Hacker News Reader

Comment by ars | Hacker News Reader

> really good public transportation with buses and trains. I'm completely sure private cars or taxies would be discarted.

Wow. Talk about thinking everyone is exactly like you, and only your transportation needs need to be met.

What about the elderly? (Who can't walk the last mile from the bus.)

Or young children? What about a large family that needs a full car load of groceries - you're going to put that on a bus? And somehow carry it home?

Inevitably every single person who writes about public transportation is young and single, or at least no kids, and they think: No more cars, problem solved.

News flash: The entire world is not like you. Getting rid of cars is a complete non-starter for a HUGE segment of the population.

View on HN

At the expense of sounding like a complete a-hole, I suggest you travel and see how other families/people live with public transport as their only transportation option. Don't get me wrong, I think Uber/Hailo/others are a great idea. Mix that with AVs and it will be a true disruptive technology.

Enrique Peñalosa, former Mayor of Bogota said that "An advanced city is not one where even the poor use cars, but rather one where even the rich use public transport", and imho he is completely spot on with the issue of transportation. The transportation problem in the US is a city/urban planning problem, and not one solved by building more roads and putting more cars on them.

I suggest you watch his TED presentation http://www.ted.com/talks/enrique_penalosa_why_buses_represen...

Another worth watching is that by Bill Ford, of the Ford Motor Company: https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_ford_a_future_beyond_traffic_...

> I suggest you travel and see how other families/people live with public transport as their only transportation option.

I have actually.

And it works perfectly in huge cities, and it doesn't work in the smaller ones.

> The transportation problem in the US is city/urban planning, and not one solved by building more roads and putting more cars on them.

No, the transportation problem in the US is that it is very large, and the majority of the cities are medium/small and public transport simply doesn't work in those sized cities (just not enough demand for continuous service).

In Europe 'cities are medium/small' and public transport works. Ignoring how cities evolve, grow, develop, from a planning perspective is the US biggest problem, and the solution its biggest challenge. Bad city planning affects transportation, energy, health, efficiency, etc.

Europe is very different to SF. In Europe the term city planning is somewhat different. Most cities were built for horses and carts at best.

Berlin has a fantastic public transport system, but 70% of is less than 70 years old. Istanbul's public transport system is truly terrible, but it's a nearly 3,000 year old city that gets nearly a +/- 50 degree C temperature range over a year.

Paris has an ok metro, but in general public transport isn't that great compared to say, Berlin, London or Barcelona.

London has a ridiculously overdeveloped public transport system that will get you from a to b but it's massively oversubscribed and the roads are rammed most of the time. To be fair, London is generally oversubscribed and rammed most of the time.

Exactly, the US transport issue is primarily urban sprawl, a planning problem: http://www.treehugger.com/urban-design/you-cant-set-shop-sid...

> urban sprawl, a planning problem

No, it's not a planning problem, it's a "people don't want to live there" problem.

In the US people are simply not interested in living in a high density low population city.

They want either high density, high population, or low density, low population.

They would love low density, high population, but those don't exist much, so urban sprawl is the next best thing.

Not all Americans want to live here http://www.fritzmuellerphoto.com/data/photos/545_1Muellerf_2...

But let's agree to disagree.

No, [some] Americans don't want other people to live there, but they most definitely do want to live there - that's why they keep making them.

(Obviously "Not all" - some like to live in big cities.)

I think this is one of those things that people seem to "want", but has really been dictated to them by forces outside their control and outside of their immediate impact.

- Do people really "want" to drive 10/15 minutes to pick up the milk they forgot last time they went to the store?

- Do people really "want" to spend huge amounts of money on a car, insurance, gas.

- Do people really "want" to spend huge amounts of time in traffic on their way to and from work every day?

I could go on, but I think the answer is generally "no" to all those questions. And that's leaving out all the deleterious health effects we know commuting and the suburban lifestyle can cause.

What people really want is safe places, good schools, short commutes, good shopping/food choices, outdoor spaces, etc. We've been sold a bill of goods since Levittown on the "american dream" that offers the solution to all the problems of cities by creating an entirely different (and I'd say overall significantly greater) set of problems. It's treating the symptoms instead of the disease.

I don't "want" any of those things... but I don't "want" to live in a crowded city even more. So it is a trade off.

