5 ms·

Advanced city is not where the poor have cars, but the rich use public transport

82 points by FabHK 5y ago

rootsudo 5y ago
Biggest social equalizer I've seen, especially in NYC/Chicago.
- justinator 5y ago
  Or Paris, or Amsterdam.
- kortilla 5y ago
  Both huge markets for private car services. The rich taking public transport everywhere doesn’t really happen anywhere in the US.
1cvmask 5y ago
This from the article: The original quote (from 2012) is from another former mayor of Bogotá, Enrique Peñalosa, and it reads: Una ciudad avanzada no es en la que los pobres pueden moverse en carro, sino una en la que incluso los ricos utilizan el transporte público. That roughly translates in English to: An advanced city is not one where the poor can get around by car, but one where even the rich use public transportation. - I think the mayor is referring to a city being safe enough so that even the rich can public transportation. In many parts of Colombia public transportation was too dangerous for the rich as they killed and/or kidnapped. The rich used to travel in armored vehicles with protection in Colombia.
- orev 5y ago
  In both the US and Europe, public transport is, for the most part, very safe, but there’s still an attitude that many people have that only poor people use it. This is more of the issue that prevents people from using it (and also a reason they don’t want to build it in the first place), as social perception is a very strong motivator. When a country is at the point where issues like kidnapping and murder are a widespread problem, now you’re talking about a complete failure of the law and government, and at that point public transportation is relatively low on the priority list.
exdsq 5y ago
What a thought provoking point. Advanced cities are good enough that the people who could pay for more are still happy with the same.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  And where "more" isn't necessarily better. It's super frustrating that Google Maps doesn't include the time it takes to walk to your car, the time it takes to drive out of the parking lot, the time it takes to find a parking spot and the time it takes to walk from your parking spot to your destination -- or the time it takes to wait for an Uber. [edit] It just assumes there's a car out front of your house, idling, that you can drop directly off in front of your destination and forget about. On the other hand, with public transit directions, it takes into account not just how long it takes to walk to and from your destination, but in places without fixed schedules for certain routes, assumes you'll miss one and have to wait for the next one. A good example is getting from Brooklyn to JFK with the A and AirTrain via Howard Beach Station. It just adds 15 extra minutes, making transit look much worse than an Uber - where in reality, it's usually a good 10 minutes faster. In a lot of cases, biking or taking public transit are simply better choices - faster, cheaper, more convenient. That's not how they're often presented, however. I live in downtown SF, and I now exclusively take transit, scooters or my e-bike. It's just better.
  - exdsq 5y ago
    I went back to edit my comment before I saw yours about "more" potentially not being better so I completely agree. I'm in Palo Alto and very happy getting around on my bike or the caltrain (or renting a car for the one-offs).
  - mohanmcgeek 5y ago
    People in the US live in suburbs that are several towns worth of distance away from the city. In many cases, the train lines don't exist on those places. This culture of suburbia needs to change.
    - 5y ago
afinlayson 5y ago
Love this. Most North American cities are built around cars, it'll take a lot to change this. But it won't happen by the free market alone, cities need to hire good urban planners and user experience designers to build these cities.
- davidw 5y ago
  I'm no market fundamentalist, but there are so many things in our current codes that prevent the market from doing its job. Parking minimums for instance. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/10/11/where-we-embrace-socialism-in-the-us-parking-lots https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/10/11/where-we-embr... At the very least, we should get rid of that sort of thing, and work on planning the public spaces we do have, like roads, sidewalks, bike paths and parks.
evrenesat 5y ago
Since intercity travel via car is cheaper than the trains, if you take whole Netherlands as a very big city, their understanding of being advanced looks quite different.
- 6510 5y ago
  NL should adjust prices to the number of travelers. The amount of empty trains driving around (for good reasons) is mind blowing. Big cities need lots of trains, where do you park them at night, clean them or do maintenance? Far away and outside the normal schedule. Close to urban areas the trains are both big and full but the further away they get the fewer passengers. If those trips were free it would cost very little. 600 p x 2 euro vs 5 p x 30 euro. Empty trains also aren't safe and people behave like pigs.
