4 ms·

Public transportation is also full of impolite people, un-assimilated people etc... which makes the commute very unpleasant. Taking the bus/metro everyday at th

Public transportation is also full of impolite people, un-assimilated people etc... which makes the commute very unpleasant. Taking the bus/metro everyday at the worse hour, in summer, with rednecks all around you is definitely not the good side of transportation. As soon as i'll get a car, i'll never get back into public transportation

wozniacki 7y ago
This and a dozen very closely related and tangential things concerning safety, sanitation, hygiene & propriety of people using public transportation is the reason people like me would never opt for it. Unless standards in those aspects of public transit were raised to such a high degree that they were no longer a threat or annoyance, a car would be exponentially more preferable. I think people on HN seem to underestimate how small of a cross section, the fashionable opinions on HN appeal to and how unrealistic they are, once you bring into full view the jarring realities of modern life and how people cope with them.
- tarsinge 7y ago
  Keep in mind this is specific to the US, in Paris you have a lot of suits going to the office using the public transportation (me included), though it depends on the line and the hour of the day.
  - agent008t 7y ago
    Is it not more out of necessity though? Would those people not prefer to drive if that was a viable option? In Paris specifically, the public transportation is fairly unpleasant - a lot of homeless people, antisocial behavior, bad odours, etc. Not sure how it is during rush hour, but probably uncomfortably packed too, so the ideal that Americans seem to have of sitting in a pleasant train reading a book or doing some work doesn't quite apply.
    - tarsinge 7y ago
      It depends but for me definitely not. I have a car and much prefer public transports instead of having to be stuck in traffic then having the hassle of parking the car. I feel way more free in the city without my car, and the journey is faster as well. You are right that it’s quite packed in the rush hour, but you can still read a book standing. Regarding the other issues you cite it really depends of the line. The one I take regularly (RER A) is very calm and clean. And keep in mind that there are more than 1 million passengers every day. Touristic areas are certainly problematic but it’s a completely different issue (to put it simply a lot of touristic areas in Paris are dirty and/or in sketchy neighborhoods to start with. Parisians usually don’t go or work there). Source: taking public transports nearly everyday since more than 15 years in the area. I love my car but for road trips and going to the countryside.
      - agent008t 7y ago
        Sure, but assuming there was little traffic and there was plenty of parking available? My point is that when comparing imperfect reality with perfect "grass on the other side", the "other side" will likely win. For example, given the unaffordability and small size/low quality of dwellings available in London, American perfectly manicured suburbs with plenty of space and big open highways may start to look somewhat appealing. In the end, it all depends on the actual reality of it - how busy the roads are, how easy it is to find parking, how clean/nice/empty/reliable the public transport is etc. Idealizing one option over the others as can be seen in this thread seems silly. If there is a "silver bullet", it is probably in decentralizing work more such that more people can walk/cycle to work while living in a nice village, while also having clean/fast/efficient public transportation available as well as a great road system to reach the more remote locations / get to places when a car is just more convenient.
        AstralStorm 7y ago
