[simondotau]

People will generally choose whichever mode of transport is most convenient and cost-effective, based on how they rationally (or irrationally) weigh various factors. If every road were free of traffic, every destination had unlimited parking at the door, everyone already owned a car, and driving carried no direct or indirect costs, almost everyone would drive everywhere.

The only way to shift people onto public transport is to make it more attractive than driving. That can be done by making driving less convenient or more expensive—through higher ownership, fuel, and parking costs, and by resisting attempts to eliminate congestion. And by making public transport better through greater frequency, reliability, coverage, and convenience.

[quietbritishjim]

> If every road were free of traffic, every destination had unlimited parking at the door, everyone already owned a car, and driving carried no direct or indirect costs, almost everyone would drive everywhere.

Even with that unrealistically idealised scenario, if you had similarly idealised public transport (station within 5 minutes walk either end, trains every 5 minutes) I'd still choose the train much of the time. I could actually get something done on my laptop instead of having to concentrate on the road, plus I could get up for a stretch mid journey (without stopping). It would be different if I had a lot of luggage or was bringing the kids, though.

My point is that driving is not always inherently more attractive than public transport.

[inigyou]

> station within 5 minutes walk either end, trains every 5 minutes

Describes large parts of London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, etc

[thaumasiotes]

Sure. Also Shanghai.

But that isn't an ideal scenario for public transit regardless of whether somebody tries to describe it that way. Very frequent stops ("station within 5 minutes walk") mean that your journey through the subway system will take a very, very long time. Driving can easily cut that time in half.

[queenkjuul]

Conversely, traffic is so bad at peak hours that taking the train is faster than driving when it comes to getting home from downtown here in Chicago, even with frequent stops (and my line stops more often than most). Biking is basically always faster than driving+parking here unless you have reserved private parking on both ends or are going clear across town (8+ miles)

[inigyou]

And now we return to the idea of big tall buildings so that things are close together.

[thaumasiotes]

You're right; if only someone in Shanghai had thought of building skyscrapers.

Wait.

[simondotau]

After writing that post, I started drafting an edit to acknowledge that clever marketing is another way to encourage greater use of public transport. In my mind I imagined a campaign highlighting the time people get back not having to drive through heavy traffic. The advertisement could say, "Give yourself more time to do the things you love," accompanied by a wholesome image of a smiling person reading a book on the train.

Then it occurred to me that nobody would actually be reading a book. They would be doom-scrolling Instagram or watching wingnut political propaganda on YouTube. I'm starting to wonder if people might be mentally better off behind the wheel...

[pibaker]

Shortwave radio had a reputation for hosting political nut jobs before the internet existed. So are podcasts.

At least transit users don't get road rage.

[queenkjuul]

I may be doomscrolling on the train but i see plenty of other people read books

[nicbou]

That's the reason I prefer public transit. I normally bike everywhere, because I get to exercise, see the scenery and yell at people, but sometimes I like to just sit down and read a book.

Another benefit is being able to have a drink or go to multiple locations without worrying about bringing the car back somehow.

[philipallstar]

Making driving worse instead of making public transport better is such a public sector-brained take.

[creaturemachine]

Driving has been subsidized and "made better" for so long that it feels natural. Forcing your private steel box through public spaces should be the most impractical and expensive thing to do, yet it's not.

[philipallstar]

Cars replaced the horse and cart. There were roads before cars, and roads carry a lot more than cars. Try getting a fire engine to your house without roads.

[simondotau]

You misunderstood my comment. Driving is made worse by the presence of other people driving. Government can partially mitigate it by spending taxpayer money on building more road infrastructure. Or for a fraction of the cost, making public transit better.

[thunderfork]

Sometimes you have to nerf something because it's been buffed too many times, beyond what's sustainable or reasonable

[philipallstar]

It's only really been buffed by the facts you don't have to pay for massive custom vehicles or drivers, and market dynamics (and the corresponding incredible features and amazing factory and transportation efficiencies) mean cars are extremely good value for money for a lot of people.

In other words: there's a profit motive, so people get something really good for their money.

Public transport is frequently a monopoly or semi-monopoly, and there is power available (the people running the public transport also get to set rules for drivers), and exercising power is much, much easier than competing in a market.

[creaturemachine]

So you bought a car for a good price full of features, good for you. Now where are you going to drive the thing? Can you build your own road wherever you want to go? No, only the state can build roads? How could we allow such a monopoly over our lives.

Now you say there are rules to follow on these roads, with enforcement, meaning someone has power over you the entire time? Yikes.

[philipallstar]

Sorry, I'm not sure what point you're arguing against.

[thunderfork]

Going over the patch notes, here's some buffs you might have missed:

Mandatory parking minimums, high speed limits, car lanes without bus lanes or bike lanes, tearing down neighborhoods to build interchanges and highways...

