5 ms·

Mobility; unfortunately, the public transit infrastructure in the US isn't that great and the sprawl means that cars have become a necessity. Many areas simply

Mobility; unfortunately, the public transit infrastructure in the US isn't that great and the sprawl means that cars have become a necessity. Many areas simply can't be served efficiently by transit.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago
But this is not an inherent property of cars. It is only true because we invested all our transit dollars in highways. Cars are not inherently better and roads are not free. If we invest more in public transit we can reduce our need for cars.
- CharlieDigital 3y ago
  Agree, but there's no political will and even if there was, it would take decades.
  - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
    The first step is recognizing that cars are not ideal, and the second step is doing something about it. It’s not really a problem if it would take decades, as governments do tend to exist for decades and do plan accordingly. But what we cannot do is pretend that cars are inherently superior, ignoring the unprecedented investment we made in highways to make that happen. But it also isn’t the case that improvements will take decades. Maybe solving the problem completely would, but local governments can convert big dangerous streets in to walkable areas with safer bike transport in just a few years or less. Solving the whole problem would take decades but then, governments do tend to deal in decades long plans when needed. If they’re ever going to launch new national rail projects, they’re going to need the public to recognize the value of alternatives to cars.
- baggy_trough 3y ago
  I'd like to know why you think cars are not inherently better as it seems very obvious that they are. That is why people overwhelmingly prefer to use them.
  - derkades 3y ago
    Only when infrastructure is built in a way that makes cars the most convenient option.
  - tmnvix 3y ago
    For a start, you have to store them at either end of your journey.
  - naavis 3y ago
    In places with decent public transportation people do not overwhelmingly prefer cars.
    - rootusrootus 3y ago
      That sounds more like correlation than causation. Places with decent public transit are almost without exception very dense. Of course you wouldn't want to drive there. But if you live somewhere not as cramped, the experience is quite different.
  - Mawr 3y ago
    No mode of transportation is truly inherently better since they all have unique strong and weak points, but... Cars as the main method of transportation are obviously not good. They're too inefficient, no matter how you look at them. Manufacturing, infrastructure requirements, footprint per person, energy use, impact on human health and the environment. Cars suck. People use whatever's most convenient and that's realistically going to be whatever the government has invested in the most. The more car dependent a society, the more degenerate it is. This is hard to understand due to how car-infested most of the world is. Watch some videos by the Not Just Bikes channel on youtube [1] to see what the world could look like instead. Here's some poignant examples (direct links): [2][3][4][5]. And here's an obscure video that exemplifies what's wrong with car culture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWi4gHm6pjQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWi4gHm6pjQ. This is what a brainwashed society thinks like. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/@NotJustBikes https://www.youtube.com/@NotJustBikes [2]: https://youtu.be/muPcHs-E4qc?t=464 https://youtu.be/muPcHs-E4qc?t=464 [3]: https://youtu.be/AOc8ASeHYNw?t=204 https://youtu.be/AOc8ASeHYNw?t=204 [4]: https://youtu.be/oHlpmxLTxpw?t=361 https://youtu.be/oHlpmxLTxpw?t=361 [5]: https://youtu.be/c1l75QqRR48?t=290 https://youtu.be/c1l75QqRR48?t=290
- ars 3y ago
  > If we invest more in public transit we can reduce our need for cars. No we can't. It takes 30 minutes to get to the airport for me by car - even during rush hour, or 1.5 hours by express bus. Or for a friend of mine - 40 minutes by car, or 2 hours by train + bus. Sorry, but there's no fix you can apply to public transport that will fix this. Public transport is also more expensive - I took a group to Washington D.C. by metro - it cost around 5x as much as driving did (we drove the next day) including paying for parking. And the metro was far far slower.
  - brewdad 3y ago
    Yeah public transit isn’t great for large groups. Fortunately, 90% of all trips that transit could replace are single occupancy vehicles. There’s no reason that bus has to take 3x as long as driving. Reducing the number of stops to a strategic few could make it very comparable to driving, especially if busses are given their own traffic lane.
  - CharlieDigital 3y ago
    That has more to do with the middling state of public transit in the US than it does with public transit itself. In Taiwan, when you land at TPE, there is an express MRT line that connects directly to Taipei Main Station. You can also hop on the High Speed Rail and connect to southern destinations. Bypasses all of the traffic and congestion. Fantastic way to travel and makes it so much more convenient.
- andsoitis 3y ago
  > But this is not an inherent property of cars. It is only true because we invested all our transit dollars in highways. Cars are not inherently better and roads are not free. If we invest more in public transit we can reduce our need for cars. Personal modes of transport like cars and bicycles give you more degrees of freedom compared to public/shared modes with respect to: a) space (can go to more places point to point) b) time (travel any time) c) privacy
  - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
    Maybe this is true but I’m not convinced “more degrees of freedom” is a useful metric here. It’s not as simple as three bullet points - there is an entire infrastructure that must be built up around cars and that infrastructure has serious problems of cost and land use. But if you like bullet points, cars are: a) expensive to operate b) dangerous to pedestrians c) more polluting than trains or bicycles Now I don’t actually think this form of argument is comprehensive but you see that we can easily pull out pluses and negatives without taking a holistic view.
    - andsoitis 3y ago
      If it is self-evident that bullet trains and their infra are superior to cars and their infra (as your response implies), what are the reasons you think bullet trains have not spread?
burkaman 3y ago
That isn't an externality, that's just the direct function of a car.
whoknowsidont 3y ago
>NOT including the positives that exists due to constructing infrastructure around that mode of transportation This is what this statement was trying to address. If we built everything around using ziplines we couldn't go "OF COURSE ziplines provide a net positive." That'd be an incredibly silly statement.

