4 ms·

Isn't this a strong argument for better buses? I guess that's not really the thing if one works in the valley with a huge salary... Surely the geek bus would

Isn't this a strong argument for better buses? I guess that's not really the thing if one works in the valley with a huge salary... Surely the geek bus would be a cool place to be though?

chii 14y ago
the problem with public transport isn't that its uncool, but that you still ahve the "last mile" problem. Also, you have to plan your life around the transport, where as if you owned your own car, you dont need to do so. THe best solution isn't better public transport, but self driving cars that you can get ondemand (but don't own).
- anthonyb 14y ago
  Not necessarily. Cars still use a large amount of land area per person, even if they're self driving and don't need many car parks (I disagree with that last part though, considering commute patterns). Take a look at http://carfree.com/ http://carfree.com/ for a good overview of what could be done with public transport, as well as all of the unseen issues with car use.
- jeltz 14y ago
  The last mile problem is mostly caused by poor urban planning, where the urban planners did not consider future building of public transport. And in Sweden this poor urban planning was basically caused by people thinking public transport was uncool.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  THe best solution isn't better public transport I disagree. - If public transport arrives and departs often enough, you don't have to plan your life around the transport. - If the public transport network is large enough, you can eliminate the "last mile" problem, either by making it short enough to walk quickly or by connecting backbones to local distribution. Classic example, train + bus. Of course the Bay Area has nothing close to this kind of network, but you said "the best solution", and I'm pretty convinced an idealized public transport system is much better than driverless cars. Superior passenger density, superior fuel efficiency, superior materials usage, etc.
  - chii 14y ago
    what you have described - big enough a network, running often enough, etc - are all the properties of the driverless car. In effect, the public transport system no longer consists of trains/buses, but a huge pool of driverless cars you hail.
    - jeltz 14y ago
      The difference is the cost. Public transport has superior fuel, space, and materials usage. Another difference is that public transport is a known working solution which has been implemented with great success in many cities since the 19th century. While driverless cars is something we just now is getting the technology to build so it is untested.
    - ginko 14y ago
      The difference between (driverless) cars and trams/buses is that the latter require a _lot_ less road space per passenger. Take a look at the picture here[1]. [1] http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8456/7999510360_8e46299621_b.jpg http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8456/7999510360_8e46299621_b.j...
- JonnieCache 14y ago
  >you still ahve the "last mile" problem Here in europe we just walk the last mile ;) (although it's never as much as a mile.) Like all these things it's about urban planning.
- corresation 14y ago
  New York City does public transit remarkably. I've heard that London, England does as well. In both cases I would take public transit over a car even if the roadways had little congestion.
  - three14 14y ago
    The top of Upper Manhattan to Brooklyn can be an hour and a half by public transit vs. 45 minutes by car. Queens to Brooklyn can be worse. New York City has transit that is good enough, meaning you don't have to have a car, but it's still atrocious. If you have to do a commute like that, even if you want to use public transit rather than a car, you have to be prepared to give up an extra hour and a half a day roundtrip.

Isn't this a strong argument for better buses? I guess that's not really the thing if one works in the valley with a huge salary... Surely the geek bus would be a cool place to be though?

chii 14y ago

the problem with public transport isn't that its uncool, but that you still ahve the "last mile" problem. Also, you have to plan your life around the transport, where as if you owned your own car, you dont need to do so. THe best solution isn't better public transport, but self driving cars that you can get ondemand (but don't own).

anthonyb 14y ago
Not necessarily. Cars still use a large amount of land area per person, even if they're self driving and don't need many car parks (I disagree with that last part though, considering commute patterns). Take a look at http://carfree.com/ http://carfree.com/ for a good overview of what could be done with public transport, as well as all of the unseen issues with car use.
jeltz 14y ago
The last mile problem is mostly caused by poor urban planning, where the urban planners did not consider future building of public transport. And in Sweden this poor urban planning was basically caused by people thinking public transport was uncool.
sliverstorm 14y ago
THe best solution isn't better public transport I disagree. - If public transport arrives and departs often enough, you don't have to plan your life around the transport. - If the public transport network is large enough, you can eliminate the "last mile" problem, either by making it short enough to walk quickly or by connecting backbones to local distribution. Classic example, train + bus. Of course the Bay Area has nothing close to this kind of network, but you said "the best solution", and I'm pretty convinced an idealized public transport system is much better than driverless cars. Superior passenger density, superior fuel efficiency, superior materials usage, etc.
- chii 14y ago
  what you have described - big enough a network, running often enough, etc - are all the properties of the driverless car. In effect, the public transport system no longer consists of trains/buses, but a huge pool of driverless cars you hail.
  - jeltz 14y ago
    The difference is the cost. Public transport has superior fuel, space, and materials usage. Another difference is that public transport is a known working solution which has been implemented with great success in many cities since the 19th century. While driverless cars is something we just now is getting the technology to build so it is untested.
  - ginko 14y ago
    The difference between (driverless) cars and trams/buses is that the latter require a _lot_ less road space per passenger. Take a look at the picture here[1]. [1] http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8456/7999510360_8e46299621_b.jpg http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8456/7999510360_8e46299621_b.j...
JonnieCache 14y ago
>you still ahve the "last mile" problem Here in europe we just walk the last mile ;) (although it's never as much as a mile.) Like all these things it's about urban planning.
corresation 14y ago
New York City does public transit remarkably. I've heard that London, England does as well. In both cases I would take public transit over a car even if the roadways had little congestion.
- three14 14y ago
  The top of Upper Manhattan to Brooklyn can be an hour and a half by public transit vs. 45 minutes by car. Queens to Brooklyn can be worse. New York City has transit that is good enough, meaning you don't have to have a car, but it's still atrocious. If you have to do a commute like that, even if you want to use public transit rather than a car, you have to be prepared to give up an extra hour and a half a day roundtrip.