4 ms·

I still find it borderline criminal that a few nations continue to be ruled by the hegemony of the automobile market. EVs have a place in the world. But there s

I still find it borderline criminal that a few nations continue to be ruled by the hegemony of the automobile market. EVs have a place in the world. But there should be ten times fewer of them, because we should have cheap and plentiful public transit for most of our transportation needs. How long will we simply sit and wait for that future, complacent and docile? When will we do what's necessary to progress our society? (if we ever do)

lmpdev 1y ago
Likely once sufficient numbers of boomers die off - and their property inheriting children don’t take up their parent’s views
toast0 1y ago
> How long will we simply sit and wait for that future, complacent and docile? The people who don't want to sit and wait have bought personal vehicles. Mass transit can be great, but when it isn't, there's no sense of agency. At least with a personal vehicle, if it's not working, I can try to fix it or get it to someone who is more likely to be able to fix it. When transit isn't running, I just have to wait. If it can't get me to where I want to go in a reasonable time, sucks to be me. If my stop is removed from service, I guess I better move.
- Gigachad 1y ago
  In the last year, the number of times my car owning friends have not been able to make it to an event because their car is broken is surprisingly high. While I have never not been able to get somewhere because public transport is not working. If the train is down I can take the tram, if somehow both of them are down there will be replacement busses scheduled. And if somehow everything stops working I can book an uber which is still massively cheaper than owning a car.
  - lkbm 1y ago
    > While I have never not been able to get somewhere because public transport is not working. Oh man, when I first moved to Austin and used the bus as my only method of transport, getting to work was usually straightforward, but whenever I wanted to go somewhere on the weekend, I prepared for the fact that there'd be a detour around downtown, where I normally make my transfer. I'd have to get off the bus somewhere new and try to figure out where to catch the bus for the next leg. There were also a few occasions where there was over an hour between the "every 30 minutes" bus. Rare, but it happened. Buses naturally tend to clump together, so they need careful, intentional management to prevent this. Public transit is great, and we need more, but it's not as reliable as I'd like. Cars are far more reliable, at least for moderately wealthy people who can afford to buy new-ish and keep them well-maintained. Bikes, too, if you're able to bike in rain and snow. (I ended up switching to almost 100% bike travel after about three years, and just kept a change of clothes at work, and at least dry socks, shirt, and underwear in my bag. Spare pants added too much bulk to lug around.)
    - Gigachad 1y ago
      This is all highly dependant on the specific city. In Melbourne, Australia trains to the city during work hours are around every 5 minutes, dropping to around 15 minutes for off peak. Going to work by train is faster than driving. Buses that share roads with general traffic are always the worst solution and should really only be a temporary option to cover for downtime on rail.
  - bluGill 1y ago
    Modern cars tend to be very reliable in the early years. As they get older they get less reliable. I suspect your friends issue was budget, they were not willing (likely able) to spend the money needed to have a reliable car)
    - Gigachad 1y ago
      My coworkers car is still in its warranty period and just suffered an engine issue that is going to take ~5 weeks to resolve and would have cost $10,000 if it wasn’t otherwise covered.
- 0xbadcafebee 1y ago
  You know what would solve that sitting and waiting? More public transit. I know the American public isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but we can introduce them to the concept of better, faster public transit, like other nations have. (And having enough money to buy a car + being impatient/unwilling to schedule your time shouldn't be a license to make society worse)
wqaatwt 1y ago
A lot of people prefer living in less dense environments and personal vehicles will always be more efficient there than public transport
- Qwertious 1y ago
  A lot of people prefer living in financially affordable environments, and in a functioning market, dense towns/cities will always be more affordable unless you literally work on a farm. Everyone prefers to live in a giant sprawling mansion (with personal private forest) in the middle of the CBD. But preference is useless data unless it includes their pricetag preference too.
  - criddell 1y ago
    > dense towns/cities will always be more affordable In my experience, that isn't true. At the very least, it depends on what your preferences are. If I moved my home from outside Austin to inside the city, I couldn't afford it.
    - lkbm 1y ago
      Densifying a city will make it cheaper than if we don't densify, but we usually densify because of high prices, so high density correlates with high prices despite being a counter-force against it. And, yeah, living in a dense city definitely tends to cost more than the suburbs, especially per-square-foot. There might be exceptions (high crime urban areas with wealthy suburbs), but you're usually getting a pretty nice house in that suburb.
    - Qwertious 1y ago
      >In my experience, that isn't true. That's because you removed my qualifying statement from the quote. "IN A FUNCTIONING MARKET"
  - bluGill 1y ago
