[durandal1]

Trains will fairly unreliably take you from one place that is not your home, to another place, which is not where you want to go, at a time that is probably not exactly when you wanted to arrive. Freedom of movement is incredibly important, and trains are very rigid in this aspect.

[mint5]

Well That’s certainly not been my experience when visiting Europe. In fact, it many cases it’s been the opposite - having a car would have been restrictive in any major city and a source of friction.

[xnx]

> having a car would have been restrictive in any major city and a source of friction.

Would a Waymo that you don't have to store, park, fuel, or maintain have been restrictive?

[mint5]

Well to the extent it draws people from public transit, yes because traffic makes being a pedestrian more unpleasant and waymos still are traffic. And increased traffic adds friction to crossing streets and they park obnoxiously, among other things.

So yes, they would be obnoxious at any significant quantity and also not really help with getting across the city since transit is pretty good

[xnx]

Human driven vehicles are a menace: dangerous, loud, dirty. Self-driving vehicles are entirely different: safe, quiet, no tailpipe emissions.

I'd easily take extra self-driving vehicles if it reduced human driven ones.

[mint5]

Well yes if we’re arbitrary limiting our choice to car based transportation that makes sense for mild climate cities. But why are we insisting on cars being the backbone?

[xnx]

No limits. Each option should be evaluated on its merits.

My contention is that in US cities the high cost of existing rail makes it uncompetitive for most uses, and there is no justification for building new rail.

[tdeck]

Cars driving at high speed over normal asphalt also generate a lot of tire noies and particulate pollution, even if they are electric cars. I found this video pretty interesting - some cities are experimenting with different road surfaces to reduce noise

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CTV-wwszGw8

[8note]

id still like to have some human drivers around, to call 911 when i get stuck under the automated car

[BurningFrog]

Trains are great when going to tourist attractions, especially in the center of old cities.

When you live and work in a city, they're much less practical.

[okanat]

This is quite the "I have never lived anywhere else other than North America" take.

Rail and other public transport in pretty much everywhere in the world are designed to serve commute first, tourist stuff second or third.

Public transport isn't just having some trains, or having only trains between major cities. It is designing whole commute routes from various urban and suburban areas to workplace. There needs to be regional and suburban links that arrive to metro and tram stations. Metro and tram have to operate very frequently to handle commuters. The frequency of the trains should adapt to the commuters in the morning and evening. They need to be convenient, clean and safe too.

Cities around the world are also much better balanced than NA ones. The workplaces and living areas are almost always mixed rather than having a "downtown" area where every office worker travels to. My area has many buildings with a supermarket, apartments and small offices in the same building. There are two car factories in the city next to one of the biggest urban parks.

[BurningFrog]

I'm a European who has emigrated to the US, and knows both sides pretty well.

I agree that European trains work very well for commuting to and from the center of big cities. That's where the jobs and tourist attractions are.

But to go between arbitrary places A and B is usually quite painful. Often the best way is to go to the center, and then from there to your destination.

When I moved to the US and got a car, it was an unreal feeling! I could quickly travel anywhere at anytime!! Practically it felt like my comfortable travel radius increased from 10km to 50km.

[mint5]

Is that why the trains and trams are crowded around commute? Because people find them impractical?

[mjr00]

> Trains are great when going to tourist attractions, especially in the center of old cities. When you live and work in a city, they're much less practical.

This is the most "tell me you live in America without telling me you live in America" thing I've seen in a long time...

America basically the only place in the world where in its cities, trains and other public transport aren't a major part of people's lives. In other places (Seoul, Tokyo, many European cities, etc.), even people who own a car will sometimes commute via train due to the convenience.

[panick21_]

Come and live in Switzerland for a year and learn something.

[krashidov]

Is this a serious comment lol

[lmm]

In effective countries trains run frequently enough that you don't need to consult a schedule and are less prone to unexpected delays than cars. Yes, they can't provide door-to-door service; like it or not, everyone travelling door-to-door in their private mobile living room during the rush hour is impossible if you want cities dense enough to be liveable.

