[the_imp]

The whole model of needing to own your own transportation devices is flawed.

9/10 times, I'm moving from one location with many other people in it to another location with many other people. I would prefer not needing to own any medium in order to move between them, but instead be able to use a public service to do so. Bus, tram, metro, citybike, scooter. I'd really rather not own stuff with really high capital costs, like cars.

At this point, the only reason to own anything more expensive than a bike is bad city planning and infrastructure.

[mdorazio]

And, you know, basic financial planning... For the vast majority of people, renting basic unsubsidized transit methods on a daily basis costs far more than owning and operating your own. Good for you if your financial situation allows you to ignore that fact, but it’s rather yuppy bubble thinking to assume that applies to everyone.

[jschwartzi]

Aren't you ignoring the hundreds of billions in public subsidies that your "basic unsubsidized transit methods" enjoy? Cars are expensive and our emphasis on subsidizing car travel at the federal, state, county and city level is an enormous regressive tax on the poorest members of our society for whom $1000 or $5000 is an impossible amount of money.

[Rebelgecko]

Even if you make an apples to apples comparison (cost of renting a scooter vs cost of buying one outright), renting doesn't really make sense if it's something you want to use regularly.

For a 10 minute commute daily commute, the break even point for buying a scooter vs renting one comes in less than 60 days.

[ryan_lane]

This s only true if you are buying a good, reliable scooter, which requires a high up-front cost that many people can't afford.

Look up the boots theory of sociological unfairness. You're able to save money this way because you can afford something sturdy and reliable, whereas poor folks, if they buy something, buy something that is cheap and will break quickly. They'll need to do this over and over again, which in the end causes them to spend considerably more money than you.

Rental scooters (and bikes and e-bikes) may feel like they're more expensive in the end, but they're generally much cheaper, when you consider repairs or replacement, and especially when you consider theft (which will be covered by your insurance, but poor folks don't have that).

Also, most scooter/bike rental companies have outreach programs for poor communities, which drastically lower the cost, or provide service for free.

[zymhan]

Basic financial planning would indicate that owning a money losing asset (i.e. car) is not a good idea.

I can assure you I've spent far less not owning a car, even with every Uber ride, car rental, scooter rental, transit, and taxi ride.

[jjeaff]

No, basic financial planning would take into account both sides of the equation. I can own a money losing asset as long as it is costing me (including depreciation) less than what an alternative service would cost. Uber will never work out unless you drive very infrequently or live somewhere like New York where the total cost of vehicle ownership is prohibitive.

Additionally, depreciation is not linear. I drive an older vehicle, it has already mostly depreciated as far as it will go.

[danans]

> Basic financial planning would indicate that owning a money losing asset (i.e. car) is not a good idea.

Only if you have an alternate way to get to work like good public transportation. Otherwise buying a depreciating asset like a car is the only way to survive in many places. It's like paying rent. Perhaps not ideal, but it is a practical reality for many.

[leetcrew]

every day I drive ~20 miles to work. for car ownership to be economic, the cost per trip just has to be less than uber or the difference in pay between my software gig and a job I could walk to.

[Hasz]

Ah, but public transit is inherently the slowest option. I have no desire to make 10 stops before I get where I'm going. I also have zero desire to rent my modes, as that encourages literally rent seeking behavior.

Either we need to figure out how to drop off and pickup passengers at speed, or penalize individualized transport that is space inefficient (like cars). Good luck pursuing the latter in the US; punitive measure seem to work elsewhere.

I think the way forward is compact private transport, like bikes, scooters, walking, etc, augmented by a robust mass public transit. Unfortunately, that mix implies a expensive re-configuring of most American cities.

[robrenaud]

> Ah, but public transit is inherently the slowest option.

This isn't true if you are in a dense city with good public transit. This is currently mid day (3 PM), and it's about 30% faster (21 minutes vs 29 minutes) to go from my current location in Manhattan to a bar I enjoy hanging out in Brooklyn via public transit than car, according to Google Maps. It would be even better around rush hour.

[TylerE]

In the same way it isn't true that healthcare in the US isn't unaffordable as long as you're a successful businessman with lots of savings. Maybe technically correct, but useless to most people.

[jtcruthers]

There are maybe 2 or 3 cities in the entire United States that are dense enough with good enough public transportation. The vast majority of the population cannot relate.

[jgwil2]

GP is refuting the idea that public transit is inherently the slowest mode of transportation by providing an instructive counter-example. If the vast majority of the population cannot relate, that's a product of policy choices that favor sparse development in most of the country.

[look_lookatme]

Not true at 10pm but good on your for getting a 3pm drink going.

[sparkling]

New York City is perhaps the only major city in the US where public transit is indeed faster than individual modes transportation (scooter, car, bike, whatever).

