4 ms·

This comment is written from the perspective of cars and transit as they exist today in much of America, and the connotations associated with them. There are pl

by NoToP 4y ago

This comment is written from the perspective of cars and transit as they exist today in much of America, and the connotations associated with them. There are places you could be living where public transit is more convenient than a car. You don't have to plan your trips because the train is frequent enough that you just show up whenever you want. And you aren't limited to just one place because there's a network of them and you simply transfer to the line you need. It's not entirely the case that you can go "anywhere" with a car. You can go anywhere where a road has been built and parking is provided. But if the car is limited to built infrastructure, by that measure the train also goes anywhere. Places like Tokyo prove there was an alternative path, and places like New York prove that it's not inherently impossible in America. So that brings us back where we started. Why did people vote / spend one way and not the other?

rayiner 4y ago
I’m not writing from an American perspective. I love Tokyo and go there a couple of times a year for business. Half the people in Tokyo have a car, and outside Tokyo nearly everyone has a car. Nobody takes the Tokyo Metro or Toei subway to haul junk. Your comparison is invalid: building minimal road infrastructure is vastly cheaper than building rail. You need economies of scale to justify the expense of rail construction. It makes no sense to build rail past my wife’s grandma’s house in rural Oregon. At the same time, even when my wife was growing up in the city (Eugene, where the University of Oregon is), they were going to grandma’s house or somewhere similarly low density regularly enough where they needed a car anyway. And once they had incurred the expense of a car, it makes sense to vote for more car infrastructure in the city rather than the capital expense of rail infrastructure.
- travisporter 4y ago
  Hauling junk really isn’t in the purview of a transit system to be fair to parent

by NoToP 4y ago

rayiner 4y ago

I’m not writing from an American perspective. I love Tokyo and go there a couple of times a year for business. Half the people in Tokyo have a car, and outside Tokyo nearly everyone has a car. Nobody takes the Tokyo Metro or Toei subway to haul junk. Your comparison is invalid: building minimal road infrastructure is vastly cheaper than building rail. You need economies of scale to justify the expense of rail construction. It makes no sense to build rail past my wife’s grandma’s house in rural Oregon. At the same time, even when my wife was growing up in the city (Eugene, where the University of Oregon is), they were going to grandma’s house or somewhere similarly low density regularly enough where they needed a car anyway. And once they had incurred the expense of a car, it makes sense to vote for more car infrastructure in the city rather than the capital expense of rail infrastructure.

travisporter 4y ago
Hauling junk really isn’t in the purview of a transit system to be fair to parent