Hacker News Reader

Comment by favflam | Hacker News Reader

1 short cut to cutting demand is to copy everyone else around the world. Let cities get rid of single family zoning. Let go of pride and commute by bicycle. The energy consumption will drop by a magnitude. People's health will improve. We as members of society will see each other face to face more often, closing the polarization. Make the police walk and cycle around town, not sit aloof in their metal tanks.

The US would get explosive growth by not forcing such enormously inefficient car-centric cities.

View on HN

What are you expecting this to do exactly? Inflation in norther Europe is rampant too, and the housing market is just as bad. the fact that many people bike to work doesn’t change that.

biking costs are a lot less susceptible to inflation. similarly if other variable costs of living go up but these are shared by more people (due to density) then ceteris paribus those pesky northerners have it a bit better in this hypothetical scenario.

Its not a hypothetical scenario. Its literally reality as we speak. And its not the case as your hypothesis would have it that countries in northern Europe are in any non insignificant way are less affected than other parts of the world.

The world economic situation is not going to be resolved by people drinking fewer expensive coffees, eating fewer avocado toasts or biking more to work, or other bike shed related activities. The effects are negligible in the overall picture.

how is it negligible that you can't go to work without a car?

if said car breaks down you have to pay (and spend time) to repair it. many people live paycheck to paycheck, no savings. payday loans and credit card loans are a problem in the US and it's not exactly a coincidence.

of course people in said European cities who can't afford a car also usually don't frequent Starbucks and don't buy avocado (unless maybe if it's on sale), that doesn't mean transportation as a factor is negligible.

> The world economic situation ...

is a completely structural problem. the world needs to spend less of its economic surplus on unsustainable stuff, and this includes everything with externalities (from things like watering the desert in California on an industrial scale to housing/heating/cooling/moving people and freight around using costly ways) and allocating more to building infrastructure for energy generation (and transmission and storage), healthcare and education.

of course strictly speak we don't need to. feudalism was fine, most people got used to it.

Commuting by bike isn't going to happen. It's not practical for most business and personal purposes. Electric scooters have a better shot than bikes. (Still not going to happen.)

The only alternative to cars in cities is working public transit. And working means available, frequent, safe, and clean. You can't have homeless people sleeping on buses, you can't turn it off at 1 am. Regular people need to be able to rely on it.

Bikes and electric scooters can very well supplement public transit, at least for the "last mile". Cities like Paris and Amsterdam have very good public transit, but biking is still popular, even in wind, rain and cold. People bike in freaking Oulu, Finland, even with the snow and cold.

It's a perfectly viable supplement to good public transit.

It’s the heat that is the problem. That’s why you’re only able to cite mild to cold cities as doing this successfully.

It’s currently about 95F and humid every day where I live (mid-sized US city). I start sweating the moment I step outside. Add 10-15m worth of physical activity and I’m a disgusting smelly mess for the rest of the day. I hate that I live in a place that is car centric. But bike travel is not realistic here either even though most places I go to are easily within biking distance.

We have to collectively realize that the competition we’re up against is a private, quiet, climate controlled box with a built-in entertainment system that takes you directly from point A to point B reliably and on demand. Oh and a nationwide set of infrastructure built to accommodate it. People will absolutely pay a premium (both in $ and time sitting in traffic) as a trade off for those features. Additionally an enormous chunk of the market does not believe (or at least believe enough to care) that it matters for the climate. Environmentalism as a selling point for public/bike transit will never be effective on ~50% of the market.

The solution has to literally be better than cars in order to win. And cars have a lot going for them, to the point where most people have implicitly built their entire lives around the ubiquity of car availability. Transit advocates don’t seem to “get” this. We’re not asking people to change their mode of transit, we’re asking people to change their entire way of life for an alternative that they don’t believe (and may be right about) is better

You could ride an electric scooter between two climate controlled garages for ten minutes or a couple miles without getting disgusting. In many U.S. urban areas the garages and scooters already exist, it's "just" a matter of setting aside dedicated lanes and popularizing it.

I can, and do, use electric scooters reasonably often.

As a northern European, I can confirm. The nearest train station is a 10 minute bike ride from my house. From there the rest of my commute is a breeze. If I was to drive I'd be stuck in traffic much longer. And it's nice to get some fresh air to start the day. Only problem is the few months of snow.

I believe you that your commute is fine but I think you don’t understand how much Americans love convenience. How do I work a McDonalds drive through into that trip? Can yon get bikes with cup holders for a 32 ounce beverage?

Of course it’s not just Americans. I’ve got southern German friends who love the American car centric lifestyle.

> ...but biking is still popular, even in wind, rain and cold...

The frame of the comment is quite vulnerable to survival biases though - if the transport has taken a step back from cars then the people who stopped travelling will not be visually observable.

Although I do think car-first cities are a plague and it'd be better not to have them.

Sure, that works very well for European cities where moderate temperatures are the norm. For the heat of Texas, Arizona, Florida, and New Mexico? For the freezing temperatures in Minnesota, Alaska, and North Dakota? You would quickly die.

Furthermore, our cities are simply bigger and more spread out. You’ll counter by saying we need denser, more walkable cities even though we obviously can’t just tear down our cities and start from scratch.

