What Elon Musk Doesn't Get About Urban Transit
citylab.com
citylab.com
Yes. This is the essential fundamental pro & con of living in the city: "There's a lot of other people nearby". If the benefits of this situation don't outweigh the downsides, then maybe the city isn't right for you.
This is not to say that maybe by appealing to the rich people who don't like associating with the rabble, he might have a successful business. But for the vast majority of commuters, the downside of public transport is not having to be close to strangers but rather the inconvenience (in america cities) of limited coverage and schedules.
I personally don't like noisy trains, but a simple fix could designate some train cars to be no-talking, so I can more easily get work done.
And there’s like a bunch of random strangers, one of who might be a serial killer
I suspect Musk is orders of magnitude more likely to win the California lottery jackpot than meet a serial killer on the bus, much less be killed by them. He's too smart for this silliness.
Now, I have never commuted in LA, but I have in chicago and Seattle and I can say from deep personal experience that much of the stress of commuting is self inflicted. There are ways to make that time less stressful and less “wasteful” but high intensity people often refuse to see.
Also, mornings in London tube are unbearable.
And that's generally OK. There are good reasons to have just self-time. But public transit doesn't necessarily optimize that time. And for some people that's important.
I will take the stress of getting sweated on by strangers over the stress of driving in rush hour traffic any time.
Not to mention that in rush hour traffic there's always the one, and only one if you're lucky, selfish asshole who is hellbent on killing you with speeding, aggressive or distracted driving. There's a much higher chance of being killed in traffic than by imaginary serial killers on a subway car.
The amount of people who come into Tokyo is mind boggling.
[1] https://pedestrianobservations.com/2015/07/26/why-labor-effi...
The problem is absolutely being too close to strangers. Still, going to individual cabins is an over-reaction, what we need is longer and more frequent trains so that people can at least have seats and/or room to breathe.
I think autonomously networked trains would be a huge leap towards accomplishing this. The headway between trains could be cut down dramatically and could allow for some magical improvements, eg express trains passing using the opposing direction's rail, that aren't feasible with human drivers.
Skytrain is a big bet transit system. Enormously expensive from a capital perspective, but offers a qualitatively great experience, and with pretty fixed operating costs.
Busses done well can offer great performance characteristics at lower costs (with the added benefits of resiliency though rerouting and service refinement).
But there seems to be something psychological about a choo-choo that gets people fired up for transit in a way that busses typically don’t. I think it’s because we have North American examples like Seattle’s Rapid Ride line that in the end didn’t deliver a train-like experience that we were sold on. We watered the BRT concept down so far as to make it meaningless.
Meanwhile, Link light rail is being delivered at high cost, but they aren’t cutting corners. Thus Link feels so much better than Rapid Ride.
Trains: smooth ride where the tracks are good, smooth power delivery/acceleration, satisfying whooshing sound, forward facing seats, spacious aisle, feels solid and efficient. Makes one acceleration and deceleration per stop, which are at least a few blocks apart. A BMW sailing down a wide-open left lane.
Buses: rattles 10x worse than the cheapest car you’ve ever been in. Violent, jerking, loud, desperate-sounding acceleration and braking action. Cramped aisle, mostly inward facing seats, hostile, harsh, and dirty fluorescent interior. Everything about it gets right up to your face and screams in your ear at the top of its lungs, “CHEAP!” A rolling welfare office waiting room. Stops every block, even with a dedicated lane. Usually averages walking speed, or worse when you factor in the wait. (No, these are not symptoms of being old - I have been on some perfectly pleasant 80s New Flyers. I am talking about San Francisco’s newest fleet here).
Somehow it still baffles transit planners that people might care about the subjective experience of being in transit rather than the throughput or cost. How the auto industry hasn’t made that blidndingly obvious is beyond me.
