4 ms·

Why would anyone prefer public transit over a self driving comfortable personal car?

by aianus 4mo ago

mitthrowaway2 4mo ago
Trains don't get stuck in traffic, and some of them have restrooms and space to walk around in. They're also better for the people outside of the vehicle.
wasmitnetzen 4mo ago
Because of the lesser impact on land usage, fuel usage, noise, ...?
dkdbejwi383 4mo ago
In addition to the other good reasons also raised, PT has much more optimal land-use than private cars. Train stations or metro stations take up relatively little land and can be integrated with business and services or have nice public plazas and small parks. Compared with multi-lane highways, parking lots, giant intersections that are hostile to pedestrians and active transport.
tirant 4mo ago
Because it’s available to everyone, including kids and elderly, and does not need high upfront payments. I can just move to Madrid and move anywhere in the city for around 1-2€ per trip without upfront investment of 20.000€ for a car, plus insurance, maintenance, fuel and taxes.
thelastgallon 4mo ago
Why would anyone prefer a car that YOU have to drive over an autonomous all terrain comfortable personal horse? A horse knows how to navigate any kinds of terrain, while a car requires constant microsecond attention, extremely stressful, if you lose focus, might end up dead, worse kill a lot of other people! Horses don't need roads to be built, or the elaborate supply chains of fossil fuels, and trillions of dollars per year in subsidies.
the_gipsy 4mo ago
Why would anyone prefer airline transit over a comfortable private jet?
globular-toast 4mo ago
Why would anyone prefer a self driving comfortable personal car over teleportation?
vvillena 4mo ago
Because public transit, done well, is the fastest way to move around. It gets you everywhere, even to places personal vehicles can't reach. It's a lot cheaper. It generates hubs of activity that keep cities lively and relevant. It doesn't get stuck in traffic. It doesn't need to be parked. The benefits of good public transport are so mind blowing that it's difficult to explain unless you have lived on a city that has it.
- gonzalohm 4mo ago
  Hmm I disagree. I lived in Madrid. In fact in one of those cities that this article mentions from the new subway construction. Subway takes 1h15min to reach the city center. Car only takes 30 minutes. This is because when you are building a subway every one wants their station. The map above may look like straight lines, but if you look at the real map, the north of line 10 is not straight at all, it's more zig zag. We are trying to make transportation work for everyone and we end up with transportation that works for no one. Also, the subway closes at midnight, and by Spanish standards, that's early. I was stranded twice (because different stations close at different times) until i decided that I would never take public transport in Madrid again
  - otikik 4mo ago
    > Car only takes 30 minutes That is not rush hour time, though.
    - gonzalohm 4mo ago
      Oh yeah, I'm talking about recreationally. I would never accept a job offer that requires a commute to the city. 100% agree that commuting to work in public transport is way better
      - decafninja 4mo ago
        I work in NYC but live in the inner suburbs, as does most of my social circle. For most of us, when it comes to commuting for work, it's always public transportation. But when it comes to going into the city for leisure, it's always the car.
jodrellblank 4mo ago
Collectively (as in, the collective action problem): - Areas with few/no cars are nicer to be in. To breathe, to talk quietly and hear others talking, to walk around safely. - Transport moves more people in less space and less overall investment. Toronto Highway 401[1] is an eighteen lane road and it moves fewer people per day than Metro line 1. - Low car areas are better for local economies. People object to reducing traffic saying it will hurt local businesses, and the opposite is true. Where it's nice to exist outside of a car, that attracts people, and local businesses thrive. - Reduced costs on health services from reduced pollution. Fewer doctor and hospital visits and prescriptions, for lung infections, breathing problems, asthsma and COPD in London after Low Emissions zones. - Reduced environmental impact of fewer cars, fewer trips taken by car. - Many people can't drive; all children, many injured or disabled people, many poorer people, many elderly people (can't or shouldn't), some people with e.g. DUI convictions. Some 20% of households in the UK have no access to a car. A matter of fairness and not prioritising the wealthy car owner. Personally: - No need to find parking, return to that carpark. - Transit is more spacious. Being strapped into a carseat, elbows hitting doors, head hitting roof, knees hitting steering wheel, shins hitting dash, feet constrained in footwell, surrounded by explosives "for your protection" is a really unpleasant place to be. - Less concentration needed. Driving requires constant attention. Even when transit is crowded, you don't have to do anything. - Implemented well, transit takes priority over cars at turnings, crossings, junctions, roundabouts, and moves faster. Toronto trams do this especially poorly, apparently. - Freedom. No need for a government approved license and ID. Not beholden to dragging a ton of steel boat-anchor around everywhere with you. [1] https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IRDiOiNYl9s/UEwAA79O2NI/AAAAAAAAGJY/xdrW9jeN9IA/s640/Highway_401.png https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IRDiOiNYl9s/UEwAA79O2NI/AAAAAAAAG...
- decafninja 4mo ago
  You describe some of the best possible transit scenarios and compare it to the worst possible car scenarios. That can easily be flipped. My daily experience with transit is that you're far more likely to be standing, jam packed like sardines with your nose up someone's armpit. The train/bus is constantly heaving and shaking. You have to be always be concentrating not to stumble or fall into the person next to you. This is a problem that still exists with some of the best transit systems, and is even more pronounced on the ones that aren't quite so nice.
mslate 4mo ago
Why would anyone prefer to drive when you can be driven?
rsynnott 4mo ago
Well, first of all, there is no such thing. However, even if such a thing did exist, you still have to contend with traffic and total road capacity. So, for instance, taking local systems (details will vary by city, but not much), a double-decker bus is ten meters long and takes ~100 people. A tram is 55m long and takes about 550 people. A commuter train is 160m long and takes a thousand people (and doesn't share roads, of course). A car is 4-5m long and typically carries one or two people. Take any large city, attempt to replace the public transport with private cars, and there simply _will not be space_. Fully-segregated metros in particular can also be much faster than cars in urban areas; they don't have to contend with traffic or intersections at all.
otikik 4mo ago
Well, trains and underground public transit usually are impervious to traffic. Even buses get exclusive lanes in some cities. You can zip over people trapped in traffic on their personal cars. It is quite satisfying.