I bike all year long in Sweden, it's doable with the right gear and clothing. And I'm not even originally from a cold country, I'm Brazilian, living here for 7 years and used to bike in the heat of Brazil as well. This is a cop-out...

> it's doable with the right gear and clothing

It's doable, but it's also the most time consuming and impractical way of transportation, compared to the other options, so therefor it's bad.

Just because you can find a weird amish guys who insists that riding a horse is great, doesn't make that a good way of transportation, or something that we should start doing more.

> It's doable, but it's also the most time consuming and impractical way of transportation, compared to the other options, so therefor it's bad.

My connection to the center of Stockholm takes 45-60 minutes counting the time to-from stations, I bike the same distance in about 40-45 minutes. I get some exercise, I get to bike to any street I want to in more-or-less the same amount of time. It's bad for you, so just swallow that as a personal opinion but don't come with sweeping statements that "it's therefore bad", this is totally subjective to one's level of discomfort and/or laziness.

I prefer the bike than the great public transportation here for any trip where I won't be carrying more than what my cargo backpack can carry.

I don't agree with the logic of your statement ("it's not perfect for me so therefore bad"), also coming after biking infrastructure is a very weird hill to die on...

> this is totally subjective to one's level of discomfort and/or laziness.

Being forced to do activities that are uncomfortable and strenuous = bad. The whole point of our society is to transcend this. There are a million ways to do exercise and sports, and to spend your life and time and energy. Just because someone doesn't like cycling like you, doesn't make them lazy. That's an unbelievably self centered and arrogant viewpoint.

My logic is that cycling is bad because 1. it's not powerful and 2. it's sensitive to the weather, and 3. most people don't do it. Doesn't matter what you personally like.

> That's an unbelievably self centered and arrogant viewpoint.

> My logic is that cycling is bad because 1. it's not powerful and 2. it's sensitive to the weather, and 3. most people don't do it.

> Being forced to do activities that are uncomfortable and strenuous = bad. The whole point of our society is to transcend this.

Pretty self-centered I'd say.

This doesn't mean that we should construct infrastructure that actively discourages cycling. The argument isn't "let's force everyone to cycle". It's "let's make cycling so safe and convenient that the ones who would like to do it can do so without risking life and limb jostling in the same lanes as SUVs the size of Abrams tanks."

Let's prioritise what makes for actually efficient transport, and which most people will use, and not prioritise inefficient transports that only a few enthusiasts are using.

"Being forced to do activities that are uncomfortable and strenuous = bad"

Think you might find that your biology disagrees somewhat, there. Try sitting in a bathtub 100% of your life and see what happens with your health.

Yes, yes, being forced is bad. But it does help against laziness :)

You also have cities on the coasts (especially west) with weather very compatible with biking. Also no need to tear everything down, just add a few floors and shops at the ground level on existing houses, with maybe larger sidewalks. As long as shops are not all required to be concentrated along a big non walkable road it will work.

> For the heat of Texas, Arizona, Florida, and New Mexico? For the freezing temperatures in Minnesota, Alaska, and North Dakota? You would quickly die.

The majority of people commute by scooter/moped in Jakarta, so it's clearly doable in climates as hot as those you mention.

> even though we obviously can’t just tear down our cities and start from scratch.

You don't have to. Reclaim the roads/stroads by building in the middle and leaving a single one-way lane on each side.

> The majority of people commute by scooter/moped in Jakarta, so it's clearly doable in climates as hot as those you mention.

Yeah and the majority of people in Dhaka where I’m from walk everywhere. The true goal of urbanists and environmentalists is for us to live like we’re impoverished people in the third world.

Would people in Dhaka prefer cars or just a better walking and public transit experience? Are cars even conceivable with a population density of 76,080 per square mile? If cars are impossible in such a city then it doesn't matter whether they're impoverished or not.

> Would people in Dhaka prefer cars or just a better walking and public transit experience

Nobody wants to walk or take public transit in that heat and humidity. Especially not with two or three kids, or carrying tiffin containers of leftovers after a dinner party. My family members who came over from Dhaka to the US moved to places built around cars as soon as they could afford it. My cousin just moved to Texas (after studying in Queens) and is loving all the open space, the houses with pools, etc.

Walking in heat and humidity is unpleasant but the climate and population are what they are so you work with what you have.

I can't speak for all environmentalists but I'd like people to live pleasantly wherever they like if they can do so sustainably. Probably most Dhaka residents, like most people anywhere, would prefer to stay in their home city and country if possible, just improved. In any case giving everyone in the world a Texas-sized house and pool is not on the table no matter what until we invent personal fusion generators and matter replicators.

Having climate-controlled walkways or more comfortable transit options specifically for people with kids should be available in every city, "impoverished" or "third world" or not. The world certainly has the resources for it.

> Walking in heat and humidity is unpleasant but the climate and population are what they are so you work with what you have.

Bangladesh has about the same population density as the Houston metro area. So it would be totally possible for most people to have cars and houses if it became an advanced service economy.

> I can't speak for all environmentalists but I'd like people to live pleasantly wherever they like if they can do so sustainably.

It's not really up to environmentalists in the first world.

> Probably most Dhaka residents, like most people anywhere, would prefer to stay in their home city and country if possible, just improved. In any case giving everyone in the world a Texas-sized house and pool is not on the table no matter what until we invent personal fusion generators and matter replicators.