    Density is more expensive. Not just because of demand for the area (though that doesn't help), but because density requires different building methods. Your single family house can be built so cheaply because it doesn't have to support the weight of many floors above; nor does it need to be fireproof because in the rare fire you can evacuate. (density means more people are displaced, fires are more likely, and longer distances to get away) Density is also more expensive because higher costs are worth it. A rural area cannot afford things like library in walking distance of every farmer (every farmer would have to pay for a personal librarian), but in a dense area it is only a couple bucks for each one - but that all adds up to hundreds of dollars in extra costs that less dense areas do without. (you decide if it is worth the cost)
nine_k 1y ago
Speaking as a big fan and avid user of public transit, I say: not gonna happen in many places. Public transit works in densely populated areas, like in NYC where I live. Digging and operating a tunnel costs a lot, and only pays for itself if you can run many trains with many passengers, who live close enough to their nearest station. Buses are less expensive (though still are expensive), and require a driver per 50-100 passengers, not per 2000. As long as many people prefer to live in suburbia (which may technically be considered a part of a city, like in Houston), they are going to use cars (or technically trucks), because it's the most economical way to get around. As long as the destination of their travel is not an utterly dense area that does not require a car (like commuting from NJ to lower Manhattan), people won't leave their cars mid-way and change for a train or a bus. It's not the car lobby. It's people wanting to live quite separately from their neighbors, in detached houses that they fully own. Or maybe cities that enforce low density for a number of reasons (mostly NIMBYs who want to keep the price of their house and land high).
- bluGill 1y ago
  Suburbs are dense enough to support transit as proven in a small number of cities around the world (mostly not English speaking). However suburbs can only support great transit, since anything less and driving is enough better as to be worth it. NYC has a real cost problem. Digging a tunnel costs a lot - not anywhere near what it costs in NYC. You can also build bridges over the top for a lot less than digging a tunnel. Modern subways should be 100% automated saving the cost of a driver. (I keep hoping we see self driving buses since drivers are the large share of the costs)
  - nine_k 1y ago
    NYC tunnels have outsized cost, but even tunnels that cost 10% of that would not be cheap. Most of the NYC subway was built quickly and relatively cheaply by digging trenches and covering them later, not by boring tunnels. NYC used to use elevated trains a lot, and still has plenty of those outside Manhattan, but they have other downsides, such as noise. NYC subway has two drivers per train due to the trade union resistance. Very understandable, even though not really necessary. Self-driving buses could be also remotely driven in situations that require special handling, by a smaller number of drivers. As usual, it mostly takes a political will, the technology is not rocket science; one of the poster kids of that is Curitiba in Brazil.
zmmmmm 1y ago
Public transport is only efficient at scale, requires up front investment, and carries lots of assumptions about population density and other aspects remaining static. Then it doesn't work for whole categories of people (families with small kids, etc) especially because it fundamentally just can't do the "last mile", pretty much ever. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great for mass transit, but I can't wait to see the future with autonomous vehicles arrive, especially if they can cooperate in centralised networks to optimise traffic flows. I'd love to step off the train into a capsule that then whisks me home.
- jeroenhd 1y ago
  > Then it doesn't work for whole categories of people (families with small kids, etc) especially because it fundamentally just can't do the "last mile", pretty much ever. That's bullshit. My whole childhood I went everywhere by train and bus. You can walk the last mile if the bus stop isn't close enough to where you need to go. I know some (embarrassingly rich) countries are incapable of designing a halfway decent public transit system, but the problem isn't with public transit itself.
- vel0city 1y ago
  I take my small kids on public transit often. Why can't kids ride a bus or a train? Don't we even have special forms of mass transit for little kids (school busses?) How are cars better with little kids? If I'm in the car with my kids and one kid suddenly really wants a snack, there's nothing I can do. They're strapped in the back, I'm in the front driving. On the train, I just grab a snack from my bag and give them a bite. Or if they're bored I can play with them, etc. > it fundamentally just can't do the "last mile", pretty much ever. I live in a suburb in North Texas. I walk out my door with the stroller and my kids. There's a bus stop super close by that can easily load a stroller (all busses are wheelchair accessible). I take that to the train station or the bus goes to the library or several other parks and rec centers. The train stops a very short walk to several museums, the convention center, the airport, the zoo has its own train station, the hockey/basketball arena has its own stop, etc. And this is all in an area where the mass transit isn't even that great. The transit doesn't go everywhere we want to go. I agree that's the biggest pain point. But I truly don't understand the logic that it's bad for kids. My kids ride often, and they love it. What kid hates trains?

