4 ms·

Texas has one of the highest drunk driving scores, and New York has one of the lowest: https://zutobi.com/us/driver-guides/the-us-dui-report https://zutobi.com/

Texas has one of the highest drunk driving scores, and New York has one of the lowest: https://zutobi.com/us/driver-guides/the-us-dui-report https://zutobi.com/us/driver-guides/the-us-dui-report. That's just one of the things that makes living in cities with public transportation and less sprawl so much nicer. > Houston commute is 26 minutes vs 33 minutes for NYC. I'd take a 33 minute train commute over a 26 minute car commute any day. I'd take a 1 hour train commute over a 26 minute car commute even. When you commute by car you have to be paying attention the entire time. On a train, I can read a book, use my phone, etc. The experience of commuting by car absolutely sucks, and is considerably more expensive. > Per-capita income after taxes is similar, and housing costs in Houston are not even in the same league ($3000 average rent vs $1300). You need to also include the cost of transportation, which brings this figure a lot closer ($3100/m vs $2200; see: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/auto-loans/total-cost-owning-car https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/auto-loans/total-co...). Also, using average here is misleading. You can live in the outer boroughs and pay a lot less than that, and some areas in manhattan drive the average up a lot. You also have to take into consideration the fact that sprawl forces you into that car pretty often. You need to use the car to go grocery shopping, whereas you can walk to a grocery store in a dense city. I live in Tokyo and used the train once so far this week. I'll be using it again today. On a normal basis, I have everything I need within a 5-10 minute walk. >> Roads are a bad value for what you get. Not only is the throughput not great, they are expensive to maintain. > You're making factually false statement after factually false statement. On a total usage basis, public transportation is considerably cheaper than roads, because as a whole, public transportation tends to be very highly used, when it's ubiquitous enough to be used as a primary method. You can increase throughput by increasing train frequency, which improves commute times. When roads are heavily used, the throughput decreases, commute times increase, and expanding roads doesn't help that situation.

cyberax 4y ago
> Texas has one of the highest drunk driving scores, and New York has one of the lowest And so? > When you commute by car you have to be paying attention the entire time. Self-driving software will fix this within a decade. It's technically already legal to read books and watch TV in a car, if you own one particular high-end car model. > You need to also include the cost of transportation, which brings this figure a lot closer Cost of transportation is a whole another issue. Because then you need to include the local taxes that are used to build and maintain transportation infrastructure. > You also have to take into consideration the fact that sprawl forces you into that car pretty often. You need to use the car to go grocery shopping, whereas you can walk to a grocery store in a dense city. Yes, and? Car also allows me to just do 2 trips a week to the store to get groceries for 4 people for several days. I had to do a grocery run every day when I lived in a dense city. That's easily another 30-40 minutes wasted every day. > On a total usage basis, public transportation is considerably cheaper than roads, because as a whole, public transportation tends to be very highly used That's not true. The average bus load in the US is 16 people. This makes it close to the car cost, only just a bit more efficient. It also does not consider the cost of wasted personal time. > When roads are heavily used, the throughput decreases, commute times increase, and expanding roads doesn't help that situation. It does, actually. More roads/lanes almost always increase throughput. They don't necessarily increase the average _speed_. But guess what, the transit speed is _slower_ than cars pretty much everywhere. Have you personally lived in Houston or another car-oriented city in the US? Or are you just reading the horror stories about "car hells"? Try it yourself to see the drawbacks and advantages. I personally had lived in Europe and used transit and biking a lot. Including the bike hell of Amsterdam. I got my driving license at the age of 30 and my first car at 32.
- ryan_lane 4y ago
  > Self-driving software will fix this within a decade. And it'll be powered by fusion energy! > It's technically already legal to read books and watch TV in a car, if you own one particular high-end car model. This isn't true. No car has reached level 5, which means that you're required to be able to take over. I'd really hope you're not doing this. If this is legal anywhere, those politicians are truly idiots. > Cost of transportation is a whole another issue. Because then you need to include the local taxes that are used to build and maintain transportation infrastructure. This one actually hurts a bit, because a very large percentage of road infrastructure is funded by federal taxes, which I'd really love to reduce, whereas a majority of public transportation is funded by local or state taxes. Another thing to note is that public transportation is partially funded by usage, whereas road infrastructure is not. You need to include cost of transportation, because the cost of a car is extremely high, and this disproportionally affects the poor. > I had to do a grocery run every day when I lived in a dense city. That's easily another 30-40 minutes wasted every day. > Yes, and? Car also allows me to just do 2 trips a week to the store to get groceries for 4 people for several days. The grocery store is just one example. You also need to fill your gas tank 1-2 times a week, wash the car, take it in for maintenance, etc. Every restaurant trip is a car ride, when you want to go to a bar, a car ride (or hopefully a taxi/lyft/uber). Thanks to density, I can walk to all of these things in ~10 minutes. > The average bus load in the US is 16 people. Again, using an average here isn't reasonable, especially when you're averaging across the US. You need to look at cities that have good public transportation that ubiquitous enough for use. NYC, and SF, for instance have considerably higher bus loads. When you look at train loads it's not even close to comparable. See a comparison of the BART and the bay bridge, where the BART is 2x more efficient during rush hour: https://twitter.com/SFBART/status/1121516583409446912 https://twitter.com/SFBART/status/1121516583409446912 The BART isn't even a great system to consider. The NYC subway's ridership is far higher. > More roads/lanes almost always increase throughput. No, they increase bandwidth. Throughput is how much is moved over a period of time. There's a lot of studies about this. See this article for just one example: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/us/widen-highways-traffic.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/us/widen-highways-traffic... > But guess what, the transit speed is _slower_ than cars pretty much everywhere. Not in cities with subway systems, or in cities where transit is prioritized over cars. > Have you personally lived in Houston or another car-oriented city in the US? I grew up in New Orleans (until around 30). I've lived in SF, NYC, and Tokyo. I've traveled lots of places. I have enough experience between both to know which is obviously superior in terms of general life quality. Cities with sprawl are less fun. Commuting sucks (especially during commuter hours, where you get stuck in traffic). Parking sucks. Maintaining a car sucks. Paying the expense of cars sucks. Not being able to walk anywhere because cars are the priority sucks. Walkable cities are more fun. There's a reason that people go to vacation to these places, and not places like houston.