I think that's an accurate reflection of what people's end goals are, yes. Using technology to increase the standard of living, just as in western countries.

> It's not really up to environmentalists in the first world.

We are also predominantly complaining about people in the "first world" disregarding the environment due to minor convenience and unfortunate economics.

(But we only have one planet for now, and as things are, nobody is entitled to a free pass to be environmentally irresponsible anymore.)

> The true goal of urbanists and environmentalists is for us to live like we’re impoverished people in the third world.

Indeed, when you bike to work you're mimicking truly impoverished people like Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark.

Sometimes I wonder if aggressively pro-car anti-bicycle people ever tried using a bicycle seriously...

I once told my dad, who grew up in a Bangladeshi village, that my wife and I were going to a fancy restaurant that churns its own butter. “Why would you churn your own butter,” he asked. “You can buy butter at the store.”

Similarly, biking to work does not make you impoverished. Having to bike to work, or living in a society where most people bike to work, strongly suggests you are impoverished.

Your dad has a point about butter, but would the transport equivalent of not having to churn your own butter not be to have others chauffeur you around, rather than driving yourself? Or, if we think of it as highlighting mass manufacture efficiency, taking public transport?

In Denmark at least, most people bike to work, so the latter part is at least objectively false.

> In Denmark at least, most people bike to work, so the latter part is at least objectively false.

In case anyone is curious, the following PDF provides some statistics on this issue: https://trimis.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/project/docu...

Tldr: 20% of commuting trips are by bicycle, 13% by public transport, and 60% by private car/van. Of all travel miles, 5% are by bicycle, 10% by public transport, and 77% are by car/van.

Oulu has temperatures go below -30C and has a healthy cycling culture.

For heat, it will depend individually. Personally I've biked at +35C and it was fine until i stopped due to the wind/movement refreshing.

The commenter did already address the temperature part of your concern already, but this should be helpful: https://youtu.be/Uhx-26GfCBU

I have biked year round in Minnesota for my commute since I was a child, not dead yet decades later.

So much of the Internet these days is Americans explaining why their collapsing system will never be fixable. It makes me sad.

Where do you see bicycles in Paris?

Literally everywhere? Quais, bd Sébastopol, Grands Boulevards, Rivoli, Bastille are places you can barely cross due to the amount of bicycles.

I've also biked and seen others on the Maréchaux, through all arrondissements. Same in the Petite Couronne suburbs, and i have friends living in faraway places that have well bike parkings at their train stations.

Concur. I remember sitting jet-lagged in a cafe at the Place Bastille watching all the cyclists go by. I was impressed by the guy who cycled with a phone to his ear, until I saw the woman with a phone to her ear and a cello on her back.

Three weeks ago I walked from Opera to Eiffel tower and while there were some cyclist it was only a few and nothing compared to like the netherlands.

Why is it not practical for most business and personal purposes? I cycle to work (on an e-bike) every day and so do most people I know

Too hot, or too cold, or too rainy. The Western European cities that are oftentimes given as positive examples (I’m thinking about Copenhagen and Amsterdam most) happen to be located in a temperate climate where it is almost never too cold, nor too hot, nor do you get pouring rain all that often.

Those are just two cities in two countries but you're ignoring Spain (Barcelona, Seville), France (Paris, Lyon), England (London), Italy where there are pretty extensive plans in cities like Milan, Germany which would be perfectly fine for cycling, ditto for the Nordics, and people also cycle a lot in Finland despite the cold. Also cities in NA like Montreal which are dramatically expanding their cycling network and already have fairly good ridership on the protected routes.

Yes, in places like Montreal they face a lot of opposition from car owners who literally seem to ignore that the only reason you can drive in heavy snow is because the snow gets cleared by pretty major logistics networks.

I've rarely been to a city that couldn't be a good cycling city at least for huge parts of the year, even if not a complete solution - does anyone who is pro-bicycle argue against extensive and effective public transport?

> and people also cycle a lot in Finland despite the cold

Yeah and how much is this exactly? Even with perfect cycling infrastructure it's something like 12% of trips. Go to finland or sweden in the middle of the winter, observe the bike lanes and see for yourself how much they are used. Hint, they are largely empty, which comes as no surprise considering how obviously impractical and uncomfortable it is. And they cost a ton of money in maintenance.

> And they cost a ton of money in maintenance.

A lot less than the roads for automobiles, and I regularly use the bike lanes in Sweden during all seasons and have no issues with that despite being originally from a warm country.

What a weird rant to come after bike lanes because "they are expensive and just virtue signalling", jesus.

It doesn't matter if you regularly do it, most people do not. We live in a democracy and we should not spend tax money and public space to accommodate for a small minority of enthusiasts who like to be inefficient, despite our whole society motivating us to do the opposite.

Bike lanes are like gym memberships, people like the idea and buy into it, but in reality they are too lazy, and don't have the time to actually do it. And it just ends up being a waste of money on duplicated infrastructure, because you still need to cover 100% of the capacity in public transport for the rainy days.

> Bike lanes are like gym memberships, people like the idea and buy into it, but in reality they are too lazy, and don't have the time to actually do it. And it just ends up being a waste of money on duplicated infrastructure, because you still need to cover 100% of the capacity in public transport for the rainy days.