lmpdev 1y ago

Likely once sufficient numbers of boomers die off - and their property inheriting children don’t take up their parent’s views

toast0 1y ago

> How long will we simply sit and wait for that future, complacent and docile? The people who don't want to sit and wait have bought personal vehicles. Mass transit can be great, but when it isn't, there's no sense of agency. At least with a personal vehicle, if it's not working, I can try to fix it or get it to someone who is more likely to be able to fix it. When transit isn't running, I just have to wait. If it can't get me to where I want to go in a reasonable time, sucks to be me. If my stop is removed from service, I guess I better move.

Gigachad 1y ago
In the last year, the number of times my car owning friends have not been able to make it to an event because their car is broken is surprisingly high. While I have never not been able to get somewhere because public transport is not working. If the train is down I can take the tram, if somehow both of them are down there will be replacement busses scheduled. And if somehow everything stops working I can book an uber which is still massively cheaper than owning a car.
- lkbm 1y ago
  > While I have never not been able to get somewhere because public transport is not working. Oh man, when I first moved to Austin and used the bus as my only method of transport, getting to work was usually straightforward, but whenever I wanted to go somewhere on the weekend, I prepared for the fact that there'd be a detour around downtown, where I normally make my transfer. I'd have to get off the bus somewhere new and try to figure out where to catch the bus for the next leg. There were also a few occasions where there was over an hour between the "every 30 minutes" bus. Rare, but it happened. Buses naturally tend to clump together, so they need careful, intentional management to prevent this. Public transit is great, and we need more, but it's not as reliable as I'd like. Cars are far more reliable, at least for moderately wealthy people who can afford to buy new-ish and keep them well-maintained. Bikes, too, if you're able to bike in rain and snow. (I ended up switching to almost 100% bike travel after about three years, and just kept a change of clothes at work, and at least dry socks, shirt, and underwear in my bag. Spare pants added too much bulk to lug around.)
  - Gigachad 1y ago
    This is all highly dependant on the specific city. In Melbourne, Australia trains to the city during work hours are around every 5 minutes, dropping to around 15 minutes for off peak. Going to work by train is faster than driving. Buses that share roads with general traffic are always the worst solution and should really only be a temporary option to cover for downtime on rail.
- bluGill 1y ago
  Modern cars tend to be very reliable in the early years. As they get older they get less reliable. I suspect your friends issue was budget, they were not willing (likely able) to spend the money needed to have a reliable car)
  - Gigachad 1y ago
    My coworkers car is still in its warranty period and just suffered an engine issue that is going to take ~5 weeks to resolve and would have cost $10,000 if it wasn’t otherwise covered.
0xbadcafebee 1y ago
You know what would solve that sitting and waiting? More public transit. I know the American public isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but we can introduce them to the concept of better, faster public transit, like other nations have. (And having enough money to buy a car + being impatient/unwilling to schedule your time shouldn't be a license to make society worse)

wqaatwt 1y ago

A lot of people prefer living in less dense environments and personal vehicles will always be more efficient there than public transport

Qwertious 1y ago
A lot of people prefer living in financially affordable environments, and in a functioning market, dense towns/cities will always be more affordable unless you literally work on a farm. Everyone prefers to live in a giant sprawling mansion (with personal private forest) in the middle of the CBD. But preference is useless data unless it includes their pricetag preference too.
- criddell 1y ago
  > dense towns/cities will always be more affordable In my experience, that isn't true. At the very least, it depends on what your preferences are. If I moved my home from outside Austin to inside the city, I couldn't afford it.
  - lkbm 1y ago
    Densifying a city will make it cheaper than if we don't densify, but we usually densify because of high prices, so high density correlates with high prices despite being a counter-force against it. And, yeah, living in a dense city definitely tends to cost more than the suburbs, especially per-square-foot. There might be exceptions (high crime urban areas with wealthy suburbs), but you're usually getting a pretty nice house in that suburb.
  - Qwertious 1y ago
    >In my experience, that isn't true. That's because you removed my qualifying statement from the quote. "IN A FUNCTIONING MARKET"
- bluGill 1y ago
  Density is more expensive. Not just because of demand for the area (though that doesn't help), but because density requires different building methods. Your single family house can be built so cheaply because it doesn't have to support the weight of many floors above; nor does it need to be fireproof because in the rare fire you can evacuate. (density means more people are displaced, fires are more likely, and longer distances to get away) Density is also more expensive because higher costs are worth it. A rural area cannot afford things like library in walking distance of every farmer (every farmer would have to pay for a personal librarian), but in a dense area it is only a couple bucks for each one - but that all adds up to hundreds of dollars in extra costs that less dense areas do without. (you decide if it is worth the cost)

