5 ms·

There is no way that a city could have enough bus stops and routes to service most sprawling American cities. This is especially true when you consider that a s

There is no way that a city could have enough bus stops and routes to service most sprawling American cities. This is especially true when you consider that a sizable portion of the population wouldn’t be caught dead on a bus. Building more routes and stops might work in dense cities but is not a one size fits all solution.

ornornor 3y ago
> a sizable portion of the population wouldn’t be caught dead on a bus. Yep that’s another part of the problem. Easy answer is for official to through their hands up and make way for more individual cars rather than addressing the root problem and do the hard work of making public transit attractive. I’m in Switzerland at the moment for example, a large chunk of people don’t own cars, you can go by train and bus everywhere (literally, I can go across the country on one ticket, go to ski by train, or to the top of mountains by train and mountain trains), and the bus isn’t the social stigma it is in the US. There is no reason why the Us can’t get their act together and do the same thing other than lack of will to do so. Instead, you have multilevel 12 lanes freeway monstrosities and insane traffic.
- lsaferite 3y ago
  Spoken like someone that lives in a high-density area. Switzerland is 223 per Km2 while the US is 37 per Km2. In the EU, only Finland, Sweden, Latvia, and Estonia have a lower population density. There average across the EU is 109.56 per Km2. GB is 280 per Km2. Solutions to transportation in the US need to factor in the density and account for the low-density areas as well. Politically, those low-density regions are, IME, the ones most likely to fight against changes that would move towards mass-transit because they feel like they are being ignored. Beyond that, SDVs and Mass-transit aren't at opposition. Busses can and should be SDVs as well. As mentioned by another poster, small handicap-accessible SDVs that do point-to-point transport are _better_ than mass-transit. If vehicular mass is a concern, with ubiquitous SDV integration into an urban transit system you can and should design purpose-built transporters with lower mass. With central EV charging and remote power generation you are already moving the pollution point to a smaller number of locations that are easier to optimize and monitor. Really, these people seem to be saying "We don't like this, so you shouldn't be allowed to do it" and then they use flimsy excuses as justification. That makes them just like all the other people that want to force their world-view on me. Maybe instead of doing that they could spend all of that energy on moving the needle on the core issues that are possible in the short term and will make a difference, like moving to green renewables for power generation. Sorry if this seems overly cranky, but it's frustrating to see people that think interfering with SDV operation is a 'good thing' in any way, shape, or form.

ornornor 3y ago

> a sizable portion of the population wouldn’t be caught dead on a bus. Yep that’s another part of the problem. Easy answer is for official to through their hands up and make way for more individual cars rather than addressing the root problem and do the hard work of making public transit attractive. I’m in Switzerland at the moment for example, a large chunk of people don’t own cars, you can go by train and bus everywhere (literally, I can go across the country on one ticket, go to ski by train, or to the top of mountains by train and mountain trains), and the bus isn’t the social stigma it is in the US. There is no reason why the Us can’t get their act together and do the same thing other than lack of will to do so. Instead, you have multilevel 12 lanes freeway monstrosities and insane traffic.

lsaferite 3y ago
Spoken like someone that lives in a high-density area. Switzerland is 223 per Km2 while the US is 37 per Km2. In the EU, only Finland, Sweden, Latvia, and Estonia have a lower population density. There average across the EU is 109.56 per Km2. GB is 280 per Km2. Solutions to transportation in the US need to factor in the density and account for the low-density areas as well. Politically, those low-density regions are, IME, the ones most likely to fight against changes that would move towards mass-transit because they feel like they are being ignored. Beyond that, SDVs and Mass-transit aren't at opposition. Busses can and should be SDVs as well. As mentioned by another poster, small handicap-accessible SDVs that do point-to-point transport are _better_ than mass-transit. If vehicular mass is a concern, with ubiquitous SDV integration into an urban transit system you can and should design purpose-built transporters with lower mass. With central EV charging and remote power generation you are already moving the pollution point to a smaller number of locations that are easier to optimize and monitor. Really, these people seem to be saying "We don't like this, so you shouldn't be allowed to do it" and then they use flimsy excuses as justification. That makes them just like all the other people that want to force their world-view on me. Maybe instead of doing that they could spend all of that energy on moving the needle on the core issues that are possible in the short term and will make a difference, like moving to green renewables for power generation. Sorry if this seems overly cranky, but it's frustrating to see people that think interfering with SDV operation is a 'good thing' in any way, shape, or form.