This was me before an ebike. I now use it absolutely every day, when the weather allows.

None of this is fact, and it's funny you think it's the people who are pro-bicycle who are in fact the lazy ones, not the people who choose to drive literally everywhere.

You surely need some numbers to back up this argument somehow...

> Too hot, or too cold, or too rainy.

Or too windy. And more importantly, it's too slow and have limited range. Bonus point for also being the most boring mode of transportation since you can't talk to your friends or use your phone.

You want to spend more time being stuck in traffic? Ok then cycling is a great choice.

> The Western European cities that are oftentimes given as positive examples (I’m thinking about Copenhagen and Amsterdam most)

Cycling in these cities are probably related to tourism more than anything else. When you have time and you are flexible, sure cycling works well. If you are pressed for time and you need to be places regardless of weather, not so great.

I'm from a northern european country, have cycled in all weathers, winter etc, and I think it's one of the most pointless wastes of tax money and inducing unnecessary hardships on people with problems that are already solved much better. All for virtue signalling.

> you can't talk to your friends or use your phone

You've obviously never casually biked. In NL you very frequently see teens riding with 3 people next to each other talking, and while you're not allowed to hold phones anymore, you can easily do hands-free phone calls if you wanted. A lot of people have earpods for music or podcasts in.

> In NL you very frequently see teens riding with 3 people next to each other talking

That's illegal and dangerous.

> you can easily do hands-free phone calls if you wanted

No you can't because of the wind noise.

If you think it isn't rainy in those locations... Amsterdam gets about 35 inches of rain a year vs 25 inches in London - plenty damp enough. Don't forget the canals often freeze up yearly or so in Amsterdam too, so it can be pretty cold there, and due to wet air feel pretty vile - but people still cycle as it is easy, fast and cheap.

No, it doesn't get rainy, rainy, you don't get half of the city flooded in just 30 or so minutes [1], most of the times it's just a drizzle that's manageable with a decent raincoat.

[1] https://youtu.be/Ve-oExiwq_0?t=92

That's a strawman. Intense weather like a flooded city that would stop a car would of course stop a bike, but you're either stuck at home or stuck outside regardless of what you do. The only relevant weather is common weather you would have no issue with in a car (or would not allow you to do remote work that day).

It should also be noted that many Europeans have cars but bike in medium to good weather. I take the car in hail or snow for example, but bike as much as a car otherwise as I physically and mentally feel better after biking, I reduce pollution and I save money. Wins all around.

London https://youtube.com/shorts/Pvjm3NvJaWI?feature=share

Amsterdam https://youtu.be/1twXqpsDUIQ

- but a way, let's go back to what you said: Nor do you get pouring rain all that often.

Have you lived in either of those countries?

Raincoats work when you are walking, and the rain comes from above, but not when you are cycling, because the rain comes from the sides, and below.

It's really complicated to cycle in the rain, especially in cold winter rain. You have to have specialised clothing that will both keep you warm, and be waterproof. Special gloves, insulated rubber boots? And you still get sweaty underneath at the same time.

How do you cover your helmet? Your face? Have fun taking a shower in freezing water three times a week for 6 months of the year, ice bucket challenge on the way to work. I hope you don't mind those extra sick days.

It's not that complicated, you need a rain jacket, waterproof pants and you are already 90% there. If you want to be more comfortable if you are biking longer than 30-45 minutes in bitter cold before freezing (5C or less) it can be sensible to have insulated shoes but it's not a requirement at all, I usually don't wear any weatherproof shoes during spring/fall in Stockholm, rainy and windy around 5C or less and experienced no issues having a change of socks + shoes after a 45-60 minutes commute on a bike.

It's really not an issue if you just get used to it, every time I read similar comments to this I can only think of a picky child complaining about relatively minor issues, and mostly they are imagined ones by people who never really had to/tried to bike during these conditions...

It is an issue to have your hands, feet, head and face soaked in freezing water for 45 minutes.

> experienced no issues having a change of socks + shoes

Oh so now you have to carry extra shoes and socks all the time, "no problem" lol. You can just go into the subway and all of these issues disappear, and you will get to your destination faster, so cycling is bad in comparison.

It doesn't matter if you can find some person who likes it, the vast majority of people will optimise for practicality and efficiency, because that's what our society revolves around.

Building bike lanes is the easy part, the hard part is coming up with the extra time and patience for people to put up with a longer and more uncomfortable commute.

> Oh so now you have to carry extra shoes and socks all the time, "no problem" lol. You can just go into the subway and all of these issues disappear, and you will get to your destination faster, so cycling is bad in comparison.

I already have a backpack when biking, a change of shoes and socks is a non-issue, I don't know why this would be a problem for you but yes, if you are looking for "maximum convenience" instead of a balance of trade-offs.

Again, it's not faster for me to take the subway, the subway doesn't have infinite capacity, crowding during rush hour is a thing. There are issues with any mode of transportation, fighting against bikes and biking infrastructure is definitely the strangest position I have seen someone take.

I don't understand if you are just a contrarian or if you really believe that investment in biking infrastructure is an issue for transportation in dense cities... If so the only argument I read boils down to "it's not super convenient and hence is bad and no one does it". I don't see reality in that argument.