wicket 5y ago
That quote is quite ironic to tell the truth. Peñalosa created a public transport system that's overcrowded and unsafe. Nobody wants to use it, but many have no other choice but to use it.
- kgin 5y ago
  Fortunately the Bogota Metro is under construction now and will be open in a few years.
- jetrink 5y ago
  Can you expand on that? Creating a public transit system that suffers from overcrowding doesn't sound like a failure; it sounds like a good start. (Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded. - Yogi Berra)
  - wicket 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransMilenio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransMilenio It's not a failure in terms of the number of people that use it, but when the seats are full and the standing passengers are jam-packed like sardines, it's definitely nothing to brag about, and you certainly won't find the rich using it. Peñalosa also introduced Pico y Placa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pico_y_placa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pico_y_placa), a system that does not negatively impact those who can afford to own two cars, and forces the remainder of car owners to use the atrocious public transport system every other day.
mehrdada 5y ago
I am skeptical of such claims despite the sophisticated vibe one may carry in their belief. It's natural for less economically prosperous jurisdictions outside North America to try over-glorifying themselves with non-quantifiable metrics like "happiness" and claims like this to "feel good". There is also a certain "petty jealousy" targeted at the US lifestyle that I sensed in Europe for example. (To be clear, I am saying this as a non-American). The truth is probably to have more availability of both.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  it's not confined to less prosperous regions. Bankers in NY, London, Tokyo take public transit. In any city that is safe and dense you'll see plenty of professionals take public transport. Singapore has a car ownership rate of 10% and I wouldn't accuse them of petty jealousy. I don't think people are jealous of a lifestyle where you have to drive an hour to the next city and spend hours of your day behind a wheel. Nobody outside of the US envies that lifestyle
  - mehrdada 5y ago
    In which case one could more accurately substitute "dense" for "advanced". There is an implicit assumption that dense == advanced that may or may not be true.
- mohanmcgeek 5y ago
  "Economic prosperity" is just as non-quantifiable as happiness. GDP vs HDI It's commendable that these countries are setting meaningful goals than to simply chase empty GDP growth.
code123456789 5y ago
This kind of advanced city is so expensive that the middle class has to use public transportation, even when they wish to ride a car. That's not about the rich. Really rich people do not use public transportation, they can afford a car with a driver, or a helicopter even in the most expensive cities. Taxis exist all over Europe, even though middle class often uses the public transportation. So I would rephrase this quote as An advanced city is the one where public transportation is clean, safe, time-reliable and abundant (covers most of the city/metropolis).
- akban 5y ago
  Quite a few streets in Istanbul are too narrow for cars. No matter how "rich" you are, you'll have to exit the car and walk like the rest of us 'plebes'
- herbst 5y ago
  I mean it depends on what you think rich is. However the reason why rich and popular people often use the train in Switzerland are not only the views and because it is comfortable but also because it is usually by far the fastest way to get around. I've seen our then president getting a sandwich before he jumps back on a public tram.
- mohanmcgeek 5y ago
  I feel the article is talking about the top 10 percent in the city not the top 0.01% who can afford a helicopter. And these people would use the subway if it would get them from point A to point B faster than a car.
  - yongjik 5y ago
    Exactly. Talking about the top 0.01% is a distraction, because whatever they're doing won't move the needle a bit on transportation (unless they're blocking a highway construction or something). Don't think of billionaires. Think of your average Google engineer.
  - 6510 5y ago
    Faster and more comfortably. Back when trains were only for the rich (just after private cabins) they looked like high end restaurants. This gradually went away but I imagine a great breakfast to be a much more appealing activity than driving in rush hour. Decent seats, tables/desks and fast internet (without a portal page) so that one can plant down the laptop and get to work would also be more interesting than driving.
beardyw 5y ago
Sometimes it's just for practical reasons. A completely unsupported fact is that it now takes longer to cross London by car than it did in an ox cart. And add on a £15 charge. That's a good reason not to drive.
pmdulaney 5y ago
You have come far, Grasshopper.

