5 ms·

This essay is consistent with my feelings. In particular, the ending paragraphs: "Ultimately, my fondest wish is that I lived somewhere where I didn't want or n

by vwoolf 5y ago

This essay is consistent with my feelings. In particular, the ending paragraphs: "Ultimately, my fondest wish is that I lived somewhere where I didn't want or need a car at all. I hate cars. I hate driving. I really hate other people's driving, and other people's cars." I wish the same, but those wishes seem not to be sufficiently widely shared for them to appear in local and state elections, and so we see the world in which we sadly live. In the U.S., L.A. appears to be the only city somewhat on the way to having a real, large-scale, and functional rail transit system, and even that is occurring with aching slowness.

jnwatson 5y ago
Mixed-use developments are a thing. They are common on the East coast. Just move into one. I live in one. I still have a car, but pretty much only use it on the weekend.
jayd16 5y ago
I love LA but what? There are some plans but clearly NY and SF have better rail, to name a few.
- otterley 5y ago
  SF's is pretty bad, too. To be sure, SF's is better than LA's, but LA's is a pretty low bar. BART and CalTrain provide good coverage to the cities directly around the Bay itself, but once you get to the outer suburbs, service falls off dramatically (and none at all north of SF, in Marin and Sonoma counties). And don't get me started on the pathetic state of public transit in the city itself. Muni is disgusting, unsafe-feeling, unreliable, and slow. Even LA's metro buses are better than SF's. Chicago, OTOH, has an outstanding public transit infrastructure.
  - ricardobayes 5y ago
    I thought Caltrain was pretty good?
    - ghaff 5y ago
      The problem with commuter rails in general is that they basically support, well, commuting. Where I live (well) outside Boston, my commuter rail line is a decent option to go in for a 9-5 job or event. (Decent. At least for now they've cut back some trains and eliminated the expresses so it's over 90 minutes door to door.) But it's pretty much useless for going in for an evening event. I'd basically have to hang around for an 11:30 train and get home after 1.
    - kemiller 5y ago
      Caltrain itself is fine, though not the fastest. But the connections at the suburban end are terrible making it not as useful as it might be.
woah 5y ago
My pet theory is that driving is a viral system and this is why it has triumphed. - Cars are a lowest common denominator for transportation. They do not require much infrastructure at first, and are a very easy way to get around when not many other people are driving. - Once enough people are driving, the downsides start to become apparent. But roads can be upgraded incrementally and drivers become a powerful interest groups since people have invested their livelihood into it by moving somewhere you need to drive to. - So it's a ratchet mechanism where people get locked into a transportation choice, and then force it to be expanded and catered to. Public transit does not have this dynamic. While cheaper in the long run, train lines are very expensive to build at first.
- lbriner 5y ago
  > While cheaper in the long run, train lines are very expensive to build at first. As much as I would like that to be true, I don't think it is. The safety-critical nature of railways, more so even than a coach/bus which might travel almost as fast as a slower train, means there are massive costs for maintaining railways, based partly on use but not always. I asked my MP (representative) the other day about why it was so expensive to travel on trains when there should be a massive economy of scale but she didn't understand the question. A return ticket for an approx 150km journey might be around £100 in the UK, whereas the gasoline cost would be maybe £40 + some small percentage of my yearly insurance and maintenance costs.
  - petschge 5y ago
    True cost of driving a car is typically more than twice the fuel price. So the train ticket is not that bad value. The car is just hiding a lot of the cost away in the form of registration, insurance, depreciation, repairs and so on that you don't associate with a single trip. That makes the car trip seem cheaper than it is.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      The train to commute from an outlying city into Boston is ~$400/mo. On a pure cost basis that's just about equivalent to a compact car assuming you have to pay for unsubsidized parking in Boston or thereabouts and with the car option you also get a car that you can use wherever and whenever you want.
chasd00 5y ago
"I hate cars. I hate driving. I really hate other people's driving, and other people's cars." heh why would someone who hates cars with the passion of a thousand suns review one? I enjoy driving, I don't enjoy traffic but i do like road trips. I live in Dallas and regularly do weekend trips all over Texas, SE Oklahoma, and Arkansas. It's relaxing to me.
- plorkyeran 5y ago
  Those of us that hate cars still sometimes need them too, and a review from someone who also hates cars is more relevant than one from someone who lvoes them.
  - mkr-hn 5y ago
    Not enough people appreciate the value of a reviewer with matching goals and needs.
JackFr 5y ago
> In the U.S., L.A. appears to be the only city somewhat on the way to having a real, large-scale, and functional rail transit system, and even that is occurring with aching slowness. Huh? I've lived in NY for 25 years and have never owned a car.
- ghaff 5y ago
  The thing with NY is that it not only has an extensive public transit system but there's no cultural expectation for you to own a car. And even if you owned one, getting out of the city is a bit of a pain so I'm guessing people don't do it on weekends, much less weeknights, as much as they do other places. Whereas somewhere like Boston, a lot of your friends probably live in the suburbs and do weekend activities in the mountains or wherever. You can get off without one--I'm sure people do--but, especially as you get older, it affects your activities to at least some degree.
YATA0 5y ago
>In the U.S., L.A. appears to be the only city somewhat on the way to having a real, large-scale, and functional rail transit system, and even that is occurring with aching slowness. You misspelled N.Y. L.A. barely has a train system in comparison. L.A.'s train system is hot garbage and goes practically nowhere. L.A. is one of the most car dependent cities in the US.