Yup, you want and can optimise for practicality, biking infrastructure is definitely not holding that up. Now trying to argue that biking is "bad" is way out, biking is bad for your constraints, I know tons of people who bike everyday in northern Europe and have no issues with it.

Not sure exactly what your point is... We shouldn't invest in biking infrastructure? Because... It's "bad" for your convenience constraints?

Biking is not convenient/practical enough therefore not enough people will do it to justify large investment. This is why billions for a subway station make sense while parking spots and bike lanes would be way better utilized as restaurant patios in dense cities.

Most dutch people own a raincoat and -pants for biking, you put it over your clothes and remain dry. They cost maybe €30. No-one wears a helmet, nor do you need to.

Most Amish people just ride a horse and it's just fine. Yeah so what, it's obviously impractical and we have better options.

The amount of adult dutch people who cycle to work in the rain is a small minority.

> but people still cycle as it is easy, fast and cheap

some people do cycle, but most people do not, because there are other options that are easier and faster.

> nor do you get pouring rain all that often.

Have you been to Copenhagen?

Or is your definition of "pouring rain" one that only includes Category 5 hurricane levels of downpour?

I see autonomous EV's as the public transit that could change everything...and not until then.

Your unsubstantiated claim is, no surprise, false.

A bike is perfectly practical for most business and personal purposes and I live in a city which demonstrates it.

I do everything by bike, except when the weather is really bad or I'm going really far away, when I use public transportation.

> Let go of pride and commute by bicycle.

It has nothing to do with pride.

Cars are comfortable and convenient. You get a nice seat, air the temperature you want it, and can carry actual cargo. It's easy to run a complete loop of errands after your workday, because you can store stuff in your car.

I went from around ten years of riding the trains in Tokyo to driving a car around a Japanese suburb. Japanese public transportation is excellent, easily best on Planet Earth, and the car wins hands-down.

The pride remark is anecdotal on my part, but based on SUV sales I would argue that my point is close to true in the US.

Cars are a luxury. If you are willing to pay a tax based on engine displacement , give priority on roads to pedestrians and cyclists, and still prefer car-travel, then it is a win-win. If you want city governments to prioritize car-travel over everyone else, then it is a win-lose. The only winner will be car-owners who can spare the cash flow.

The economics on transporting 1s of kgs of food by 1000s of kgs of metal no longer makes sense in the United States for the majority of people as they have poor cash flow and poor balance sheets. I think economically speaking delivery trucks and local supermarkets should take most of the burden.

>I think economically speaking delivery trucks and local supermarkets should take most of the burden.

Currently car owners disproportionately pay for roads that those without cars enjoy. They pay for roads (in their own fuel tax, purchase tax on automobile, and often in registration fees) that allow heavy delivery trucks to bring food and medicine and various goods to local shops and addresses where the car-less can access them. This all despite a car wears remarkably less on a road than the semis that truck in these goods so the car-less (and others) can access them locally.

If anything, pedestrians and bike riders underpay for a road system they take advantage of. In fact one can ride a bicycle and be a near complete free-rider to the road system, if your income is low enough, despite still availing yourself of benefits such as trucked in food/medicine/goods.

> It has nothing to do with pride.

Why dont people take the bus? Because the bus is for poor people.

I guess technically it isnt pride - its ego and virtue signalling.

I just did a search to see “what if I had to take public transit to my old office to arrive by 9 AM?”

If I left at 7:09 AM, I could walk 5 minutes, catch a bus, change to a train, change to a another bus, and walk 5 minutes to arrive at 8:18, paying $3.40 one way.

Or I could leave at 8:30, walk 1 minute out to my car, drive 20 minutes, and walk 2 minutes to arrive by 8:55, paying whatever 8.5 miles of car ownership and operation costs me. Is it worth $1.58 (at GSA rate of $0.585/mile) to buy myself 81 minutes at home? Hell yes, it's worth $1.17/hr!

My office is one of the better ones, with a bus stop nearby on both ends. From my prior apartment and office, it would be 7:19 departure, half-mile walk, subway ride, bus ride, and a one mile walk to arrive at 8:32. Or a 24 minute (in morning traffic), 10 mile drive. In both cases, I could leave my house later than I’d have to arrive by public transit and still make that 9 AM meeting.

IMO, to the extent “buses are for poor people”, it’s because they’re terribly inefficient for the riders’ time. Maybe if they were more time-efficient, more people would choose to use them?

Yeah, this is spot on. I'd go further and say it's also a completely undependable mode of transportation, even near bigger cities.

I remember going to a town just north of Boston (Everett) for vacation and every day I took the bus into the main Boston area. It was about a 30 minute ride based on distance but all-in it was a little over an hour when accounting for the time you leave your residence to arriving at your destination -- this was being ~5 minutes from the bus stop too.

That's only accounting for 1 way too, there's that time penalty on the way back as well.

Plus there were times where I watched the bus completely skip stops on the way into the city near the end of the route because it was full, so you could end up waiting +30-45 minutes at the bus stop and this is fully out of your control. I was only there for 5 days and I saw it happen twice (fortunately the route started near where I was) but you could see the the look of disgust on the people's faces when the bus didn't stop for them.

