3 ms·

I've lived in Atlanta and Seattle. Both have perfectly workable transit. Even if Atlanta does seem to have gotten a bit worse over the years.

by taeric 10mo ago

bluGill 10mo ago
Workable is not a great endorsement. If things are not fast and frequent people will prefer to drive even if transit could work. Also both have workable transit only for some destinations - I don't live in either city, but I'd guess without looking getting downtown is easy but if your destination is one suburb over it is technically possible but you could baby crawl faster.
- cogman10 10mo ago
  Yup, it's something I think people need to experience. I lived in the UK for 2 years without a car and it ultimately did not negatively impact me (other than needing to memorize local bus routes). I lived in towns as small as 10000 people (Newtown, Wales) and they had both a connected rail system and a couple of bus routes serving the town and connecting it to other towns. Buses absolutely can work in even quiet rural locations, they just need to be properly funded and prioritized. They also need to be subsidized. The American notion that public transit needs to either run net zero or turn a profit is backwards and fundamentally stopping it from working well.
- taeric 10mo ago
  I mean, yes. But I hate to point out that even in Tokyo, having a car is faster than not. Just a lot more expensive.
panick21_ 10mo ago
Seattle LRT has about the same usage as some german systems trams that are like 20x smaller. For a whole lot of the population that life around Atlanta and Seattle the public transport isn't workable.
- taeric 10mo ago
  It is workable for far more people than will make it work. Particularly in tech jobs. The underlying issue remains that it is seen as a poor person option. As soon as people can afford a car, they get one. Back when I didn't have a car, my future wife and I saw a comedian that literally had a joke about being above the poverty line of "do you take the bus?"
  - panick21_ 10mo ago
    The thing is, people are not ideological. If the car is 5x faster and nicer, then people will use it. People use what is convenient, most people don't pick public transport when it is 'workable' they pick it when it is actually good. And the reason it seen as 'for poor' people is because you only use it when you can't get a car. So the underlying issue is the overall quality of the service (frequency, reliability, comfort and so on).
    - taeric 10mo ago
      Ish. If the car costs 10x, then they will stick to not having one. See Tokyo. Again, I lived for over a decade with a tech job and no car. In Atlanta. It is easily doable. Especially for younger people that don't have a family. When I got married and we started having kids, I never had "my" car. Stayed on transit and cycling to get to work. It is frustrating, because I would be surrounded by progressive people at work that would go on about why transit doesn't work. But... it did. Just fine. You just can't also have a 4k square foot house at the same time. (I feel like I'm exaggerating, but that is literally the size of average home in some areas just around Seattle. My shared living in Atlanta was almost 1000 square feet. I remember dreaming of a 650 square foot "luxury apartment" someday.)
      - panick21_ 10mo ago
        If a car cost 10x but public transport is 20x worse then people will still buy cars unless they can't afford it. Look it might be easily doable for you, but the data shows pretty clearly that if one thing is easier and faster then another, most people, not all people will pick what is easier and faster. There are always 10-20% of people who will just prefer one thing, no matter what. See people who ride bikes in horrible dangerous conditions threw traffic. You might be willing to, but most people are not. But what you need is a system with enough quality that enough people use it so they can demand continued increases in quality.

I've lived in Atlanta and Seattle. Both have perfectly workable transit. Even if Atlanta does seem to have gotten a bit worse over the years.

by taeric 10mo ago

I've lived in Atlanta and Seattle. Both have perfectly workable transit. Even if Atlanta does seem to have gotten a bit worse over the years.

bluGill 10mo ago

Workable is not a great endorsement. If things are not fast and frequent people will prefer to drive even if transit could work. Also both have workable transit only for some destinations - I don't live in either city, but I'd guess without looking getting downtown is easy but if your destination is one suburb over it is technically possible but you could baby crawl faster.

cogman10 10mo ago
Yup, it's something I think people need to experience. I lived in the UK for 2 years without a car and it ultimately did not negatively impact me (other than needing to memorize local bus routes). I lived in towns as small as 10000 people (Newtown, Wales) and they had both a connected rail system and a couple of bus routes serving the town and connecting it to other towns. Buses absolutely can work in even quiet rural locations, they just need to be properly funded and prioritized. They also need to be subsidized. The American notion that public transit needs to either run net zero or turn a profit is backwards and fundamentally stopping it from working well.
taeric 10mo ago
I mean, yes. But I hate to point out that even in Tokyo, having a car is faster than not. Just a lot more expensive.

panick21_ 10mo ago

Seattle LRT has about the same usage as some german systems trams that are like 20x smaller. For a whole lot of the population that life around Atlanta and Seattle the public transport isn't workable.

taeric 10mo ago
It is workable for far more people than will make it work. Particularly in tech jobs. The underlying issue remains that it is seen as a poor person option. As soon as people can afford a car, they get one. Back when I didn't have a car, my future wife and I saw a comedian that literally had a joke about being above the poverty line of "do you take the bus?"
- panick21_ 10mo ago
  The thing is, people are not ideological. If the car is 5x faster and nicer, then people will use it. People use what is convenient, most people don't pick public transport when it is 'workable' they pick it when it is actually good. And the reason it seen as 'for poor' people is because you only use it when you can't get a car. So the underlying issue is the overall quality of the service (frequency, reliability, comfort and so on).
  - taeric 10mo ago
    Ish. If the car costs 10x, then they will stick to not having one. See Tokyo. Again, I lived for over a decade with a tech job and no car. In Atlanta. It is easily doable. Especially for younger people that don't have a family. When I got married and we started having kids, I never had "my" car. Stayed on transit and cycling to get to work. It is frustrating, because I would be surrounded by progressive people at work that would go on about why transit doesn't work. But... it did. Just fine. You just can't also have a 4k square foot house at the same time. (I feel like I'm exaggerating, but that is literally the size of average home in some areas just around Seattle. My shared living in Atlanta was almost 1000 square feet. I remember dreaming of a 650 square foot "luxury apartment" someday.)
    - panick21_ 10mo ago
      If a car cost 10x but public transport is 20x worse then people will still buy cars unless they can't afford it. Look it might be easily doable for you, but the data shows pretty clearly that if one thing is easier and faster then another, most people, not all people will pick what is easier and faster. There are always 10-20% of people who will just prefer one thing, no matter what. See people who ride bikes in horrible dangerous conditions threw traffic. You might be willing to, but most people are not. But what you need is a system with enough quality that enough people use it so they can demand continued increases in quality.