3 ms·

The key is to build cities and surroundings around people and not around cars. Of course people will use cars if it's the best mode of transportation. But, as s

by shafyy 5y ago

The key is to build cities and surroundings around people and not around cars. Of course people will use cars if it's the best mode of transportation. But, as shown by many cities around the globe, if you make public transit or biking the best modes of transportation, people will not use cars to commute. I think this is something people who have never lived in such cities inherently don't understand. Public transport and bike will always be a better mode of transport for most use cases (not for all, of course) if implemented properly - self-driving cars or not. And no, the solution is also not a hyper loop. Just good old buses, trains, trams, subways and bikes.

Steltek 5y ago
It's hard to tell people "just take the bus" when the nearest suitable home to the bus stop starts at $1M. Alt transit is making slow but measurable progress but the housing situation is the real priority if you want people out of cars. Unless you're a believer in urban living, suburban costs are hard to beat, even when factoring in car ownership costs.
- shafyy 5y ago
  That's why I'm saying in "cities and surroundings". You can absolutely build great public transportation infrastructure in rural areas. For example, in Switzerland public transportation is mostly public, and you can go to every nook and corner of the country reliably. As a stark contrast, in Ireland, a lot of the "public" transport is privatized and there transport options suck in rural areas. Now, I don't want to make this about private vs. public (even though I absolutely think public transport should be public), but just to show that it's just a matter of how you invest money and set incentives to build this infrastructure.
- acdha 5y ago
  This very much depends on where you live. In SF or NYC, sure, housing is very expensive but that's not the entire country and even there it's exaggerating to say you can't live near transit for less than $1M. We definitely need more attention to urban housing availability and improving transit considerably (i.e. not treating it as a last resort for the poor / disabled) but there's also a lot of inertia and assumption driving those comparisons which leads people to think it's cheaper to live further out even when they end up spending the same amount or more (at least hopefully for a preferred lifestyle choice such as a large lawn).
asoneth 5y ago
> I think this is something people who have never lived in such cities inherently don't understand. I agree public transit is a solution, but I think the issue is with supply rather than demand. The fact that the market value of land within walking distance of good public transit options or bike facilities is significantly more expensive is evidence that most people clearly do appreciate how valuable it is. Unless more cities and towns build better public transit and bike facilities then a growing population of people will keep bidding up the existing supply and turn it into a luxury good that few can afford.
- shafyy 5y ago
  Yes exactly. But it's also a bit of a catch-22, since more people would need to elect government officials that care about this stuff, but they don't get elected because people don't know that it would improve their lives etc.

by shafyy 5y ago

Steltek 5y ago

It's hard to tell people "just take the bus" when the nearest suitable home to the bus stop starts at $1M. Alt transit is making slow but measurable progress but the housing situation is the real priority if you want people out of cars. Unless you're a believer in urban living, suburban costs are hard to beat, even when factoring in car ownership costs.

shafyy 5y ago
That's why I'm saying in "cities and surroundings". You can absolutely build great public transportation infrastructure in rural areas. For example, in Switzerland public transportation is mostly public, and you can go to every nook and corner of the country reliably. As a stark contrast, in Ireland, a lot of the "public" transport is privatized and there transport options suck in rural areas. Now, I don't want to make this about private vs. public (even though I absolutely think public transport should be public), but just to show that it's just a matter of how you invest money and set incentives to build this infrastructure.
acdha 5y ago
This very much depends on where you live. In SF or NYC, sure, housing is very expensive but that's not the entire country and even there it's exaggerating to say you can't live near transit for less than $1M. We definitely need more attention to urban housing availability and improving transit considerably (i.e. not treating it as a last resort for the poor / disabled) but there's also a lot of inertia and assumption driving those comparisons which leads people to think it's cheaper to live further out even when they end up spending the same amount or more (at least hopefully for a preferred lifestyle choice such as a large lawn).

asoneth 5y ago

> I think this is something people who have never lived in such cities inherently don't understand. I agree public transit is a solution, but I think the issue is with supply rather than demand. The fact that the market value of land within walking distance of good public transit options or bike facilities is significantly more expensive is evidence that most people clearly do appreciate how valuable it is. Unless more cities and towns build better public transit and bike facilities then a growing population of people will keep bidding up the existing supply and turn it into a luxury good that few can afford.

shafyy 5y ago
Yes exactly. But it's also a bit of a catch-22, since more people would need to elect government officials that care about this stuff, but they don't get elected because people don't know that it would improve their lives etc.