>just north of Boston (Everett) for vacation and every day I took the bus into the main Boston area

FWIW - I live in Everett and commute to downtown Boston (Seaport), so I feel like I should weigh in on this. Bus (either the whole way, or to Wellington subway station transfer) is slow. Bike to Wellington, then subway is still pretty bad because of which where the subway runs if you don't transfer. Subway transfer is slow. Uber is very expensive during rushhour.

By far the fastest, cheapest and most convenient way is for me to motorcycle from my door to the Seaport office where I squeeze between 2 cars to park (for free... haven't been ticketed yet). So that's what I generally do if it's not winter. And this is in a city that actually does have decent public transit compared to most of America.

I don't know if motorcycling is the future or not. It's admittedly more dangerous than driving and requires more coordination. There are safety advancement (automated emergency braking on some brand new KTM's... although that won't help if you overshoot a turn). There are now auto-clutches or non-geared electric motorcycles that are easier for beginners. It would basically take no changes to infrastructure and I've seen it work in Ho Chi Minh (although, again, crashes do occur and are worse when they do).

This is exactly what gets car-centric infrastructure built in the first place. It makes sense.

But then as an American metro area grows, the car-centric solution is sticky and public transit seems impossible to build later. I one-way commute 55 miles by car twice a week and there is no vaguely sensible public transit option. I'm doing rings around the SF Bay Area. The public transit should be better around here by now.

It isn't impossible. People would be more than happy to use public transit for e.g. commuting, if metro made public transit for commuting.

I wouldn't mind the HOV lane being buses-only and having ramps to bused-only lanes/roads if it also meant busses were faster and highways only needed 2 lanes of travel lanes instead of 4+.

The problem is there's no money in doing it until you get enough ridership, and your not going to get ridership from "tweaking" the routes like most cities try. And no one wants to spend more tax money on the homeless transportation plan.

It's just a shitshow, and there won't be improvement until the chicken and egg cycle can be broken.

I feel like many public transit systems in the US are designed as radial lines from a city center (constant theta, varying r) and relatively few axial/circular routes (constant r, varying theta).

Car routes (and placement of shops and offices) take advantage of the random route ability of cars to specifically avoid the downtown congestion, enshrining the “quick and convenient to drive from one suburb to the neighboring suburb, but incredibly painful to use public transit for that trip”.

Buses suffer a time penalty naturally along their route, but if you add a “take a bus in a direction you don’t want to go, change buses, take that bus back-tracking the wasted motion, and only then get closer to your destination”, it’s pretty much bound to suck.

In Japan and Europe, I’ve seen more axial service lines and/or more of a mesh covering the areas rather than a bicycle spokes looking transit map.

I always say that people only choose public transit over driving when it's (A) cheaper, (B) faster, OR (C) more practical. And ideally it needs to be two or even three of those.

In the US, it's pretty rare that any of those three are ever satisfied outside of major urban cores.

No? It’s about convenience.

My town actually has a little bus line. But the closest bus stop is a mile and a half or so away from my house. How do I get there? Walk? Once I get there, I have to wait for the bus, which could mean a wait of at least ten minutes or so. Assuming it’s not late. Let’s assume it drops me off exactly where I want to go — the grocery store 5 miles from my house. Now let’s also assume the bus doesn’t make any other stops and takes the most direct route possible. Great, I’ve spent at least 45 minutes each way to make a 5 mile trip. And I’m limited to buying only as much as I can comfortably carry. And oh yeah, I have to walk another mile and a half with those bags once I’m dropped off.

But yeah, my objection is sitting in a bus with poor people.

Your argument isn’t really that cars are superior to the bus in general, just that your local public transit is poorly designed. When everyone treats this argument as if cars are always superior no matter what, no one wants to invest in making public transit actually better.

Well, the problem is we have to take what we have.

The argument that someone a country away lives a way because of some sort of pride is plain arrogance. We use cars because there is no reasonable alternative for most people. If we even try to consider alternatives, there simply isn't nothing short of wasting half a day on public transit.

It's not that public transit is superior, or that cars are superior. It's that method A is the most reasonable way to get around nearly 99% of the trips I need to take, and is affordable for me, so I will take that.

In Europe, that tends to be bikes and public transit. In America, it's personal vehicles. It's the nature we're both in.

That in of itself doesn't make one superior to the other.

Driving a car isn't about pride, ego, or virtue signalling...it's about having a comfortable and convenient way to get from point A to point B.

While it is a local optimum, it can lead to global inefficiencies.

For example, L.A. traffic, where because everyone wants to drive (and, to be fair, in L.A. where everything is super spread out and public transport is non-existant, this is understandable), you end up getting a solution that, due to horrific space inefficiency of cars [0], comfort and convenience go to zero.

[0] https://www.danielbowen.com/2012/09/19/road-space-photo/

Few reasons I don't take a bus:

It will take a long time to get there (bus stops, changing lines).

I have cargo (like groceries).

It's too early/late and there is no bus.

The bus does not go where I want to be.

Please stop the urbanism spam.

On average, Americans like suburbs. They like driving. They like space, a yard, a DIY workshop, and sunlight. They don't like cities. "haha go live in a city and bike to work" is not a fair response to high gas prices and inflation. It's not how people want to live.