It's not that obvious if you've been on a well-done BRT line. The design characteristics of busses that you mention don't hold true universally—in particular, on quality BRT lines, the busses are typically designed to feel very much like the interior of the trains people like. I'll give you acceleration and deceleration comfort in general though.
> Somehow it still baffles transit planners that people might care about the subjective experience of being in transit rather than the throughput or cost.
It baffles me that people think transit planners control vast sums of wealth and are never forced to make tradeoffs due to cost considerations :-)
In all seriousness, if cost were no object, I'm sure we'd all love trains. The reality is that even hyper-premium BRT lines with dedicated exclusive right-of-way and premier station design are cheaper (way cheaper) than building rail infra.
EDIT: > How the auto industry hasn’t made that blidndingly obvious is beyond me.
The auto industry relies on there being a huge government subsidy to maintaining the infrastructure that their product rolls around on. Nobody ever said cars don't deliver a nice experience (at low levels of congestion). The problem is that we tend to have too many people driving on roads that cannot, due to laws of geometry, space, and time, accomodate that demand.
This is in stark contrast to my home city, a more typically north American city: sprawling, car-centric and any transport mode that isn't a motor vehicle is compromised, and transit system exists to punish people for being poor. Even using a car is compromised because of all the other cars, there's a geometry problem there. Nobody is actually saving time, they're just spending lots of money, running people over and generally making a mess. But you do have a nice, protective shell to segregate you from strangers.
My primary experience living in different cities is 'put up with cars or live somewhere else', and I don't even know where this mythical land unsullied by the tyranny of the automobile might be, but I fantasize about it regularly.
Unfortunately, Metra recently got rid of the bar cars on its commuter trains. Only Metra can lose money selling booze.
Gee, what a great time.
Perhaps public transportation works somewhere else, in other countries. There's something about America that makes it not work. Someone pointed out Japan to which Elon rebutted that it's too crowded. Trust me, trains in Japan are more pleasant than here in the SF Bay area even considering how they cram people in in Japan. I grew up in Hong Kong where cramming is also the norm. It is not nearly as unpleasant as Bart.
For someone who lives in California, I see why Elon Musk considers existing public transportation a failure right now.
Comparing it to being exposed to strangers just by living in a city doesn't work either. If you come upon a stranger that makes you nervous on the street, you can cross the street or walk past quickly. If you're stuck next to them on the subway you're going to feel threatened for the length of the trip.
Trains in Hong Kong and Tokyo are at the very least clean, on time, for the most part crime-less, and no matter what time you arrive, even if you miss a train, there will be another one to your destination within 5 minutes (likely 2 minutes).
Bart is rarely on time, extremely unclean (encountering human feces is almost a regular basis), crime-ridden (as shown in that link above), and if you live anywhere outside of SF, missing a train usually means you have to wait 15-20 minutes for the next one (even during peak hours).
I consciously choose to drive in to SF downtown instead, even considering the premium I have to pay for parking (easily $20 a day), and enduring through bay bridge traffic. I know I'm also doing harm by carbon emission and adding to traffic on the freeways and bridge, but it poses a personal risk (both physical danger and health) to take Bart for myself.
But my impression of Bart during that time was:
-infrequent
-loud: this one surprised me, the noise of the wheel screeches were another level of audible compared to the public transport I was used to.
- poverty: SanFran poverty and destitution was just on another level, and a significant amount of that seemed located around some of the stations.
- network coverage:so tiny and doesn't cover much.
That being said, my impression talking to the locals was that commuting in/out of SanFran by car had become a nightmare as well :/
However, the problem of crime isn't the fault of the transit system, but of the society in which the transit system operates. Transit doesn't generate crime in the Bay Area, that's caused by the history of inequality and concentrations of poverty.
I immigrated from Hong Kong to the US while in high school in the 90s. There is such a stark cultural differences in things like 1) Discipline -- people feel like they can do anything here (both good and bad), and that unfortunately includes the crime side of things. Young kids are much more "daring", as in they're not afraid to assault and rob people. In HK/China, even kids in gangs think of even just stealing a wallet from someone a big deal, much less direct assault. 2) On that topic, gang culture. High school kids here have such a glorified view of the gang life, whereas that sort of thing is really suppressed even among the notorious schools and students in HK/China.
