4 ms·

I'm glad you got to show off your neat quote and link. But I wish you would have given it more thought. You could have started by finishing reading my comment

I'm glad you got to show off your neat quote and link. But I wish you would have given it more thought. You could have started by finishing reading my comment - it wasn't very long, and it highlighted [housing] density. You could also imagine that in 2009 we didn't have viable electric vehicles, but in 2023 it's easier to electrify a bus fleet than hundreds of thousands of cars in a given metro area. You could also wonder why buses are so underused in America, the land of underinvestment in bus routes and overinvestment in car propaganda. Lastly, you could consider why you chose to lash out at buses when I said "mass transit". Is your point to vilify all mass transit by picking on the weakest member? Do you only have a single data point on buses and zero on other forms? Or was it just the fact that you didn't really read my comment? Perhaps it's something else. I'm being meaner than I need to be. It's just that I get a little prickly about watching cities and ecosystems die for the profits of crooked car dealership owners.

markandrewj 4y ago
In other countries such as Japan public transit is generally faster then private transportation. I think one of the reasons you see a low adoption of public transportation in some North American cities is because it can do the opposite and extend your trip duration by a significant amount. Safety is obviously another factor. It seems like in a lot of places pedestrians are treated with disregard. Pedestrians being able to safely commute within their communities shouldn't be controversial, but for some reason it is.
btilly 4y ago
Pause. You're the one who dismissed gathering evidence about real usage of streets because the only sensible solution is to live in dense housing and use mass transit. Which fails to recognize that solving the density problem involves major political battles that make it a generally nonviable solution to real problems that cities are faced with. Refusing to consider a politically workable solution because it is not your preferred one is counter-productive. And your preferred solution is NOT politically workable. Second, in my reply to a sibling comment I showed evidence that electrification of cars is proceeding faster than electrification of bus fleets. So even though there are more of them, electrifying cars is actually proving to be politically easier. Third, I picked on buses because they are the easiest form of mass transit to move to from cars. If buses can't be made to work for a particular metro area, then nothing else is likely to work either. And buses are failing to work very well in most places where they are used. And fourth, the big problem with buses in America is population density. We're driving mostly empty buses that make little environmental sense. This is a sign that we're not actually underinvesting in bus routes. But it is hard to make mass transit work when people aren't all in one place. And as much as you might wish it otherwise, we're not inclined to congregate in a small area for convenience.
- digging 4y ago
  > You're the one who dismissed gathering evidence about real usage of streets One study from 2009 is not enough evidence to base a discussion on. We're both arguing entirely off our preconceived notions here. > your preferred solution is NOT politically workable. I'm not sure what solution you're referring to here. Increasing housing density? We both argued for that. > electrification of cars is proceeding faster than electrification of bus fleets. So even though there are more of them, electrifying cars is actually proving to be politically easier. That's fine, but it's actually not fine because this does nothing to solve any of the negative externalities of cars except for CO2 emissions. They are still dangerous, loud, extremely wasteful of resources, extremely wasteful of space, and expensive and difficult for individuals to maintain. Plus they still pollute the local environment with burned rubber tires (worn down faster due to greater weight). > If buses can't be made to work for a particular metro area, then nothing else is likely to work either. I disagree with this assertion and I don't see any evidence that it's true. Besides, you've switched from "politics matter more than logistics" to "logistics matter more than politics" with this argument. Buses are less popular than trains. > And fourth, the big problem with buses in America is population density I know! That's why I said we need to fix density! > we're not inclined to congregate in a small area for convenience. Again, no evidence for this. Mixed-used, walkable developments tend to be extremely popular and prohibitively expensive. If it wasn't illegal to build more, we would probably be building more.

markandrewj 4y ago

In other countries such as Japan public transit is generally faster then private transportation. I think one of the reasons you see a low adoption of public transportation in some North American cities is because it can do the opposite and extend your trip duration by a significant amount. Safety is obviously another factor. It seems like in a lot of places pedestrians are treated with disregard. Pedestrians being able to safely commute within their communities shouldn't be controversial, but for some reason it is.

btilly 4y ago

Pause. You're the one who dismissed gathering evidence about real usage of streets because the only sensible solution is to live in dense housing and use mass transit. Which fails to recognize that solving the density problem involves major political battles that make it a generally nonviable solution to real problems that cities are faced with. Refusing to consider a politically workable solution because it is not your preferred one is counter-productive. And your preferred solution is NOT politically workable. Second, in my reply to a sibling comment I showed evidence that electrification of cars is proceeding faster than electrification of bus fleets. So even though there are more of them, electrifying cars is actually proving to be politically easier. Third, I picked on buses because they are the easiest form of mass transit to move to from cars. If buses can't be made to work for a particular metro area, then nothing else is likely to work either. And buses are failing to work very well in most places where they are used. And fourth, the big problem with buses in America is population density. We're driving mostly empty buses that make little environmental sense. This is a sign that we're not actually underinvesting in bus routes. But it is hard to make mass transit work when people aren't all in one place. And as much as you might wish it otherwise, we're not inclined to congregate in a small area for convenience.

digging 4y ago
> You're the one who dismissed gathering evidence about real usage of streets One study from 2009 is not enough evidence to base a discussion on. We're both arguing entirely off our preconceived notions here. > your preferred solution is NOT politically workable. I'm not sure what solution you're referring to here. Increasing housing density? We both argued for that. > electrification of cars is proceeding faster than electrification of bus fleets. So even though there are more of them, electrifying cars is actually proving to be politically easier. That's fine, but it's actually not fine because this does nothing to solve any of the negative externalities of cars except for CO2 emissions. They are still dangerous, loud, extremely wasteful of resources, extremely wasteful of space, and expensive and difficult for individuals to maintain. Plus they still pollute the local environment with burned rubber tires (worn down faster due to greater weight). > If buses can't be made to work for a particular metro area, then nothing else is likely to work either. I disagree with this assertion and I don't see any evidence that it's true. Besides, you've switched from "politics matter more than logistics" to "logistics matter more than politics" with this argument. Buses are less popular than trains. > And fourth, the big problem with buses in America is population density I know! That's why I said we need to fix density! > we're not inclined to congregate in a small area for convenience. Again, no evidence for this. Mixed-used, walkable developments tend to be extremely popular and prohibitively expensive. If it wasn't illegal to build more, we would probably be building more.