- Do people really "want" to pay twice as much for half the living space?

- Do people really "want" to share walls on all sides and have a person above and below them?

- Do people really "want" to step out their door and have a major roadway packed with cars (or buses if we're ditching cars) right there?

I think the answer is generally "no" to all those questions, too.

When have you been in Istanbul last? They've been expanding the public transport system a lot in the last few years (new subways, metros, a train running the marmara sea). I was there just a few weeks ago and had no problem getting around.

To be fair it's been too long, about two years. I'm hoping to go back later this year though.

I disagree. Berlins transport system is nice, but it is far from perfect. Ever have been there in the winter, or try to get on a bus when you are the only one waiting on a bus station? Berlin is famous for having many problems with their transportation system, some result form bad planning and technical and financial debt, some are cultural (people are unfriendly).

The metro in Paris is way nicer to use - more reliable, cheaper, drives very often and has a far reach. Same goes for Vienna and Hamburg.

I even prefer smaller middle sized cities systems, in France and Germany, at least on the day when they are working - and if they are not completely stupid, like causing themselves to be always late by letting the bus driver control the bus ticket. But I disliked Berlin in general.

I think if I went to Germany having only been to Western Europe I'd have found people in Berlin unfriendly, but having lived in London, spent time in Budapest, Vienna, across Germany and Prague (the home of poor service) I can honestly say that yes people are unfriendly in Berlin, but less unfriendly than in some other parts of Germany and Eastern Europe.

It's not the size of the city per se. that's the problem in the US, but that very few people live and work actually in the centers of those cities. They're all dispersed out in the suburbs. Take an avg 50-80k population city in the US and draw a circle, centered in the middle of town, that encompasses say 60% of the cities population, now do the same with a European city of the same size. The circle for the European city will almost always be much smaller, meaning it's much easier to cover a significant proportion of the population with a reasonable public transportation network.

Actually the problem is that PT (there is even the word public in it) should be owned by the state and not by a company trying to make profit out of transportation.

> No, the transportation problem in the US is that it is very large, and the majority of the cities are medium/small and public transport simply doesn't work in those sized cities (just not enough demand for continuous service).

Well, it does not work in bigger cities as well except NYC, Chicago and to some extent Boston. Also, OP talks about SF, which for it's size and population can have a good public transport system.

Take a look in other cities around the world. It works pretty well also for the kids, the elderly. Especially the elder, when they have problems using the car, because of their slow reaction times and bad sight. Especially, for the kids, as they are to young to drive a car.

I see here in Germany every day people (of every age), which can do their shopping with public transport. I've done it also in the past. Currently, my car is waiting in the garage 6 out of 7 day a week. I just use it sometimes, because its there. I can't use my car downtown anyway, because finding a parking spot is like playing a lottery and is expansive. It is more easy and cheaper to use public transport, or my bike, or my legs.

The only reason you are arguing this way is: you love your car. I've done that my self in the past. But I changed, and you can it too.

Just look at SF, in Chinatown the buses at packed with the elderly and their pushcarts full of groceries.

While you make a good point, the author isn't talking to everyone - instead, despite an inflammatory headline, he seems to be talking to many of the young tech crowd, whom he seems to actually resemble.

Wow, what an ignorant comment. Yes, I say ignorant because it ignores the reality of places where people do all the described things using public transport. These places actually exist. In many places in Europe, public transport is not only good, but faster and more convenient than private cars.

I live in Vienna, Austria where elderly and families with many children use public transport and carry whatever they need to carry. Bus and tram stations are not miles away, they are 150m away, and came at 3-10minutes intervals In the metros you can even carry large items easily, like bikes, for free.

Also in Europe we have supermarkets at every block, we don't have to do our groceries miles away.

> ignores the reality of places where people do

Only in the largest cities. And it's the same in the US.

But now look at the medium sized cities in Europe.

> Vienna, Austria

By the standards of the US Vienna is incredibly dense. There are only about 15 US cites that have similar population density.

Plus it's huge - over a million people. In NY the public transport is also that good. But there are only 10 cities that large in the US.

What's medium sized? In Austria nearly all cities are connected to good PT, it's not a big-city only feature, even ~500 inhabitants villages are connected to PT. Of course it is not perfect, but it's there and it works reasonable well.