[arcticbull]

Try a bicycle or a stroll instead of embracing the WALL-E.

If you feel that way about transit you may not have tried a good transit option like Hong Kong MTR with 90 second headways and travel from and to substantially everywhere you want to be.

[potato3732842]

>Try a bicycle or a stroll instead of embracing the WALL-E.

You see a robot driving around in a pile of trash.

I see a robot with nobody micromanaging him telling him how to live his life, etc, etc.

<we are not the same meme dot jpeg>

[grandinquistor]

I think the answer to this is microbility bike/scooter sharing (ex: lime)

Trains to cover the longer distance and micro mobility options to get to exactly where you need to go

[arethuza]

Well for my commute the trains are every 30 mins or so - pretty convenient times and a short walk from the office. The ticket is cheap, much cheaper than a days parking and during the trip I get to sit, look at the view and sip a coffee. The train is way more relaxing than the equivalent drive - which due to traffic levels at rush hour would probably take twice as long (at least) and be extremely unpredictable.

So when I have the option I'd rather take the train - of course I also drive a lot of places.

[dieortin]

Fairly unreliably? Unlike cars, trains do not typically suffer from traffic jams.

[durandal1]

This is based on my personal experience, I used to ride trains for travel a lot. I grew up in Europe and lived there for 31 years so this is not based on ignorance.

[eldaisfish]

ok? Your personal experience is not the entire truth and never will be. Japanese trains are on time. Swiss trains are on time. That's not based on ignorance either.

[thehappypm]

I was in Zermatt last month and was unable to take the Gornegray Railway due to mechanical issues. Even Swiss trains have problems

[andrewflnr]

You haven't been on the Washington DC metro, I take it. (Ok, you're technically correct, they're not typical.)

[542354234235]

You haven't been in Washington DC traffic, I take it. It isn't like it is a choice between breezing to your destination unimpeded in your car to arrive reliably on time, and taking the variable, unreliable Metro.

[andrewflnr]

I didn't comment on the road traffic at all, but good try.

[tim333]

Private cars seldom fail to work because the drivers are striking to reduce their hours to 32 hours a week like London last week.

[arcticbull]

Buddy the tube seldom fails for that reason either. Plus some self-driving sauce would reduce their hours to 0. Certain lines in London like the DLR are already driverless (Grade of Automation 3). Most of the other lines are GoA2.

[tim333]

Yeah, first time for that particular one but the transport not working for various reasons is not that unheard of.

[ragebol]

I'd gladly take a Waymo from my home to the train station, zip around the country without traffic jams and hop in another robotaxi at the other end.

[panick21_]

Trains are one part of a larger transportation system. And they are very good at what they do. But you also need metros, trams, buses and so on.

And with that you can build a system where most places, including 50 people mountain villages are well connected.

I can go from Genf to a tiny village deep in the Eastern mountains with 4-6h. I can make that journey with no planning ahead what so ever.

Cars are actually restrictive. What if you want to have a drink? What if you are in a place that is different from your car? What if you are old or disabled? What if you are a tourist? What if you are not allowed to drive because of a traffic violation? And there are also these people called 'kids'. When I was 15 I went from Switzerland to Czechia with the train, no problem.

True freedom is to have a good public transit and potentially car as an option.

[dgb23]

I live in Switzerland and commute mainly via public transport. We're very privileged here.

Because of decades to centuries of investment, holistic planning and expertise, we have one of the best networks in terms of quality, punctuality and density.

It's a plant the trees for future generations kind of deal, especially in Switzerland, because large, "flashy" projects are rare compared to to the more continuous and steady improvements, due to how funding and planning are set up.

[sofixa]

> which is not where you want to go

Oh the horror, you might have to walk a couple of minutes (probably less time wasted than circling around to find a parking spot, and then walking from it to your destination).

> at a time that is probably not exactly when you wanted to arrive

Yeah, no. Trains in properly developed networks are extremely frequent. At the off-peakest of off-peak (Sunday late evening), the RER near me is every 15 minutes. During peak hours it's every 5 mins.