4 ms·

> Getting people on trains by forcing them out of cars can't actually do that. If you make it more expensive/inconvenient/impossible to drive, at most the same

> Getting people on trains by forcing them out of cars can't actually do that. If you make it more expensive/inconvenient/impossible to drive, at most the same number of people will take the train. Why? You seem to have an implicit hierarchy of transportation, and public transit is at the bottom of it.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> Why? You seem to have an implicit hierarchy of transportation, and public transit is at the bottom of it. No, many people prefer it -- everyone who uses it does. And everyone who drives prefers to drive. Because they both have the option to do the other thing. But getting one person to stop driving can't get two people to use mass transit. Where is the other person supposed to come from? Why would someone who hadn't been driving to begin with change their behavior based on the option they were already not choosing becoming even worse? If all you're doing is diverting people away from driving, you can't increase overall throughput because there is nowhere you're adding by more than you're subtracting somewhere else.
- Karrot_Kream 8y ago
  > No, many people prefer it -- everyone who uses it does. And everyone who drives prefers to drive. Because they both have the option to do the other thing. There are many parts of the US where this isn't the case, because cars are the only transportation available. That said, I think you're wrong about these strongly held preferences. There a decent amount of people who just want to get to where they're going and don't necessarily care how.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > There are many parts of the US where this isn't the case, because cars are the only transportation available. There are few places that have no level of at least bus service. And bicycling and walking are generally considered mass transit, which you can do in every part of the US I'm aware of. The number of places accessible only by car is negligible. But the mass transit in many places is terrible, to the point that a fifteen minute drive becomes a thirty minute walk followed by a twenty minute bus ride followed by a two hour walk. And the preference for cars comes in comparison to the alternative for the person making the choice, so people in those places obviously have a strong preference for cars. You could get them to prefer the bus there by making the car trip take three hours or cost $100, but what good is that? Whose life does it improve? > There a decent amount of people who just want to get to where they're going and don't necessarily care how. That's the point. If you want more people to take the bus, don't make it worse to drive, make it better to take the bus. You get the result you want, but you do it by improving someone's life instead of making it worse.
    - Karrot_Kream 8y ago
      > You could get them to prefer the bus there by making the car trip take three hours or cost $100, but what good is that? Whose life does it improve? It improves the lives of all those who are agnostic to their mode of transportation but want to get to their destination faster. The carrying capacity of a bus or a train is much higher than individual cars. It also saves cost on road maintenance because the amount of road strain / person decreases. > That's the point. If you want more people to take the bus, don't make it worse to drive, make it better to take the bus. In a perfect world, of course. We'd make separate bus roads, bicycle roads, and car roads, and then the road user would select their mode and their road and be done with it. In reality, budgets are limited. Prioritizing a car solution makes it worse for busses and bicyclists to use the same road. While a train can be a good non-disruptive alternative, it is extremely expensive to initially invest in. I'm also not exactly sympathetic to allowing car drivers free access to the space they take up on the road when space is a limited quantity.
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > It improves the lives of all those who are agnostic to their mode of transportation but want to get to their destination faster. But they're not getting to their destination faster. They were getting there in fifteen minutes, now it takes three hours because they can no longer afford to drive but the bus doesn't actually go to their destination. > We'd make separate bus roads, bicycle roads, and car roads, and then the road user would select their mode and their road and be done with it. You don't need separate roads, you need mass transit that actually goes where people need to go. Or better yet, to put more people where mass transit already is. > Prioritizing a car solution makes it worse for busses and bicyclists to use the same road. A bus can use the same uncongested road as a car with no problems, and traffic congestion is the same problem for both. There are a hundred different ways to address congestion other than "punish drivers" -- add new mass transit routes, build more housing on existing routes, lower or eliminate mass transit fares, switch from property tax to land value tax to encourage density, etc.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> Why? You seem to have an implicit hierarchy of transportation, and public transit is at the bottom of it. No, many people prefer it -- everyone who uses it does. And everyone who drives prefers to drive. Because they both have the option to do the other thing. But getting one person to stop driving can't get two people to use mass transit. Where is the other person supposed to come from? Why would someone who hadn't been driving to begin with change their behavior based on the option they were already not choosing becoming even worse? If all you're doing is diverting people away from driving, you can't increase overall throughput because there is nowhere you're adding by more than you're subtracting somewhere else.

Karrot_Kream 8y ago
> No, many people prefer it -- everyone who uses it does. And everyone who drives prefers to drive. Because they both have the option to do the other thing. There are many parts of the US where this isn't the case, because cars are the only transportation available. That said, I think you're wrong about these strongly held preferences. There a decent amount of people who just want to get to where they're going and don't necessarily care how.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > There are many parts of the US where this isn't the case, because cars are the only transportation available. There are few places that have no level of at least bus service. And bicycling and walking are generally considered mass transit, which you can do in every part of the US I'm aware of. The number of places accessible only by car is negligible. But the mass transit in many places is terrible, to the point that a fifteen minute drive becomes a thirty minute walk followed by a twenty minute bus ride followed by a two hour walk. And the preference for cars comes in comparison to the alternative for the person making the choice, so people in those places obviously have a strong preference for cars. You could get them to prefer the bus there by making the car trip take three hours or cost $100, but what good is that? Whose life does it improve? > There a decent amount of people who just want to get to where they're going and don't necessarily care how. That's the point. If you want more people to take the bus, don't make it worse to drive, make it better to take the bus. You get the result you want, but you do it by improving someone's life instead of making it worse.
  - Karrot_Kream 8y ago
    > You could get them to prefer the bus there by making the car trip take three hours or cost $100, but what good is that? Whose life does it improve? It improves the lives of all those who are agnostic to their mode of transportation but want to get to their destination faster. The carrying capacity of a bus or a train is much higher than individual cars. It also saves cost on road maintenance because the amount of road strain / person decreases. > That's the point. If you want more people to take the bus, don't make it worse to drive, make it better to take the bus. In a perfect world, of course. We'd make separate bus roads, bicycle roads, and car roads, and then the road user would select their mode and their road and be done with it. In reality, budgets are limited. Prioritizing a car solution makes it worse for busses and bicyclists to use the same road. While a train can be a good non-disruptive alternative, it is extremely expensive to initially invest in. I'm also not exactly sympathetic to allowing car drivers free access to the space they take up on the road when space is a limited quantity.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > It improves the lives of all those who are agnostic to their mode of transportation but want to get to their destination faster. But they're not getting to their destination faster. They were getting there in fifteen minutes, now it takes three hours because they can no longer afford to drive but the bus doesn't actually go to their destination. > We'd make separate bus roads, bicycle roads, and car roads, and then the road user would select their mode and their road and be done with it. You don't need separate roads, you need mass transit that actually goes where people need to go. Or better yet, to put more people where mass transit already is. > Prioritizing a car solution makes it worse for busses and bicyclists to use the same road. A bus can use the same uncongested road as a car with no problems, and traffic congestion is the same problem for both. There are a hundred different ways to address congestion other than "punish drivers" -- add new mass transit routes, build more housing on existing routes, lower or eliminate mass transit fares, switch from property tax to land value tax to encourage density, etc.