In fact, it's not just an "Asia thing". Travel to Europe, most of the safety and crime issues you have to watch out for are pickpockets and scammers. In America, on Bart, you actually worry about armed assault. I feel like there's something about America culture, and it's not just inequality and poverty that's causing the sort of crime I only see here.
Poverty and inequality add stress to the communities' social structure, which is usually what promotes norms of not committing violence against neighbors, or those you perceive to be "others".
That sets the stage for the higher rates of assault, etc.We have 5.6M average weekday riders, and about as much for the weekends ( Sun and Saturday). That's 1.7 Billion rides a year.. [1]
If that's what you consider "not working"...
Does it have its flaws? absolutely! But does it work? absolutely!
As someone who has visited the bay area yearly since 2000, a quick observation comes to mind on why mass transit doesn't work as well there... The crazy idea amongst "21st century" companies to stick to the 1950s model of the "company town" in the suburbs.. and well, BART not going a lot further down than it should.
Companies should be moving in droves to the east bay, were you can actually build transit ( and there actually IS some real transit infrastructure ), and two, you actually have land you can build buildings that are horizontally efficient... ( not sand land fill that doesn't support any decent vertical building )
[1]http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/nycdata/travel/mta-subwayridershi...
That said, I get your point, but I also think separated housing is necessary for my sanity.
Somehow I don't get the feeling he's this selfish. If that's an agenda he's pushing (which I don't know one way or another), I would expect it's because he genuinely thinks it's better for society, not because he wants to make himself feel good or rake in more profit. (To re-emphasize: it's not clear to me he is pushing this agenda.)
I'd really like you to be right about that, but the cynic in me has to assume that's what he wants you to think (car companies run by "unselfish people who want to improve the world" sell more cars).
Your carbon footprint commuting on high-occupancy diesel trains while living in a 50 year old highrise is usually going to be significantly lower than commuting in a Tesla and living in green detached house.
I think it could be a tossup, depending on how green the house really is. But making a truly low carbon footprint detached suburban house is still prohibitively expensive in some climates, due to space and water heating needs.
If you take the same green tech and apply it in a multidwelling context, then it becomes more economically feasible.
You see something similar today with Internet services like iPass that provide gigabit Ethernet service only in buildings with more than a certain number of units.
Some of this kind of thinking could be attributed to simple ignorance, because his wealth and profile deprive him of routine exposure to what he is critiquing. As others have pointed out, this is why we shouldn't treat people like Musk as having omniscience on all topics.
In Musk's case, like most people as wealthy as him, he probably doesn't ever take mass transit. His impressions are drawn from a small sample of his own pre-wealth experiences, and also from the echo-chamber of similar people around him, who might have similar experiences, and therefore he focuses on, and emphasizes problems that stand out to him without the larger context of mass transit's benefits.
And "propaganda outlet"? "push that agenda"? Last I heard, this whole thing was in response to a audience question when he was talking about something else entirely.
Jarrett Walker is confusing capacity with crowding. It's ridiculous that he can't admit having someone's underarm shoved into your face during peak hours does in fact suck.
Meanwhile Musk is an idiot if he actually thinks single occupancy self driving cars will reduce traffic (I don't think he does). If sitting in traffic becomes more pleasant because you'll be watching tv, more people will choose to sit in traffic. Adding tunnels won't help if you're still wasting a car-sized space on a tiny human.
Just running more buses and actually policing harassment on them would make transit both more convenient and pleasant without giving up the capacity that's essential to move an entire city worth of people around. It doesn't have to be rocket science.