[piffey]

This all is heavily dependent on how you align your day to day life. If you set up your work and living situation along the LA Subway or BART or Seattle's Link Light Rail then you'll always be able to get there faster using those services. Even in NYC you can end up in places that are a bit of transit wastelands that take longer to get to than by car.

[smallgovt]

>> Ah, but public transit is inherently the slowest option.

I don't see how it is 'inherently' the slowest, especially given the traffic patterns that inherently result from private transit options.

>> I have no desire to make 10 stops before I get where I'm going.

The point of public transit in the form of e-scooters and e-bikes is to make your door-to-door commute one trip.

>> I also have zero desire to rent my modes, as that encourages literally rent seeking behavior.

Most people just care about convenience and price. Shared mobility options like e-bikes and e-scooters check both boxes if they can reach scale.

[zymhan]

I work 4.5 miles from my apartment in Atlanta. I can either spend 40 minutes in traffic getting home every day, or I can spend an equivalent amount of time on a train, and the a bus ride or walking.

In a lot of cities, driving is not faster. It's just sometimes the only option.

[pasttense01]

So how frequently does the train run? If it runs every hour that means on average there is a half hour wait for the train--in addition to the 40 minutes for the trip. Conversely the car is instantly available.

[JohnFen]

> public transit is inherently the slowest option

This is certainly true where I live -- public transit is the slowest by a large margin. Driving is generally the next slowest, depending on the exact trip. Bicycling tends to be the quickest.

[NhanH]

Scooter is a horrible horrible mean of transporation for the mass.

I lives in Vietnam, where scooters are dominant. It is even less compact than car on the road.

[Symbiote]

Almost everyone means an electric kick scooter, not the vehicles in Vietnam - those are motor scooters.

[rainyMammoth]

Which I also find a weird language abuse. The original meaning of "scooter" is the vehicle in Vietnam. Why did we suddenly agree to call those "kick scooters" as "scooters".

This is even more confusing for companies like "scoot" that rent both "scooters" and "kick scooters"

[Symbiote]

No. The original meaning is actually a boat for use on ice and water, in 1903.

Then in 1917 it was used to refer to the children's toy.

Source: printed OED.

[et2o]

They have called these things scooters for over twenty years at this point.

[usaphp]

For a single person - probably, but most people have kids. It’s much more complicated to use public transport with small kids, they require a lot of stuff to be carried around for them

[MandieD]

I see loads of mothers with small children on the underground and buses in Nürnberg if I’m traveling outside of rush hour. Having observed my German and American sisters-in-law, it comes down to what you think the kid really needs.

The German sister-in-law can get everything into a backpack and midsized rolling suitcase to bring my niece along for the train ride to her parents at the other end of Germany.

The American sister-in-law traded in her Tahoe for a Suburban when my nephew was born and manages to fill the cargo compartment for a week at her parents, where she still has her own room.

[logifail]

> The whole model of needing to own your own transportation devices is flawed.

99% of all our family journeys begin and end at our home. Happily we own two (ICE) vehicles, they're sitting outside the house right now ready to be used tomorrow.

(As an aside) I've just booked a flight for Sunday (o/w flight $46 including all taxes and fees). I'm flying the best part of 600mi, so I've booked a rental car at the destination airport. It's going to cost me $72 for three days rental, including all taxes and fees.

None of this stuff is new...

[zymhan]

I'm not sure how this refutes the idea that you don't need to own a car in a well-designed city

[pasttense01]

Do any of these "well-designed cities" have reasonable housing costs?

[mantas]

Don't need, but it's still damn handy. And a "well-designed city" is usually based on assumption that all people are +/- identical. Well, guess what, different people have different preferences...

Source: european

[megablast]

Sure, but also incredibly dangerous, costly, polluting and selfish.

[mantas]

Human life in general causes danger, costs, polluting and is selfish.

Meanwhile I find "well designed city" environment bad to my mental health. Who (or what?) is it "well designed" for?

[iknowstuff]

Well your finding is wrong. Well designed cities, which are dense and encourage walking, have lots of small businesses along the sidewalk etc., lead to lower occurrence of loneliness and depression (vs. suburban areas).

[rory096]

How many externalities are you offloading onto society with the choices you just described?

[Fellshard]

How many externalities would be required to make a more unified, bulk transport system work effectively? How much would have to be completely torn down and reconstructed? How could the 'last leg' problem be feasibly solved? This ain't a one-way question, and sometimes status quo has the simple benefit of causing minimal externalities to sustain.

[ip26]

That works for mass transport like bus, tram, metro. For individual transport, it doesn't make much sense, any more than it would make sense to rent a car 24/7/365.

It would work better for individual transport if there was balanced multidirectional flow around the clock. Instead we have mostly-unidirectional flow centered around narrow times of day.