minimizing how far I have to carry things. Because I can make one trip and get everything, and not be limited by how much I can carry. Because travel takes less time in total, including waiting. > But if you’ve already got yours and are convinced that’s the way to go, I can’t help you. See you at the voting booth. And I'll vote with my wallet. And we both know my vote is more powerful. Solve all the above issues for me and we can talk about Mass Transit. In contrast a car has just two issues: I have to pay for gas (and other expenses). Sometimes I have to search for parking. And both those issues can be dealt with - the cost of a car in exchange for my time. And I just don't go places (or live in cities) that make parking an issue. If they wanted my business they would make it worth it for me.
- bsder 9y ago
  > Compared to having your own car, even the absolutely best, world class, mass transit service is just terrible. Downtown London is a tremendous counterexample. The Tube is generally faster, sometimes dramatically so.
  - ars 9y ago
    That doesn't mean the Tube is good - it means the roads are bad. Fix the roads (probably impossible in London), and no one would think the Tube is that great. But newer cities have that chance, they can build good road networks, with the houses far enough apart to avoid congestion. I hate close, dense, cities. I like space. I like to have a my own yard, and my own private space. Not everyone shares this Politically Correct dream, of dense cities with lots of buses and subways. It's hard to argue against, just like every in-vogue politically correct thing is hard to argue against. So you won't hear a lot of public disagreement. But privately? Things are quite different, people are just not interested. Well some people. I would never imagine everyone is. Different people like different things. Dense cities need Mass Transit. It's terrible, but it's the only practical option. So if you chose to live in a dense city, you have to accept that. But less dense cities? No only do they not need Mass Transit, they can't do it anyway (there's not enough demand to make it work). And there are people who prefer it. And then you have cities in between...... With either the best of both worlds, or the worst, depending on the city.
- btrettel 9y ago
  > I'm happy for other people to take mass transit and leave more road space for me. I appreciate your honesty. Made me think of this: https://www.theonion.com/report-98-percent-of-u-s-commuters-favor-public-trans-1819565837 https://www.theonion.com/report-98-percent-of-u-s-commuters-...
- ergothus 9y ago
  > Compared to having your own car, even the absolutely best, world class, mass transit service is just terrible. That seems an overly strong absolute. I would easily take a quick, clean, close, and reliable bus over car storage, maintenance, insurance, driving in traffic, ensuring I'm mentally alert enough to drive, finding parking, and paying for parking at my destination. That doesn't even mention the purchase experience, which is probably the worst buying experience there is. I've had such transit to some areas of different cities so I know it is possible. Generally, the more urban the area, the greater the benefits to transit and the higher the costs of car ownership, which makes your comment about properly designed cities questionable - what do you see as "properly designed" that still supports density? Even if you would never personally see the transit half as worth more than the car ownership half, can you see where others, who have different needs/uses for transportation, would?
  - ars 9y ago
    > what do you see as "properly designed" that still supports density? I don't support density. I understand some like it, and that's good for them. But I personally hate it, and I know a lot of other people that hate it as well. I would hate to see the US switch to that being the primary form of life. But I'm not really worried - enough people hate it, that it's unlikely. The highest density I'm willing to consider is a 2 family row house (i.e. side to side, not up and down) on each plot of land. Anything denser than that and I'm not going to live there. Each house should have a front and back yard, at least some space on the sides between houses. We are not animals, there's no reason to pack people in like battery farming. Unless that's what you like. If you like that, more power to you.
    - ergothus 9y ago
      Thanks for the reply (and for answering my question in it)! I disagree on some conclusions, but that's not really relevant to this topic no matter how interesting it'd be. I'm a bit lost on one aspect though - in relation to the original purpose, I thought you were saying that advocating for mass transit in a city is a battle that cannot be won, and that cities could be designed to avoid the need for mass transit. Now I'm reading you as saying that not everyone will like mass transit and that a significant group will avoid cities - which are different statements than my original reading (and points I agree with). Am I missing something, or do I now get your core points?