I have strong doubts that single- or low-occupancy vehicles could outcompete trains or buses on efficiency. I also think public transit could be way better than it is. I'm not sure I buy Musk's vision (which does seem out-of-touch), and I definitely don't buy the author's position that "nothing is wrong".
I remember seeing pics of a concept bus Tesla was rumoured to manufacture, where every seat has it's own doors and personal area. So maybe it's capacity is half normal bus, but 20x a car. Even if it works like Uber Pool, overall it's a net win.
Finally, I don't think he's trying to disrupt public transport entirely, rather to introduce better options.
I live in New York. If it wasn’t for gropers, I think it’s actually OK. Kind of a nice way to commune with humanity actually. I’m tired of the opposite: people expecting to be in lonesome luxury everywhere they go. It’s not efficient, it’s sterile and boring. This from a solid misanthrope.
I don’t think this makes me “elitist.” The reason rich people don’t take public transit is because no one likes it, but the rich are more able to afford alternatives. A trend of history is extending luxuries of the few to the many.
This looks to me like CityLab is emotionally attached to the current transit system, with all its flaws, and is a bit annoyed that someone is working on a better alternative.
So, no, it is not the case that "no-one" likes public transport. I like it fine, and experience none of the issues with it that you seem to. I would generally prefer to get the tube as compared to e.g. an Uber, even if there were no price difference.
The rest of the discussion aside, I agree with you regarding my experiences on the NYC subway. However, that is because I organized my entire living situation around the locations of subway stations and lines near my office. If that constraint didn't exist (there were a reasonable alternative to the subway), I may well choose to live elsewhere, and therefore, prefer to use Ubers or other methods of transportation. For many of us who use public transportation, we have built our lives around a constraint that may no longer be present in the future and may allow for people to live in currently less desirable parts of cities.
Stupidly simple example: Let' imagine we had a network of autonomous Teslas that drive everyone at 200mph for $0.05. We'd still end up putting two people in each Tesla, because it would double the efficiency.
If you want to be alone, cities are not for you. Transit in cities will never be both efficient and solitary. The whole point is that there are a lot of people going to a smallish set of general destinations and we're better off bringing them there together.
The ultra-rich obviously don't take it for matters of exclusion, privacy and personal safety.
But what middle class call the wealthy, I.e, the people who live in the most expensive inner city suburbs most certainly do catch public transport in my city.
Let us be frank, ghee wealthy don't catch public transport in American cities because you practically have none to catch and you're cities aren't designed for it
The worst flaw, which is that you occasionally have to sit near someone whose music is a bit too loud, is still way less bothersome to me than the worst flaws of the major alternatives, which are that they are some combination of expensive, stressful and dangerous.
That said, I am deeply sorry to hear that you are so offended to have to be in the presence of people who you don't find attractive. Automobiles do sound like a good accommodation for someone with special needs such as that.
I wouldn't want to ride a train with you either.
But, one of the biggest things is lack of cleanliness. I mean, after knowing the people who board and use the system, it's hard not to think of how unclean the trip is. Your hands, your clothing all possibly in touch with contaminants.
Also, of you want families to use the system, crack down on people who think they're in their on house (drinking of alcoholic bevs., on drugs, loud, obnoxious, profane, underdressed to put it lightly, etc.)
is pretty hilarious. People aren't going to move to the other side of the world to get good public transit.
Have you ever been on Metro North? There are tons of people making $1 million+/year taking the train into NYC from Greenwich and Westchester every morning. The trains are clean, and much more comfortable than driving: there is more leg room, your seat is more upright, there are bathrooms. They're also cleaner than at least my car.
>I certainly won't miss riding the BART with sketchy looking characters at 12am.
I wonder if there is difference in the amount of, erm, sketchiness of your sketchy looking characters in public transit and what I see here where I live (Helsinki).
Taking a bus or metro during the normal daylight hours, I usually see a reasonable cross-section of the society, no less or more attractive than people you would see in any other public space. I can't recall anyone who would have smelled that bad (not counting the occasional overdose of perfume), not even the beggar who tries to sell The Big Issue.
