Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Once seniors are too old to drive, our transportation system fails them

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 324 posts

Re: Once seniors are too old to drive, our transportation system fails them

#51

Post by goerz »

_m8fo wrote: post #15
chc wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the advantage of rail over buses is that rail is faster.

In theory, sure. In practice, they don't go any faster a car is capable of [1] [1] https://ggwash.org/view/4524/average-schedule-speed-how-does...

My impression is (for the US) that trains are the optimal way to connect major cities, while buses are good for connecting smaller cities. Ideally, of course, one would have a dense rail network connecting even small towns, as Germany does, but that's never going to happen in the US.

Re: Once seniors are too old to drive, our transportation system fails them

#52

Post by [deleted] »

_m8fo wrote: post #34
Johnny555 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the traffic and the train -- during rush hour, a Caltrain express train from San Francisco to San Jose is almost always faster than driving. It can take 90 - 120 minutes to drive during commute hours (at 4:30pm, Google says 90 minutes), versus 65 minutes by train.

I don't disagree that a train is better in many situations. I'm more curious about situations where a city is prepared to make a 1B+ capital expenditure. For example boring a tunnel for a train vs. a dedicated bus lane on the highway + exit.

[deleted]

Re: Once seniors are too old to drive, our transportation system fails them

#53

Post by davidw »

opportune wrote: post #42
rayiner wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you don’t really get to pick. Dense European style cities are outlawed in the US. Hell, dense European style suburbs are outlawed here. My pre-zoning code suburb has lots that are less than 3,000 square feet. It’s awesome—easy to walk and you see your neighbors all the time. But it’s completely illegal to build more neighborhoods like mine. The minimum lot size now is more than five times bigger—we have legally m…

Dense suburbs are only "outlawed" because certain places, usually at the municipality level, zone the buildings that way. You know it is also "outlawed" for most European cities to build too high vertically too right? Also, it varies from city to city (and within cities). Although most of the 20-35 crowd probably would prefer a denser city, old people prefer owning homes with lawns, so they wouldn't even want to live…

You can get a place with a lawn in Europe, too; you just have to pay for it, or live further out.

It's very difficult to find a place like our house in Italy in the US: we could walk to schools, grocery stories, pastry shops, our doctor, cafes, pizza place, a few barbers and a tram stop to go downtown.

And that's in a suburb of a mid-size city (about 300K).

Re: Once seniors are too old to drive, our transportation system fails them

#54

Post by rayiner »

rootusrootus wrote: post #48
rayiner wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you don’t really get to pick. Dense European style cities are outlawed in the US. Hell, dense European style suburbs are outlawed here. My pre-zoning code suburb has lots that are less than 3,000 square feet. It’s awesome—easy to walk and you see your neighbors all the time. But it’s completely illegal to build more neighborhoods like mine. The minimum lot size now is more than five times bigger—we have legally m…

That is very dependent on where you are at. We have suburbs around here with lot sizes of 2178 sf (for houses of ~1800 sf). I don't really agree that developers are particularly responsive to the market in this regard, either. Or rather, they make quite a lot more profit from two 6K lot houses than they do from a more expensive house on a 12K lot. Builders always, always want to go for smaller lots unless they're sel…

Minimum lot sizes are pervasive in the U.S. Many of the suburbs that do have smaller lot sizes are "grandfathered in" to the zoning regulations--it would not be legal to build a new subdivision in the same county with the same layout.

Your example does not show that developers are not responsive to the market. The fact that developers can make more profit on two 6K lot houses than they do from a more expensive house on a 12K lot simply means that there is more economic value in satisfying two peoples' desires for a 6K lot house than in satisfying one person's desire for a 12K lot house.

If you eliminated the minimum lot size, people who want big lots would have to pay a lot more for them to make it worth developers' while, and that makes total sense! One person buying a house with a 12K lot pushes out two people who might be perfectly happy with a 6K lot. They should pay more.

Re: Once seniors are too old to drive, our transportation system fails them

#55

Post by flukus »

_m8fo wrote: post #8

I always get an inkling that buses (like Bolt/Mega/PeterPan) + the existing highway + roads are superior and more scalable than any other type of transportation, dollar for dollar. Why do people push for rail? Self-driving cars obviously can enhance this (the bus idea), but I suspect they will create even more traffic if we insist on having 5 passenger cars be 75% empty. Buses are great because demand can be realloca…

One reason is permanence. A bus route can change easily, a dedicated bus lane can become an everyone lane with a coat of paint. A rail line is much harder to change, for me this was a big factor in deciding where to buy an apartment.

