[accurrent]

European and Asian nations tend to have perfectly usable mass transit (including developing countries). Sure there are some us cases for cars, but for daily commute its not needed.

To add to it mass transit is generally heavuly subsidized that means that less well off people can get to work/school at low costs. It reduces poverty and income inequality.

[dkjaudyeqooe]

Mass transit is great when it's available, which means in places of high density, which is why you list Asia and Europe. It's right there in the name.

I live in Europe in a village of about 1500 people are there is no usable public transport (2 buses a day).

Relative to total area, mass transit is almost nowhere. That's also true for for total road kilometers.

I agree with your last sentence, but for those who live outside of cities or other places of high density, public transport is unusable or unavailable. Governments roundly ignore people who live in these places (due to expense and political irrelevance) so there is always a fairly decent percentage of the population that is "public transport poor".

[johnnyanmac]

>I live in Europe in a village of about 1500 people are there is no usable public transport (2 buses a day).

and how would waymo fix this? Waymo is still a private business and needs to weigh the costs of deploying to a smaller town vs. simply not supporting that range. It's the same issue as government.

[dkjaudyeqooe]

Automated vehicles will enable smaller buses that drive themselves and make serving these places profitable to service. Automated taxi services like Waymo also ultimately be cheaper too.

[anotheruser13]

I believe IKEBUS is self-driving.

https://chikatoku.enjoytokyo.jp/en/spot/willer_ikebukuro.htm...

[zorowithenma]

Nah bro, they would instead send those cars where they would get much more profit. You just can't expect too many cab bookings in a small town of 1500. Idk bout EU but here in India we have public transport to even remote places and it is sure profitable and many people do use it everyday, even if the population is less many use public transit instead of own veichles in towns.

[hnaccount_rng]

I don't know. One "problem" is the salary around here. You simply cannot generate enough revenue from anything below 30k people for anything more than school buses (which are both predictable and tax-funded). But you wouldn't need that many rides to justify a taxi. Those _are_ around, even though typically you need to call well in advance. So even if there is like one of those autonomous taxis for a dozen 1.5k villages that will probably be both enough for any reasonable situation and an improvement wrt to the current state

[wilg]

Most trips in Europe are by car. 80% of passenger-km. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/e...

[jltsiren]

Subsidizing public transit to make it affordable is a terrible idea. If you want good public transit with stable funding, you must build it primarily for the middle class. For people who pay more taxes than they receive benefits and who could choose to drive instead.

Driving has high fixed costs and low marginal costs. If you have a car anyway, using it for yet another trip is cheap. If you want to make public transit competitive with driving, you must make the fares low enough. That often means paying a substantial fraction of the expenses from taxes. But why would you do that? Because once a city grows large enough and dense enough, public transit becomes cheaper than car infrastructure. Because it requires less subsidies than driving.

[johnnyanmac]

>For people who pay more taxes than they receive benefits and who could choose to drive instead.

that doesn't make sense. You just described the issue: they can choose to drive. And many do in the US.

Government subsidizes transport to get more people into the city hubs, which bolsters the economy of business as more people can reach downtown, which gives the town/city more money in taxes. These business have fixed costs so it's not like a rich person is going to be proportionately better to business than a poor person buying the bare necessities.

It makes a lot more sense to target people who are taken out of the economy pool otherwise without such transportation. Especially if we're talking about a large city like LA.

----

and while it's a cliche, it needs to be asked in this context: what even is "middle class" here?

>If you want to make public transit competitive with driving, you must make the fares low enough. That often means paying a substantial fraction of the expenses from taxes.

I argue that such a "low enough bar" for a state like California will never outdo the convenience of a car. You're right in the long term that less cars => lower road maintenance => less road subsidies => more money to go around to other parts of the state. But we're not starting from scratch here.

[jltsiren]

Public services used by people who can afford the alternatives are universally better than those intended for the poor. If you don't use the service yourself, you don't care that much about the quality, and you are more likely to support funding cuts. Because the poor are a minority, most people don't really care about services used by them.

[johnnyanmac]

>If you don't use the service yourself, you don't care that much about the quality, and you are more likely to support funding cuts.

If you don't use the service it doesn't matter if it's a hunk of junk or a limousine, it's your tax money for a service you don't care about and will cut it anyway. You may be more likely to cut a limousine if you don't personally use it.

>Because the poor are a minority, most people don't really care about services used by them.

I don't know about minority, especially in these times. But minority or not, welfare programs take up 20% or so of government spending. It's a large enough population being serviced that it can't be ignored.