5 ms·

Except that cars have influenced the way we build towns and cities: separate everything by non-walkable, non-busable distances because the basic assumption is t

Except that cars have influenced the way we build towns and cities: separate everything by non-walkable, non-busable distances because the basic assumption is that everyone has a car. Public transit "sucks" for a number of reasons, many of them car-related: (-) buses have to share roads with cars, so they have to put up with the congestion they are trying to solve, (-) money that would have been spent on public transit is being spent on road expansions to "solve traffic", and others. > cars are the worst solution except for all the others. This doesn't explain cities that have successful public transit systems... We wouldn't have built our offices and homes so far from each other if the expectation was to walk/bike/bus everywhere. Unfortunately this is a chicken-and-egg problem, where things may need to get worse temporarily for things to get better.

iateanapple 6y ago
> This doesn't explain cities that have successful public transit systems... Do these cities simply have terrible private transit options? I don’t know anyone who would prefer to take public transport except in cities with poor car infrastructure. I do know lots of people who would rather walk or bike to work.
- devdas 6y ago
  You have to explicitly optimise the city for public transit. Quite a lot of European cities do that.
  - iateanapple 6y ago
    > You have to explicitly optimise the city for public transit. Quite a lot of European cities do that. Even in those cities very few enjoy taking public transport - and would drive if they had free parking, didn’t have to pay tolls, didn’t think it was terrible for the environment, etc
    - rini17 6y ago
      This is not true, driving in european cities is stressful (narrow streets with irregular layout, high density of pedestrians/cyclists, not enough parking places). The public transit, when done right, is way more convenient.
    - rtlfe 6y ago
      > would drive if they had free parking, didn’t have to pay tolls, didn’t think it was terrible for the environment, etc So basically your argument is that people would drive if it weren't terrible in every way? By that logic, people would eat plutonium... if only it were more available, tasted good, and didn't kill you.
    - devdas 6y ago
      That would still make things worse, because cars need roadspace. Getting rid of the road space for cars and making public transit good enough is a pretty good solution.
closeparen 6y ago
Which public transit system enables the median earner to own a 2,400sqft single family detached house on a quarter acre in a socioeconomically homogeneous school district?
- kqr 6y ago
  No system of any kind allows that. With public transit, you pay for it in personal discomfort and rigidness of schedule. With personal automobiles, you simply externalise the negativities – but there's still a huge cost, only no longer paid by the individual.
- rtlfe 6y ago
  > the median earner to own a 2,400sqft single family detached house on a quarter acre in a socioeconomically homogeneous school district Why would that be the goal?

iateanapple 6y ago

> This doesn't explain cities that have successful public transit systems... Do these cities simply have terrible private transit options? I don’t know anyone who would prefer to take public transport except in cities with poor car infrastructure. I do know lots of people who would rather walk or bike to work.

devdas 6y ago
You have to explicitly optimise the city for public transit. Quite a lot of European cities do that.
- iateanapple 6y ago
  > You have to explicitly optimise the city for public transit. Quite a lot of European cities do that. Even in those cities very few enjoy taking public transport - and would drive if they had free parking, didn’t have to pay tolls, didn’t think it was terrible for the environment, etc
  - rini17 6y ago
    This is not true, driving in european cities is stressful (narrow streets with irregular layout, high density of pedestrians/cyclists, not enough parking places). The public transit, when done right, is way more convenient.
  - rtlfe 6y ago
    > would drive if they had free parking, didn’t have to pay tolls, didn’t think it was terrible for the environment, etc So basically your argument is that people would drive if it weren't terrible in every way? By that logic, people would eat plutonium... if only it were more available, tasted good, and didn't kill you.
  - devdas 6y ago
    That would still make things worse, because cars need roadspace. Getting rid of the road space for cars and making public transit good enough is a pretty good solution.

closeparen 6y ago

Which public transit system enables the median earner to own a 2,400sqft single family detached house on a quarter acre in a socioeconomically homogeneous school district?

kqr 6y ago
No system of any kind allows that. With public transit, you pay for it in personal discomfort and rigidness of schedule. With personal automobiles, you simply externalise the negativities – but there's still a huge cost, only no longer paid by the individual.
rtlfe 6y ago
> the median earner to own a 2,400sqft single family detached house on a quarter acre in a socioeconomically homogeneous school district Why would that be the goal?