We've got a better chance of the USA banning oil exports to lower crude prices, or enacting substantial EV subsidies to get people off gas before we can convince the suburbanite with a 5bd house + quarter acre lot in a good school district that they should move to an urban 2 bedroom apartment instead. Even if we can, I guarantee you that the apartment won't be considered an upgrade.

Don't "convince the suburbanite", just get petrol taxes to the same point as in Europe, so that the $10/gl price sends a signal to the soccer mums in their Canyonero when they fill up at the pump after ferrying their kids around - and on the margin it will have an effect. (And it is good for the climate too.)

It seems to me that there's a common theme among urbanist folks. That is, if people don't like the urbanist vision, they should be forced to change their habits via government policy, even if they don't like those changes.

Why is that? Hasn't the opposite (suburbia and car dependency) been forced upon you by government policy for the last 70 years? Yet, there's a substantial population that wants to completely destroy the suburban way of life via taxing it to death. Governments never intended to destroy city living. At least, not purposefully (perhaps via disinvestment).

You'd think you'd want the government to just create conditions for cheap energy since that's objectively good for everyone, and let people live how they want. If people choose suburbia, great. If they choose cities, great too. If the online movement is representative of a larger group, there are a lot off people who will still choose cities!

I'd be fine with this if most folks saying it actually were being genuine.

What I've found when I head down this path with folks on a deeper level they actually don't want everyone to own their life choices. They actually want the status quo of being the most subsidized political cohort the US has.

Suburban living in most areas I've stayed clearly should be far more expensive. The fact my parents live 50 feet off a paved 60mph road 60 miles away from the nearest large city is utterly absurd. That road might see two dozen cars a day. There is no way the tax base can support such a thing.

I think in our lifetimes we'll see prices start to escalate rapidly due to the fundamentals baked in.

However I have very little hope this turns into anything but more subsidy for that cohort, since they are the ones who show up to vote. Anyone not offering to prop up the suburban property bubble will not have a chance in office.

> I think we'll see in our lifetimes see prices start to escalate rapidly due to the fundamentals baked in.

I agree. One of the big risks to future political stability and, honestly, avoiding violent conflict is that these price increases won't just be rapid but immediate. People could adjust if the price of gas went up $1/gallon every year for ten years. If the government keeps the price artificially low all that time and is then forced to raise it $10 all at once, that would be very difficult.

This is why I'm not an urbanist even though I support in theory a lot of urbanist policies.

The motte: "There is great demand for dense, walkable, affordable, towns/cities/neighborhoods in the US, and not enough supply to satisfy this demand. A big reason why there is a supply shortage, aside from the relative inelasticity of housing in general, is government restrictions on building/zoning these sorts of developments. There are many coordination failures in attempts to create these sorts of neighborhoods which could be rectified through government action."

The bailey: "Suburbs are a failure of city planning. Car ownership/usage is a net negative on society and should be disincentivized. Government policy should work to eliminate suburbs, replacing them with dense development. Most of those who live in suburbs would surely choose and be happier living in denser developments."

> Don't "convince the suburbanite", just get petrol taxes to the same point as in Europe, so that the $10/gl price sends a signal to the soccer mums

...to vote you out a replace you with someone who will undo the tax hike.

The US is a very imperfect democracy, at best, but there are some red lines that, if you don't convince people first, will toast you immediately politically, and rapid tax increases related to automobiles or their operation are high on the list.

I think the US is actually a very responsive democracy—liberals just don’t like the revealed preferences of the polity.

My dad is a blue dog democrat. Has voted democrat ever since becoming naturalized. Wouldn’t even vote for Larry Hogan. Yet he’s apoplectic about inflation and gas prices, and hates the idea of raising taxes on people making $100-200k/year like himself. At the end of the day he cares more about those things than anything else Democrats care about.

Liberals keep pinning their electoral prospects on people like my dad. Before it was Bangladeshi immigrants it was Irish and Italian immigrants. But these folks came to America for the American dream—two cars, a house with a pool, drive through McDonalds. As a result, liberals take it in the chin every time there is the slightest threat to the low tax consumerist suburban lifestyle. The last time it happened, in the 1970s, we got two decades of Reaganism.

First, don’t worry about it. Just change the zoning and then let people choose what they will. If what you say is true, the market won’t change a thing.

Second, price per square foot in cities is set by demand, and it is several times prices in suburbs. That behavior tells us there are people who would rather be downtown and we aren’t letting them.

> Just change the zoning and then let people choose what they will

But, we already know from the political fortunes of people who have run on those ideas, what they will choose is to replace the people implementing those policies, unless you do a lot of work in advance to convince them of the merits rather than thinking you can just dictatorially change incentives and let that shape behavior without any blowback that undoes the policy.

Oh, I don't think you can do it with the legislative branch of government at all. I think there's a clear path to overturning Euclid and finding zoning unconstitutional. That court case was entirely based on a bunch of racist shit in the appellate decision.

> We've got a better chance of the USA banning oil exports to lower crude prices

Banning oil exports would reduce the incentive to pump domestic oil, and, because much of the domestic supply isn't the grades best for producing gasoline, even if it did reduce the price of those grades of crude, it wouldn't do much for gasoline prices.

An export ban would place the maximum American crude price at about $70/barrel, since that's a little bit above the shale breakeven price. Prices would tank overnight. There is no conceivable scenario where an export ban would not substantially cut oil prices.