Moving goalposts, are we? First of all, this article is about San Francisco, and second of all, you complained that the described world can't possibly function in real world. The described world does exist, as mentioned by myself and other people in this sub-thread. Whether it exists everywhere or not is inconsequential. A single instance is sufficient to prove that your statement was in false. I gave one example, other people gave their own examples, in reality in Europe you can pretty much chose any German or Austrian city to pick your examples (I'm sure it's good in other western countries too, I just pick on what I know).

Second, you are wrong. Medium cities are just like the big cities except without the metro system. Trams and busses are just as good and effective, and the metro is not needed (I hope the reason why not is obvious). Also, here in Austria at least, the trains are really good, really fast, and really, really frequent, and you can just take the metro to the big city center with the same ticket (something you can't do with cars, because cars are not allowed in the center).

Very small towns and don't need public transport because it takes 10 minute to cross them by foot.

This notion that you need a car to move around town or buy groceries is an american concept and seems preposterous to us, europeans. Cars have their uses, obviously, but these are not their primary use here.

> First of all, this article is about San Francisco

My comment wasn't. These rants about getting rid of cars are evergreen, and they always ignore the same issues.

NY for example is exactly like your comment - you can do just fine there without a car. But there are only about 10-15 cities like that in the US.

> Medium cities are just like the big cities except without the metro system. Trams and busses are just as good and effective

Only if the population density is high. Otherwise there is not enough demand for constant service.

> Very small towns and don't need public transport because it takes 10 minute to cross them by foot.

Have you ever been in the US? It can take 20 minutes by car to cross a small city because they are very spread out.

The whole reason to live in a small city is so you get a lot of land. No one is interested in living in a small village type city which is small (in population) but you only get small piece of land - cities like that are dying constantly in the US because people don't want to live there.

Right. These places do exist. San Francisco isn't one of them. Most cities in the US aren't like that. Let's stop comparing apples to oranges. When SF gets a reliable public transport system with supermarkets on every corner and bus stops that are 150m away, then you'll have an argument. Right now, you're just proving the point you're calling 'ignorant'.

Yes, I'm sure San Francisco is not one of them, otherwise we wouldn't have this argument, and this thread wouldn't exist.

But I didn't comment whether San Francisco is like this or not, I commented on the idea that this places can't possible exist.

> I commented on the idea that this places can't possible exist.

Which was not an idea anyone (except maybe you) had.

I live in Europe, and the reason I use public transportation 95% of the times is because there's a healthy network of taxis (which is essentially what Uber is) when I need something that falls outside of the daily routine.

I only agree in case of disabled people, but if you live in a modern city with good PT (so not in the US ;), you have no need for a car.

Young children? They can use PT. It's a normal thing to do in my city (Austria). What about grocery shop? I mean, surely you have groceries around you so you can just ... walk there? go there by bike?

People who can not think of a no-car life just have never enjoyed good public transport.

What about grocery shop? I mean, surely you have groceries around you so you can just ... walk there? go there by bike?

Or if you have a reasonably large family and prefer to grocery shop once a week or so ... of course you could walk there and back five times instead of one ride and waste some time.

Or what if the place with the best prices and the best choice is too far to walk, maybe even too far to bike comfortably? Tends to happen in some places.

Young children and the infirm can be served pretty well by specialized public transport for them. Eg. my small city has school buses for kids who live far from schools, and minibus service that will pick up and drop off the elderly from doorstep.

But of course public transport can't serve everybody's needs. But it can servve most people's needs, and if most people used it, it would be much better.

If your remaining need the car was commonly groceries, it's easy to imagine effective solutions for that. (Deliveries, cheap neigbourhood car rental or co-owning, bike trailer, uber, etc).

> my small city has school buses for kids who live far from schools

Lovely word there "far". And what about the 4 year old who lives not "far"? Is he going to walk to school by himself?

And what about when it's not school? Or are young kids expected to never go anywhere?

> and minibus service that will pick up and drop off the elderly from doorstep.

Yah, I've seen those in a few cities, and you have to wait hours for your ride.

> But it can servve most people's needs

Only in extremely large cities (where you have enough people for constant 24/7 service), in smaller cities there is just not enough demand so you run fewer buses and it no longer works for most people.

> Deliveries

That only works if you know what you want, but not if you are comparing prices, looking for specials, what's fresh etc.