It's very likely that the beggar in Finland has access to much better public goods (like perhaps basic housing - hence a shower, healthcare) than their American counterpart.
And then the was the smell. Even Moscow underground was significantly better. There you got occasionally extremely smelly homeless people, but it was like each 20th trip, not each second or third. And in Norway I meet a situation when one does not want to seat near someone on a bus or train perhaps once a year.
The vast majority of people who take mass transit in busy cities do not fit your description of "randos". They are clean, well mannered, and presentable.
Based on your description of "randos", it sounds like you are actually referring to homeless people using the train.
And while I agree that it is really unpleasant to have to occasionally share a train car with someone who hasn't bathed recently due to lack of housing, a better approach to that problem might be public support to help these people get housing and treatment for their afflictions, so that when they are on transit with you, they are no more or less offensive to you than anyone else.
I'm sure there were plenty of people who made similar arguments about taxis when Uber started up. Or about horses when cars were invented. Or about planes, electricity, etc. Any fairly revolutionary technology started with most people saying "you're insane". I mean you don't even have to look far -- many of Musk's other accomplishments were scorned, too. Reusable rockets? Electric cars people actually want? That's ridiculous! Until it isn't...
“Transit requires sharing space with strangers, which is icky.” Is this an American thing?? What about a sport stadium, music event, lots of strangers to share space with?
My experience of public transportation in other countries has generally been way better.
> This means that if you decide not to ride transit because it’s too crowded, somebody else will be happy to take your place there, delivering the same level of efficiency.
That statement is fallacious. Overcrowded public transits can be a serious danger in the case of an accident and they should not be overlooked simply because someone else is willing to take your place. For example, on my morning commute in san diego the doors on the light rails can barely close due to being overcrowded and people jamming in to not miss the light rail. Sure its efficient in that a lot of people are riding, but if an accident happens we have no room to maneuver.
The USA has mad many and the number of passengers caried is orders of magnitude less
The only way I can see to arrive at that statement is to count all train accidents but only Amtrak ridership (total US rail ridership is about 570MM rides, but Amtrak is only about 30MM of that).
That's not an elite-only concern. Staying alive and safe is a pretty basic need that has little to do with socio-economic status.
The question is whether the fear is more widespread in those more fortunate is debateable, but mass transit does have that weakness. From pickpockets to mass robberies (recent BART events for example) to acts of terrorism, when you have a concentration of people, they are vulnerable to being targeted.
There are also questions of hygiene - I once had to sit next to a person covered head to toe, including face, in some sort of orangish dust, minus the outline of the goggles he must have been wearing, probably from some sort of construction. I wasn't sure I wanted risk breathing that in, but it's a public space. Still, health is not an exclusively elite concern. We have asbestos laws for a reason, for example.
I would love to use mass transit that went close to where I want to start/stop (5-10 min walk), went in reasonable intervals (5-15 mins), was safe, reliable, clean-ish and cheaper than a car (with parking, maintenance, ins and all other expenses included).
The only really good point the article makes that is often missed is the distinction of crowded vs overcrowded. Not everyone should get a seat, but those who need it, should.
>> Why do you want to get on something with a lot of other people
These two points of what Musk says are the core point, I believe. With a tight enough, and especially, well timed, mesh of rail, light-rail (tram) and buses you can solve the "doesn't take me where I want" problem, and for example in Munich it is solved well.
What is not solved is the "strangers" issue: cities all over the world have a yuge homeless persons "problem" - and this is what I dislike about public transport. Cities must tackle the (growing!) problem of homelessness first, if they want to increase acceptance of public transport. Give drunks, junkies and hobos safe places to stay, both during night and day, and lots of problems associated with public transport will go away. Often enough, public transport and its stations are the only thing that's both open 24/7 and warm...