[mrgoldenbrown]

Driving is currently subsidized in a variety of ways that hide it's true costs. Almost any effort to make driving's perceived cost closer to the real cost, including externalities, is a good thing.

[alistairSH]

IMO, it's not so much "make driving worse" (ie actively make roads worse, etc).

Instead, it's actively make transit better be reallocating road funds... Add buses or light rail or dedicated/separated bike lanes instead of brainlessly adding traffic lanes. Every bike added to that bike lane is one less car (very roughly).

Additionally, tax car infrastructure appropriately. Free road-side parking is not an entitlement. Reduce parking minimums in redevelopment/new development and let the market determine the supply of spaces. A good example - it's increasingly common for apartments in DC to charge extra for a parking space.

Most of the above applies to urban areas as well as moderately dense suburban zones.

Large cities can take additional steps - no car zones (common in Italian towns), congestion pricing (London, NYC, and others already do this), and changes to road design to better accommodate pedestrians (plenty of YT videos about various plans to do this).

[ryandrake]

You said it's not to make driving worse, but then listed multiple examples of making driving worse:

- reallocating road funds (away from driving and toward busses/rail/bikes)

- tax car infrastructure appropriately, presumably higher

- reduce parking minimums

Not that I'm against these, but they will surely make driving worse.

[simondotau]

That is wrong on multiple dimensions.

What makes driving worse is the presence of more cars. This can be partially mitigated by piling money into road infrastructure, but infrastructure is a band-aid on a problem created by more people choosing to drive.

What makes driving better is the presence of fewer cars. There's really only one way to reduce the number of cars on the road: build good alternatives to driving. If you love driving, you should be the strongest champion of public transport investment.

[queenkjuul]

They keep driving how it is, and make other things better relatively. Reducing parking minimums doesn't remove existing parking, it prevents building more. Building bike lanes doesn't usually mean reducing car capacity. Adding more lanes to already huge highways doesn't actually improve driving, so redirecting that money to rail does not make driving worse, in fact it stands to make it better by getting more people off the road

[alistairSH]

Removing parking minimums doesn't even prevent more parking - it only lets the market balance supply/demand for parking. The current system in most of the US requires worst-case/max-demand parking lots, so the only time a shopping center's lot is full is a few peak hours on the weekend and Christmas season. The rest of the year, it's mostly empty.

Here's a good summary of one case of a small town dealing with absurd parking regulations... https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017-11-22-how-parking-m...

And just to add my own recent anecdote... we visited southern Italy (Puglia) last month. Most of the towns have zero traffic* zones (ZTL zones) in the historic centers. In all of them, there were either ample metered street spots just outside the ZTL or small pay lots a short walk away. As far as I could tell, as a tourist, it worked well - the downtowns were vibrant with lots of foot traffic.

* ZTLs allow local traffic and handicapped transport within certain guidelines.

[newguy1000]

Let's make everything harder to use and cost more. It's for their own good!

[rwyinuse]

Increasing ownership and fuel costs is wrong, as it makes life more difficult also for people living in areas where public transport is not feasible.

[queenkjuul]

Then surely you have no issue with increasing municipal taxes on drivers where there is public transit?

[chriswarbo]

> If every road were free of traffic, every destination had unlimited parking at the door, everyone already owned a car, and driving carried no direct or indirect costs, almost everyone would drive everywhere.

Cars don't even have tables; let alone toilets, dining areas, sleeping cabins, etc. Even those which do (e.g. RVs) would require a solo traveller to stop in order to use them.

No thanks, I'll stick to the train.

[tmp10423288442]

How long do you spend on transit that most of those are necessary?

As for toilets, the new Caltrain cars, built by Stadler (from Switzerland, which has the best non-high speed rail train infrastructure in the world) were not going to include toilets at are - I don't believe they do in Switzerland - but were forced to add one by ADA regulations in the USA.

[chriswarbo]

> How long do you spend on transit that most of those are necessary?

Toilets are useful immediately (speaking from experience!)

Tables are useful even on short trips of a few minutes; e.g. I usually have a notebook and pen in my pocket, and writing much easier on a table (even the little fold-out ones, if I can't get a seat at the proper tables).

I often eat on trains; though I admittedly tend to avoid the dining options, since it's much cheaper to bring my own food and eat my seat's table (fold-out or otherwise). If I'm with others, we can also drink alcohol together, without a "designated driver" having to abstain.

[mistrial9]

> People will generally choose whichever mode of transport is most convenient

ok that is one fourth of the conversation, or less.. sure, marketing and economic signals.. got it.

The historic rise of the personal auto versus all else was partly fueled by a social dynamic where "privelage is defined by the ability to remove yourself from the dirty and dangerous crowds of non-privelaged humans".. Autos have dramatically filled the transportation sector because clean and intelligent ME can ride next to foul dangerous person YOU without contact reliably.

