3 ms·

Reliable, effective, and inexpensive public transit would solve 99% of problems like this. Cars are expensive to own and operate (let alone deal with unforeseen

Reliable, effective, and inexpensive public transit would solve 99% of problems like this. Cars are expensive to own and operate (let alone deal with unforeseen expenses like these). In my city, our "public transit" is a joke that consists of buses that run every hour or so and stop running at 7:30pm—hey, at least they have free wifi? After seeing Europe's transit system first-hand all summer, it makes little sense to me why the investment has not been made in the USA—especially in larger metropolitan areas like SF.

ffn 12y ago
Not everyone has the privilege of being able to work remotely on his/her macbook from the comforts of home; some people need their cars for work. You try lugging several hundred pounds of cement, lawn-mowing equipment, a mattress, etc. through your local subway. And SF has BART, caltrain, and MUNI, and while they all smell like urine, they do pretty much get you exactly where you want to go.
- lukeqsee 12y ago
  > Not everyone has the privilege of being able to work remotely on his/her macbook from the comforts of home; some people need their cars for work. You try lugging several hundred pounds of cement, lawn-mowing equipment, a mattress, etc. through your local subway. Of course, but most work for the poor (to put it bluntly), does not include carrying things through the subway. It includes showing up on work on-time and working hard—whether that's laying bricks or washing dishes. If your car breaks down, you're out a job. If the subway breaks down (much less likely), your employer or four other employees just might have been on that subway, too. > And SF has BART, caltrain, and MUNI, and while they all smell like urine, they do pretty much get you exactly where you want to go. If usage increased, I dare say they would get cleaned up (public trains in former Eastern European countries are even non-smelly). I don't live in SF, though, so I have no experience to back up my hunch.
  - thrownaway2424 12y ago
    There are no people who are driving and parking their cars in SF so that they can attend their job washing dishes. none.
burgers 12y ago
Cars are not so much expensive to operate as much as they are very risky to operate. From accident deductibles to accidentally taking a right on red because you missed the sign to stuff like getting towed because you didn't catch the no parking sign. I've spent most of my adult life without a car and it's amazing how much stuff is set up to extract income from car owners. Life without a car provides a lot less "accidental fees" as I call them. Things that you can't insure against but could cost you unexpected expense.
- lukeqsee 12y ago
  And the problem is the current system design forces all people to take on the risk of owning a car—many of whom are exhausted and working multiple jobs just to live from day to day, not the greatest for being alert behind the wheel.
deciplex 12y ago
>it makes little sense to me why the investment has not been made in the USA The investments were made, and then the fruits of those investments were systematically destroyed over about a decade, sixty years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspi... As for why nothing is happening now: the only thing the public can seem to agree on is putting people in prison and defense spending. So that's why.
- lukeqsee 12y ago
  > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspi... A friend shared that article with me after seeing my comment—purely capitalistic entities operate both idiotically (in terms of good for the whole) and predictably. "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." — Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book III, Chapter IV, p. 448

ffn 12y ago

Not everyone has the privilege of being able to work remotely on his/her macbook from the comforts of home; some people need their cars for work. You try lugging several hundred pounds of cement, lawn-mowing equipment, a mattress, etc. through your local subway. And SF has BART, caltrain, and MUNI, and while they all smell like urine, they do pretty much get you exactly where you want to go.

lukeqsee 12y ago
> Not everyone has the privilege of being able to work remotely on his/her macbook from the comforts of home; some people need their cars for work. You try lugging several hundred pounds of cement, lawn-mowing equipment, a mattress, etc. through your local subway. Of course, but most work for the poor (to put it bluntly), does not include carrying things through the subway. It includes showing up on work on-time and working hard—whether that's laying bricks or washing dishes. If your car breaks down, you're out a job. If the subway breaks down (much less likely), your employer or four other employees just might have been on that subway, too. > And SF has BART, caltrain, and MUNI, and while they all smell like urine, they do pretty much get you exactly where you want to go. If usage increased, I dare say they would get cleaned up (public trains in former Eastern European countries are even non-smelly). I don't live in SF, though, so I have no experience to back up my hunch.
- thrownaway2424 12y ago
  There are no people who are driving and parking their cars in SF so that they can attend their job washing dishes. none.

burgers 12y ago

Cars are not so much expensive to operate as much as they are very risky to operate. From accident deductibles to accidentally taking a right on red because you missed the sign to stuff like getting towed because you didn't catch the no parking sign. I've spent most of my adult life without a car and it's amazing how much stuff is set up to extract income from car owners. Life without a car provides a lot less "accidental fees" as I call them. Things that you can't insure against but could cost you unexpected expense.

lukeqsee 12y ago
And the problem is the current system design forces all people to take on the risk of owning a car—many of whom are exhausted and working multiple jobs just to live from day to day, not the greatest for being alert behind the wheel.

deciplex 12y ago

>it makes little sense to me why the investment has not been made in the USA The investments were made, and then the fruits of those investments were systematically destroyed over about a decade, sixty years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspi... As for why nothing is happening now: the only thing the public can seem to agree on is putting people in prison and defense spending. So that's why.

lukeqsee 12y ago
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspi... A friend shared that article with me after seeing my comment—purely capitalistic entities operate both idiotically (in terms of good for the whole) and predictably. "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind." — Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book III, Chapter IV, p. 448