[ajuc]

There's an easy 19th century solution to cars and planes - public transport. It could reduce the usage significantly, save people lots of time, reduce pollution, make people healthier through making the environment more walkable, reduce crime. We don't do it not because the technology isn't there, but because it's more profitable for people to induce consumption by planning our cities and suburbs around cars.

There's lots of rotting low hanging fruits ignored for decades because politicians are paid by the ladder-sellers.

[dpark]

> save people lots of time

Public transit is rarely a time saver for people who give up their cars in favor of public transit.

> reduce crime

In what way? Car break-ins presumably go down when there when fewer cars, but does overall crime drop? Doubtful.

[ajuc]

> Public transit is rarely a time saver for people who give up their cars in favor of public transit.

It saves time when you don't put 10-lane motorways and in your cities nor turn them into parking lot wasteland.

> In what way? Car break-ins presumably go down when there when fewer cars, but does overall crime drop?

Public transport reduces inequality, which is the main cause of crime. If you have whole groups in society that cannot get what they need working within the system - some of them will work outside the system. Public transport makes working within the system easier (barrier to entry to work/study in the good places gets lower). It also smooths around the strict urban class divisions (it makes sense for rich people to live in the city, which makes the elites more likely to invest in the city, which makes it more likely for non-elites to be able to work with the system).

The opposite is car-dependand suburbs + crime-ridden inner cities with no way out other than crime.

[dpark]

> It saves time when you don't put 10-lane motorways and in your cities nor turn them into parking lot wasteland.

I missed the part where this has anything to do with saving time.

I’m not saying that public transit doesn’t have major benefits. I’m totally in favor of strong public transit, but saving time is generally not one of those benefits.

> Public transport reduces inequality, which is the main cause of crime.

If feels like a big stretch to say public transit reduces crime. I wonder if there’s actual data to support this notion.

[ajuc]

> I missed the part where this has anything to do with saving time.

If you make cities more concentrated without balooning them with parking lots - everything's closer. If you restrict cars - there's less traffic jams, which makes commute faster.

> If feels like a big stretch to say public transit reduces crime. I wonder if there’s actual data to support this notion.

US has much higher crime levels than other developed nations. It's also the most car-dependant of them.

People often think public transport creates crime, because criminals use it to move (like everybody else). But public transport mainly lets non-criminal people to move, which reduces the number of criminals overall.

[Fishkins]

> I missed the part where this has anything to do with saving time

It lets you put the non-car stuff closer together, so you're traveling less distance to get to the same place. It requires urban design, not just a single person switching between modes of transit.

(Although switching to cycling can often make transit both faster for you and the people around you in a city because you aren't as affected by traffic and don't create as much traffic)