        Assumption would require razing whole city, with costs to all other users, especially pedestrians. So no, it is not going to happen. Even with new laws requiring buildings to provide underground parking places, it won't be enough. It's never enough. The suburbs exist in Greater London area too, just as they do near Warsaw. They have similar style to American ones, but more nearby services and are built in clusters. That makes them much more accessible to foot traffic.
- vladojsem 7y ago
  I am living in Prague now and you really don't need a car here. The same applies to Antwerp that I visited this year. I am not sure how well you know Europe, but there are many cities where you don't need a car and public transport is even faster (often it can be harder to find parking lot than just walk from the metro station).
- thex10 7y ago
  As if us public transit users aren't living in reality. Yeah okay bud. - Public transit is publicly funded. For improvements in safety, cleanliness etc to happen, the systems need (public) money. But you will never pay fares because you're scared to take transit, and you probably would never vote in favor of a ballot measure to allocate more tax money to transit because you happen have a car and don't believe improved transit would benefit you anyway. - The population using public transit generally reflects the fact that our culture encourages anyone with enough money/resources to purchase and use a car -- leaving behind everyone who can't (e.g. cash poor, disabled). This scares off the more sensitive potential transit users who'd rather pretend these folks don't exist. The jarring reality is that most Americans (and their political leadership) are classist, sheltered, and have a "fuck you, I got mine" attitude. Source: US lifelong resident of various large cities, no driver's license at the age of 31.
  - davesmith1983 7y ago
    > Public transit is publicly funded. For improvements in safety, cleanliness etc to happen, the systems need (public) money. All you are admitting here is that the Government can't provide a compelling alternative to a more expensive form of transport. > But you will never pay fares because you're scared to take transit, and you probably would never vote in favor of a ballot measure to allocate more tax money to transit because you happen have a car and don't believe improved transit would benefit you anyway. Why vote to increase spending on something that doesn't benefit you? People won't and you won't convince anyone. This is an unrealistic standard you expect of other people, plus the high and mighty tone you are using won't win people over. > The population using public transit generally reflects the fact that our culture encourages anyone with enough money/resources to purchase and use a car -- leaving behind everyone who can't (e.g. cash poor, disabled). This scares off the more sensitive potential transit users who'd rather pretend these folks don't exist. This is such a biased representation of what the real problem is and you conveniently ignore things like violent thugs on public transport (I've experienced this several times in the UK), rowdy teenagers, drunks and the mentally ill. I used to have a guy who stank and wore a soccer ball on his head catch the same bus, large groups of teenage boys vandalising the train coaches or playing loud music on a quiet carriage and they are far from the worst I've encountered. No I don't want to have to deal with possibility of violence, nutcases and other general unpleasantness so I won't take the train (I am in the UK). > The jarring reality is that most Americans (and their political leadership) are classist, sheltered, and have a "fuck you, I got mine" attitude. I doubt they are. What they want to do is get on with their life with as little hassle as possible, like most people do. > Source: US lifelong resident of various large cities, no driver's license at the age of 31. So no real evidence what-so-ever other than your very biased opinion.

