4 ms·

When the second amendment was written, guns were primitive and not much of a problem. Law and order was less institutionalized. People were afraid of being occu

When the second amendment was written, guns were primitive and not much of a problem. Law and order was less institutionalized. People were afraid of being occupied by a foreign government because they recently had been. I agree that if they knew what we know now, they probably would have worded it better. But repealing the second amendment now won’t make things better. We made drugs illegal, how’s that going? The article you posted said that 97% of the cars on the road are crash tested by the government. I think my statement on that is substantially accurate. In America, most large urban areas do not have extensive trains. I’ve lived all over this country, the only places I can think of where most of an urban area can take any sort of train from most of the city to the airport are NY, Boston, Chicago. There may be some I’m missing, and even in those cities, they don’t cover the entire area. Probably at least 75% of the country can’t walk from their home to a train and take it to the airport. America’s infrastructure is entirely beyond my ability to control. I can take a one hour bus ride and read I am sure but I’ve got stuff to do with my day, so I’ll take the 30 minute Uber with no nutjobs yelling at thin air. I think you’re also getting confused between population and population density. The US has a population density of 1/12th the Netherlands. You can bike just fine around our densely populated areas, though our poor bike lane design makes it far more dangerous than driving. The Netherlands has a small population but they live much closer together which is what matters for public transport cost. It would cost an order of magnitude more here to provide the same level of service, so we don’t. Maybe we should but when I need to get to the airport that’s not really on my mind.

guitarbill 3y ago
> But repealing the second amendment now won’t make things better. We made drugs illegal, how’s that going? People aren't (physically) addicted to guns. If only there were data from other countries... > I think you’re also getting confused between population and population density. The US has a population density of 1/12th the Netherlands. Few people are demanding public transport spanning entire sparsely populated states. There are enough cities in the US with comparable population densities to e.g. Amsterdam.
- mattmaroon 3y ago
  There are not actually, and the ones there are (except Miami) are the ones I was counting as having good public transport. (And I’ve spent a lot of time in SF, I’m being generous counting them as good.) There are only 4 large cities in America that dense. They add up to about ten million residents, or about 3% of our population. There’s one mid sized city (Jersey city) and 4 small cities. Not even 5% of our population lives in somewhere as dense as Amsterdam. These arguments come up here all the time because HN has a bike-friendly car hating crowd, but the actual numbers all support that the decision to have public transport vs car culture all stems from population density. Populations all over the world make similar decisions with similar inputs, they just have different inputs.
jcranmer 3y ago
> I’ve lived all over this country, the only places I can think of where most of an urban area can take any sort of train from most of the city to the airport are NY, Boston, Chicago. DC has the most convenient airport for transit access; if you park, you literally have to work through the train station to get to the airport. Atlanta has a mediocre train system, but it has excellent access to the airport. Philadelphia has a mediocre connection to the airport, but stronger system overall. SFO also is reasonably accessible by BART. Indeed, the only US city I can think of with a large urban rail system with an abysmal airport connection is LA, although LA's rail transit network in general is just a smorgasbord of sadness. > The US has a population density of 1/12th the Netherlands. Yeah, that's because there's large expanses of land in Alaska or the West where literally nobody lives. But most people live in urban environments of some kind; the fifty largest MSAs account for over half the population (too lazy to do the math to get the exact number), and even the fiftieth largest is of a size that would, in Europe, have a functional transit system of some kind.
- mattmaroon 3y ago
  Perhaps fair counting DC. SFO does have it, I’m not sure even half of the people going to/from the airport have access to BART/Caltrain but I am ok counting it too. NYC, Boston. Anything else? Go down the list of the biggest cities (all of which I’ve spent time in and commuted to an airport except DC) and ask if the average person can walk to a station and get to it and it’s like 90% NFW. https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_ci... A lot more Americans live in a city that looks like Houston than NY. (Though I have a place in Phoenix and the tram system is getting better by the year and it is quite possible they’ll change categories.)
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    City population isn't the right metric to use; you want to use metro population, i.e., MSAs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area). Most of the cities in the US don't have a functional mass transit system, but there is no population density reason they couldn't.
rangestransform 3y ago
even NYC is a stretch in terms of airport access. There is no one-seat ride to any airport unless you live along the route of the LGA bus, which makes it very unpleasant to schlep a 45lb checked luggage to the airport

guitarbill 3y ago

> But repealing the second amendment now won’t make things better. We made drugs illegal, how’s that going? People aren't (physically) addicted to guns. If only there were data from other countries... > I think you’re also getting confused between population and population density. The US has a population density of 1/12th the Netherlands. Few people are demanding public transport spanning entire sparsely populated states. There are enough cities in the US with comparable population densities to e.g. Amsterdam.

mattmaroon 3y ago
There are not actually, and the ones there are (except Miami) are the ones I was counting as having good public transport. (And I’ve spent a lot of time in SF, I’m being generous counting them as good.) There are only 4 large cities in America that dense. They add up to about ten million residents, or about 3% of our population. There’s one mid sized city (Jersey city) and 4 small cities. Not even 5% of our population lives in somewhere as dense as Amsterdam. These arguments come up here all the time because HN has a bike-friendly car hating crowd, but the actual numbers all support that the decision to have public transport vs car culture all stems from population density. Populations all over the world make similar decisions with similar inputs, they just have different inputs.

jcranmer 3y ago

> I’ve lived all over this country, the only places I can think of where most of an urban area can take any sort of train from most of the city to the airport are NY, Boston, Chicago. DC has the most convenient airport for transit access; if you park, you literally have to work through the train station to get to the airport. Atlanta has a mediocre train system, but it has excellent access to the airport. Philadelphia has a mediocre connection to the airport, but stronger system overall. SFO also is reasonably accessible by BART. Indeed, the only US city I can think of with a large urban rail system with an abysmal airport connection is LA, although LA's rail transit network in general is just a smorgasbord of sadness. > The US has a population density of 1/12th the Netherlands. Yeah, that's because there's large expanses of land in Alaska or the West where literally nobody lives. But most people live in urban environments of some kind; the fifty largest MSAs account for over half the population (too lazy to do the math to get the exact number), and even the fiftieth largest is of a size that would, in Europe, have a functional transit system of some kind.

mattmaroon 3y ago
Perhaps fair counting DC. SFO does have it, I’m not sure even half of the people going to/from the airport have access to BART/Caltrain but I am ok counting it too. NYC, Boston. Anything else? Go down the list of the biggest cities (all of which I’ve spent time in and commuted to an airport except DC) and ask if the average person can walk to a station and get to it and it’s like 90% NFW. https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_ci... A lot more Americans live in a city that looks like Houston than NY. (Though I have a place in Phoenix and the tram system is getting better by the year and it is quite possible they’ll change categories.)
- jcranmer 3y ago
  City population isn't the right metric to use; you want to use metro population, i.e., MSAs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area). Most of the cities in the US don't have a functional mass transit system, but there is no population density reason they couldn't.

rangestransform 3y ago

even NYC is a stretch in terms of airport access. There is no one-seat ride to any airport unless you live along the route of the LGA bus, which makes it very unpleasant to schlep a 45lb checked luggage to the airport