Why would anyone prefer public transit over a self driving comfortable personal car?

by aianus 4mo ago

Why would anyone prefer public transit over a self driving comfortable personal car?

Trains don't get stuck in traffic, and some of them have restrooms and space to walk around in. They're also better for the people outside of the vehicle.

wasmitnetzen 4mo ago

Because of the lesser impact on land usage, fuel usage, noise, ...?

dkdbejwi383 4mo ago

In addition to the other good reasons also raised, PT has much more optimal land-use than private cars. Train stations or metro stations take up relatively little land and can be integrated with business and services or have nice public plazas and small parks. Compared with multi-lane highways, parking lots, giant intersections that are hostile to pedestrians and active transport.

tirant 4mo ago

Because it’s available to everyone, including kids and elderly, and does not need high upfront payments. I can just move to Madrid and move anywhere in the city for around 1-2€ per trip without upfront investment of 20.000€ for a car, plus insurance, maintenance, fuel and taxes.

thelastgallon 4mo ago

Why would anyone prefer a car that YOU have to drive over an autonomous all terrain comfortable personal horse? A horse knows how to navigate any kinds of terrain, while a car requires constant microsecond attention, extremely stressful, if you lose focus, might end up dead, worse kill a lot of other people! Horses don't need roads to be built, or the elaborate supply chains of fossil fuels, and trillions of dollars per year in subsidies.

the_gipsy 4mo ago

Why would anyone prefer airline transit over a comfortable private jet?

globular-toast 4mo ago

Why would anyone prefer a self driving comfortable personal car over teleportation?

vvillena 4mo ago

Because public transit, done well, is the fastest way to move around. It gets you everywhere, even to places personal vehicles can't reach. It's a lot cheaper. It generates hubs of activity that keep cities lively and relevant. It doesn't get stuck in traffic. It doesn't need to be parked. The benefits of good public transport are so mind blowing that it's difficult to explain unless you have lived on a city that has it.