> Rail doesn't have this flexibility.

Because trying to maximize the utilized capacity creates worse outcomes. If there is only service every 30 minutes at a slow time of day then less people will use it because it's less convenient, so demand slows more and services are cut further, etc.

Induced demand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand) operates on public transport as well as roads.

Re: Once seniors are too old to drive, our transportation system fails them

#56

Post by melling »

_m8fo wrote: post #15
chc wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the advantage of rail over buses is that rail is faster.

In theory, sure. In practice, they don't go any faster a car is capable of [1] [1] https://ggwash.org/view/4524/average-schedule-speed-how-does...

You’re saying that a car on the highway is faster than a subway in midtown Manhattan?

How fast can you drive a car in Manhattan?

And you probably don’t realize this, but modern trains go about 200 mph. They just don’t go that fast in the United States.

China managed to build about 18,000 miles of these trains in about 10 years.

Re: Once seniors are too old to drive, our transportation system fails them

#57

Post by ghaff »

_m8fo wrote: post #49
btrettel wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rail is faster and more comfortable than buses in my experience. The comfort is more than just less bumps in the road and less starting and stopping. Some trains even have bathrooms. The bathrooms on the (US) MARC commuter trains I've taken are considerably better than those on flights or Amtrak, for example. Buses usually have no such amenities, and when they do I'm told the bathrooms generally are disgusting.

I can relate to this. One has to wonder how much of this is inherent to buses as a transportation mode vs the fact that it's normally the cheap option.

It's a mixture of both. I have taken a "luxury" bus to NYC with leather seats, WiFi, etc. It was fine although I still prefer Acela. (Prices were similar.)

Re: Once seniors are too old to drive, our transportation system fails them

#58

Post by revelation »

That's because prior to being too old to drive, they didn't give a fuck about the public transportation system. Actually, even after being too old to drive, they happily continue to vote against public transportation.

It's bizarre to suggest our transportation system is failing them. It's exactly the transportation system they voted for, the transportation system a good bunch of them built, designed, railroaded through poor communities, terraformed cities to support. It's been failing large swaths of people for many centuries, but that generation didn't bother. They built this shrine to the personal automobile.

It's not even a case of buyers remorse. For the longest time in their life, they happily took advantage of limitless cheap fossil fuels, plenty of unregulated cars and wide roads to drive them on, and the best part, they managed to put it all on the tab for the next generation. Its Caligula all over.

Re: Once seniors are too old to drive, our transportation system fails them

#59

Post by analog31 »

_m8fo wrote: post #8

I always get an inkling that buses (like Bolt/Mega/PeterPan) + the existing highway + roads are superior and more scalable than any other type of transportation, dollar for dollar. Why do people push for rail? Self-driving cars obviously can enhance this (the bus idea), but I suspect they will create even more traffic if we insist on having 5 passenger cars be 75% empty. Buses are great because demand can be realloca…

I've visited Switzerland a few times, and they have an excellent system that combines trains and buses. The buses fan out from the train stations, and the schedules are all coordinated.

Public transit is one of the reasons why my family enjoys traveling in Europe.

Re: Once seniors are too old to drive, our transportation system fails them

#60

Post by lgas »

jseliger wrote: post #44
_m8fo wrote: post #8

I always get an inkling that buses (like Bolt/Mega/PeterPan) + the existing highway + roads are superior and more scalable than any other type of transportation, dollar for dollar. Why do people push for rail? Self-driving cars obviously can enhance this (the bus idea), but I suspect they will create even more traffic if we insist on having 5 passenger cars be 75% empty. Buses are great because demand can be realloca…

Why do people push for rail Visit Japan (or these days China) and you will understand. This reminds me of people who say, "What's the big deal about electric bikes?" Ride one and you'll know. See what Japan and China are doing WRT rail and you'll know.

Given the difficulty and expense associated with going to Japan, perhaps you could describe it to us here using words.
Post reply on HN