2 ms·

I'm very familiar with the stark difference between North American and European transit systems. I've actually visited the Netherlands multiple times, and many

I'm very familiar with the stark difference between North American and European transit systems. I've actually visited the Netherlands multiple times, and many other European cities. Totally agree that we generally do public transit miserably in NA, and have a lot of room for improvement. All I was getting at with my original comment is that "trains for everyone" is as ridiculous of a concept as "cars for everyone". > You're saying that you would choose a personal vehicle, but does that choice have the potential to change if the surrounding circumstances change? Sure, as mentioned, if severe artificial barriers are put up to car usage, I would begrudgingly change. Absent that, no, I like my personal space. I like not getting rained on, not getting snowed on and not walking through -30C temperatures. Currently, I can get into a personal vehicle inside a garage, and proceed directly to my workplace's garage. Buses and trains will never match that, at least, not in the city I live in. > Making cars self-driving is putting lipstick on a pig. It's like taking high blood pressure drugs instead of losing weight. It's tremendously frustrating to constantly butt up against the foregone conclusion of "car is intrinsically bad no matter what". Safety and environmental impact are commonly accepted as the two largest issues with cars. We are poised to address both of these over the next two decades. Yet cars are still somehow intrinsically bad nonetheless? Is usage of a vehicle bad if one is not sharing the interior of it with a certain number of other people at any given time? At the end of the day, I am a strong believer in enabling people to live their lives the way they want to, when reasonably practical. To cover most of the population, this means building pedestrian and cyclist friendly infrastructure, public transit, and supporting the safe and efficient use of personal vehicles too. And there's nothing stopping this from all coexisting, as you've already stated.

tuatoru 4y ago
> Safety and environmental impact are commonly accepted as the two largest issues with cars. We are poised to address both of these over the next two decades. Yet cars are still somehow intrinsically bad nonetheless? Urban designs that encourage (practically require) walking a few more kilometres/miles a day would add years to healthy lifespan at a population level. So if you prefix "Health and" to Safety, then yes, cars are intrinsically worse than most alternatives. Also, the environmental impact of cars does not just come from their emissions. Spreading cities out requires longer (and thicker) wires, longer pipes, and more maintenance of roads and berms, and it causes more soil loss. Self driving and electric motors (I am guessing these are what you refer to with "we are poised to address") can't solve these problems. In transport the choices are not between "good" and "bad", they are between bad with one set of disadvantages, and bad with another set of disadvantages. To me, urban designs that require less transport overall are to be preferred.

tuatoru 4y ago

> Safety and environmental impact are commonly accepted as the two largest issues with cars. We are poised to address both of these over the next two decades. Yet cars are still somehow intrinsically bad nonetheless? Urban designs that encourage (practically require) walking a few more kilometres/miles a day would add years to healthy lifespan at a population level. So if you prefix "Health and" to Safety, then yes, cars are intrinsically worse than most alternatives. Also, the environmental impact of cars does not just come from their emissions. Spreading cities out requires longer (and thicker) wires, longer pipes, and more maintenance of roads and berms, and it causes more soil loss. Self driving and electric motors (I am guessing these are what you refer to with "we are poised to address") can't solve these problems. In transport the choices are not between "good" and "bad", they are between bad with one set of disadvantages, and bad with another set of disadvantages. To me, urban designs that require less transport overall are to be preferred.