4 ms·

I think public traffic is much more similar to cable TV with its fixed schedule than a car that mirrors on-demand streaming. This is why in truth few people lik

I think public traffic is much more similar to cable TV with its fixed schedule than a car that mirrors on-demand streaming. This is why in truth few people like to use public traffic if there is another feasible choice. I am not interested in car models at all but I like owning a car, even in a city. It solves a lot of problems and I believe a development to less individual traffic is an illusion. Mabybe it happens due to economic reasons, but otherwise it will stay as it is. Even with combustion cars should EV prove to expensive. Any market regulation would quickly evaporate as well and maybe just kill the local industry.

piva00 2y ago
> I think public traffic is much more similar to cable TV with its fixed schedule than a car that mirrors on-demand streaming. This is why in truth few people like to use public traffic if there is another feasible choice. Public transport doesn't work if it's not somewhat punctual and high traffic, meaning it needs to be reliable and run often, not like those "commuter" trains around North America running only mornings/afternoons schedules, or having a train departing every 1-2 hours. I'm originally from a country where you are almost 100% dependent on a car, moved to a place where I simply do not need a car unless I need to move houses and for that I can just rent a van for 4h-24h on the cheap. I wouldn't choose being dependent on a car to do my daily chores ever again, I much prefer taking the metro, train, bus, or my bike rather than dealing with all the headaches car ownership brings.
- kkfx 2y ago
  Mass transports can't substitute cars simply because of economics: yes, a bus at least half stuffed of people is cheaper than a car per passenger but people need to move from any A to B any time all other the year. If you effectively cover all possible settlements 24/7/365 you'll fail quickly pushing nearly empty or even totally empty mass transports most of the days for most of the routes. If you try the hybrid model: collective transports just for certain routes in specific hours where they are at least half full then you get a very big investments underutilized, it's not different than the office+apartment model where the apartment get used just a bit less than half a day and the office equally for the other nearly half a day, wasting the rest of time in pointless commuting. Pointless except to farm people forcing them to zero ownership and keeping them consuming anything.
  - Bluestrike2 2y ago
    > If you try the hybrid model: collective transports just for certain routes in specific hours where they are at least half full then you get a very big investments underutilized, it's not different than the office+apartment model where the apartment get used just a bit less than half a day and the office equally for the other nearly half a day, wasting the rest of time in pointless commuting [...] Unless I've misunderstood your comment, I'm not sure I'd consider that a hybrid model; if anything, that's kind of how much of our current mass transit system works across North America. That said, the solution there is increased density with mixed uses. More housing in close proximity to and mixed in with offices, restaurants, schools, shops, etc. means more people living within walking and/or biking distance of their most common destinations. It also gives you better locations for building transit stops, to the benefit of both those who live in that area as well as those traveling to it. Infill can't fix everything or undo our current sprawl, but it can improve a lot of it. For all the damage we've down to American towns and cities, most towns built before the 1950s still have their old bones. They can be restored to their former glories without turning everything into Manhattan, giving communities a solid core capable of supporting them for the long-term. In any case, you don't have to build out a perfect transit system with stops outside every conceivable destination, including areas that lack any sort of real density. You just need something that's convenient and helps move most people to most places without having to wait an hour for a bus or train. If those whose destinations are outside those areas have to use a car, that's perfectly fine. They aren't any worse of, and in fact, their own commutes would almost certainly be improved by helping get other drivers off the road.
    - kkfx 2y ago