82 points by FabHK 5y ago

rootsudo 5y ago

Biggest social equalizer I've seen, especially in NYC/Chicago.

justinator 5y ago
Or Paris, or Amsterdam.
kortilla 5y ago
Both huge markets for private car services. The rich taking public transport everywhere doesn’t really happen anywhere in the US.

1cvmask 5y ago

This from the article: The original quote (from 2012) is from another former mayor of Bogotá, Enrique Peñalosa, and it reads: Una ciudad avanzada no es en la que los pobres pueden moverse en carro, sino una en la que incluso los ricos utilizan el transporte público. That roughly translates in English to: An advanced city is not one where the poor can get around by car, but one where even the rich use public transportation. - I think the mayor is referring to a city being safe enough so that even the rich can public transportation. In many parts of Colombia public transportation was too dangerous for the rich as they killed and/or kidnapped. The rich used to travel in armored vehicles with protection in Colombia.

orev 5y ago
In both the US and Europe, public transport is, for the most part, very safe, but there’s still an attitude that many people have that only poor people use it. This is more of the issue that prevents people from using it (and also a reason they don’t want to build it in the first place), as social perception is a very strong motivator. When a country is at the point where issues like kidnapping and murder are a widespread problem, now you’re talking about a complete failure of the law and government, and at that point public transportation is relatively low on the priority list.

exdsq 5y ago

What a thought provoking point. Advanced cities are good enough that the people who could pay for more are still happy with the same.

arcticbull 5y ago
And where "more" isn't necessarily better. It's super frustrating that Google Maps doesn't include the time it takes to walk to your car, the time it takes to drive out of the parking lot, the time it takes to find a parking spot and the time it takes to walk from your parking spot to your destination -- or the time it takes to wait for an Uber. [edit] It just assumes there's a car out front of your house, idling, that you can drop directly off in front of your destination and forget about. On the other hand, with public transit directions, it takes into account not just how long it takes to walk to and from your destination, but in places without fixed schedules for certain routes, assumes you'll miss one and have to wait for the next one. A good example is getting from Brooklyn to JFK with the A and AirTrain via Howard Beach Station. It just adds 15 extra minutes, making transit look much worse than an Uber - where in reality, it's usually a good 10 minutes faster. In a lot of cases, biking or taking public transit are simply better choices - faster, cheaper, more convenient. That's not how they're often presented, however. I live in downtown SF, and I now exclusively take transit, scooters or my e-bike. It's just better.
- exdsq 5y ago
  I went back to edit my comment before I saw yours about "more" potentially not being better so I completely agree. I'm in Palo Alto and very happy getting around on my bike or the caltrain (or renting a car for the one-offs).
- mohanmcgeek 5y ago
  People in the US live in suburbs that are several towns worth of distance away from the city. In many cases, the train lines don't exist on those places. This culture of suburbia needs to change.
  - 5y ago

afinlayson 5y ago

Love this. Most North American cities are built around cars, it'll take a lot to change this. But it won't happen by the free market alone, cities need to hire good urban planners and user experience designers to build these cities.

davidw 5y ago
I'm no market fundamentalist, but there are so many things in our current codes that prevent the market from doing its job. Parking minimums for instance. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/10/11/where-we-embrace-socialism-in-the-us-parking-lots https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/10/11/where-we-embr... At the very least, we should get rid of that sort of thing, and work on planning the public spaces we do have, like roads, sidewalks, bike paths and parks.

evrenesat 5y ago

Since intercity travel via car is cheaper than the trains, if you take whole Netherlands as a very big city, their understanding of being advanced looks quite different.

