6 ms·

For urban dwellers blessed with proper public transportation and a good Walk Score, a car is a huge headache and drain on finances. They simply all need to go a

For urban dwellers blessed with proper public transportation and a good Walk Score, a car is a huge headache and drain on finances. They simply all need to go and be replaced with extremely efficient, clean and safe transit systems. Nobody enjoys sitting in traffic for hours a day commuting. Nobody enjoys wasting time on maintenance. Nobody enjoys the process of acquiring the vehicle. At the very least, car sharing is a step in the right direction. Eventually as the Google car becomes reality, I hope that the # of cars on the roads is reduced to a bare minimum and we don't need to drive / pay people to drive any longer, and free up a lot of human talent to do something more productive.

unimpressive 13y ago
>and free up a lot of human talent to do something more productive. Or starve, as the case may be.
- Volpe 13y ago
  Wealth redistribution could solve that problem.
  - prostoalex 13y ago
    After the redistribution is all finalized and completed, who controls the prices of goods that one can finally buy with this newfound wealth?
- Zigurd 13y ago
  Mincome. That won't be the only thing driving a post-jobs future, so we'll have to deal with it anyway.
vishaldpatel 13y ago
New York, San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia are towns with the best walk-score in America. For various reasons, it is still much cheaper to live in the suburbs and commute into the city than to live in San Francisco. I wonder how the other walkable cities are fairing. Perhaps when people buy homes, they tend to not buy a new car at the same time - prior to the housing crisis, many people bought lots of homes. Then the market collapsed and they lost their money, further reducing the number of new cars bought. Oddly enough, some 2000-model-year used Hondas and Toyotas did not depreciate in value between 2010 and 2013 because the used car market heated up.
- sempergumbi 13y ago
  Used Hondas and Toyotas did not depreciate 2010-2013 because the Cash-for-Clunkers débâcle reduced the supply of used cars, keeping up their price. The suggestion that destroying operational vehicles would be a net gain for the economy is an excellent illustration of the broken window fallacy. Cash-for-clunkers helped middle and upper-middle class people, including some friends of mine, who wanted to buy new cars. The cost of the program was born mostly by poor people, as is often the case.
  - cpursley 13y ago
    Don't you just love central planning? It's always the poor that it hurts the most.
6d0debc071 13y ago
> Nobody enjoys sitting in traffic for hours a day commuting. Nobody enjoys wasting time on maintenance. Nobody enjoys the process of acquiring the vehicle. Maybe not, but some of us find it vastly preferable to being crammed in with others on public transport. So don't tar everyone with your particularly preferences thanks.
- veemjeem 13y ago
  I guess one has to balance the time spent in traffic and being crammed with others in public transport. Here in the bay area, one can get stuck on 101 for 2 hours when it would take only 40 minutes via Caltrain. I'm sure quite a few people would rather save 1.5 hours every day being crammed in with others.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    Caltrain also has seats most of the time. The worst is that you might have to sit next to someone...cry me a river.
    - veemjeem 13y ago
      Not to mention the amount of time spent circling city blocks in SF to find parking. I hate myself every time I need to drive to SF and find street parking. I remember spending 30 minutes circling blocks around pacific heights to find street parking, only for the purposes of eating at a restaurant near there.
    - potatolicious 13y ago
      One of the more depressing things is that the conversation around transit is so frequently: "But... [horrified whisper] other people!"
  - Domenic_S 13y ago
    Well, 40 minutes not counting getting to the train, waiting for the train, exiting the station, getting to your car & driving from the station home.
axuaq 13y ago
Give me a public transportation system that runs on time, doesn't spread disease, doesn't have punk kids who confront you for no reason, is safe, and has sane time schedules and I'll be happy. Until then, I'll always prefer driving/walking/biking/anything. Unfortunately, I'm in a situation where I can't drive now, and I have to deal with an awful San Francisco public transit system that does 0 of the things I listed.
- nemothekid 13y ago
  Is driving really safer than public transit?
  - potatolicious 13y ago
    In San Francisco? Probably yeah. Some of the routes are extremely rough, especially at night. On many bus routes the conditions can be positively third world. Graffiti everywhere - seats, floors, windows. Human excrement. Urine. Addicts. Homeless. MUNI buses are one of the less fortunate places you can find yourself anywhere. Having lived there in the past, I can sympathize with residents who want to drive, or take Ubers everywhere. The public transit in the city can be a very foul experience - though this is largely a reflection of the city rather than the system itself.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    I will note that the concern is not that your bus will crash- it is that you will be mugged and/or shot.
    - scarmig 13y ago
      Actually, the number of people physically killed by a Muni bus annually is significant: IIRC, there's a small but non-negligible (single digits) number of people who are run over and killed by Muni every year. We focus on crime, because it's easy to lash out at order breaking down and can relate to being harassed by the small percentage of Muni riders who can genuinely be considered subhuman refuse. In reality, though, SF has several times as many annual traffic casualties (around 3000, from some rudimentary Googling) as crimes reported on Muni (around 1000). That latter figure has some factors that may suggest undercounting (it's reported crimes, and I can see how people might have so little faith in Muni that they don't bother reporting it) but also some that suggest overcounting (it includes fare violations and eating on the bus). Muni certainly needs to be cleaned up, but let's not get ahead of ourselves: you're much more likely to die via automobile in SF than being shot or stabbed on the Muni. I wouldn't be surprised if you're more likely to be killed being hit by a Muni than murdered on the Muni.

unimpressive 13y ago

>and free up a lot of human talent to do something more productive. Or starve, as the case may be.