      > the solution there is increased density This is a common narrative but no, it's not a viable solution except in the short term, witch means a way too costly solution in the mean and long term. Intermixing homes, restaurants, schools, shops, yes it's a MUST, yes, it's why here in EU spread areas works well even today, but not density. Take as an example the classic paper mail: any condo have a dedicate area with a wall of mailboxes, a wonderful dense solution, anyone get the mail, the postman have a very shorter trip to delivery them. Ah, yes, they do not work much for parcels but BACK THEN parcels was very rare and mails very common. After a bit of time on-line retail flourish while mails became emails. In dense city, EU level density, it's a nightmare. First delivery vehicles need to be bigger and there is no place for them to stop and deliver, delivery to single home can be quick enough for a stop&go but for a condo where you might have 5-8 parcels and the delivery man it's not alone, another have also some parcels to deliver in the very same place at the very same time it's a big issue. It's an even bigger issue inside: the mailbox area is just a wall, there is no room for enough space for parcels, so it's next to impossible delivering them in a common place in an already built condo. Few might be adapted but most simply can't. Single family homes with a bit of ground around on contrary have no issues, switching from a small mailbox to a bigger parcel box is just a matter of cutting a bit more fence and insert the new "big box". It's a very simple change in society and dense cities can't adapt. Drone delivery? Try to imaging a flying drone delivering to a balcony in a condo, it's can't work, while there is not much issues having on the same big parcel box a "special" roof for drone delivery with a very visible address mark for them. Flying cars? Well, if you have a garden adapting a place for landing it's not really an issue, in a dense city? I'm curious those who have written https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-report.pdf https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-... what they have in their head... Even if we had eVTOLs today they are ALL but urban. They would be a perfect match for a spread area where there is room for take off and landing, and the quick run by air help to be "dense" while being spread. Back to today just see how much metros costs and how limited they are, how many parking issue, how impossible is to convert multi-storey buildings to the Green New Deal: no room for enough p.v., no root for proper heat-pump heating and so on. Long story short: a dense city is like a factory, very effective wen you live inside during the period it was designed for, a nightmare when things change. A nightmare to change it to adapt. That's why today thanks to modern logistic and remote work we can achieve city-like efficiency without being dense, the new right density for the economy of scale is a spread population living and working in small buildings, intermixed, not too spread, but with enough space around to change them completely, to being able to evolve at the minimum cost and maximum flexibility. That's is not advertised, even denied, because is such a society git economy can't exists. There is no room for ready-made food in a spread population where WFH is the norm for all eligible jobs, there is no room for Uber et al. for cars, there is no room for public laundry and other service, such spread society know the value of ownership and instead of owning nothing living like slaves at the mercy of few paying the slaves just the bare minimum to allow them pay services they needs to live, enough to avoid riots and revolutions, it's a society like the classic desktop model of individual interconnected and in full control of themselves, moving in a peer to peer society. Not try looking at modern cities, from Neom to Arkadag, Innopolis, Prospera etc, they are distopic realities where people are slaves AND they cost so much that's impossible to create smart cities for all.
UtopiaPunk 2y ago
I think that's a valid point. For a lot of young people transitioning to adulthood, the thought of buying their first cable TV package was easy to say no to. It's expensive, and there was a perfectly reasonable alternative that was much cheaper and more convenient. When people in a similar life stage think about buying their first car, is the alternative easier? Generally speaking, cities need to invest more in bus, light rail, and bicycle infrastructure in order to compete with cost/convenience of owning a car. But in a few American cities, it is becoming increasingly easier to not depend on a car.

