3 ms·

I agree, but at that point I'm in favor of just having a bus that carts drunks and druggies around the city and normal people have no expectation of using it. I

by llbbdd 1y ago

I agree, but at that point I'm in favor of just having a bus that carts drunks and druggies around the city and normal people have no expectation of using it. In my experience in a big city this is already how public transit is used.

palata 1y ago
> In my experience in a big city Do you mean "in the US"? There is a whole part of the world where public transit is actually working well.
- llbbdd 1y ago
  Yes, in the US. Public transit does work well here, doing its part to commute the above categories of people around. Anyone who can afford to opts out because point-to-point travel is literally always better no matter where you are in the world.
  - joseda-hg 1y ago
    If literally everyone who can avoids it, I'm not sure it works that well I avoid having a car because I live in a place where I can get by with busses, public carpools and the occasional uber, having a car would mean having to deal with finding parking for it, finding a mechanic I trust, driving in traffic and having to still ocasionally use any the former if I want to have a beer
    - llbbdd 1y ago
      It's not a matter of quality, it's a matter of preference. I don't own a car. I live three blocks from a bus stop and I Uber everywhere instead, because it's cheap and predictable. The buses are clean, they run on time, but the population is well-off enough that there's almost no reason to take them, and that filters to buses being full of people who for one reason or another (often significant problems integrating with society) cannot pay for an alternative. If one takes public transit it's because of convenience, cost, or virtue, and convenience is often the leg lacking, because it doesn't come to your house. I have walked blocks to and stood at many bus stops in my life surrounded by unwell people and telling myself that I'm being socially efficient does not smooth that over particularly well.
      - palata 1y ago
        Not saying that you're wrong at all, but that feels pretty specific to the US. Which to me confirms that it is an urban planning failure. In many places in the world, it's not remotely like that. I understand that "public transportation sucks in the US", but I feel like US people conclude from it that "public transportation sucks". And this is wrong. It's really a failure in the US.
        llbbdd 1y ago
        That's fine, I've only lived in the US and can only provide that perspective. However I cannot imagine a version of public transit that would be so good that I would actually use it - and this includes looking at the options available in other countries, because as far as I know we're still operating with buses, trains, subways, carpools, etc. Until ya'll have free taxis that come to your house and take you directly to your destination, it's just not a comparable sell. To that extent I think it comes back to preference and maybe culture, and doesn't indicate any kind of failure. In the US we can afford not to take public transit and exercise that preference, in many places, it's not an option.
        queenkjuul 1y ago
        Plenty of Europeans can afford to do whatever they want and still take transit. Same in Japan, China, all over the developed world. I just fundamentally can't get why you're so offput by trains.
        palata 1y ago
        > In the US we can afford not to take public transit and exercise that preference, in many places, it's not an option. Public transit is objectively a better solution than individual cars. It's not that other countries have public transit because they don't have a choice. They do: they just choose the better option. > To that extent I think it comes back to preference and maybe culture, and doesn't indicate any kind of failure. Sure, it was built like this in the US because of the culture. But retrospectively it was a mistake. Driving an individual car emits more CO2 than taking a bus or a train, period. The US is probably the only place in the world where a swasticar is considered "ecological": it's using a lot of energy, just because it's heavy.
  - palata 1y ago
    My experience in the US is that it's not always worse than a car. I tried multiple times going from the San Francisco airport to Oakland. The BART was systematically faster than a taxi stuck in the traffic. I feel a lot safer going to the airport with the BART than with a taxi, because with the taxi I may miss my flight. Similar experience driving in Los Angeles. So much traffic, whenever there is a train it's better. In NYC, the subway works really well, too.
    - llbbdd 1y ago
      I think these are just different measurements of safety. I do trust a subway to get to its destination on a reasonable schedule to a greater degree than an Uber, but to me that's a very different question than physical safety. The NYC subway is a great example of this actually, since it does seem to run very well but in the last year has had multiple horrifying incidents.
      - palata 1y ago
        > The NYC subway is a great example of this actually, since it does seem to run very well but in the last year has had multiple horrifying incidents. Boeing has had multiple horrifying incidents in the last years. Would you say that aviation is unsafe?
        llbbdd 1y ago
        Again I think these are different concerns. On a plane I am with a section of the public that can hold their life together enough to buy a plane ticket, and I do not feel overtly physically threatened by them. On a subway I am with a section of the public so prolifically jumping over turnstiles that it's a systemic concern for for the subway itself. Concerns about the engineering mettle at Boeing or whoever provides the subway cars for NYC are separate.
        palata 1y ago
        That's not what I meant. I understand that there are uncomfortable experiences in the subway in big cities. But statistically, what percentage of the people get physically hurt as compared to the total number of travellers? Same applies to planes: the quality of Boeing seems to have gone down in the last few years to the point where I choose airlines flying Airbus. That's my feeling, it is valid as a feeling. But statistically, the likelihood of my flight with Boeing ending up in a crash is very small.
  - Mawr 1y ago
    > point-to-point travel is literally always better no matter where you are in the world Yeah, cycling is better than public transportation in cities in most scenarios.
queenkjuul 1y ago
Vast majority of public transit riders in big US cities are perfectly normal people. Majority of my office takes transit (or other non-car method) to work here in Chicago. It's similar in NYC and Washington. And yes we all can afford to drive (i even own a car) it just doesn't make sense to take a car downtown, ever. I've taken the bus all over the city too. Overwhelming majority of people are not drunk or high or anything, and it's not considered weird for normal people to ride the bus. In fact, i haven't touched my car since i last visited friends in Wisconsin back in May. Most of my friends don't own cars, several can't even drive

by llbbdd 1y ago

palata 1y ago

> In my experience in a big city Do you mean "in the US"? There is a whole part of the world where public transit is actually working well.