nine_k 1y ago

Speaking as a big fan and avid user of public transit, I say: not gonna happen in many places. Public transit works in densely populated areas, like in NYC where I live. Digging and operating a tunnel costs a lot, and only pays for itself if you can run many trains with many passengers, who live close enough to their nearest station. Buses are less expensive (though still are expensive), and require a driver per 50-100 passengers, not per 2000. As long as many people prefer to live in suburbia (which may technically be considered a part of a city, like in Houston), they are going to use cars (or technically trucks), because it's the most economical way to get around. As long as the destination of their travel is not an utterly dense area that does not require a car (like commuting from NJ to lower Manhattan), people won't leave their cars mid-way and change for a train or a bus. It's not the car lobby. It's people wanting to live quite separately from their neighbors, in detached houses that they fully own. Or maybe cities that enforce low density for a number of reasons (mostly NIMBYs who want to keep the price of their house and land high).

bluGill 1y ago
Suburbs are dense enough to support transit as proven in a small number of cities around the world (mostly not English speaking). However suburbs can only support great transit, since anything less and driving is enough better as to be worth it. NYC has a real cost problem. Digging a tunnel costs a lot - not anywhere near what it costs in NYC. You can also build bridges over the top for a lot less than digging a tunnel. Modern subways should be 100% automated saving the cost of a driver. (I keep hoping we see self driving buses since drivers are the large share of the costs)
- nine_k 1y ago
  NYC tunnels have outsized cost, but even tunnels that cost 10% of that would not be cheap. Most of the NYC subway was built quickly and relatively cheaply by digging trenches and covering them later, not by boring tunnels. NYC used to use elevated trains a lot, and still has plenty of those outside Manhattan, but they have other downsides, such as noise. NYC subway has two drivers per train due to the trade union resistance. Very understandable, even though not really necessary. Self-driving buses could be also remotely driven in situations that require special handling, by a smaller number of drivers. As usual, it mostly takes a political will, the technology is not rocket science; one of the poster kids of that is Curitiba in Brazil.

zmmmmm 1y ago

Public transport is only efficient at scale, requires up front investment, and carries lots of assumptions about population density and other aspects remaining static. Then it doesn't work for whole categories of people (families with small kids, etc) especially because it fundamentally just can't do the "last mile", pretty much ever. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great for mass transit, but I can't wait to see the future with autonomous vehicles arrive, especially if they can cooperate in centralised networks to optimise traffic flows. I'd love to step off the train into a capsule that then whisks me home.

jeroenhd 1y ago
> Then it doesn't work for whole categories of people (families with small kids, etc) especially because it fundamentally just can't do the "last mile", pretty much ever. That's bullshit. My whole childhood I went everywhere by train and bus. You can walk the last mile if the bus stop isn't close enough to where you need to go. I know some (embarrassingly rich) countries are incapable of designing a halfway decent public transit system, but the problem isn't with public transit itself.
vel0city 1y ago
I take my small kids on public transit often. Why can't kids ride a bus or a train? Don't we even have special forms of mass transit for little kids (school busses?) How are cars better with little kids? If I'm in the car with my kids and one kid suddenly really wants a snack, there's nothing I can do. They're strapped in the back, I'm in the front driving. On the train, I just grab a snack from my bag and give them a bite. Or if they're bored I can play with them, etc. > it fundamentally just can't do the "last mile", pretty much ever. I live in a suburb in North Texas. I walk out my door with the stroller and my kids. There's a bus stop super close by that can easily load a stroller (all busses are wheelchair accessible). I take that to the train station or the bus goes to the library or several other parks and rec centers. The train stops a very short walk to several museums, the convention center, the airport, the zoo has its own train station, the hockey/basketball arena has its own stop, etc. And this is all in an area where the mass transit isn't even that great. The transit doesn't go everywhere we want to go. I agree that's the biggest pain point. But I truly don't understand the logic that it's bad for kids. My kids ride often, and they love it. What kid hates trains?