But there is also the reality that those transit systems don't have to serve as temporary shelter for the homeless, since those countries deal with homelessness directly.
Americans' views on mass transit are tainted by the unfortunate (and incorrect) conflation of mass transit with our unaddressed social ills.
The fact is nothing will beat the appeal of point to point travel for the individual. In my experience it seems Europeans are, on average, more willing than Americans to sacrifice personal comforts for efficiency. I saw this in everything from elevator size to hotel room configuration, and even road layout.
Really, both of our arguments on this point are anecdotal, but there is a pretty solid body of evidence that European mass transit systems are far more efficient at moving large numbers of people efficiently between important destinations.
> In my experience it seems Europeans are, on average, more willing than Americans to sacrifice personal comforts for efficiency. I saw this in everything from elevator size to hotel room configuration, and even road layout.
This isn't because of something essential about Europeans. It's a consequence of their urban infrastructure developing under space constraints, and doing so prior to the mass adoption of the automobile. Today, many American cities are approaching the levels of density of European cities without transit systems built out over time to handle the congestion that the density brings, largely because of the single-occupancy commute vehicle.
Which, I mean, if that's your perspective on the matter, then sure, you do you. Reality, and other people, may choose to differ.
https://latechnews.org/elon-musk-bores-152-meters-closer-dis... https://latechnews.org/hyperloop-one-reaches-192-mph/ https://latechnews.org/hyperloop-one-high-speed-project-test...
I don't know if this is true. If someone finds an efficient way to do this there is nothing wrong with it. Current transit is limited by resources and technology given sufficient increases in either going to you door is not a problem.
It seems most city planners have assumed transit is the only answer and invested accordingly. Musk is appealing to individual preference for space and privacy and investing accordingly.
By the way Musk, psychos drive cars too: witness the new terrorist tool, the car, mounting the sidewalk and mowing people down.
And think of the trust you place in total strangers every time you drive down the highway.
My preferred robo-taxi that may pick me up every morning is the C-1 from Lit Motors.
2) SpaceX is no more a "private space company" than the United Space Alliance/United Launch Alliance that builds rockets for NASA and others. Or both are. Both SpaceX and USA/ULA operate under similar models: clients both government and private pay them to build rockets.
I do not understand why people think NASA builds rockets. They don't.
Rob
In 2017, SpaceX launched 6 government payloads and 11 (or 12) commercial payloads.
Citylabs fantasy community is an endless stream of apartment buildings virtually fenced in by taxation (so you can't even dream of escape) and regulation (so you could only ever get as far as public transportation would take you). all ruled by people who post on HN. no thanks!
That seems like an enormous leap in logic. Saying agencies shouldn't care about overcrowding seems flippant. They most definitely should care about rider experience. Soviet bread lines were massively long, but that didn't mean they were hugely successful.
I love the usefulness of the subway when it actually runs on time. I hate the experience most of the time. Next time I hear "Showtime!" I want to punch somebody.
If the US was ever going to do mass traditional subways, it would have been in the prior 50 years when it could have maybe afforded to. It's never going to happen now, not under any scenario imaginable. Combined with the disastrous cost, time it takes, zoning issues etc. to build above ground in most US locations (eg the California debacle). That's what Musk realized and it's why he is doing a partial patch on the mess with the boring company approach.
There is no plausible alternative. Musk's approach can give us a significant improvement over what we have. Wishing for fantasy subway lines everywhere, that would cost trillions of dollars the US is never going to have to spend on such things (particularly in the next 20-30 years, as entitlement obligations alone are already set to bankrupt the US Government), is pointless.
But this isn't even necessarily true. As the article mentions, the entrances to the tunnels are rather low volume. The Boring Company seems to essentially be building an exclusive subway for the wealthy. How is that a solution?
Note that I am not using your strawman here (subways everywhere) as that's not the point--the point is better public transit, which includes subways, busses, etc. That seems like a much richer target than building an entirely unproven tech.