4 ms·

> but it seems to me that most people don't enjoy driving at all. While many people don't enjoy driving, many people do prefer cars as a mode of transit. Don't

> but it seems to me that most people don't enjoy driving at all. While many people don't enjoy driving, many people do prefer cars as a mode of transit. Don't assume that people "don't like cars", whether or not they like driving as an activity. People overwhelmingly prefer cars. > if the fastest option is public transit more often than not That's a very high bar to reach. And you also have to take into account the hassle of transit not actually getting you where you want to be. It's one thing to have a transit system that can get you between cities or to a large general area; it's another to have a transit system that can get you from an arbitrary door to an arbitrary door, which a car can do.

nicoburns 4y ago
People do often prefer driving. However, people tend to not like the effects that other people driving has on their life. Public transport starts to look a lot better when you take that into account too.
- brianwawok 4y ago
  If you don’t live in a mega city it doesn’t matter though. I live in a metro area of ~250k people. No traffic is so bad a 2 lane road doesn’t still move. So drive away my neighbors! Preferable in an EV powered by green energy.
  - oblio 4y ago
    A city of 250k people could have awesome public transit if it wanted to.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
benjiweber 4y ago
I mean in London the fastest option is public transit more often than not, and you get pretty close to door to door.
- nine_k 4y ago
  Same in Manhattan! Now we only need to make most of the US as dense as London at least. I don't think it's realistic. (Also, have you tried to afford a place to live in London, to say nothing of Manhattan?) People "prefer cars" because people prefer detached houses and low-density living. Not all of them, but plenty enough. For them, an EV is the only electric option. In cities, of course, public transit should predominate, and should be developed and improved, while car presence should become lower and lower.
  - leetcrew 4y ago
    we don't need to make most of the US as dense as London. we need to make the parts of the US where most people live dense enough to support public transit for most trips. it's fine if people use ICE vehicles now and then to visit family, go to a specialty store, etc. it's the daily and weekly trips that need to be fixed. and the breakeven point does not need to be quite so dense as London. for example, the DC area has a lot of sprawly (at least by east coast standards) suburbs. the DC metro has some room for improvement, but it is still much better than a car for getting into and out of the city during peak hours. though I'll admit I sometimes splurge for an Uber. cars are much more competitive when you don't need to park them.
  - majormajor 4y ago
    Last time I was in Manhattan was 6 years ago, but at the time an Uber was as-good-or-better than the train for a lot of within-Manhattan trips. I splurged on a bunch of Ubers since it let me see a lot more of the city at ground level, which was fun, and then quickly noticed that when you factored transfers and walking to/from stations, it was no inconvenience either. Obviously it wouldn't scale that well for everybody but I wouldn't be surprised to see, if self driving cars master Manhattan, some more well-off people who aren't currently at "private driver" level of rich to move to self-driving cabs or such to avoid crowding and go point-to-point. The big advantage of the trains was in leaving Manhattan and going to Long Island, though, compared to the car-bottleneck-hell of the bridges and tunnels.
  - TexanFeller 4y ago
IIAOPSW 4y ago
>whether or not they like driving as an activity. People overwhelmingly prefer cars. You're basically rejecting the premise as your counterargument. Yes, in the currently built world where public transit is generally worse, people would rather take a car. What about the scenario where public transit is actually decent? You don't really address this, you just state a bunch of gripes with transit-as-is not transit-as-conjectured. >And you also have to take into account the hassle of transit not actually getting you where you want to be. It's one thing to have a transit system that can get you between cities or to a large general area; it's another to have a transit system that can get you from an arbitrary door to an arbitrary door, which a car can do. Pretty much every major Metro in the world does exactly that. NY, London, Paris, Tokyo, Shanghai, HK. When trains run at 5 min frequencies or better, and the network is at least federated between hubs, you get effectively arbitrary point to point transport which is always there when you need it, you don't need to find or pay for parking, it will never be broken into or have unexpected maintenance costs, and you can focus on anything you want because you don't have to pay attention to the road. Factoring in the cost of a new car over how many years you will own it, as well as insurance and other expenses, you're paying more per day than you would on the train before you even left the driveway! The rationale of car ownership stops making sense in cities like these, and consequently, people aren't preferring cars. The commonality of commuting by car in North America doesn't arise out of natural preferences, its a built preference. Built by a system that reinforces itself.
- toast0 4y ago
  > Pretty much every major Metro in the world does exactly that. NY, London, Paris, Tokyo, Shanghai, HK. I've been to Paris and London and used their Metros and had no car. They're nice, but there's still a lot of walking between where you are and the metro station. If you're on the system late at night, there's a lot of waiting. If you're on the system during rush hour, there's a lot of people in a tiny space. If you can use it on the shoulders of peak, it's wonderful. Then again, roads are pretty good on the shoulders of peak too (parking in a busy area is almost never great, but there's an easy solution: avoid dense cities, which I'd prefer anyway, dense cities have a lot of people, and I don't like people in groups) You may not have to pay money for unexpected maintenance, but you may be stuck somewhere when a train breaks down or has a collision; hopefully at a station and not on the particular train. Yeah, this happens with personal vehicles, but when my car won't start, it doesn't have a big impact on taxi capacity; when the train is stuck, everybody wants a taxi and it's hard to get one. The big problem is there's no sense of agency. I can maintain my car, but I can't maintain the metro. I can fuel my car, but I can't prevent metro workers from striking. I can pretend I'll avoid collisions when driving, but I can't drive the train (and the train can't stop in time if anything unexpected is on the tracks). Americans like a sense of agency, even if it means a worse result. Give me liberty or give me death and all that.

