[brikym]

I think most people get that non-car forms of transport is denser. The two main issues that stop people using it are:

1) Time: Taking a trip involving public transport is slower than a car. This is fixable in urban areas with some dedicated paths, modal filters, and very frequent schedules and that kind of thing but this takes up front resources.

2) Safety: It's not safe. Too much antisocial behaviour on public transport. Nobody wants to sit near loud or smelly people. In the worst case people get assaulted. Cyclists are more likely to get seriously hurt in a crash or have their vehicle stolen than cars. It's fixable but policing takes effort.

3) The demand paradox: "See public transport and bikes are unpopular" say the decision makers and don't put in the resources. The thing is the infra needs to be near 100% built for people to want to use it. It's no good if your cycle commute is 80% dedicated bike paths but 20% of it is riding next to trucks and parked cars opening their doors as most people would rather take a car. It's also no good if the trains run every 30mins, so on average your trip is 15min delayed. The politician would think "why would I double it if the trains are already under-utilised" but does not understand latent demand.

[aqme28]

You're completely wrong on safety. Driving is much much more dangerous than trains by orders of magnitude.

I know what you're getting at when you write safety, but I want to be clear that this is not the same thing as safety.

[sndgndgndgndy]

Assertions made without evidence can be disregarded without evidence, and your assertion does not match my personal experience. Public transit is dangerous, especially in cities like SF or Seattle.

[aqme28]

Oh don’t worry there is plenty of evidence

Deaths per billion miles via

car: 7.3 Train: 0.43

From https://www.vox.com/2015/5/14/8606195/train-safety-driving-c... but you can just google, there are tons of other studies.

[Someone]

It’s a safe bet that sndgndgndgndy isn’t referring to that metric, but to the (perceived) probability of getting shouted at, mugged, etc.

That, I have been told, is definitely a problem in the USA. I think that’s because they’ve painted themselves into a car-centric corner that it is very hard to get out of.

[hylaride]

Outside of a handful of American cities, public transit is mostly used by the poor, which can include a lot of "undesirables", and many people used to their "quiet, safe" suburbs feel deeply uncomfortable around the poor in general. In some cities, public transit is used as a du-facto shelter system by the homeless.

It's funny when people see celebrities use the subway in NYC. It's just accepted by New Yorkers that the subway is usually the best way to get around Manhattan and getting mixed in with the entire socioeconomic spectrum is normal. But the crowds of people is also a kind of security blanket if something does happen.

[aqme28]

Crime rates are actually lower on transit than in a car: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1077291X2...

The perception of crime and danger is strangely very inverted

[Someone]

I did mention “perceived” and also included shouting in my list because of that, but I could have been clearer.

Also, the set of people who feel unsafe by just having somebody who’s noticeably poor in their proximity definitely is not empty.

Staying in your bubble is way easier if you avoid public transport and walking on the street as much as possible.

[sndgndgndgndy]

Your data is for traffic accidents, not crimes. Public transit is dangerous because of crime.

[aqme28]

> Public transit is dangerous because of crime

What was it you said? Assertions made without evidence?

Edit: I looked into it and crime rates are actually lower on transit than in cars. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1077291X2...

You need to examine your assumptions

[brikym]

Perceived safety is exactly what I meant. It's a marketing problem.