[antirez]

The tone of the article is not relaxed, however I'm a bit perplexed of reading here that many don't believe that the author main argument is right, which is: sustainable transportation for the future needs to be, mostly, public. I don't mean public as necessarily "provided by gov/city", but in which the common routes are handled by busses or trams or similar systems where, unlike cars, the weight of the moved people is not minimal compared to the weight of the moved vehicle.

Taxies have their place of course, you can't serve everything via public transports. Also one thing is normal people moving inside SF, another thing is arriving at the SF airport with a business meeting 45 minutes later. But the bulk of how people move, should be, mass-transport systems.

[collyw]

> sustainable transportation for the future needs to be, mostly, public.

As I bike owner I would disagree with that.

[icebraining]

Bikes can be public too. I've been recently to Budapest, and their public bike networks that was about to open seems excellent. Cheap, with stations everywhere around the city and renting bikes with just a cellphone.

If you live in a small place, and you just bike around the city, I'm not sure it's worth buying your own.

[collyw]

We have a public bike network here in Barcelona (I think it was one of the first).

Sure public bikes will do, but for me its kind of like the difference between my car and a bus. You have to wait for stations to become free a lot (usually commuting from my house to my work involved getting up half an hour before the crowds took the bikes). The bikes often have slight problems (loose breaks, squeaking, won't go into gear). Most people don't seem too bothered, but as somewhat of a bike enthusiast, I find it frustrating to know that its like just a spanner turn or two (end the bolts are usually non standard to prevent theft).

Its a great idea, but not without problems.