AckSyn 9y ago

The issue about them shutting down a public transit system into the burbs isn't because of racism but one of access. These people don't want easy access via bus to their neighborhoods, and for a very good reason.

ars 9y ago

Compared to having your own car, even the absolutely best, world class, mass transit service is just terrible. And I say this having tried both. It just doesn't compare. This is not a battle you are going to win. I'm happy for other people to take mass transit and leave more road space for me. Or I can be more fair and want more road space for everyone. Mass transit is not a good solution, it's a poor solution, that sometimes is the best thing available, but never mistake that for actually being a good solution. Properly designed cities would not need it.

tachyoff 9y ago
> This is not a battle you are going to win. When cities are gridlocked by expensive, polluting cars, nobody wins. > I'm happy for other people to take mass transit and leave more road space for me. That kind of thinking is why we don’t have reliable public transit. > Mass transit is not a good solution, it's a poor solution... Nobody tell Europe, or Japan. I don’t know how to communicate the idea that perhaps every single person having their own 2,000-pound personal transportation machine doesn’t scale well. I mean, never mind that we could reduce climate change, road deaths, congestion, and the requirement to own a car. How is having one bus take 20 people somewhere worse than making those people buy a car, making them drive separately, then making them find parking? Public transit is one of those things that, like public healthcare or public education, involves giving up a bit of perceived individuality to benefit the greater good. But if you’ve already got yours and are convinced that’s the way to go, I can’t help you. See you at the voting booth.
- closeparen 9y ago
  > How is having one bus take 20 people somewhere worse than making those people buy a car, making them drive separately, then making them find parking? Because those 20 people are extremely unlikely to share an origin, destination, or schedule.
- ars 9y ago
  > When cities are gridlocked by expensive, polluting cars, nobody wins. No one is forcing you to build so many homes so close together. Make some space, give people room to live. > That kind of thinking is why we don’t have reliable public transit. No, we don't have reliable public transit because public transit just isn't very good. People know that, and have little interest is wasting their time, unless they have no other choice. > Nobody tell Europe, or Japan. OK, I won't. Except I've actually been there, and compared to cars Mass Transit is terrible. And this wasn't some bad mass transit - no it was world class, where you could get literally anywhere in the entire county, with very frequent buses. Still would never prefer it to a car. > How is having one bus take 20 people somewhere worse than making those people buy a car, making them drive separately, then making them find parking? Because I can store things in my car, I don't have to hand carry them. Because I can buy one thing, put it in my car, then go, with empty hands, and buy another. Because I can put a car seat, fitted exactly to my infant, in the car. Because I know I'll have room for a stroller, and won't have to fight to get on or off the bus. Because I can put kids in the car, and then not have to worry about them finding somewhere to sit that is reasonably close to me. Because I don't have to wait in the heat. Because I can set the temperature to exactly what I want, and not have to hope the driver set it right. Because I don't have to suffer aggressive drivers who slam on the bakes and gas throwing me around the bus. Because I don't have to worry about missing my stop. Because I don't have to worry about me getting on (or off) the bus, and one of the kids having the door slammed on his face, leaving him alone without me. Because I can change my plan and go somewhere else, without figuring out which bus to take. Because I can go somewhere in the middle of the night, and not have to worry that the buses have stopped running. Because I don't need to worry about having my stuff stolen while traveling. Because I can sit down for a long trip. Because I don't have to wait for the next bus. Because I don't have to carefully plan connections between stops to get where I need to go, and leave at exactly the right time. I can just go when I want. Because I don't have to be so close to so many people. Because I can transport a lot of stuff, if I want. Because I can transport a single heavy item, and drag it only twice. Because I don't have to worry about strangers complaining I'm taking up too much room with my item(s). Because I can travel right to my door, minimizing how far I have to carry things. Because I can make one trip and get everything, and not be limited by how much I can carry. Because travel takes less time in total, including waiting. > But if you’ve already got yours and are convinced that’s the way to go, I can’t help you. See you at the voting booth. And I'll vote with my wallet. And we both know my vote is more powerful. Solve all the above issues for me and we can talk about Mass Transit. In contrast a car has just two issues: I have to pay for gas (and other expenses). Sometimes I have to search for parking. And both those issues can be dealt with - the cost of a car in exchange for my time. And I just don't go places (or live in cities) that make parking an issue. If they wanted my business they would make it worth it for me.