piva00 2y ago

> I think public traffic is much more similar to cable TV with its fixed schedule than a car that mirrors on-demand streaming. This is why in truth few people like to use public traffic if there is another feasible choice. Public transport doesn't work if it's not somewhat punctual and high traffic, meaning it needs to be reliable and run often, not like those "commuter" trains around North America running only mornings/afternoons schedules, or having a train departing every 1-2 hours. I'm originally from a country where you are almost 100% dependent on a car, moved to a place where I simply do not need a car unless I need to move houses and for that I can just rent a van for 4h-24h on the cheap. I wouldn't choose being dependent on a car to do my daily chores ever again, I much prefer taking the metro, train, bus, or my bike rather than dealing with all the headaches car ownership brings.

kkfx 2y ago
Mass transports can't substitute cars simply because of economics: yes, a bus at least half stuffed of people is cheaper than a car per passenger but people need to move from any A to B any time all other the year. If you effectively cover all possible settlements 24/7/365 you'll fail quickly pushing nearly empty or even totally empty mass transports most of the days for most of the routes. If you try the hybrid model: collective transports just for certain routes in specific hours where they are at least half full then you get a very big investments underutilized, it's not different than the office+apartment model where the apartment get used just a bit less than half a day and the office equally for the other nearly half a day, wasting the rest of time in pointless commuting. Pointless except to farm people forcing them to zero ownership and keeping them consuming anything.
- Bluestrike2 2y ago
  > If you try the hybrid model: collective transports just for certain routes in specific hours where they are at least half full then you get a very big investments underutilized, it's not different than the office+apartment model where the apartment get used just a bit less than half a day and the office equally for the other nearly half a day, wasting the rest of time in pointless commuting [...] Unless I've misunderstood your comment, I'm not sure I'd consider that a hybrid model; if anything, that's kind of how much of our current mass transit system works across North America. That said, the solution there is increased density with mixed uses. More housing in close proximity to and mixed in with offices, restaurants, schools, shops, etc. means more people living within walking and/or biking distance of their most common destinations. It also gives you better locations for building transit stops, to the benefit of both those who live in that area as well as those traveling to it. Infill can't fix everything or undo our current sprawl, but it can improve a lot of it. For all the damage we've down to American towns and cities, most towns built before the 1950s still have their old bones. They can be restored to their former glories without turning everything into Manhattan, giving communities a solid core capable of supporting them for the long-term. In any case, you don't have to build out a perfect transit system with stops outside every conceivable destination, including areas that lack any sort of real density. You just need something that's convenient and helps move most people to most places without having to wait an hour for a bus or train. If those whose destinations are outside those areas have to use a car, that's perfectly fine. They aren't any worse of, and in fact, their own commutes would almost certainly be improved by helping get other drivers off the road.
  - kkfx 2y ago
    > the solution there is increased density This is a common narrative but no, it's not a viable solution except in the short term, witch means a way too costly solution in the mean and long term. Intermixing homes, restaurants, schools, shops, yes it's a MUST, yes, it's why here in EU spread areas works well even today, but not density. Take as an example the classic paper mail: any condo have a dedicate area with a wall of mailboxes, a wonderful dense solution, anyone get the mail, the postman have a very shorter trip to delivery them. Ah, yes, they do not work much for parcels but BACK THEN parcels was very rare and mails very common. After a bit of time on-line retail flourish while mails became emails. In dense city, EU level density, it's a nightmare. First delivery vehicles need to be bigger and there is no place for them to stop and deliver, delivery to single home can be quick enough for a stop&go but for a condo where you might have 5-8 parcels and the delivery man it's not alone, another have also some parcels to deliver in the very same place at the very same time it's a big issue. It's an even bigger issue inside: the mailbox area is just a wall, there is no room for enough space for parcels, so it's next to impossible delivering them in a common place in an already built condo. Few might be adapted but most simply can't. Single family homes with a bit of ground around on contrary have no issues, switching from a small mailbox to a bigger parcel box is just a matter of cutting a bit more fence and insert the new "big box". It's a very simple change in society and dense cities can't adapt. Drone delivery? Try to imaging a flying drone delivering to a balcony in a condo, it's can't work, while there is not much issues having on the same big parcel box a "special" roof for drone delivery with a very visible address mark for them. Flying cars? Well, if you have a garden adapting a place for landing it's not really an issue, in a dense city? I'm curious those who have written https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-report.pdf https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/uam-full-... what they have in their head... Even if we had eVTOLs today they are ALL but urban. They would be a perfect match for a spread area where there is room for take off and landing, and the quick run by air help to be "dense" while being spread. Back to today just see how much metros costs and how limited they are, how many parking issue, how impossible is to convert multi-storey buildings to the Green New Deal: no room for enough p.v., no root for proper heat-pump heating and so on. Long story short: a dense city is like a factory, very effective wen you live inside during the period it was designed for, a nightmare when things change. A nightmare to change it to adapt. That's why today thanks to modern logistic and remote work we can achieve city-like efficiency without being dense, the new right density for the economy of scale is a spread population living and working in small buildings, intermixed, not too spread, but with enough space around to change them completely, to being able to evolve at the minimum cost and maximum flexibility. That's is not advertised, even denied, because is such a society git economy can't exists. There is no room for ready-made food in a spread population where WFH is the norm for all eligible jobs, there is no room for Uber et al. for cars, there is no room for public laundry and other service, such spread society know the value of ownership and instead of owning nothing living like slaves at the mercy of few paying the slaves just the bare minimum to allow them pay services they needs to live, enough to avoid riots and revolutions, it's a society like the classic desktop model of individual interconnected and in full control of themselves, moving in a peer to peer society. Not try looking at modern cities, from Neom to Arkadag, Innopolis, Prospera etc, they are distopic realities where people are slaves AND they cost so much that's impossible to create smart cities for all.

UtopiaPunk 2y ago

I think that's a valid point. For a lot of young people transitioning to adulthood, the thought of buying their first cable TV package was easy to say no to. It's expensive, and there was a perfectly reasonable alternative that was much cheaper and more convenient. When people in a similar life stage think about buying their first car, is the alternative easier? Generally speaking, cities need to invest more in bus, light rail, and bicycle infrastructure in order to compete with cost/convenience of owning a car. But in a few American cities, it is becoming increasingly easier to not depend on a car.