> cheap neigbourhood car rental or co-owning

You mean like the car service the author is ranting about?

> bike trailer

And there you go, you too can't seem to imagine the entire world is not like you.

Someone with a large family is going to take some of them with them when they go shopping. So you expect to have 4 kids under 6, plus a car load of groceries, on a bike trailer?

Stuffed full of people 1 adult and 4 kids a car is a totally reasonable option in my book. I have two children and no car we use one of these Dutch bikes with space for 4 kids in front. But most cars I zip past on my way to work have 1 person inside.

> And what about when it's not school? Or are young kids expected to never go anywhere?

My dad was too lazy to drive me anywhere so he bought me some bus tickets and a bike. Problem solved.

When you were 4?

This. A thousand times.

My work gives me a (hybrid) car. Almost (~95%) every day I let it home and take the train to get to work.

But I have three kids and my wife is pregnant, so there's no way she could do almost anything without having a car.

Sure, it is harder without a car, but it not impossible. Somehow we have survived for a long time before cars.

We have also survived without electricity for a long time, so I'm not sure it's a convincing argument.

Yes, but one has lots of environmental and societal costs, while the other doesn't. If electricity were bad overall for society, his argument would apply to it too.

Isn't most of electricity these days obtained by burning coal? I remember figures around couple hundred thousand yearly just from that. Here is one of the sources

https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/...

But, having chosen to live in a world built primarily for the car, how do your kids get around when they don't have you to drive them? How will you get around when you're old and no longer able to drive?

Building our cities such that you believe you need a car was the original sin. Everything else follows from that "logically".

There is "no way"? Millions of poor figure out a way every day. That the privilidged spend their dollars (and everyone else's dollars when you take into account the economic externalities of driving a car) widens and perpetuates the convenience gap between cars and public transit, which in turn deepens and perpetuates all other gaps between the rich and the poor.

> young and single, or at least no kids.

I'd say that was exactly who he was picturing...as people who use Uber & Lyft.

I think the point he is making isn't that cities can get rid of cars. It's that the majority of people who use these new services can _probably_ just use public transport.

that's right. But in Madrid families also use buses and trains to go to the center because it's faster and more convenient than car+parking. In Tokyo too. It's just a matter of investing in public transportation, and wanting a cleaner city.

> What about a large family that needs a full car load of groceries - you're going to put that on a bus? And somehow carry it home?

I come from a large family and we never bought more groceries than we could carry. How large does a family need to be in order to be unable to carry its own groceries?

I see quite a lot of elderly people on buses here in the UK. Not really surprising given that free bus travel comes with the pension.

Quite a few rely on the bus as it's easier and safer than driving. Quite a few of them make an issue of it at local council elections.

I've also noticed here in Edinburgh that parents are relaxed about letting even fairly young children (under 10) travel the bus by themselves.

Bullshit.

Every example you give is just laziness.

Many many people in this world use public transport who are elderly, have kids, do the shopping.

Why can't the elderly walk to the bus? Have their legs fell off?

Perhaps people with certain disabilities might have issues that public transport can't solve, but they are not a large part of the population.

>Why can't the elderly walk to the bus? Have their legs fell off?

Please tone down a bit? They sure may have problem in walking maybe a mile or so to reach their destination. Buses aren't dropping them right in front of home.

I agree the parents tone was pretty bad but I agree with him to an extent. Most elderly people are fitter than you'd realise. I think the grand parent comment was wrong to stereotype them all as unable to walk 1 mile. e.g. surely an elderly person going to the mall to walk around shops can walk 1 mile to a bus stop?

Every example you give is just laziness.

"Laziness" is a term we use to describe situations where people are unwilling to put in the amount of work necessary to accomplish something that we could do if we were in their situation. The problem with that is that you really have to understand their situation properly first. If you're not a parent then describing someone who drives instead of taking the bus when they're out with their kids as "lazy" is just a show of ignorance. Even if you are a parent, you still don't really know what their kids are like.

Many people do use public transport, and that's great, but I'd hazard a guess that it's largely because they don't have an alternative option rather than because they think it's the best choice. Wrangling kids on buses is really, really hard work. Plus, if you have more than one, it's usually a lot more expensive than driving.

It's not "lazy" to use the most appropriate form of transport.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com