bsder 9y ago
> Compared to having your own car, even the absolutely best, world class, mass transit service is just terrible. Downtown London is a tremendous counterexample. The Tube is generally faster, sometimes dramatically so.
- ars 9y ago
  That doesn't mean the Tube is good - it means the roads are bad. Fix the roads (probably impossible in London), and no one would think the Tube is that great. But newer cities have that chance, they can build good road networks, with the houses far enough apart to avoid congestion. I hate close, dense, cities. I like space. I like to have a my own yard, and my own private space. Not everyone shares this Politically Correct dream, of dense cities with lots of buses and subways. It's hard to argue against, just like every in-vogue politically correct thing is hard to argue against. So you won't hear a lot of public disagreement. But privately? Things are quite different, people are just not interested. Well some people. I would never imagine everyone is. Different people like different things. Dense cities need Mass Transit. It's terrible, but it's the only practical option. So if you chose to live in a dense city, you have to accept that. But less dense cities? No only do they not need Mass Transit, they can't do it anyway (there's not enough demand to make it work). And there are people who prefer it. And then you have cities in between...... With either the best of both worlds, or the worst, depending on the city.
btrettel 9y ago
> I'm happy for other people to take mass transit and leave more road space for me. I appreciate your honesty. Made me think of this: https://www.theonion.com/report-98-percent-of-u-s-commuters-favor-public-trans-1819565837 https://www.theonion.com/report-98-percent-of-u-s-commuters-...
ergothus 9y ago
> Compared to having your own car, even the absolutely best, world class, mass transit service is just terrible. That seems an overly strong absolute. I would easily take a quick, clean, close, and reliable bus over car storage, maintenance, insurance, driving in traffic, ensuring I'm mentally alert enough to drive, finding parking, and paying for parking at my destination. That doesn't even mention the purchase experience, which is probably the worst buying experience there is. I've had such transit to some areas of different cities so I know it is possible. Generally, the more urban the area, the greater the benefits to transit and the higher the costs of car ownership, which makes your comment about properly designed cities questionable - what do you see as "properly designed" that still supports density? Even if you would never personally see the transit half as worth more than the car ownership half, can you see where others, who have different needs/uses for transportation, would?
- ars 9y ago
  > what do you see as "properly designed" that still supports density? I don't support density. I understand some like it, and that's good for them. But I personally hate it, and I know a lot of other people that hate it as well. I would hate to see the US switch to that being the primary form of life. But I'm not really worried - enough people hate it, that it's unlikely. The highest density I'm willing to consider is a 2 family row house (i.e. side to side, not up and down) on each plot of land. Anything denser than that and I'm not going to live there. Each house should have a front and back yard, at least some space on the sides between houses. We are not animals, there's no reason to pack people in like battery farming. Unless that's what you like. If you like that, more power to you.
  - ergothus 9y ago
    Thanks for the reply (and for answering my question in it)! I disagree on some conclusions, but that's not really relevant to this topic no matter how interesting it'd be. I'm a bit lost on one aspect though - in relation to the original purpose, I thought you were saying that advocating for mass transit in a city is a battle that cannot be won, and that cities could be designed to avoid the need for mass transit. Now I'm reading you as saying that not everyone will like mass transit and that a significant group will avoid cities - which are different statements than my original reading (and points I agree with). Am I missing something, or do I now get your core points?