5 ms·

People will generally choose whichever mode of transport is most convenient and cost-effective, based on how they rationally (or irrationally) weigh various fac

• simondotau 3mo ago
  After writing that post, I started drafting an edit to acknowledge that clever marketing is another way to encourage greater use of public transport. In my mind I imagined a campaign highlighting the time people get back not having to drive through heavy traffic. The advertisement could say, "Give yourself more time to do the things you love," accompanied by a wholesome image of a smiling person reading a book on the train. Then it occurred to me that nobody would actually be reading a book. They would be doom-scrolling Instagram or watching wingnut political propaganda on YouTube. I'm starting to wonder if people might be mentally better off behind the wheel...
  • pibaker 3mo ago
    Shortwave radio had a reputation for hosting political nut jobs before the internet existed. So are podcasts. At least transit users don't get road rage.
  • nicbou 3mo ago
    That's the reason I prefer public transit. I normally bike everywhere, because I get to exercise, see the scenery and yell at people, but sometimes I like to just sit down and read a book. Another benefit is being able to have a drink or go to multiple locations without worrying about bringing the car back somehow.
  • queenkjuul 3mo ago
    I may be doomscrolling on the train but i see plenty of other people read books
• abc123abc123 3mo ago
  Yep. In the future, only billionaires and politicians shall be allowed private travel. The common man shall be crammed into public transport where he can sweat, sneeze, touch, grab etc. the rest of the common man. Forcing the public to abandon the comfort of private travel seems right out of the WEF playbook.
  • trymas 3mo ago
    waat? Current situation with prevalent "private travel", i.e. cars in USA (and probably "the west" overall??) IS due to corporate and political interests. Car manufacturers, "big oil", road construction companies, politicians collecting taxes from cars (fuel sales, road use, cars themselves[0] and car parking), banks leasing money to buy and maintain cars, insurance, landlords owning car parks, etc. They are very very interested that private car ownership wouldn't go away and are fighting it tooth and nail. You need to own multiple cars per household spend thousands on leasing, hundreds on parking, to just go to work and of course there's fuel. Though somewhere like London, Paris or Tokyo - why would you want to do daily commute in a car? If you are a billionaire, driven by personal driver in your Bentley or Land Rover - sure, but otherwise metro is cheaper by an order of magnitude and I'd bet often times much faster too. In those places rich and heads of state take trams and metros. I probably not need to remind you that "richest man" lobbied some failing projects to upsell his car sales, instead of allowing high speed rail to be developed. [0] this of course depends from country to country and from state to state.
    • criddell 3mo ago
      I think you underestimate just how much many people like their cars and enjoy driving. People generally spend far more on their vehicle than they really need to. If I lived in London or Paris I wouldn't commute by car. But I don't live in a big city and, at this point in my life, I don't want to (although I'd love to have a little pied-a-terre for part time use). Instead, I live in the 'burbs of a pretty car-friendly city and life is good.
    • AlexandrB 3mo ago
      I think you vastly underestimate how much people like their cars. Sure there are corporate interests who benefit, but they don't force folks to change cars every 3 years or make big "crossovers" and SUVs the most popular car type in the US and, now, Europe[1]. Cars are just really convenient to have when you need them and folks will put up with all kind of costs and other inconveniences to own one. I think it's really important to have robust and safe public transit so car use can be minimized when it's unnecessary, but I don't have illusions that this will lead to some kind of car-free utopia. [1] https://www.motor1.com/news/707655/suvs-more-popular-europe-all-others-combined/ https://www.motor1.com/news/707655/suvs-more-popular-europe-...
• rwyinuse 3mo ago
  Increasing ownership and fuel costs is wrong, as it makes life more difficult also for people living in areas where public transport is not feasible.
  • queenkjuul 3mo ago
    Then surely you have no issue with increasing municipal taxes on drivers where there is public transit?
• quietbritishjim 3mo ago
  > If every road were free of traffic, every destination had unlimited parking at the door, everyone already owned a car, and driving carried no direct or indirect costs, almost everyone would drive everywhere. Even with that unrealistically idealised scenario, if you had similarly idealised public transport (station within 5 minutes walk either end, trains every 5 minutes) I'd still choose the train much of the time. I could actually get something done on my laptop instead of having to concentrate on the road, plus I could get up for a stretch mid journey (without stopping). It would be different if I had a lot of luggage or was bringing the kids, though. My point is that driving is not always inherently more attractive than public transport.
  • inigyou 3mo ago
    > station within 5 minutes walk either end, trains every 5 minutes Describes large parts of London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, etc
    • thaumasiotes 3mo ago
      Sure. Also Shanghai. But that isn't an ideal scenario for public transit regardless of whether somebody tries to describe it that way. Very frequent stops ("station within 5 minutes walk") mean that your journey through the subway system will take a very, very long time. Driving can easily cut that time in half.
      • inigyou 3mo ago
        And now we return to the idea of big tall buildings so that things are close together.
        • thaumasiotes 3mo ago
          You're right; if only someone in Shanghai had thought of building skyscrapers. Wait.
      • queenkjuul 3mo ago
• zarzavat 3mo ago
  > If every road were free of traffic, every destination had unlimited parking at the door, everyone already owned a car, and driving carried no direct or indirect costs, almost everyone would drive everywhere. What kind of nonsense is this? People take public transport it's better than driving. You don't need to expend mental cycles focusing on the road, you can do something else while you're on the go: chat to friends, browse the internet, read a book, sleep, etc. Driving is dead time.
