[autoexec]

> I'd argue that cars are not more convenient in dense cities like New York.

I'd argue that if you were correct people would have already been using alternatives and there'd have been no need to punish people for driving. When you give people a better option they take it.

NYC could have improved alternatives to make them more attractive, but they choose to make driving worse instead forcing people who can't afford it to use less convenient ways to get around.

[mitthrowaway2]

People were using alternatives, but you still need to penalize driving because it's a multiagent system. Here's why.

The convenience of driving depends on traffic. If you're the only car on the road then it's very convenient. In gridlock, it's very inconvenient (but also takes the convenience of buses down with it).

So you reach some equilibrium of traffic levels where the marginal person opts for walking / subway rather than driving in all that traffic. But if you could magically reduce traffic, then driving becomes the better option and people take it.

If you want to sustain an equilibrium of lower traffic, you need to add a penalty to driving to stabilize the convenience of being the marginal driver in that equilibrium.

There are knock-on benefits to doing so, including that it makes alternatives to driving such as busses more effective.

[autoexec]

It says a lot that most of people using public transportation are the ones who have no other choice. They can't afford a car and the associated costs. If they had the ability to not use public transportation they wouldn't use it.

Road congestion is only one factor. If you ignore all the other things that keep people from wanting to use public transportation then punishing drivers is just going to piss people off.

People want to do what works best for them. Make public transportation work best for them and they'll use it no matter how deserted the streets are. Better yet, as traffic dies down, roads and parking lots can be reclaimed and nobody will care. Start closing roads and parking lots without solving the problems public transportation has, and people will be upset.

[mitthrowaway2]

But reducing traffic directly solves one of the major problems with public transportation, because it reduces commute times for buses and lets them keep a schedule more predictably, improving transfer times and reducing waits.

Increased ridership (as people are pushed to alternatives from cars) also leads to increased bus frequency, which also greatly improves the experience for all riders.

So it's actually a big step towards solving some of the major problems with public transit, but of course not exclusive with other steps being taken too.

Plus, reduced car traffic directly increases comfort and safety for walking and cycling as well.

[autoexec]

I agree, it's a good goal. It should come by giving people a reason to choose public transportation first though. You'd still get all the benefits, without pissing off people who understandably don't want their lives to be worse so that eventually public transportation can get better.

Punishing drivers until they have no choice but to accept that their lives will be worse is not a good way to promote public transportation, even if you pinkie promise that the pain will lessen over years/decades.

It's not necessary to strong arm people into using alternatives to cars if you make those alternatives genuinely better for more and more people in an increasing number of situations. As people naturally choose the path of least resistance, everything just gets better for everyone.

[mitthrowaway2]

I'm not sure that's possible. The space of policies that improve car alternatives without a perception of negatively impacting drivers is very narrow. That rules out bus priority lanes, protected bike lanes, gas and parking surcharges to fund transit, modal filters, advance walk signals...

Even when those policies actually improve the driving experience by getting more people out of cars and reducing congestion for the remaining drivers, many drivers don't tend to compare against the counterfactual where those road users become car traffic blocking their way when evaluating the impact of those policies on their drive. They just see bike and bus lanes being prioritized and react like it's a war against cars.

So how do you imagine that transit can be improved, without drivers reacting like they're being punished?

[autoexec]

> So how do you imagine that transit can be improved, without drivers reacting like they're being punished?

I'd start by holding off on policies like congestion pricing, narrowing lanes, refusing to add/update roads where needed, and eliminating parking options. These things do nothing to make alternatives more attractive, even if they strong arm more people into using them.

From what I've seen of public transport options around the country, there is a ton of room for improvement that would go a long way to help without punishing drivers.

Generally buses should try to minimize wait time on busy routes, routes and schedules should be clear and consistent, transfers should be minimized and when needed there should be no wait times going from one line to another. Most importantly I wouldn't put as much emphasis on buses as I would on trains since they move way more people much faster and don't compete with cars on the road or add to street traffic.

The busses and train cars themselves should be clean, well maintained, safe, and inexpensive to ride. Offering free rides for certain routes/times is a great way to get people using them even if it requires taking a loss in the short term. I wouldn't expect a new/improved public transportation system to pay for itself for a very long time. Transforming our cities and streets is a long term investment that can't happen overnight.

Busses and train cars should be comfortable and provide storage for things like bikes, bags, and groceries (bonus points if it has a freezer). Bus stops and stations should be added where possible so more people can access them by foot with less than 15 minutes of walking. They should be well lit, and provide seating, shelters, vending machines, phone chargers, trash/recycling, and information.

Bus-only lanes can be nice, but not if it means closing off lanes that would back up regular traffic. That might mean adding lanes in some cases and reclaiming them later.

Bike lanes should be added to existing roads where possible (and not by reducing lanes from already crowded streets) and be required when building new roads. Bike lanes should be well marked and protected/separated from cars. Drivers hate bikes because they have to share the same roads. Protected bike lanes actually decrease friction between bikers and drivers.

Priority should be given to bike routes that connect and travel through useful places for foot traffic. It'd be nice if they follow bus routes so that bikers can stop for rests/drinks at the the bus stops or even take the bus for parts of their trip.

The biggest thing would be to find and improve the places that would be most likely to attract people to alternatives then prioritize those sites first. Adding bike routes in a downtown area or adding bus routes that bring people into and out of the areas that are the most congested/annoying areas to drive in.

I've lived in several places that had popular areas I'd actively avoid driving into because of the cars and/or foot traffic. I'd have loved a alternative, but most of the time my options were a bus system that would have added at least an hour to my travel time and involve long walks down non-pedestrian friendly roads on top of it, or a train system that was expensive, dirty, smelled like a bathroom, and would still require a drive to the station where parking was insanely expensive and not an overly safe place to leave your vehicle. I've also been in cities overseas with great public transportation. Clean trains that ran every few minutes, a seemingly excessive number of stations a walkable distance from each other, etc.

I know good public transportation is possible. It just needs a lot of investment and tax payers hate investing in their cities while politicians are heavily lobbied by car companies not to make the situation better. A bunch of ineffective badly planned half measures only add to taxpayer/driver outrage.

[ARandumGuy]

Humans are not perfectly rational actors, and will often make the "wrong" decision when better options are available. Especially when a given decision may not be bad individually, but adds up when a bunch of people make the same decision. In these cases, you have to not only incentivize the behavior you want, but disincentivize the behavior you don't want.