Notice the profound growth of personal aircraft for the newly wealthy. Google upper-levels are famous for this. Personal aircraft are some of the most anti-ecological and anti-efficient modes of transport ever.. check out the stocks and sales figures.. huge growth in the last years.

America and others have successfully made ugly reality of social constructs into marketing talk and "rational decisions" but the reality is not fully described by those IMHO

[newguy1000]

yes, lets make things harder for people in certain situations cause we know what's best for them.

[zarzavat]

> If every road were free of traffic, every destination had unlimited parking at the door, everyone already owned a car, and driving carried no direct or indirect costs, almost everyone would drive everywhere.

What kind of nonsense is this? People take public transport it's better than driving. You don't need to expend mental cycles focusing on the road, you can do something else while you're on the go: chat to friends, browse the internet, read a book, sleep, etc. Driving is dead time.

[philipallstar]

> People take public transport it's better than driving

Public transport is also much more expensive, particularly when you have more than one person in the vehicle, even with loads of tax added to car fuel, doesn't depart from your house or arrive at your destination, and means you can't take much stuff with you.

[zarzavat]

Driving is more expensive than public transport when you factor in the cost of the vehicle, maintenance, fuel, insurance, taxes, parking, etc.

If driving were more cheaper than public transport then nobody would use it. Yet, almost wherever you go in the world if you go to a station at 8am on a weekday it will be full of people.

[philipallstar]

> If driving were more cheaper than public transport then nobody would use it. Yet, almost wherever you go in the world if you go to a station at 8am on a weekday it will be full of people.

This logic is devastatingly simplistic. Think about the most obvious counter-example: people who have car sometimes take the train. Even after they've paid all those car fees, they'll take the train for £50 rather than drive for £8 in car fuel. Why?

It's because there isn't an objective tier list for vehicles. E.g. if I'm going through central London I'll use the Underground because London is so densely populated going by car isn't always feasible. But if you're going somewhere in London with a baby then you might well take the hit and drive, because you have a lot of stuff to bring with you, and the Underground is unpleasant and hot, which the baby will not appreciate.

[nicbou]

I pay €63 per month for unlimited train rides across Germany. My car insurance used to cost more than that. Keeping my old Kangoo running cost me about €150 per month before fuel.

[nxm]

It's better in some use cases, but not all (e.g. traveling to the country)

[abc123abc123]

Yep. In the future, only billionaires and politicians shall be allowed private travel. The common man shall be crammed into public transport where he can sweat, sneeze, touch, grab etc. the rest of the common man.

Forcing the public to abandon the comfort of private travel seems right out of the WEF playbook.

[inigyou]

Comfort? The hassle of parking a car makes the train the nicer option, all by itself!

[nradov]

What hassle? Most of the places where I drive my cars have abundant free parking.

[trymas]

waat?

Current situation with prevalent "private travel", i.e. cars in USA (and probably "the west" overall??) IS due to corporate and political interests.

Car manufacturers, "big oil", road construction companies, politicians collecting taxes from cars (fuel sales, road use, cars themselves[0] and car parking), banks leasing money to buy and maintain cars, insurance, landlords owning car parks, etc.

They are very very interested that private car ownership wouldn't go away and are fighting it tooth and nail. You need to own multiple cars per household spend thousands on leasing, hundreds on parking, to just go to work and of course there's fuel.

Though somewhere like London, Paris or Tokyo - why would you want to do daily commute in a car? If you are a billionaire, driven by personal driver in your Bentley or Land Rover - sure, but otherwise metro is cheaper by an order of magnitude and I'd bet often times much faster too. In those places rich and heads of state take trams and metros.

I probably not need to remind you that "richest man" lobbied some failing projects to upsell his car sales, instead of allowing high speed rail to be developed.

[0] this of course depends from country to country and from state to state.

[AlexandrB]

I think you vastly underestimate how much people like their cars. Sure there are corporate interests who benefit, but they don't force folks to change cars every 3 years or make big "crossovers" and SUVs the most popular car type in the US and, now, Europe[1].

Cars are just really convenient to have when you need them and folks will put up with all kind of costs and other inconveniences to own one.

I think it's really important to have robust and safe public transit so car use can be minimized when it's unnecessary, but I don't have illusions that this will lead to some kind of car-free utopia.

[1] https://www.motor1.com/news/707655/suvs-more-popular-europe-...

[criddell]

I think you underestimate just how much many people like their cars and enjoy driving. People generally spend far more on their vehicle than they really need to.

If I lived in London or Paris I wouldn't commute by car. But I don't live in a big city and, at this point in my life, I don't want to (although I'd love to have a little pied-a-terre for part time use). Instead, I live in the 'burbs of a pretty car-friendly city and life is good.