5 ms·

This is one of those classic, massively overconfident HN comments. Nothing has proven worse for American cities than massive free public infrastructure devoted

by akanet 7y ago

This is one of those classic, massively overconfident HN comments. Nothing has proven worse for American cities than massive free public infrastructure devoted to private automobile transportation, and our only hope to make our cities more livable, affordable, and environmentally safer is to massively switch to public transit. The tax on space, time, and energy required to move a bunch of people around in individual little containers is far too high.

simonebrunozzi 7y ago
I should have been more clear. Let me try again. The road infrastructure is already there, and has been already subsidized. It is my opinion that private autonomous transportation will become more efficient and cheaper than public transportation and therefore will supplant it. I speak not as the world expert, but as someone who did a relatively deep analysis of transportation costs in US cities. The ballpark figure is what I call TCTM, or Total Cost of Transportation per Mile, which doesn't take into account the cost of road infrastructure, simply assuming that it is already there. TCTM for uber/lyft and similar services is going down, and you do not even need fully autonomous, level-5 driverless cars, to have a TCTM lower than that offered by public buses. Hope this is clearer.
sokoloff 7y ago
Is there a net tax on time? It's unambiguous that I can get from where I live to where I work at least 40 and often 70 minutes faster in my car than I can on public transportation. (Cambridge, MA to Waltham, MA.) My commute would take me longer if I changed jobs to work in Kendall Sq in Cambridge and took the T across town. (DW worked in Kendall; her T commute was 1/3 the distance of mine and took 1.5-2x the time.) I'll grant you the space and energy inefficiency of private cars, but the time factor seems wildly in favor of point-to-point random route transport.
- MegaButts 7y ago
  The problem is Americans are normalized to terrible public transit. I was amazed how wonderful it was to get around using public transit the last time I was in Europe. It was so much better than the car I had rented for short-medium distance trips. I hear it's even better in Japan and other parts of Asia. The idea of having a dedicated lane with incredibly reliable timing is obviously better than the uncertainty of traffic.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Even with their “wonderful transit” and our “terrible transit” Americans have some of the shortest commutes in the OECD: https://www.oecd.org/els/family/LMF2_6_Time_spent_travelling_to_and_from_work.pdf https://www.oecd.org/els/family/LMF2_6_Time_spent_travelling.... Japan and Korea (which have fantastic public transit) have the longest.
- luckydata 7y ago
  If your transportation options are shit, then that's true. Of you have a good system like in Madrid for example, then car is always slower. Madrid is dense and invested heavily before public transportation paid off. You also need a little vision which is systematically lacking in American local politics.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    The DC metro built heavily in the Maryland suburbs. Decades later, the lines continue to be massively underutilized.
    - MegaButts 7y ago
      Okay, you make some good points. Do you think the problem is cultural or something else? I would be curious to see a breakdown for metro areas, where public transit is actually useful (obviously cars work fine for most of rural America, and add a bus system when necessary). But I have no idea if that analysis is available. I am heavily biased towards cities with awful traffic, where I would like to see less traffic.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        I think it's economics. The american middle class is richer, and taxed lower than almost any other in the OECD. That means that people can afford big houses in the suburbs,[1] and multiple cars per household,[2]. That means businesses have huge incentives to locate in low-cost suburbs, because they can count on all their workers being able to drive to work. Also, for the most part, driving is just faster, even in cities with bad traffic. I'm pretty lucky--I've got a train station 22 minutes from my house that drops me off an 8-minute walk away from work (with no transfers). Driving in involves fighting through rush-hour traffic from one end of D.C. to the opposite end, but it's still no slower on the way in, and 20 minutes faster on the way out. All those stops just make the train slow. [1] Average house size in the US is twice as big as in Japan or Western Europe: https://www.elledecor.com/life-culture/fun-at-home/news/a7654/house-sizes-around-the-world/ https://www.elledecor.com/life-culture/fun-at-home/news/a765... [2] Americans have 50% more cars per capita than the EU average.

by akanet 7y ago

simonebrunozzi 7y ago

I should have been more clear. Let me try again. The road infrastructure is already there, and has been already subsidized. It is my opinion that private autonomous transportation will become more efficient and cheaper than public transportation and therefore will supplant it. I speak not as the world expert, but as someone who did a relatively deep analysis of transportation costs in US cities. The ballpark figure is what I call TCTM, or Total Cost of Transportation per Mile, which doesn't take into account the cost of road infrastructure, simply assuming that it is already there. TCTM for uber/lyft and similar services is going down, and you do not even need fully autonomous, level-5 driverless cars, to have a TCTM lower than that offered by public buses. Hope this is clearer.

sokoloff 7y ago

Is there a net tax on time? It's unambiguous that I can get from where I live to where I work at least 40 and often 70 minutes faster in my car than I can on public transportation. (Cambridge, MA to Waltham, MA.) My commute would take me longer if I changed jobs to work in Kendall Sq in Cambridge and took the T across town. (DW worked in Kendall; her T commute was 1/3 the distance of mine and took 1.5-2x the time.) I'll grant you the space and energy inefficiency of private cars, but the time factor seems wildly in favor of point-to-point random route transport.

MegaButts 7y ago
The problem is Americans are normalized to terrible public transit. I was amazed how wonderful it was to get around using public transit the last time I was in Europe. It was so much better than the car I had rented for short-medium distance trips. I hear it's even better in Japan and other parts of Asia. The idea of having a dedicated lane with incredibly reliable timing is obviously better than the uncertainty of traffic.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Even with their “wonderful transit” and our “terrible transit” Americans have some of the shortest commutes in the OECD: https://www.oecd.org/els/family/LMF2_6_Time_spent_travelling_to_and_from_work.pdf https://www.oecd.org/els/family/LMF2_6_Time_spent_travelling.... Japan and Korea (which have fantastic public transit) have the longest.
luckydata 7y ago
If your transportation options are shit, then that's true. Of you have a good system like in Madrid for example, then car is always slower. Madrid is dense and invested heavily before public transportation paid off. You also need a little vision which is systematically lacking in American local politics.
- rayiner 7y ago
  The DC metro built heavily in the Maryland suburbs. Decades later, the lines continue to be massively underutilized.
  - MegaButts 7y ago
    Okay, you make some good points. Do you think the problem is cultural or something else? I would be curious to see a breakdown for metro areas, where public transit is actually useful (obviously cars work fine for most of rural America, and add a bus system when necessary). But I have no idea if that analysis is available. I am heavily biased towards cities with awful traffic, where I would like to see less traffic.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      I think it's economics. The american middle class is richer, and taxed lower than almost any other in the OECD. That means that people can afford big houses in the suburbs,[1] and multiple cars per household,[2]. That means businesses have huge incentives to locate in low-cost suburbs, because they can count on all their workers being able to drive to work. Also, for the most part, driving is just faster, even in cities with bad traffic. I'm pretty lucky--I've got a train station 22 minutes from my house that drops me off an 8-minute walk away from work (with no transfers). Driving in involves fighting through rush-hour traffic from one end of D.C. to the opposite end, but it's still no slower on the way in, and 20 minutes faster on the way out. All those stops just make the train slow. [1] Average house size in the US is twice as big as in Japan or Western Europe: https://www.elledecor.com/life-culture/fun-at-home/news/a7654/house-sizes-around-the-world/ https://www.elledecor.com/life-culture/fun-at-home/news/a765... [2] Americans have 50% more cars per capita than the EU average.