5 ms·

Being generous, there's only one, maybe two or three cities in the US with good public transportation. NYC has the best system in the US, but it's old and decre

Being generous, there's only one, maybe two or three cities in the US with good public transportation. NYC has the best system in the US, but it's old and decrepit. You have to travel outside of the US to see really good systems. Many European cities have decent systems, but the best systems - by far - are in East Asia. The Shanghai metro is as dense as the NYC subway, but it's clean, safe and modern. Most Americans have not traveled to these places, so they've never seen what an actually good system looks like. At best, they've seen the NYC subway, which they might view as convenient but disgusting. More commonly, they've only ever been to cities with little to no public transit. You say that Americans have the ability to choose, but that's really not true, unless they move to one particular city or leave the country. The infrastructure that exists determines what choices people have and what's convenient.

pdonis 2y ago
> there's only one, maybe two or three cities in the US with good public transportation. NYC's is, as you say, old and decrepit, but its coverage is pretty good. I don't think it's the best system in the US, however. I lived in Boston for some time; the T was better than NYC's system. I have visited Portland, and at least when I visited, its system was better than NYC's. > Many European cities have decent systems I have visited both London and Paris, and both of their systems were comparable to the T in Boston when I lived there in terms of coverage and usability. I have not visited any cities in East Asia, but I can easily see their systems being better since those countries have made huge investments in that kind of infrastructure. > You say that Americans have the ability to choose, but that's really not true By your logic nobody has the ability to choose. Nobody has access to all of the possibilities. So using that as the standard for "ability to choose", which is what you are doing, is pointless. I could just as well say you don't have the ability to choose anything but a city with public transportation, because that's all that even appears to be on your radar. > The infrastructure that exists Is, at least in America, determined by the choices of ordinary people in the past. And choices ordinary people make now will end up causing changes in the infrastructure that exists. Sure, maybe nowhere in America meets your personal standard for "good public transportation", but why should I care? I have a reasonable spectrum of alternatives open to me and I choose the one that suits me best. I don't waste time agonizing over alternatives that might exist elsewhere but are not accessible to me. Most Americans are the same way. So, I suspect, are most people everywhere, even if what alternatives are reasonably available can vary widely in different parts of the world. Maybe that's a problem for you, but it's not a problem for me, and I suspect it's not a problem for most people everywhere, and I don't see why it should be.
- thusky 2y ago
  The way you define Americans making a choice sounds a lot like a simple hill climbing algorithm. Once you're on the path of your nearest hill you're stuck there until conditions change, even if you can see a mountain in the distance you would have our whole society ignore it and stay on our little hill? That's why China is and will continue lapping us at transportation. Yes you should care, or at least be able to expect someone to care, or at LEAST not try to talk someone who does care out of it. >I don't waste time agonizing over alternatives that might exist elsewhere but are not accessible to me. But you're happy to waste time arguing against them?
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > a simple hill climbing algorithm Not at all. There is no such thing in a landscape that is changing on time scales that are visible to people, as our societies are. You can't stay stuck on a local maximum if the landscape changes it out from under you. You have to keep reconsidering things. > you're happy to waste time arguing against them? The (pretty limited) time I have spent posting in this discussion has not been wasted. I'm having fun.
    - DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
      You can get tightly boxed into one solution. In the US, car culture has caused a fundamental transformation of cities, which makes it extremely difficult to reintroduce public transit. Roads are very wide and there are massive parking lots everywhere, so it's difficult to reorient cities towards walking and public transit. You would have to eliminate those huge parking lots and reduce the number and size of roads in city centers, but because everyone already owns one or two cars, most people are dead-set against such changes. There is another local optimum, which is extensive public transit and walkable city centers. I'd argue that that other local optimum is far preferable, but transitioning there is very difficult.
      - pdonis 2y ago
        > I'd argue that that other local optimum is far preferable And I'd argue that this might be true for your preferences, but that doesn't mean it's true for everyone's. People have different preferences.

pdonis 2y ago

> there's only one, maybe two or three cities in the US with good public transportation. NYC's is, as you say, old and decrepit, but its coverage is pretty good. I don't think it's the best system in the US, however. I lived in Boston for some time; the T was better than NYC's system. I have visited Portland, and at least when I visited, its system was better than NYC's. > Many European cities have decent systems I have visited both London and Paris, and both of their systems were comparable to the T in Boston when I lived there in terms of coverage and usability. I have not visited any cities in East Asia, but I can easily see their systems being better since those countries have made huge investments in that kind of infrastructure. > You say that Americans have the ability to choose, but that's really not true By your logic nobody has the ability to choose. Nobody has access to all of the possibilities. So using that as the standard for "ability to choose", which is what you are doing, is pointless. I could just as well say you don't have the ability to choose anything but a city with public transportation, because that's all that even appears to be on your radar. > The infrastructure that exists Is, at least in America, determined by the choices of ordinary people in the past. And choices ordinary people make now will end up causing changes in the infrastructure that exists. Sure, maybe nowhere in America meets your personal standard for "good public transportation", but why should I care? I have a reasonable spectrum of alternatives open to me and I choose the one that suits me best. I don't waste time agonizing over alternatives that might exist elsewhere but are not accessible to me. Most Americans are the same way. So, I suspect, are most people everywhere, even if what alternatives are reasonably available can vary widely in different parts of the world. Maybe that's a problem for you, but it's not a problem for me, and I suspect it's not a problem for most people everywhere, and I don't see why it should be.

thusky 2y ago
The way you define Americans making a choice sounds a lot like a simple hill climbing algorithm. Once you're on the path of your nearest hill you're stuck there until conditions change, even if you can see a mountain in the distance you would have our whole society ignore it and stay on our little hill? That's why China is and will continue lapping us at transportation. Yes you should care, or at least be able to expect someone to care, or at LEAST not try to talk someone who does care out of it. >I don't waste time agonizing over alternatives that might exist elsewhere but are not accessible to me. But you're happy to waste time arguing against them?
- pdonis 2y ago
  > a simple hill climbing algorithm Not at all. There is no such thing in a landscape that is changing on time scales that are visible to people, as our societies are. You can't stay stuck on a local maximum if the landscape changes it out from under you. You have to keep reconsidering things. > you're happy to waste time arguing against them? The (pretty limited) time I have spent posting in this discussion has not been wasted. I'm having fun.
  - DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
    You can get tightly boxed into one solution. In the US, car culture has caused a fundamental transformation of cities, which makes it extremely difficult to reintroduce public transit. Roads are very wide and there are massive parking lots everywhere, so it's difficult to reorient cities towards walking and public transit. You would have to eliminate those huge parking lots and reduce the number and size of roads in city centers, but because everyone already owns one or two cars, most people are dead-set against such changes. There is another local optimum, which is extensive public transit and walkable city centers. I'd argue that that other local optimum is far preferable, but transitioning there is very difficult.
    - pdonis 2y ago
      > I'd argue that that other local optimum is far preferable And I'd argue that this might be true for your preferences, but that doesn't mean it's true for everyone's. People have different preferences.