[dheera]

Agreed. The current incarnation of the US transportation system is also downright unsustainable from a fuel and carbon standpoint, and will lead to various downfalls if something isn't done about it.

As much as I'm a public transportation advocate (I don't own a car, and refuse car rides if a public transportation option is available for the place I need to get to), it's becoming increasingly more difficult to promote this kind of lifestyle with the advent of Uber and other things that have made private gas-guzzling cars even more convenient than ever before. People also just don't like being told what to do and what not to do, even if what they are doing is going to kill their children.

Given the short-sighted nature of people, in general, the only way this is going to change is if we make public transportation more convenient than an Uber. What we need, very seriously, is to make self-driving cars/minibuses running on renewable energy happen as soon as possible. They can then be rigged up to become a "Public Transportation 2.0" system that gets anyone from A to B while dynamically routing and picking up others in-between and avoiding traffic jams from happening in the first place. It would also put the US back on the world map with a brand new, innovative system that's both environmentally efficient, cheaper to ride, and ultra-convenient at the same time.

[apendleton]

Huh. I have pretty much the opposite feelings about Uber as you, as a fellow non-driver and public transit advocate. I think Uber (and also car-sharing services like Zipcar) are great for transit advocates, because they make it much easier for city dwellers to justify not owning a car, to the extent that I suspect that they actually increase transit usage.

Many people in my city (Washington, DC) that own cars don't actually need them most days, but they do have occasional needs that aren't easily doable by transit (Costco trips, driving out to see friends in the less-transit-friendly suburbs, hiking in Shenandoah, etc.) so they keep a car for that purpose. But the problem there is the incentives; the fixed costs of car ownership (a car payment, insurance, scheduled maintenance, etc.) are high, and once you've paid them, the incremental cost per mile of travel is really low (certainly way lower than the per-mile cost of transit), so if you have a car, you have a strong incentive to use it more than you need to. Uber and Zipcar are alternatives that make cars available in the circumstances where you need them and thus could allow these people to ditch their personal cars, and they also flip the cost incentives around: low-to-no fixed costs, and comparatively higher per-mile costs, which means you only use it if you really need it, and use transit most of the time.

[dheera]

Yeah, that's also true. It's very rare that I need to travel to a place that requires a car to get to, so I can spend on Uber in those cases, and that allows me to not own a car.

However, this isn't the way a lot of people use Uber; at least where I live a lot of people use Uber because it's faster and more comfortable than public transportation, not because public transportation doesn't get them where they need to. I've seen business school students (i.e. students who have cash to burn) frequently take Uber between MIT and Harvard for god's sake. There's direct bus and subway service, but it involves a 5 minute walk on both ends, they're too lazy to look it up, and don't want to wait outside.

[maxerickson]

Many medium to low density counties in the US operate on demand bus services that get anyone from A to B while dynamically routing and picking up others in-between.

They are usually subsidized (the county spends more than the service makes, so taxpayers are paying for the service) but still don't see the ridership it would take to justify higher service levels (these places generally don't have traffic jams, just short periods where you might have to wait for the second green to pass through a busy light).

These counties already tend to be depopulating, which is the main way to reduce car traffic levels in such situations. Broader economic change has left them geographically uncompetitive, or automation has destroyed jobs in whatever extraction industry pulled in the population in the past.

I think one of the best ways to improve the availability of public transport would be to treat rising housing prices as a government failure (it's currently considered a success when the value of someones home increases).

[akgerber]

The real issue with automobiles and cities isn't so much the cars as the parking.

Parking takes up a huge proportion of urban land and street space that could be used for exclusive bus lanes. Parking requirements makes the building blocks of classic urban neighborhoods, like townhouses, small apartment buildings, and storefronts with apartments above, illegal to build. Using land for parking vastly increases the distance between destinations, making walking impractical. When walking is impractical, transit systems become ineffective because there are too few homes or destinations near them for them to have customers.