nicoburns 4y ago

People do often prefer driving. However, people tend to not like the effects that other people driving has on their life. Public transport starts to look a lot better when you take that into account too.

brianwawok 4y ago
If you don’t live in a mega city it doesn’t matter though. I live in a metro area of ~250k people. No traffic is so bad a 2 lane road doesn’t still move. So drive away my neighbors! Preferable in an EV powered by green energy.
- oblio 4y ago
  A city of 250k people could have awesome public transit if it wanted to.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

benjiweber 4y ago

I mean in London the fastest option is public transit more often than not, and you get pretty close to door to door.

nine_k 4y ago
Same in Manhattan! Now we only need to make most of the US as dense as London at least. I don't think it's realistic. (Also, have you tried to afford a place to live in London, to say nothing of Manhattan?) People "prefer cars" because people prefer detached houses and low-density living. Not all of them, but plenty enough. For them, an EV is the only electric option. In cities, of course, public transit should predominate, and should be developed and improved, while car presence should become lower and lower.
- leetcrew 4y ago
  we don't need to make most of the US as dense as London. we need to make the parts of the US where most people live dense enough to support public transit for most trips. it's fine if people use ICE vehicles now and then to visit family, go to a specialty store, etc. it's the daily and weekly trips that need to be fixed. and the breakeven point does not need to be quite so dense as London. for example, the DC area has a lot of sprawly (at least by east coast standards) suburbs. the DC metro has some room for improvement, but it is still much better than a car for getting into and out of the city during peak hours. though I'll admit I sometimes splurge for an Uber. cars are much more competitive when you don't need to park them.
- majormajor 4y ago
  Last time I was in Manhattan was 6 years ago, but at the time an Uber was as-good-or-better than the train for a lot of within-Manhattan trips. I splurged on a bunch of Ubers since it let me see a lot more of the city at ground level, which was fun, and then quickly noticed that when you factored transfers and walking to/from stations, it was no inconvenience either. Obviously it wouldn't scale that well for everybody but I wouldn't be surprised to see, if self driving cars master Manhattan, some more well-off people who aren't currently at "private driver" level of rich to move to self-driving cabs or such to avoid crowding and go point-to-point. The big advantage of the trains was in leaving Manhattan and going to Long Island, though, compared to the car-bottleneck-hell of the bridges and tunnels.
- TexanFeller 4y ago

IIAOPSW 4y ago

>whether or not they like driving as an activity. People overwhelmingly prefer cars. You're basically rejecting the premise as your counterargument. Yes, in the currently built world where public transit is generally worse, people would rather take a car. What about the scenario where public transit is actually decent? You don't really address this, you just state a bunch of gripes with transit-as-is not transit-as-conjectured. >And you also have to take into account the hassle of transit not actually getting you where you want to be. It's one thing to have a transit system that can get you between cities or to a large general area; it's another to have a transit system that can get you from an arbitrary door to an arbitrary door, which a car can do. Pretty much every major Metro in the world does exactly that. NY, London, Paris, Tokyo, Shanghai, HK. When trains run at 5 min frequencies or better, and the network is at least federated between hubs, you get effectively arbitrary point to point transport which is always there when you need it, you don't need to find or pay for parking, it will never be broken into or have unexpected maintenance costs, and you can focus on anything you want because you don't have to pay attention to the road. Factoring in the cost of a new car over how many years you will own it, as well as insurance and other expenses, you're paying more per day than you would on the train before you even left the driveway! The rationale of car ownership stops making sense in cities like these, and consequently, people aren't preferring cars. The commonality of commuting by car in North America doesn't arise out of natural preferences, its a built preference. Built by a system that reinforces itself.

toast0 4y ago
> Pretty much every major Metro in the world does exactly that. NY, London, Paris, Tokyo, Shanghai, HK. I've been to Paris and London and used their Metros and had no car. They're nice, but there's still a lot of walking between where you are and the metro station. If you're on the system late at night, there's a lot of waiting. If you're on the system during rush hour, there's a lot of people in a tiny space. If you can use it on the shoulders of peak, it's wonderful. Then again, roads are pretty good on the shoulders of peak too (parking in a busy area is almost never great, but there's an easy solution: avoid dense cities, which I'd prefer anyway, dense cities have a lot of people, and I don't like people in groups) You may not have to pay money for unexpected maintenance, but you may be stuck somewhere when a train breaks down or has a collision; hopefully at a station and not on the particular train. Yeah, this happens with personal vehicles, but when my car won't start, it doesn't have a big impact on taxi capacity; when the train is stuck, everybody wants a taxi and it's hard to get one. The big problem is there's no sense of agency. I can maintain my car, but I can't maintain the metro. I can fuel my car, but I can't prevent metro workers from striking. I can pretend I'll avoid collisions when driving, but I can't drive the train (and the train can't stop in time if anything unexpected is on the tracks). Americans like a sense of agency, even if it means a worse result. Give me liberty or give me death and all that.