by vwoolf 5y ago

jnwatson 5y ago

Mixed-use developments are a thing. They are common on the East coast. Just move into one. I live in one. I still have a car, but pretty much only use it on the weekend.

jayd16 5y ago

I love LA but what? There are some plans but clearly NY and SF have better rail, to name a few.

otterley 5y ago
SF's is pretty bad, too. To be sure, SF's is better than LA's, but LA's is a pretty low bar. BART and CalTrain provide good coverage to the cities directly around the Bay itself, but once you get to the outer suburbs, service falls off dramatically (and none at all north of SF, in Marin and Sonoma counties). And don't get me started on the pathetic state of public transit in the city itself. Muni is disgusting, unsafe-feeling, unreliable, and slow. Even LA's metro buses are better than SF's. Chicago, OTOH, has an outstanding public transit infrastructure.
- ricardobayes 5y ago
  I thought Caltrain was pretty good?
  - ghaff 5y ago
    The problem with commuter rails in general is that they basically support, well, commuting. Where I live (well) outside Boston, my commuter rail line is a decent option to go in for a 9-5 job or event. (Decent. At least for now they've cut back some trains and eliminated the expresses so it's over 90 minutes door to door.) But it's pretty much useless for going in for an evening event. I'd basically have to hang around for an 11:30 train and get home after 1.
  - kemiller 5y ago
    Caltrain itself is fine, though not the fastest. But the connections at the suburban end are terrible making it not as useful as it might be.

woah 5y ago

My pet theory is that driving is a viral system and this is why it has triumphed. - Cars are a lowest common denominator for transportation. They do not require much infrastructure at first, and are a very easy way to get around when not many other people are driving. - Once enough people are driving, the downsides start to become apparent. But roads can be upgraded incrementally and drivers become a powerful interest groups since people have invested their livelihood into it by moving somewhere you need to drive to. - So it's a ratchet mechanism where people get locked into a transportation choice, and then force it to be expanded and catered to. Public transit does not have this dynamic. While cheaper in the long run, train lines are very expensive to build at first.

lbriner 5y ago
> While cheaper in the long run, train lines are very expensive to build at first. As much as I would like that to be true, I don't think it is. The safety-critical nature of railways, more so even than a coach/bus which might travel almost as fast as a slower train, means there are massive costs for maintaining railways, based partly on use but not always. I asked my MP (representative) the other day about why it was so expensive to travel on trains when there should be a massive economy of scale but she didn't understand the question. A return ticket for an approx 150km journey might be around £100 in the UK, whereas the gasoline cost would be maybe £40 + some small percentage of my yearly insurance and maintenance costs.
- petschge 5y ago
  True cost of driving a car is typically more than twice the fuel price. So the train ticket is not that bad value. The car is just hiding a lot of the cost away in the form of registration, insurance, depreciation, repairs and so on that you don't associate with a single trip. That makes the car trip seem cheaper than it is.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    The train to commute from an outlying city into Boston is ~$400/mo. On a pure cost basis that's just about equivalent to a compact car assuming you have to pay for unsubsidized parking in Boston or thereabouts and with the car option you also get a car that you can use wherever and whenever you want.

chasd00 5y ago

"I hate cars. I hate driving. I really hate other people's driving, and other people's cars." heh why would someone who hates cars with the passion of a thousand suns review one? I enjoy driving, I don't enjoy traffic but i do like road trips. I live in Dallas and regularly do weekend trips all over Texas, SE Oklahoma, and Arkansas. It's relaxing to me.

plorkyeran 5y ago
Those of us that hate cars still sometimes need them too, and a review from someone who also hates cars is more relevant than one from someone who lvoes them.
- mkr-hn 5y ago
  Not enough people appreciate the value of a reviewer with matching goals and needs.

JackFr 5y ago

ghaff 5y ago
The thing with NY is that it not only has an extensive public transit system but there's no cultural expectation for you to own a car. And even if you owned one, getting out of the city is a bit of a pain so I'm guessing people don't do it on weekends, much less weeknights, as much as they do other places. Whereas somewhere like Boston, a lot of your friends probably live in the suburbs and do weekend activities in the mountains or wherever. You can get off without one--I'm sure people do--but, especially as you get older, it affects your activities to at least some degree.

YATA0 5y ago

>In the U.S., L.A. appears to be the only city somewhat on the way to having a real, large-scale, and functional rail transit system, and even that is occurring with aching slowness. You misspelled N.Y. L.A. barely has a train system in comparison. L.A.'s train system is hot garbage and goes practically nowhere. L.A. is one of the most car dependent cities in the US.