cyberax 4y ago

> Texas has one of the highest drunk driving scores, and New York has one of the lowest And so? > When you commute by car you have to be paying attention the entire time. Self-driving software will fix this within a decade. It's technically already legal to read books and watch TV in a car, if you own one particular high-end car model. > You need to also include the cost of transportation, which brings this figure a lot closer Cost of transportation is a whole another issue. Because then you need to include the local taxes that are used to build and maintain transportation infrastructure. > You also have to take into consideration the fact that sprawl forces you into that car pretty often. You need to use the car to go grocery shopping, whereas you can walk to a grocery store in a dense city. Yes, and? Car also allows me to just do 2 trips a week to the store to get groceries for 4 people for several days. I had to do a grocery run every day when I lived in a dense city. That's easily another 30-40 minutes wasted every day. > On a total usage basis, public transportation is considerably cheaper than roads, because as a whole, public transportation tends to be very highly used That's not true. The average bus load in the US is 16 people. This makes it close to the car cost, only just a bit more efficient. It also does not consider the cost of wasted personal time. > When roads are heavily used, the throughput decreases, commute times increase, and expanding roads doesn't help that situation. It does, actually. More roads/lanes almost always increase throughput. They don't necessarily increase the average _speed_. But guess what, the transit speed is _slower_ than cars pretty much everywhere. Have you personally lived in Houston or another car-oriented city in the US? Or are you just reading the horror stories about "car hells"? Try it yourself to see the drawbacks and advantages. I personally had lived in Europe and used transit and biking a lot. Including the bike hell of Amsterdam. I got my driving license at the age of 30 and my first car at 32.

ryan_lane 4y ago
> Self-driving software will fix this within a decade. And it'll be powered by fusion energy! > It's technically already legal to read books and watch TV in a car, if you own one particular high-end car model. This isn't true. No car has reached level 5, which means that you're required to be able to take over. I'd really hope you're not doing this. If this is legal anywhere, those politicians are truly idiots. > Cost of transportation is a whole another issue. Because then you need to include the local taxes that are used to build and maintain transportation infrastructure. This one actually hurts a bit, because a very large percentage of road infrastructure is funded by federal taxes, which I'd really love to reduce, whereas a majority of public transportation is funded by local or state taxes. Another thing to note is that public transportation is partially funded by usage, whereas road infrastructure is not. You need to include cost of transportation, because the cost of a car is extremely high, and this disproportionally affects the poor. > I had to do a grocery run every day when I lived in a dense city. That's easily another 30-40 minutes wasted every day. > Yes, and? Car also allows me to just do 2 trips a week to the store to get groceries for 4 people for several days. The grocery store is just one example. You also need to fill your gas tank 1-2 times a week, wash the car, take it in for maintenance, etc. Every restaurant trip is a car ride, when you want to go to a bar, a car ride (or hopefully a taxi/lyft/uber). Thanks to density, I can walk to all of these things in ~10 minutes. > The average bus load in the US is 16 people. Again, using an average here isn't reasonable, especially when you're averaging across the US. You need to look at cities that have good public transportation that ubiquitous enough for use. NYC, and SF, for instance have considerably higher bus loads. When you look at train loads it's not even close to comparable. See a comparison of the BART and the bay bridge, where the BART is 2x more efficient during rush hour: https://twitter.com/SFBART/status/1121516583409446912 https://twitter.com/SFBART/status/1121516583409446912 The BART isn't even a great system to consider. The NYC subway's ridership is far higher. > More roads/lanes almost always increase throughput. No, they increase bandwidth. Throughput is how much is moved over a period of time. There's a lot of studies about this. See this article for just one example: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/us/widen-highways-traffic.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/us/widen-highways-traffic... > But guess what, the transit speed is _slower_ than cars pretty much everywhere. Not in cities with subway systems, or in cities where transit is prioritized over cars. > Have you personally lived in Houston or another car-oriented city in the US? I grew up in New Orleans (until around 30). I've lived in SF, NYC, and Tokyo. I've traveled lots of places. I have enough experience between both to know which is obviously superior in terms of general life quality. Cities with sprawl are less fun. Commuting sucks (especially during commuter hours, where you get stuck in traffic). Parking sucks. Maintaining a car sucks. Paying the expense of cars sucks. Not being able to walk anywhere because cars are the priority sucks. Walkable cities are more fun. There's a reason that people go to vacation to these places, and not places like houston.