Hacker News Reader

Comment by oblio | Hacker News Reader

I'll be blunt about this.

Most of this research is funded in the US and the hyper individualistic Americans as a group don't believe in public transport.

View on HN

That’s really not true. Americans love good public transportation where it’s available and works well. Most US cities have lots of buses, and many have light rail. But in a big country with a spread-out population, public transportation is tough.

American corporations perhaps aren’t as interested in public transportation, because there is no money to be made. And that is who is largely funding this self-driving vehicle research.

The built up areas of the US have almost the same population density as the EU ones.

Nobody cares about the Rockies or farm fields or Death Valley.

> But in a big country with a spread-out population, public transportation is tough.

This is oft-repeated, but it doesn't really survive a moment's scrutiny. You might as well say it's pointless to build a path from your back door to your shed, because the county is just too big.

> Americans love good public transportation […] Most US cities have lots of buses

So… Apparently not…

The USA is probably the worst place in the world for 1) high speed trains 2) buses. And the only place I know where the train _waits_ for cars to go through.

If only they could see by themselves how bad it is during their next trip to Switzerland, the Netherlands, Japan, London, Paris (even France in general) and many many other countries and cities that have a functional network of high speed trains, metro, tramway and regional lines…

I hope you’re not ready to die on that hill.

I said they love it, not that they have it. Big difference.

From everything I am learning about the US on Youtube by transport people, they universally despise bus service in North America cities.

Some have light rail but at a far smaller rate then cities in Europe.

There are tiny cities in Europe that have more light rail then cities 10x the size in North America.

My tiny town of less then 100k people literally has more extensive bus and train connection then most cities in the US that have million+ people.

> But in a big country with a spread-out population, public transportation is tough.

Compare for example Switzerland (lots of maintains, rivers, hills and so on), with a equally sized metro area like Torronto, Dalles and so on.

The reality is many of your metro areas are the literal exact opposite of spread out, they are just badly designed.

Zürich for example is a city that has only like 600k people, with maybe 1.5M in the larger metro area and Zürich has more trains and trams going then whole Texas city triangle.

So please stop with the excuse about how everything is so spread out in the US. Its not spread out, its just badly designed.

Self driving tech could and will be applied to public transportation too. With self-driving mini-buses we can serve more destination much more efficiently, fine-tuning commute supply to better fit the exact demand.

This is probably a good model for the future of public transit. We use large buses because of the high cost of drivers. For less popular routes and times it currently doesn’t make sense but self-driving mini-buses would.

At least in SF there has been little discussion due to the influence of the unlicensed transit unions. The idea of eliminating drivers can’t even be discussed.

If San Francisco repealed Prop 13 the city could afford to hire drivers for a fleet of small buses.

Then again if you want a reason to hate Feinstein she's the one that got rid of the gypsy cabs in San Francisco.

While this is somewhat true, in the overall problem of transit, this is a tiny problem dwarfed by far larger problems. For this argument to make sense, there are about 5000 ways to improve current US cities in terms of transport that don't require this amazing technology.

Its not technology that is limiting good transit, but will.

Yes, as a hyper individualistic American fuck public transport. I don’t want to travel with other people, I don’t want to live in dense cities and I don’t want to go to like the 10 places with public transport. I love national parks, camping, hiking, road-tripping etc.

Is this a parody?

No, I gave reasons for my preference.

You do understand that sprawl and suburbia (and car infrastructure) takes away from nature, not adds to it, right? We have paved over a huge portion of the country and that beautiful nature you so claim to enjoy.

You can have both. You can have fewer cars and excellent public transportation.

I rather have a full fledged car infrastructure and excellent public transport.

You can't have both like that. Cars will need to lose priority to make public transit usable.

Car infrastructure spreads everything out, puts parking lots everywhere, makes walking or cycling impossible or really unpleasant. You can't have working public transit if visiting two businesses requires walking 10 minutes along a loud boulevard.

America has tried cars-first infrastructure. It has failed. The spread is unsustainable, and it's bankrupting suburban areas.

Here is an idea. You can have a 'full fledged car infrastructure' with about 1/5 of the car infrastructure you ALREADY HAVE. In fact, there is already way to much car infrastructure, far more then anybody can maintain. Most town in the US and the highway system have maintenance backlogs that will literally never be cleared.

Here is an idea, build public transports so that less people use the car infrastructure, and just like that you get higher utility out of your existing car infrastructure.

Seriously, the amount of 8 way stroads in the US is a fucking joke. There is essentially never a need for an 8 way road anywhere at any time. And for sure not absurd 20 way highways.

I also like the benefits of invidualistic cultures, but there's a cost to it too.

The US got this way because it was super-charged between pre-WWII and the dotcom boom. Both economically and culturally. The post-WWII high wages allowed the rise of suburbia, the Cold War induced WW3 scare led to the highway system, and so on.

The low-efficiency of it is taking its toll. (Sitting in traffic for hours each day, pollution, etc.)

Traffic is usually only a problem in major cities and that’s about the only good usecase for public transport. I don’t want to lose the amazing infrastructure we have for cars everywhere that isn’t a major urban center.

Traffic is one thing. Low-density sprawl itself is more costly. (More roads to maintain, more poles along roadsides, more distance to drive, more pipes, more wiring, every SFH is a big box with a lot more surface where heat exchange happens (and then folks want to keep it warm/cool), every backyard is one more sad lifeless walled garden to water and mow. It adds up.)

And I'm not saying there are no benefits, nor am I saying that the alternatives are so perfect people just somehow don't see it. (I'm saying let's quantify the costs and let people choose. For example I'd spend a lot more on soundproofing and a lot less on backyards and frown lawns, but mostly there's no such option. [Hence the big push for more permissive zoning/permitting/etc.])

Then stay out of the cities, and live in the country. If this is how you want to live, then your opinion doesn't matter for how cities are run.

My commuter train be packed though.

Where? And is it filled with people coming from the local P&R?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com