4 ms·
I think most people get that non-car forms of transport is denser. The two main issues that stop people using it are: 1) Time: Taking a trip involving public t
by brikym 3mo ago
I think most people get that non-car forms of transport is denser. The two main issues that stop people using it are:
1) Time: Taking a trip involving public transport is slower than a car. This is fixable in urban areas with some dedicated paths, modal filters, and very frequent schedules and that kind of thing but this takes up front resources.
2) Safety: It's not safe. Too much antisocial behaviour on public transport. Nobody wants to sit near loud or smelly people. In the worst case people get assaulted. Cyclists are more likely to get seriously hurt in a crash or have their vehicle stolen than cars. It's fixable but policing takes effort.
3) The demand paradox: "See public transport and bikes are unpopular" say the decision makers and don't put in the resources. The thing is the infra needs to be near 100% built for people to want to use it. It's no good if your cycle commute is 80% dedicated bike paths but 20% of it is riding next to trucks and parked cars opening their doors as most people would rather take a car. It's also no good if the trains run every 30mins, so on average your trip is 15min delayed. The politician would think "why would I double it if the trains are already under-utilised" but does not understand latent demand.
- aqme28 3mo agoYou're completely wrong on safety. Driving is much much more dangerous than trains by orders of magnitude. I know what you're getting at when you write safety, but I want to be clear that this is not the same thing as safety.
- brikym 3mo agoPerceived safety is exactly what I meant. It's a marketing problem.
- sndgndgndgndy 3mo agoAssertions made without evidence can be disregarded without evidence, and your assertion does not match my personal experience. Public transit is dangerous, especially in cities like SF or Seattle.
- aqme28 3mo agoOh don’t worry there is plenty of evidence Deaths per billion miles via car: 7.3 Train: 0.43 From https://www.vox.com/2015/5/14/8606195/train-safety-driving-crashes https://www.vox.com/2015/5/14/8606195/train-safety-driving-c... but you can just google, there are tons of other studies.
- sndgndgndgndy 3mo ago[dead]
- Someone 3mo agoIt’s a safe bet that sndgndgndgndy isn’t referring to that metric, but to the (perceived) probability of getting shouted at, mugged, etc. That, I have been told, is definitely a problem in the USA. I think that’s because they’ve painted themselves into a car-centric corner that it is very hard to get out of.
- hylaride 3mo agoOutside of a handful of American cities, public transit is mostly used by the poor, which can include a lot of "undesirables", and many people used to their "quiet, safe" suburbs feel deeply uncomfortable around the poor in general. In some cities, public transit is used as a du-facto shelter system by the homeless. It's funny when people see celebrities use the subway in NYC. It's just accepted by New Yorkers that the subway is usually the best way to get around Manhattan and getting mixed in with the entire socioeconomic spectrum is normal. But the crowds of people is also a kind of security blanket if something does happen.
- aqme28 3mo agoCrime rates are actually lower on transit than in a car: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1077291X22001837 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1077291X2... The perception of crime and danger is strangely very inverted
- 3mo ago