Maybe we won't see $2/gallon again, but $6+/gallon would be a thing of the past.

Of course those suburbanites love their hard won individualism, the point is, that this kind of life is built on externalities that make it unsustainable for the majority of people to live this way.

How long would that take to happen? It’s not like all of the current building and infrastructure can be torn down and rebuilt in the European model overnight. Could it even happen within one person’s lifetime?

No pain, no gain. We just suck it up for a few years. Our future generations will thank us.

You get immediate savings by stopping road expansion and cutting fuel demand (close lanes on big roads, replace with bicycle lanes). You get 3-10 years of pain from bicycle/walk-commuting in a city designed for cars. To compensate, let people build supermarkets and stores in single family zoned areas. Subsidize rent-a-bike companies with funds from gas taxes and frozen road construction projects.

This is basically the only sure-fire way to let poor people generate free cash flow to survive the recession without having to helicopter them money. This has worked for developing countries like China. Also, this is a way to keep cities financially solvent by letting the tax revenue to land area ratio increase naturally as people adjust to human-powered commuting.

I still don't understand how that would fix anything. The suburbs of the city I live nearby extend out for 10 miles from the city center. And between here and the city center there is a super steep road that runs for about 4 miles. Trying to bike from the city center up to the suburbs at the end of the work day would be extremely difficult except for an elite athlete.

Building is fast if you allow people to do it. You could have a new apartment building in around a year, and that's without really pushing it. Zoning and permits are what's holding construction back

Lack of construction workers is also holding things back, this could be a lit of a licensing issue, but there aren't enough workers to do all the projects that are funded now.

It's not like the European model even works. Public transport is only as good as it is convenient, and it's virtually impossible to make it convenient for most people outside of extra-super-ultra urban areas (think New York City and London).

If you can hop on a bus within a 5 minute walk of where you live, and then hop off withing a 5 minute walk of where you work, life is beautiful and you can probably ditch your car (at least for daily commute). For most, this is not the case.

And I don't want to live in a ultra-urban area.

Pure nonsense - you don't have to live in Megacity One to have that level of functioning public transport. Most people in Europe live in cities with populations under a million and guess what - even the smaller regional cities in Germany, France, the Netherlands etc have fully functional public transport systems.

The only thing really holding back public transport is lack of imagination and ambition. Just because things don't work now doesn't mean they can't if you actually try.

You don’t have to live in an ultra-urban area, but 80% of Americans live in an urban area already. [0]

When we have discussions like this, the “normal case” is actually that people live in cities, so that’s obviously what the conversations gravitate around.

I grew up in a small town (4k pop), and there’s no reason bikes shouldn’t be extremely effective in town. It’s tiny! There’s no true need to drive a large, inefficient vehicle .5mi to the rite aid or McDonald’s. Nearly everyone in this tiny town is within quick walking distance of what used to be a passenger train station. It could become a passenger train station again with the right investment.

People living in truly rural areas is an edge case where cars obviously make sense. Even then, the majority of car trips are local. 60% of trips are fewer than 6mi.

0: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/g... 1: https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1042-augu...

The average trip distance is likely higher than 6 miles. Even assuming 0 mile trips for all of the 60% under 6 miles and the low end of each range puts the average over 5 miles. That also pretends that you don't take kids, or pets, or other people. Not everyone is traveling only by themselves to very local places.

Edit: meant average, originally put median

Come visit Edinburgh! People love to complain about the buses here too, but they're genuinely pretty good -- and there's absolutely no way I'm commuting into the city centre by car.

The fact that it will take time is not a counter-argument.

The US is suffering from a lack of cheap EVs. The cheapest EV, Nissan Leaf, has a 5-month waiting list and is still $20,000 - and only after $7.5k in tax subsidies which expire this year.

Meanwhile, China has a lot of options starting at $5000.

We're currently seeing a Western industrial failure generally, to encourage cheap mass-market EVs. Some of our safety regulations (especially those which force automakers to add heavy or draggy components) should also be overhauled.

Good points, but you still have the fundamental physics problem of hauling too much mass for too much distance for too little gain (1s kgs of groceries, etc).

The US needs to get as many people off the road as possible. Get them on to bicycles (e-bikes), walking, riding buses and trains.

I am looking at America's balance sheet and the only thing cars do is blow a whole in it. Cars cost too much relative to cash flow generated for families. Cars take up too much space in cities, killing cash flow generated from sales taxes and property taxes. The Return on Assets from a car is just too low, I believe the rate falls below the US gov/state govs cost of capital (hand wavy-speaking).

The Dark Side of Electric Cars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_T5DgsO0jc

And half the middle classes' nest eggs go poof, while the politicians who voted for it (many of whom don't hold down their own jobs) need to explain that it's actually for everyone's good.

It wouldn't be a short cut. The long cut would be to change American culture to be able to make big changes like that for the good of the country.

If something like this was proposed, the House that flips the fastest would be the House of Representatives, followed by the White House.

I used to drive past a Dunkin Donut every day on my way to work and back. Every single time there was a police vehicle idling in their parking lot.

> Let go of pride and commute by bicycle.

Could you please elaborate on how pride gets in the way of commuting by bicycle? This is alien to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com