gonzalohm 4mo ago
Hmm I disagree. I lived in Madrid. In fact in one of those cities that this article mentions from the new subway construction. Subway takes 1h15min to reach the city center. Car only takes 30 minutes. This is because when you are building a subway every one wants their station. The map above may look like straight lines, but if you look at the real map, the north of line 10 is not straight at all, it's more zig zag. We are trying to make transportation work for everyone and we end up with transportation that works for no one. Also, the subway closes at midnight, and by Spanish standards, that's early. I was stranded twice (because different stations close at different times) until i decided that I would never take public transport in Madrid again
- otikik 4mo ago
  > Car only takes 30 minutes That is not rush hour time, though.
  - gonzalohm 4mo ago
    Oh yeah, I'm talking about recreationally. I would never accept a job offer that requires a commute to the city. 100% agree that commuting to work in public transport is way better
    - decafninja 4mo ago
      I work in NYC but live in the inner suburbs, as does most of my social circle. For most of us, when it comes to commuting for work, it's always public transportation. But when it comes to going into the city for leisure, it's always the car.

jodrellblank 4mo ago

Collectively (as in, the collective action problem): - Areas with few/no cars are nicer to be in. To breathe, to talk quietly and hear others talking, to walk around safely. - Transport moves more people in less space and less overall investment. Toronto Highway 401[1] is an eighteen lane road and it moves fewer people per day than Metro line 1. - Low car areas are better for local economies. People object to reducing traffic saying it will hurt local businesses, and the opposite is true. Where it's nice to exist outside of a car, that attracts people, and local businesses thrive. - Reduced costs on health services from reduced pollution. Fewer doctor and hospital visits and prescriptions, for lung infections, breathing problems, asthsma and COPD in London after Low Emissions zones. - Reduced environmental impact of fewer cars, fewer trips taken by car. - Many people can't drive; all children, many injured or disabled people, many poorer people, many elderly people (can't or shouldn't), some people with e.g. DUI convictions. Some 20% of households in the UK have no access to a car. A matter of fairness and not prioritising the wealthy car owner. Personally: - No need to find parking, return to that carpark. - Transit is more spacious. Being strapped into a carseat, elbows hitting doors, head hitting roof, knees hitting steering wheel, shins hitting dash, feet constrained in footwell, surrounded by explosives "for your protection" is a really unpleasant place to be. - Less concentration needed. Driving requires constant attention. Even when transit is crowded, you don't have to do anything. - Implemented well, transit takes priority over cars at turnings, crossings, junctions, roundabouts, and moves faster. Toronto trams do this especially poorly, apparently. - Freedom. No need for a government approved license and ID. Not beholden to dragging a ton of steel boat-anchor around everywhere with you. [1] https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IRDiOiNYl9s/UEwAA79O2NI/AAAAAAAAGJY/xdrW9jeN9IA/s640/Highway_401.png https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IRDiOiNYl9s/UEwAA79O2NI/AAAAAAAAG...

decafninja 4mo ago
You describe some of the best possible transit scenarios and compare it to the worst possible car scenarios. That can easily be flipped. My daily experience with transit is that you're far more likely to be standing, jam packed like sardines with your nose up someone's armpit. The train/bus is constantly heaving and shaking. You have to be always be concentrating not to stumble or fall into the person next to you. This is a problem that still exists with some of the best transit systems, and is even more pronounced on the ones that aren't quite so nice.

mslate 4mo ago

Why would anyone prefer to drive when you can be driven?

rsynnott 4mo ago

Well, first of all, there is no such thing. However, even if such a thing did exist, you still have to contend with traffic and total road capacity. So, for instance, taking local systems (details will vary by city, but not much), a double-decker bus is ten meters long and takes ~100 people. A tram is 55m long and takes about 550 people. A commuter train is 160m long and takes a thousand people (and doesn't share roads, of course). A car is 4-5m long and typically carries one or two people. Take any large city, attempt to replace the public transport with private cars, and there simply _will not be space_. Fully-segregated metros in particular can also be much faster than cars in urban areas; they don't have to contend with traffic or intersections at all.

otikik 4mo ago

Well, trains and underground public transit usually are impervious to traffic. Even buses get exclusive lanes in some cities. You can zip over people trapped in traffic on their personal cars. It is quite satisfying.