Volpe 13y ago
Wealth redistribution could solve that problem.
- prostoalex 13y ago
  After the redistribution is all finalized and completed, who controls the prices of goods that one can finally buy with this newfound wealth?
Zigurd 13y ago
Mincome. That won't be the only thing driving a post-jobs future, so we'll have to deal with it anyway.

vishaldpatel 13y ago

New York, San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia are towns with the best walk-score in America. For various reasons, it is still much cheaper to live in the suburbs and commute into the city than to live in San Francisco. I wonder how the other walkable cities are fairing. Perhaps when people buy homes, they tend to not buy a new car at the same time - prior to the housing crisis, many people bought lots of homes. Then the market collapsed and they lost their money, further reducing the number of new cars bought. Oddly enough, some 2000-model-year used Hondas and Toyotas did not depreciate in value between 2010 and 2013 because the used car market heated up.

sempergumbi 13y ago
Used Hondas and Toyotas did not depreciate 2010-2013 because the Cash-for-Clunkers débâcle reduced the supply of used cars, keeping up their price. The suggestion that destroying operational vehicles would be a net gain for the economy is an excellent illustration of the broken window fallacy. Cash-for-clunkers helped middle and upper-middle class people, including some friends of mine, who wanted to buy new cars. The cost of the program was born mostly by poor people, as is often the case.
- cpursley 13y ago
  Don't you just love central planning? It's always the poor that it hurts the most.

6d0debc071 13y ago

> Nobody enjoys sitting in traffic for hours a day commuting. Nobody enjoys wasting time on maintenance. Nobody enjoys the process of acquiring the vehicle. Maybe not, but some of us find it vastly preferable to being crammed in with others on public transport. So don't tar everyone with your particularly preferences thanks.

veemjeem 13y ago
I guess one has to balance the time spent in traffic and being crammed with others in public transport. Here in the bay area, one can get stuck on 101 for 2 hours when it would take only 40 minutes via Caltrain. I'm sure quite a few people would rather save 1.5 hours every day being crammed in with others.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  Caltrain also has seats most of the time. The worst is that you might have to sit next to someone...cry me a river.
  - veemjeem 13y ago
    Not to mention the amount of time spent circling city blocks in SF to find parking. I hate myself every time I need to drive to SF and find street parking. I remember spending 30 minutes circling blocks around pacific heights to find street parking, only for the purposes of eating at a restaurant near there.
  - potatolicious 13y ago
    One of the more depressing things is that the conversation around transit is so frequently: "But... [horrified whisper] other people!"
- Domenic_S 13y ago
  Well, 40 minutes not counting getting to the train, waiting for the train, exiting the station, getting to your car & driving from the station home.

axuaq 13y ago

Give me a public transportation system that runs on time, doesn't spread disease, doesn't have punk kids who confront you for no reason, is safe, and has sane time schedules and I'll be happy. Until then, I'll always prefer driving/walking/biking/anything. Unfortunately, I'm in a situation where I can't drive now, and I have to deal with an awful San Francisco public transit system that does 0 of the things I listed.

nemothekid 13y ago
Is driving really safer than public transit?
- potatolicious 13y ago
  In San Francisco? Probably yeah. Some of the routes are extremely rough, especially at night. On many bus routes the conditions can be positively third world. Graffiti everywhere - seats, floors, windows. Human excrement. Urine. Addicts. Homeless. MUNI buses are one of the less fortunate places you can find yourself anywhere. Having lived there in the past, I can sympathize with residents who want to drive, or take Ubers everywhere. The public transit in the city can be a very foul experience - though this is largely a reflection of the city rather than the system itself.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  I will note that the concern is not that your bus will crash- it is that you will be mugged and/or shot.
  - scarmig 13y ago
    Actually, the number of people physically killed by a Muni bus annually is significant: IIRC, there's a small but non-negligible (single digits) number of people who are run over and killed by Muni every year. We focus on crime, because it's easy to lash out at order breaking down and can relate to being harassed by the small percentage of Muni riders who can genuinely be considered subhuman refuse. In reality, though, SF has several times as many annual traffic casualties (around 3000, from some rudimentary Googling) as crimes reported on Muni (around 1000). That latter figure has some factors that may suggest undercounting (it's reported crimes, and I can see how people might have so little faith in Muni that they don't bother reporting it) but also some that suggest overcounting (it includes fare violations and eating on the bus). Muni certainly needs to be cleaned up, but let's not get ahead of ourselves: you're much more likely to die via automobile in SF than being shot or stabbed on the Muni. I wouldn't be surprised if you're more likely to be killed being hit by a Muni than murdered on the Muni.