wozniacki 7y ago

This and a dozen very closely related and tangential things concerning safety, sanitation, hygiene & propriety of people using public transportation is the reason people like me would never opt for it. Unless standards in those aspects of public transit were raised to such a high degree that they were no longer a threat or annoyance, a car would be exponentially more preferable. I think people on HN seem to underestimate how small of a cross section, the fashionable opinions on HN appeal to and how unrealistic they are, once you bring into full view the jarring realities of modern life and how people cope with them.

tarsinge 7y ago
Keep in mind this is specific to the US, in Paris you have a lot of suits going to the office using the public transportation (me included), though it depends on the line and the hour of the day.
- agent008t 7y ago
  Is it not more out of necessity though? Would those people not prefer to drive if that was a viable option? In Paris specifically, the public transportation is fairly unpleasant - a lot of homeless people, antisocial behavior, bad odours, etc. Not sure how it is during rush hour, but probably uncomfortably packed too, so the ideal that Americans seem to have of sitting in a pleasant train reading a book or doing some work doesn't quite apply.
  - tarsinge 7y ago
    It depends but for me definitely not. I have a car and much prefer public transports instead of having to be stuck in traffic then having the hassle of parking the car. I feel way more free in the city without my car, and the journey is faster as well. You are right that it’s quite packed in the rush hour, but you can still read a book standing. Regarding the other issues you cite it really depends of the line. The one I take regularly (RER A) is very calm and clean. And keep in mind that there are more than 1 million passengers every day. Touristic areas are certainly problematic but it’s a completely different issue (to put it simply a lot of touristic areas in Paris are dirty and/or in sketchy neighborhoods to start with. Parisians usually don’t go or work there). Source: taking public transports nearly everyday since more than 15 years in the area. I love my car but for road trips and going to the countryside.
    - agent008t 7y ago
      Sure, but assuming there was little traffic and there was plenty of parking available? My point is that when comparing imperfect reality with perfect "grass on the other side", the "other side" will likely win. For example, given the unaffordability and small size/low quality of dwellings available in London, American perfectly manicured suburbs with plenty of space and big open highways may start to look somewhat appealing. In the end, it all depends on the actual reality of it - how busy the roads are, how easy it is to find parking, how clean/nice/empty/reliable the public transport is etc. Idealizing one option over the others as can be seen in this thread seems silly. If there is a "silver bullet", it is probably in decentralizing work more such that more people can walk/cycle to work while living in a nice village, while also having clean/fast/efficient public transportation available as well as a great road system to reach the more remote locations / get to places when a car is just more convenient.
      - AstralStorm 7y ago
        Assumption would require razing whole city, with costs to all other users, especially pedestrians. So no, it is not going to happen. Even with new laws requiring buildings to provide underground parking places, it won't be enough. It's never enough. The suburbs exist in Greater London area too, just as they do near Warsaw. They have similar style to American ones, but more nearby services and are built in clusters. That makes them much more accessible to foot traffic.
vladojsem 7y ago
I am living in Prague now and you really don't need a car here. The same applies to Antwerp that I visited this year. I am not sure how well you know Europe, but there are many cities where you don't need a car and public transport is even faster (often it can be harder to find parking lot than just walk from the metro station).
thex10 7y ago
As if us public transit users aren't living in reality. Yeah okay bud. - Public transit is publicly funded. For improvements in safety, cleanliness etc to happen, the systems need (public) money. But you will never pay fares because you're scared to take transit, and you probably would never vote in favor of a ballot measure to allocate more tax money to transit because you happen have a car and don't believe improved transit would benefit you anyway. - The population using public transit generally reflects the fact that our culture encourages anyone with enough money/resources to purchase and use a car -- leaving behind everyone who can't (e.g. cash poor, disabled). This scares off the more sensitive potential transit users who'd rather pretend these folks don't exist. The jarring reality is that most Americans (and their political leadership) are classist, sheltered, and have a "fuck you, I got mine" attitude. Source: US lifelong resident of various large cities, no driver's license at the age of 31.
- davesmith1983 7y ago
  > Public transit is publicly funded. For improvements in safety, cleanliness etc to happen, the systems need (public) money. All you are admitting here is that the Government can't provide a compelling alternative to a more expensive form of transport. > But you will never pay fares because you're scared to take transit, and you probably would never vote in favor of a ballot measure to allocate more tax money to transit because you happen have a car and don't believe improved transit would benefit you anyway. Why vote to increase spending on something that doesn't benefit you? People won't and you won't convince anyone. This is an unrealistic standard you expect of other people, plus the high and mighty tone you are using won't win people over. > The population using public transit generally reflects the fact that our culture encourages anyone with enough money/resources to purchase and use a car -- leaving behind everyone who can't (e.g. cash poor, disabled). This scares off the more sensitive potential transit users who'd rather pretend these folks don't exist. This is such a biased representation of what the real problem is and you conveniently ignore things like violent thugs on public transport (I've experienced this several times in the UK), rowdy teenagers, drunks and the mentally ill. I used to have a guy who stank and wore a soccer ball on his head catch the same bus, large groups of teenage boys vandalising the train coaches or playing loud music on a quiet carriage and they are far from the worst I've encountered. No I don't want to have to deal with possibility of violence, nutcases and other general unpleasantness so I won't take the train (I am in the UK). > The jarring reality is that most Americans (and their political leadership) are classist, sheltered, and have a "fuck you, I got mine" attitude. I doubt they are. What they want to do is get on with their life with as little hassle as possible, like most people do. > Source: US lifelong resident of various large cities, no driver's license at the age of 31. So no real evidence what-so-ever other than your very biased opinion.