[andrewxdiamond]

Trains that sit in traffic still have a massive gain over cars in traffic. They are cheaper to run long term than the equivalent sized bus, and can run almost non-stop without the need to refuel.

Try not to dismiss ideas so quickly as "virtue signalling" without an understanding of what they accomplish

[novok]

The key issue with buses and trains in traffic is they're slower than a car, so people don't want to use it because it's a shittier experience. When you grade separate they become independent of traffic and thus better than driving so people end up using it more.

Cars vs. transit is a pure throughput issue. You will never, even with 14 lane highways, beat one grade separated transit line with how many people you can move per hour. Eventually you run out of land with roads and cars, with trains you effectively do not.

[andrewxdiamond]

I absolutely agree, buses are only ideal in two cases:

- Short, local travel where large scale transport services don’t make sense, and

- As a mediocre stop gap measure to make up for lacking infrastructure.

The idea that busses go on the highway in Seattle is appalling

[throwawayboise]

With trains you are limited because you need a certain amount of separation between trains for safety, and station platforms are only so long which limits the number of cars that can load/unload. And at the final terminal (typically the main downtown station) there are a finite number of platforms which limits the number of trains that can be in the station at any one time.

Agree that you can move many more people on one set of rails than one highway, but it's not unlimited.

[Gwypaas]

Regarding the terminus stations, in Europe many central stations are being converted, or where built as, through stations. This allows for much higher throughput since trains don't have to turn around.

[lazide]

Hah, maybe in some abstract social planning sense - but no one (numbers wise) will use them because as an individual they’re clearly terrible as an individual experience compared to a car. You sit in the same traffic as the car, but have no privacy, no control of your environment, little to no control over your schedule, etc.

[andrewxdiamond]

Ironically, if everyone used buses, they would be much easier to keep timely. They would also receive enough funding and political focus to be kept clean and high quality.

But our ruthlessly individual mindset here in the states blocks us from reaching many of these higher level goals.

[Ericson2314]

That's true, but we must work with the hand we're dealt.

1. We do not have the political power to ban the cars to clear the traffic until people already ride transit.

2. People will not ride in sufficient numbers unless it dodges traffic.

So yes, there is nothing materially wrong with surface-level transit, but we can't make that work until the cars are already gone...so we are stuck building more tunnels, viaducts, etc.

Light rail right like this fundamental is a salve, or yet another feel-good government service for the poor. But it doesn't help us change mass culture, nor can it easily be reformed into something that does.

Now, I should concede Pre-metro / Stadtbahn is not dead end, and allows for an incrementalist approach that is not just slapping band-aids. But you still need to put the urban core underground to have a beachhead, and to my knowledge only San Francisco of North American cities has a light rail that does that.

[lightrail123]

If it takes the same time, but I can sleep, eat, and play videogames, that's a pretty huge win, tbh.

[lazide]

Except for one location (Singapore) I’ve used light rail or busses, they generally ends up the type of place it isn’t safe to actually zone out. Anecdotally from friends, Seattle’s are worse than most.

[tshaddox]

One might make a similar argument with taxis and Ubers significantly reducing the total number of cars that need to exist even though there might sometimes be drivers on the road looking for another fare.

[gopher_space]

Virtue signaling is an interesting phenomenon we all participate in daily. Try not to dismiss terms just because they're misused by mouth-breathers.

[Ericson2314]

Find me another term for the people that preach they agree with me, but still practice do-nothing-effectual austerity, and I'll use it.

[gopher_space]

What's wrong with hypocrite? Why misuse a term of art?

[Ericson2314]

I actually don't think they are hypocrites, at least not necessary. I think these things cause the problems:

1. Do not know how other countries work. A lot of stuff seems far fetched until you learn about about the places where it already happens.

2. Don't know much history so essentialize the last 50 years as the way it always ways (similar to 1)

3. Believe in "monotonically of virtue": i.e. that various compromises and half-measures at least deliver half the value.

4. Lack a sense of a urgency, or have faith that "at the end of the day, American institutions are good will work it out".

5. Might be more "idealist than materialist".