6510 5y ago
NL should adjust prices to the number of travelers. The amount of empty trains driving around (for good reasons) is mind blowing. Big cities need lots of trains, where do you park them at night, clean them or do maintenance? Far away and outside the normal schedule. Close to urban areas the trains are both big and full but the further away they get the fewer passengers. If those trips were free it would cost very little. 600 p x 2 euro vs 5 p x 30 euro. Empty trains also aren't safe and people behave like pigs.

wicket 5y ago

That quote is quite ironic to tell the truth. Peñalosa created a public transport system that's overcrowded and unsafe. Nobody wants to use it, but many have no other choice but to use it.

kgin 5y ago
Fortunately the Bogota Metro is under construction now and will be open in a few years.
jetrink 5y ago
Can you expand on that? Creating a public transit system that suffers from overcrowding doesn't sound like a failure; it sounds like a good start. (Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded. - Yogi Berra)
- wicket 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransMilenio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransMilenio It's not a failure in terms of the number of people that use it, but when the seats are full and the standing passengers are jam-packed like sardines, it's definitely nothing to brag about, and you certainly won't find the rich using it. Peñalosa also introduced Pico y Placa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pico_y_placa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pico_y_placa), a system that does not negatively impact those who can afford to own two cars, and forces the remainder of car owners to use the atrocious public transport system every other day.

mehrdada 5y ago

I am skeptical of such claims despite the sophisticated vibe one may carry in their belief. It's natural for less economically prosperous jurisdictions outside North America to try over-glorifying themselves with non-quantifiable metrics like "happiness" and claims like this to "feel good". There is also a certain "petty jealousy" targeted at the US lifestyle that I sensed in Europe for example. (To be clear, I am saying this as a non-American). The truth is probably to have more availability of both.

Barrin92 5y ago
it's not confined to less prosperous regions. Bankers in NY, London, Tokyo take public transit. In any city that is safe and dense you'll see plenty of professionals take public transport. Singapore has a car ownership rate of 10% and I wouldn't accuse them of petty jealousy. I don't think people are jealous of a lifestyle where you have to drive an hour to the next city and spend hours of your day behind a wheel. Nobody outside of the US envies that lifestyle
- mehrdada 5y ago
  In which case one could more accurately substitute "dense" for "advanced". There is an implicit assumption that dense == advanced that may or may not be true.
mohanmcgeek 5y ago
"Economic prosperity" is just as non-quantifiable as happiness. GDP vs HDI It's commendable that these countries are setting meaningful goals than to simply chase empty GDP growth.

code123456789 5y ago

This kind of advanced city is so expensive that the middle class has to use public transportation, even when they wish to ride a car. That's not about the rich. Really rich people do not use public transportation, they can afford a car with a driver, or a helicopter even in the most expensive cities. Taxis exist all over Europe, even though middle class often uses the public transportation. So I would rephrase this quote as An advanced city is the one where public transportation is clean, safe, time-reliable and abundant (covers most of the city/metropolis).

akban 5y ago
Quite a few streets in Istanbul are too narrow for cars. No matter how "rich" you are, you'll have to exit the car and walk like the rest of us 'plebes'
herbst 5y ago
I mean it depends on what you think rich is. However the reason why rich and popular people often use the train in Switzerland are not only the views and because it is comfortable but also because it is usually by far the fastest way to get around. I've seen our then president getting a sandwich before he jumps back on a public tram.
mohanmcgeek 5y ago
I feel the article is talking about the top 10 percent in the city not the top 0.01% who can afford a helicopter. And these people would use the subway if it would get them from point A to point B faster than a car.
- yongjik 5y ago
  Exactly. Talking about the top 0.01% is a distraction, because whatever they're doing won't move the needle a bit on transportation (unless they're blocking a highway construction or something). Don't think of billionaires. Think of your average Google engineer.
- 6510 5y ago
  Faster and more comfortably. Back when trains were only for the rich (just after private cabins) they looked like high end restaurants. This gradually went away but I imagine a great breakfast to be a much more appealing activity than driving in rush hour. Decent seats, tables/desks and fast internet (without a portal page) so that one can plant down the laptop and get to work would also be more interesting than driving.

beardyw 5y ago

Sometimes it's just for practical reasons. A completely unsupported fact is that it now takes longer to cross London by car than it did in an ox cart. And add on a £15 charge. That's a good reason not to drive.

pmdulaney 5y ago

You have come far, Grasshopper.