llbbdd 1y ago
Yes, in the US. Public transit does work well here, doing its part to commute the above categories of people around. Anyone who can afford to opts out because point-to-point travel is literally always better no matter where you are in the world.
- joseda-hg 1y ago
  If literally everyone who can avoids it, I'm not sure it works that well I avoid having a car because I live in a place where I can get by with busses, public carpools and the occasional uber, having a car would mean having to deal with finding parking for it, finding a mechanic I trust, driving in traffic and having to still ocasionally use any the former if I want to have a beer
  - llbbdd 1y ago
    It's not a matter of quality, it's a matter of preference. I don't own a car. I live three blocks from a bus stop and I Uber everywhere instead, because it's cheap and predictable. The buses are clean, they run on time, but the population is well-off enough that there's almost no reason to take them, and that filters to buses being full of people who for one reason or another (often significant problems integrating with society) cannot pay for an alternative. If one takes public transit it's because of convenience, cost, or virtue, and convenience is often the leg lacking, because it doesn't come to your house. I have walked blocks to and stood at many bus stops in my life surrounded by unwell people and telling myself that I'm being socially efficient does not smooth that over particularly well.
    - palata 1y ago
      Not saying that you're wrong at all, but that feels pretty specific to the US. Which to me confirms that it is an urban planning failure. In many places in the world, it's not remotely like that. I understand that "public transportation sucks in the US", but I feel like US people conclude from it that "public transportation sucks". And this is wrong. It's really a failure in the US.
      - llbbdd 1y ago
        That's fine, I've only lived in the US and can only provide that perspective. However I cannot imagine a version of public transit that would be so good that I would actually use it - and this includes looking at the options available in other countries, because as far as I know we're still operating with buses, trains, subways, carpools, etc. Until ya'll have free taxis that come to your house and take you directly to your destination, it's just not a comparable sell. To that extent I think it comes back to preference and maybe culture, and doesn't indicate any kind of failure. In the US we can afford not to take public transit and exercise that preference, in many places, it's not an option.
        queenkjuul 1y ago
        Plenty of Europeans can afford to do whatever they want and still take transit. Same in Japan, China, all over the developed world. I just fundamentally can't get why you're so offput by trains.
        palata 1y ago
        > In the US we can afford not to take public transit and exercise that preference, in many places, it's not an option. Public transit is objectively a better solution than individual cars. It's not that other countries have public transit because they don't have a choice. They do: they just choose the better option. > To that extent I think it comes back to preference and maybe culture, and doesn't indicate any kind of failure. Sure, it was built like this in the US because of the culture. But retrospectively it was a mistake. Driving an individual car emits more CO2 than taking a bus or a train, period. The US is probably the only place in the world where a swasticar is considered "ecological": it's using a lot of energy, just because it's heavy.
- palata 1y ago
  My experience in the US is that it's not always worse than a car. I tried multiple times going from the San Francisco airport to Oakland. The BART was systematically faster than a taxi stuck in the traffic. I feel a lot safer going to the airport with the BART than with a taxi, because with the taxi I may miss my flight. Similar experience driving in Los Angeles. So much traffic, whenever there is a train it's better. In NYC, the subway works really well, too.
  - llbbdd 1y ago
    I think these are just different measurements of safety. I do trust a subway to get to its destination on a reasonable schedule to a greater degree than an Uber, but to me that's a very different question than physical safety. The NYC subway is a great example of this actually, since it does seem to run very well but in the last year has had multiple horrifying incidents.
    - palata 1y ago
      > The NYC subway is a great example of this actually, since it does seem to run very well but in the last year has had multiple horrifying incidents. Boeing has had multiple horrifying incidents in the last years. Would you say that aviation is unsafe?
      - llbbdd 1y ago
        Again I think these are different concerns. On a plane I am with a section of the public that can hold their life together enough to buy a plane ticket, and I do not feel overtly physically threatened by them. On a subway I am with a section of the public so prolifically jumping over turnstiles that it's a systemic concern for for the subway itself. Concerns about the engineering mettle at Boeing or whoever provides the subway cars for NYC are separate.
        palata 1y ago
        That's not what I meant. I understand that there are uncomfortable experiences in the subway in big cities. But statistically, what percentage of the people get physically hurt as compared to the total number of travellers? Same applies to planes: the quality of Boeing seems to have gone down in the last few years to the point where I choose airlines flying Airbus. That's my feeling, it is valid as a feeling. But statistically, the likelihood of my flight with Boeing ending up in a crash is very small.
- Mawr 1y ago
  > point-to-point travel is literally always better no matter where you are in the world Yeah, cycling is better than public transportation in cities in most scenarios.

queenkjuul 1y ago

Vast majority of public transit riders in big US cities are perfectly normal people. Majority of my office takes transit (or other non-car method) to work here in Chicago. It's similar in NYC and Washington. And yes we all can afford to drive (i even own a car) it just doesn't make sense to take a car downtown, ever. I've taken the bus all over the city too. Overwhelming majority of people are not drunk or high or anything, and it's not considered weird for normal people to ride the bus. In fact, i haven't touched my car since i last visited friends in Wisconsin back in May. Most of my friends don't own cars, several can't even drive