Mobility; unfortunately, the public transit infrastructure in the US isn't that great and the sprawl means that cars have become a necessity. Many areas simply can't be served efficiently by transit.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago

But this is not an inherent property of cars. It is only true because we invested all our transit dollars in highways. Cars are not inherently better and roads are not free. If we invest more in public transit we can reduce our need for cars.

CharlieDigital 3y ago
Agree, but there's no political will and even if there was, it would take decades.
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  The first step is recognizing that cars are not ideal, and the second step is doing something about it. It’s not really a problem if it would take decades, as governments do tend to exist for decades and do plan accordingly. But what we cannot do is pretend that cars are inherently superior, ignoring the unprecedented investment we made in highways to make that happen. But it also isn’t the case that improvements will take decades. Maybe solving the problem completely would, but local governments can convert big dangerous streets in to walkable areas with safer bike transport in just a few years or less. Solving the whole problem would take decades but then, governments do tend to deal in decades long plans when needed. If they’re ever going to launch new national rail projects, they’re going to need the public to recognize the value of alternatives to cars.
baggy_trough 3y ago
I'd like to know why you think cars are not inherently better as it seems very obvious that they are. That is why people overwhelmingly prefer to use them.
- derkades 3y ago
  Only when infrastructure is built in a way that makes cars the most convenient option.
- tmnvix 3y ago
  For a start, you have to store them at either end of your journey.
- naavis 3y ago
  In places with decent public transportation people do not overwhelmingly prefer cars.
  - rootusrootus 3y ago
    That sounds more like correlation than causation. Places with decent public transit are almost without exception very dense. Of course you wouldn't want to drive there. But if you live somewhere not as cramped, the experience is quite different.
- Mawr 3y ago
  No mode of transportation is truly inherently better since they all have unique strong and weak points, but... Cars as the main method of transportation are obviously not good. They're too inefficient, no matter how you look at them. Manufacturing, infrastructure requirements, footprint per person, energy use, impact on human health and the environment. Cars suck. People use whatever's most convenient and that's realistically going to be whatever the government has invested in the most. The more car dependent a society, the more degenerate it is. This is hard to understand due to how car-infested most of the world is. Watch some videos by the Not Just Bikes channel on youtube [1] to see what the world could look like instead. Here's some poignant examples (direct links): [2][3][4][5]. And here's an obscure video that exemplifies what's wrong with car culture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWi4gHm6pjQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWi4gHm6pjQ. This is what a brainwashed society thinks like. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/@NotJustBikes https://www.youtube.com/@NotJustBikes [2]: https://youtu.be/muPcHs-E4qc?t=464 https://youtu.be/muPcHs-E4qc?t=464 [3]: https://youtu.be/AOc8ASeHYNw?t=204 https://youtu.be/AOc8ASeHYNw?t=204 [4]: https://youtu.be/oHlpmxLTxpw?t=361 https://youtu.be/oHlpmxLTxpw?t=361 [5]: https://youtu.be/c1l75QqRR48?t=290 https://youtu.be/c1l75QqRR48?t=290
ars 3y ago
> If we invest more in public transit we can reduce our need for cars. No we can't. It takes 30 minutes to get to the airport for me by car - even during rush hour, or 1.5 hours by express bus. Or for a friend of mine - 40 minutes by car, or 2 hours by train + bus. Sorry, but there's no fix you can apply to public transport that will fix this. Public transport is also more expensive - I took a group to Washington D.C. by metro - it cost around 5x as much as driving did (we drove the next day) including paying for parking. And the metro was far far slower.
- brewdad 3y ago
  Yeah public transit isn’t great for large groups. Fortunately, 90% of all trips that transit could replace are single occupancy vehicles. There’s no reason that bus has to take 3x as long as driving. Reducing the number of stops to a strategic few could make it very comparable to driving, especially if busses are given their own traffic lane.
- CharlieDigital 3y ago
  That has more to do with the middling state of public transit in the US than it does with public transit itself. In Taiwan, when you land at TPE, there is an express MRT line that connects directly to Taipei Main Station. You can also hop on the High Speed Rail and connect to southern destinations. Bypasses all of the traffic and congestion. Fantastic way to travel and makes it so much more convenient.
andsoitis 3y ago
> But this is not an inherent property of cars. It is only true because we invested all our transit dollars in highways. Cars are not inherently better and roads are not free. If we invest more in public transit we can reduce our need for cars. Personal modes of transport like cars and bicycles give you more degrees of freedom compared to public/shared modes with respect to: a) space (can go to more places point to point) b) time (travel any time) c) privacy
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  Maybe this is true but I’m not convinced “more degrees of freedom” is a useful metric here. It’s not as simple as three bullet points - there is an entire infrastructure that must be built up around cars and that infrastructure has serious problems of cost and land use. But if you like bullet points, cars are: a) expensive to operate b) dangerous to pedestrians c) more polluting than trains or bicycles Now I don’t actually think this form of argument is comprehensive but you see that we can easily pull out pluses and negatives without taking a holistic view.
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    If it is self-evident that bullet trains and their infra are superior to cars and their infra (as your response implies), what are the reasons you think bullet trains have not spread?

burkaman 3y ago

That isn't an externality, that's just the direct function of a car.

whoknowsidont 3y ago

>NOT including the positives that exists due to constructing infrastructure around that mode of transportation This is what this statement was trying to address. If we built everything around using ziplines we couldn't go "OF COURSE ziplines provide a net positive." That'd be an incredibly silly statement.