Hacker News Reader

Comment by kevinqiu1 | Hacker News Reader

Even though it seems like she lives in an urban area (or urban enough to be squeezed by rising home prices), the public transit is so poor that she spends 3-5x more time getting to work without a car than with one. Sometimes she can't even get home. That's crazy, the car dependence of America means that you need to pay for insurance + a car to even function in society. That is the opposite of freedom

View on HN

It’s pretty awful. I ride light rail to university because the parking costs are insane. Choosing to ride the train doubles my commute time and often leaves me in a terrible mood because of the trains awful service. It’s even worse because they recently increased the cost significantly with no improvement in quality.

>127. A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced, they appeared to increase man's freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn't want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster and farther than a walking man. But the introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly man's freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car, especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one's own pace one's movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport, the arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car. Even the walker's freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop to wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note this important point that we have just illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)

Makes me think there is a business opportunity in urban areas?

You'd have to come in hard to withstand NIMBY lawsuits and outright bans from the councilmen they solely elect.

The economics of public transit essentially ask for government involvement: operational costs are almost never paid for by fare prices, but instead are essentially subsidized. If the bus/train lines are doing well, you often get huge clusters of malls/retail/commercial buildings surrounding them, and they of course reap the benefits without paying any extra costs.

However, there are things like the Dollar Vans in New York that do actually fulfill the niche. They're also sometimes illegal.

Hey, don't knock it, it boosts our GDP!

If you use a single metric for success it will stop being useful as people will optimize for that number, it will be an end unto its self.

> you need to pay for insurance + a car to even function in society. That is the opposite of freedom

I’m not sure what “freedom” is supposed to mean in that context. How is being dependent on paying for public transportation better? In countries where public transportation is amazing enough to obviate the need for cars, you just trade in the freedom to go wherever you want whenever you want.

There are some countries where public transport is free for citizens, I'm pretty sure. And even if you have to pay for public transport... gas isn't free either. And car maintenance gets pricey. And insurance. Meanwhile, public transport is a known quantity. Pay this much for a ticket/monthly pass and ride wherever you need in city limits.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com