  • nxm 3mo ago
    It's better in some use cases, but not all (e.g. traveling to the country)
  • philipallstar 3mo ago
    > People take public transport it's better than driving Public transport is also much more expensive, particularly when you have more than one person in the vehicle, even with loads of tax added to car fuel, doesn't depart from your house or arrive at your destination, and means you can't take much stuff with you.
    • zarzavat 3mo ago
      Driving is more expensive than public transport when you factor in the cost of the vehicle, maintenance, fuel, insurance, taxes, parking, etc. If driving were more cheaper than public transport then nobody would use it. Yet, almost wherever you go in the world if you go to a station at 8am on a weekday it will be full of people.
      • philipallstar 3mo ago
        > If driving were more cheaper than public transport then nobody would use it. Yet, almost wherever you go in the world if you go to a station at 8am on a weekday it will be full of people. This logic is devastatingly simplistic. Think about the most obvious counter-example: people who have car sometimes take the train. Even after they've paid all those car fees, they'll take the train for £50 rather than drive for £8 in car fuel. Why? It's because there isn't an objective tier list for vehicles. E.g. if I'm going through central London I'll use the Underground because London is so densely populated going by car isn't always feasible. But if you're going somewhere in London with a baby then you might well take the hit and drive, because you have a lot of stuff to bring with you, and the Underground is unpleasant and hot, which the baby will not appreciate.
• chriswarbo 3mo ago
  > If every road were free of traffic, every destination had unlimited parking at the door, everyone already owned a car, and driving carried no direct or indirect costs, almost everyone would drive everywhere. Cars don't even have tables; let alone toilets, dining areas, sleeping cabins, etc. Even those which do (e.g. RVs) would require a solo traveller to stop in order to use them. No thanks, I'll stick to the train.
  • tmp10423288442 3mo ago
    How long do you spend on transit that most of those are necessary? As for toilets, the new Caltrain cars, built by Stadler (from Switzerland, which has the best non-high speed rail train infrastructure in the world) were not going to include toilets at are - I don't believe they do in Switzerland - but were forced to add one by ADA regulations in the USA.
    • chriswarbo 3mo ago
      > How long do you spend on transit that most of those are necessary? Toilets are useful immediately (speaking from experience!) Tables are useful even on short trips of a few minutes; e.g. I usually have a notebook and pen in my pocket, and writing much easier on a table (even the little fold-out ones, if I can't get a seat at the proper tables). I often eat on trains; though I admittedly tend to avoid the dining options, since it's much cheaper to bring my own food and eat my seat's table (fold-out or otherwise). If I'm with others, we can also drink alcohol together, without a "designated driver" having to abstain.
• philipallstar 3mo ago
  Making driving worse instead of making public transport better is such a public sector-brained take.
  • creaturemachine 3mo ago
    Driving has been subsidized and "made better" for so long that it feels natural. Forcing your private steel box through public spaces should be the most impractical and expensive thing to do, yet it's not.
    • philipallstar 3mo ago
      Cars replaced the horse and cart. There were roads before cars, and roads carry a lot more than cars. Try getting a fire engine to your house without roads.
  • alistairSH 3mo ago
    IMO, it's not so much "make driving worse" (ie actively make roads worse, etc). Instead, it's actively make transit better be reallocating road funds... Add buses or light rail or dedicated/separated bike lanes instead of brainlessly adding traffic lanes. Every bike added to that bike lane is one less car (very roughly). Additionally, tax car infrastructure appropriately. Free road-side parking is not an entitlement. Reduce parking minimums in redevelopment/new development and let the market determine the supply of spaces. A good example - it's increasingly common for apartments in DC to charge extra for a parking space. Most of the above applies to urban areas as well as moderately dense suburban zones. Large cities can take additional steps - no car zones (common in Italian towns), congestion pricing (London, NYC, and others already do this), and changes to road design to better accommodate pedestrians (plenty of YT videos about various plans to do this).
    • ryandrake 3mo ago
      You said it's not to make driving worse, but then listed multiple examples of making driving worse: - reallocating road funds (away from driving and toward busses/rail/bikes) - tax car infrastructure appropriately, presumably higher - reduce parking minimums Not that I'm against these, but they will surely make driving worse.
• mistrial9 3mo ago
  > People will generally choose whichever mode of transport is most convenient ok that is one fourth of the conversation, or less.. sure, marketing and economic signals.. got it. The historic rise of the personal auto versus all else was partly fueled by a social dynamic where "privelage is defined by the ability to remove yourself from the dirty and dangerous crowds of non-privelaged humans".. Autos have dramatically filled the transportation sector because clean and intelligent ME can ride next to foul dangerous person YOU without contact reliably. Notice the profound growth of personal aircraft for the newly wealthy. Google upper-levels are famous for this. Personal aircraft are some of the most anti-ecological and anti-efficient modes of transport ever.. check out the stocks and sales figures.. huge growth in the last years. America and others have successfully made ugly reality of social constructs into marketing talk and "rational decisions" but the reality is not fully described by those IMHO
• newguy1000 3mo ago
  yes, lets make things harder for people in certain situations cause we know what's best for them.